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

I think most people these days don't keep there cars long so it does not matter to them, this new turbo and 10k oil change will probably be fine for 100k miles, i like to go 300k plus.

I still drive my 1997 V6 Tacoma and just added apple wireless car play and have zero payments.

 

Exactly.

There are a lot of people who lease cars, or trade them in every couple of years so they can always have a new car. There are also a lot of people who buy 4Runners just because they want a rugged looking SUV, and don't think about long term reliability.

These people probably aren't represented very well on forums like this.

I had over 200K on both of my previous 4Runners before I traded them in. And, I'm at 140K on my '19 with no intention of getting rid of it anytime soon.

 

Yeah I agree and that’s why you see so many rolling car payments into a new vehicle and never get ahead.

 

Positive.

Indeed. Phenomenal combo!

 

The only reason I bought my 2024 4runner is because my 2013 Tundra with 200k miles got totaled. Otherwise, that truck was chugging along perfectly. And I bought a 2024 last month to avoid the turbo 2025s. Last of the true toyota engines!

 

Ehh. Some of Toyota's best engines have been turbocharged.

 

Not in a long time. Those engineers are no longer with the company.

 

True. I'm trying to be optimistic about the T24A. The 3.4 V6 has certainly had its share of issues.

 

There is no reason it inherently can't be, after all even Ford is doing well with their 2.3 Turbo in the Ranger and Bronco. As long as the motor is not pushed to thermal and pressure limits, and no shortcuts are made in parts to achieve a price point.We will know once the fleets put some stop-and-go miles and idle hours on the 2.4T for 3-4 years or so and see what the overall feedback is.

For some reason a lot of companies are seemingly doing fine with inline 4 Turbos while their turbo V6s are struggling. Perhaps the inline design is more forgiving in the forced induction applications with less corners to cut.

 

Which gas ones? diesels don't count.

 

Ford better be! They got that engine from Opel in Germany in the mid 70s. They used it in the Capri, Pinto and small trucks - even the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. By this time Ford has no excuse that the 2.3 inline 4 is not bulletproof!

 

1JZ, 2JZ

As someone mentioned earlier, that was awhile ago.

 

4A-GE <- first toyota engine to have piston squirters, and got a 5 valve head in 1991
4A-GZE <- forced and ceramic coated pistons
EDIT: 22-RET <- one of the most reliable 4cylinders on the planet got a turbo for 2 years or so.
7M-GTE <- first coil pack engine Toyota sent to the US
3S-GTE 503E <- Engine Toyota used in the Supra for the JGTC and LeMans racing in the late 90s. If you dont know about it watch this video... (probably 800-1000hp) its a long video but its worth it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gll-cNaPRi4&ab_channel=THESQUIDD

Here it is time stamped, the beginning of talking about the engine
https://youtu.be/gll-cNaPRi4?t=809

 

Were any of those sold in the US past the mid 90s? There is a reason why Toyota stayed away from turbo engines state side for about a quarter of a century until EPA forced their (and all other manufacturers') hand, and even those that were sold here prior to ~2020 were low volume performance variants rather than mass market work horses.

 

I believe they were all obsolete by the mid '90's.

The 4A-GZE was used in the 1st gen MR2, which ended in model year 89 (I think). The 3S-GTE was used in the all-trac Celica and MR2 which were both discontinued in the mid - '90's. The 503E version was probably strictly used for racing, so never offered in any production vehicles. And, the 7M was replaced with the 1JZ and 2JZ in the '90's.

As far as why Toyota stopped offering turbo engines altogether in the US, I figured it was a combination of emissions regulations and low sales of their performance vehicles. I don't think there were any major issues with reliability. The one issue I can think of was the head gaskets on the 7M. But, I believe that affected the non-turbo version as well.

I could be wrong on some, or all of this. I'm sure I'll hear about it if I am.

 

Wait, wasn't the 4G GZE super charged?

I am not too familiar with the latter two but the 1st and 2nd gen MR2s were not particularly known for their reliability. In fact for the final gen of MR2 Spyder in the US, Toyota just took the 1ZZ FE, the low revving econo motor straight out of the 9th gen corolla, and called it a day. I imagine they would not have done that if the 3S GTE was doing well.

 

Regarding the 4A-GZE, yes. It was pretty low boost, if I had to guess. IIRC, it was only rated around 130-140hp.

I had a 1st gen MR2, but not the supercharged version. The T-tops leaked like a MF. The engine was pretty solid. But, the transmission quit after a few years of severe abuse. It was 15+ years old by then, but I don't recall the mileage. I thought it seemed reasonable, considering what I put it through.

I certainly can't argue that they were very reliable, as I only had experience with the one 1st gen, and know very little about the 2nd gen. I remember reading about issues that would arise with tuning and adding boost to the 3S-GTE, but never really looked into them beyond that.

The MR2 Spyder was pretty lame. I wondered why they didn't use the higher powered Celica engine (2ZZ?).

 

The reason varies depending on who you ask, ranging from a gentleman's agreement with Lotus, or there was emissions issues with CARB, or that its power at the upper rev band would be problematic with a mid engine car that is already rotation happy.

The theory I subscribe to is since it was primarily a competitor with the Miata and to a lesser extent various other lesser japanese brand small convertibles at the time, the 1ZZ was "enough". Given Toyota buyers are not known for horse power chasing for the most part, and they saw the cheap convertible segment was dying even the GM Camaro/Firebird got axed around 2002, there was just no point in making little pocket rockets anymore.

 

All solid theories..

I wondered if Lotus had anything to do with it, due to sharing a platform with the Elise.

I can attest to the squirrely nature of them. I actually test drove a supercharged 1st gen once and almost wound up in someone's front yard.

 

Yes, 8psi, then after some changed to the next model year it went up to 10psi

the general consensus was that the reason a lot of the turbo variants and the higher HP overseas spec stuff never came to the US was because it couldnt meet emissions. The emissions standards differed on imports and by weight if i recall. Pretty sure all of the boosted engines Toyota built in the 80s and 90s were MAP, but in the states had a MAF (to restrict flow) and different intakes to change air flow characteristics that lowered HP and helped skate by emissions restrictions. Its crazy to think those engines could get 25+mpg if you didnt beat on them and somehow couldnt pass emissions when stateside vehicles got half the mpg... I think it was a certain amount of oxides in the air and not fuel mileage though.

 

An ex-gf from long ago had a non-turbo gen 2 MR2. It was a fun little car. I don’t recall any issues other than premature tire wear. She probably needed to give it an alignment.

 

Perhaps it is you that is squirrely. 1st & 3rd gen MR2s are perfectly balanced with precise steering. 2nd gens turbos had the power but handle worse than a $2 hooker. MR-Spyders are one of the best handling cars ever produced. Sure, anemic power, but you point the nose & it goes exactly there. If you got loose in one, its because you lost your nerve & let off the accelerator.

HA! Couldnt lurk any longer on that one bro.

 

I don't think anyone can deny the off-road improvements. Especially being able to clear larger tires with No BS and the sway bar discos. But they are just plain fucking ugly.

 

Maybe..

I never said that it wasn't my own fault. I gave it too much throttle around a corner and it got away from me. And, yeah, I did get nervous. I was test driving a car I couldn't afford and had no intention of buying. In my defense, I did manage to steer out of it.

 

I don't follow this thread much but just came to post that I just realized that 6gen 4runners don't have a full size spare tire. Eww...

 

Thats just crazy!

BTW, it seems the boyz need to start making Rear Tire Carriers of some sorts for the 6th gen Yotas!

 

It’s another green savings feature. Saves on weight and excess emissions and more cash for the manufacturer. Their win and your loss

 

I think it’s funny that it has an alloy wheel. Pretty sure everybody will still notice if you’re running spare for months before getting it fixed, so why pretend by giving it a pretty alloy wheel?

 

Lighter weight and corrosion resistance? That’s all I can think of.

 

That's crazy. I know most newer vehicles across a lot of platforms don't even come with a spare now days, but that small thing just begs to ask "Why?"
That thing cannot add any weight benefits, like keeping the rear down or balanced.