Alright, let's be honest; who here is considering a 6th gen?

the braking software is probably much easier to write since the gas engine is always either shut off or at idle when brake is applied, so it boils down to what the regen can do to slow the car down plus how much brake pressure is needed to really slow the car down.


Acceleration is a whole other ball game. The engine could be shut off at the moment of throttle being initiated, and the battery could be driving the car or also stopped. The hybrid system here for TNGA-F vehicles, someone keep me honest here, is fed into the transmission that is also fed by the gas engine, so what Toyota has been doing for over 25 years with their starter+power motors feeding a CVT on synergy drive platforms doesn't translate here. Here the ECU has a tougher job of how to drive the combined torque into the 8 speed then the rear axle without being too jolting for daily driving. I imagine the especially don't want the higher low end torque of the turbo motor to combine with the NiMH battery driven electric component at the same time. I suspect the calibration of what the gas motor needs to do is accounting for some of the delay here.

I'm sure Toyota would have preferred to use a CVT here too but the torque limit probably exceeds what Aisin can manage and still guarantee reliability.

 

It may be that the variables would make for more complex logic and programming. But I certainly wouldn’t be willing to accept a situation where they sell cars before this is completely figured out. I don’t want to figure out that my car wont accelerate off-road on a very steep incline, because Toyota (for example) programmed angle ranges that are too small, and any angle above the range limits leads the computer to crash (I’m guessing here at weird variable combinations they have to consider)

They are the ones that decided to introduce new schemes and complexity to a primary control. They need to figure it out before it ships.

 

In my test drive, they have the automatic braking well sorted out. The thing would automatically brake for me when approaching a car, even coming to a full stop. It caught me off guard at first. I’m not talking about the vehicle slamming on the brakes for emergencies either.

One of my coworkers had a 24 Taco as a rental and it would pretty much drive itself when he put it on radar cruise. He didn’t have to brake or accelerate, it did it all.

 

Interesting, and a good thing I suppose. But you said you experienced a non-responsive gas pedal when you were physically/directly commanding the vehicle to accelerate. It seems silly that toyota can get the automatic systems nice and smooth, yet lock out the driver from using the pedals.

It seems a silly thing to have to say out loud, but Toyota needs to ensure that the gas pedal (and brakes) work correctly 100% of the time when pressed by the driver, as the first priority over every other priority.

Automatic driving assistance should be a separate thing all together. Hopefully they’ve engineered the systems separately, otherwise it adds even more variables.

 

Yeah it’s a bit wild and doesn’t make sense to me, but it is what it is at the moment. Toyota DOES need to address this however. The Tundra has had the same throttle lag since the 3G launched…

 

Is the target audience soccer moms who never leave town? That small tank would drive me crazy needing to get gas multiple times a week.

 

Yeah. The range is embarrassing for a vehicle like this.

 

That small tank and short range is terrible. One of the Jeep YouTubers I follow bought one last year, his biggest complaint is that it only has about 200 miles of range with the mods he has. I can get 200 from half a tank in my 4R.

I'm thinking of a fullsize truck for my next vehicle, a F150 with the 2.7 and 36gal tank has a 700 mile range.

 

When I used to drive my Pro from Maine to Virginia I could make it all the way to Scranton PA before getting gas. That was after 420 miles, and the fuel light had not turned on yet. Still had 2-3 gallons left.

My new CX70 has a 19.5 gallon tank, and I’m already averaging over 30 on the highway. That gives me 550-600 miles of range.

 

Does the GX have a real engine?

 

They all have real engines.

 

A very "famous" one..

 

Yeah, based on what I've read, I'd rather have the T24A than the 3.4 TTV6.

 

If you want range, don't forget that if you step on one segment the crewcab long bed F250s get 48 gallon tanks. Just saying.

 

The published mpg for SR5 2wd is 26mpg highway, 25mpg for 4wd OR gas, 24 for limited 2wd, and 24mpg for a hybrid awd pro. I guess the thinking is that with the 19 gallon tankat 456 miles for the upper trims is still a little more than the 5th gen's published range at 19mpg with 23 gallons at 437 miles. What ended up for me in the real world has been, on the highway I consistently get between 20-21 if I keep my speed under 75mph. So that gets me close to 480 miles on a tank, realistically I need to stop at about 450 miles or so at the longest before I run the tank dry.

Now are 6th gens usually getting 24-26mpg on the highway, doesn't sound like it from what I have been hearing, but what do I know.

 

Yes , 30 k on my 5 gen , so it be awhile. Seen a few on the road , looks pretty good.

 

You know titan makes an extended fuel tank for the diesel half ton GM trucks. They are getting ~25mpg and with the replacement 43 gallon tank that puts you at 1.2k miles of range.

 

At the expense of payload. A gallon of diesel weighs about 7 lbs. If the stock was 25 gallons, the tank itself will weigh probably at least 50-100 lbs more, plus about 20 gallons extra of fuel that's in the neighborhood of 140 of extra weight to carry. Plus hthe extra weight of the diesel motor over comparable v8 or 6 cylinder gas engines.

The half tons are generally rated up to 6500-8k GVWR so even if one retrofits tougher suspension components, you may be left with a few hundred pounds of allowed payload left, even with high payload packages for class 2A trucks, that is on the chassis weight sticker that cannot be changed

edited due to a decimal error

 

There's also the downside of driving a GM small diesel truck. I always liked GM trucks, but considering all the issues they had with the DOD motors and the grenading 6.2s, I trust that 3 Liter diesel about as far as I can throw it.

 

I wonder if the resale value on a truck like that is higher if the tank is full.

 

They are the last one standing of under 8500 gvwr diesel pickup so for better or for worse, they are the best in segment. :/

 

The 43 gallon tank weighs 46lbs dry. Its a giant hollow composite cube, not much too it. I cant find the stock tank weight.

An extra 19 gallons of diesel is 135lbs. At most you're looking at 200lbs (probably realistically 150lbs) of additional weight at full capacity. The payload is 2k lbs. I think you'll be fine.

 

Just saw a 2025 4runner TRD Pro. This seem to have full size spare tire. It's very interesting that spare tire is offset towards passenger side / further away from exhaust. I wonder if the exhaust is much hotter the reason to keep it away.

 

hey, if you have a GM diesel 1/2 ton, go for it.

 

It seems really low.

 

I was thinking the same thing - departure angle might be a problem.

 

another thing I noticed, the visible round ultra sonic sensors on the bumper are partying like it's 2004. I think my aunt's Lincoln Town car had those in 2004 before Lincoln integrated them into the bumper in 2006ish.

 

I've noticed underslung spare tires hanging lower in newer vehicles. (but not necessarily enough for me to call it a trend)

I'm betting it's done to leave more space on the inside or fit other things. I saw some pickups with the spare angled back to preserve some departure too.



For an idea of what I'm thinking about re: older designs, that's a full-size spare under that old Sienna. (But also no flat-folding third row or the lower rear storage bin the seats would be folding into either)

 

I think this needs to be confirmed with measurements. When I parked my 2011 by a 2025 Limited, the tire visually appeared to be about the same. The bumper on the 2025 appeared to higher compared to my 2011. No scientific measurements though. That was a quick “wow they have exactly what I’d get” look when they were first released. Wasn’t prepared to measure anything.

 

There's probably a reason this segment is dying.

Expensive engine option, expensive maintenance, expensive fuel. The break even point is probably past the engine's lifespan.

A quick search on it shows that it needs new injectors every 100k miles and an oil pump drive belt every 150k.