Tacoma “commercial grade” engine standards

Even though this video is about Tacomas, it covers some good stuff about what they consider commercial standards on the 4cyl turbo they developed for it.

I have to wonder if the 6th gen 4runner 4cyl turbo will also be built to these same “commercial” standards. It sure would go a long way towards convincing me that toyota has the reliability angle covered, since the 4runner is often used heavy. Not sure if this video has already made the rounds on this forum, but this interview with the chief engineer is worth the watch.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rpS1HoA1R4g

Any thoughts or intelligence if regarding this?

 

Looks like he swallowed a commercial grade engine.

 

I bet it's a Hemi.


@McSpazatron

yes, all this makes sense that you'd use better parts for trucks than passenger cars. His explanation is just reaffirming that toyota doesnt want trucks that are seen as not dependable or having short life spans. Their sales numbers depend on reliability.

 

Impressive description of the platform. Here's hoping that if (when) it makes it to the 4Runner platform that it's as reliable and formidable as it's made out to be.

 

I've had 2 4-cyl turbo engines. The turbo in my GTI failed because it had a first year turbo part number, fortunately it was covered under warranty and 70k miles after my GTI is still running strong and has been reliable af in roadtrips and daily driving, that's saying a lot for being a VW.

Toyota being Toyota, I am more than positive their "commercial grade" turbo engines will do real well, especially since they're not GM or Ford.

 

He stated customers asked for

1. improved fuel efficiency
2. drivability with less gear hunting/shifting
3. better seating position and more comortable
4. be able to fit truck in the garage (#1 complaint)

To fix 4, they kept bumper to bumper length exact same as previous model. They increased tread width almost 3". They also maintained door to door width same as previous model. But roof is higher by 30mm for better headroom.

Trailhunter built for overland exploration and camping outings.

TRD Pro built for driving fast baja style.

I'm curious what the four most customer requests are for the 4Runner. Probably the same things.

 

The first bullet is more bs, if this was true then the 4Runners wouldn't sell like hot bread. It's the EPA and CAFE mandates for fuel efficiency and emmissions.

 

The video is talking about the Tacoma. Yes they have to, but customers probably asked for it too.

 

I know but my point is customers who buy these trucks don't care about MPGs. idc about my 4Runner or if I were to get a Tacoma getting shitty MPGs.

Not only that, but the new Tundra's MPGs aren't much of an improvement over the last generation.

 

They could mate the 4.0 to a better transmission to get (#1) improved fuel efficiency and (#2) less gear hunting/shifting.

#3 is probably a true fact.

#4 is a result of builders making new home garages smaller while more than doubling prices. My 2005 built house accomodates a full size pickup because it has a 25 feet deep garage. That was standard. New construction 6 blocks away now have only 21 foot deep garages and stairs to the living space eat a couple more, making the effective depth more like 19.

 

Yup, 233K miles and counting on my 07 2.5 turbo Volvo with zero turbo related issues. Other owners report 300k+ on the OEM turbo.

 

Yah this sucks. My garage is not as big as it should be, and housing/property density is such I have no room to make it wider.

 

I'm going to hell

https://media.giphy.com/media/IgOEWPOgK6uVa/giphy.gif

 

Sure we do. It's been discussed repeatedly both here and on Tacomaworld. Just because we accept the fact that these don't get good fuel economy, doesn't mean we wouldn't want better fuel economy.

Of course, we don't want it to come at the cost of reliability. But, if we can keep the reliability, and improve fuel economy, that's a win/win.

 

Better MPGs would be better, but I'm a realist, it's difficult to improve MPGs on heavy ass trucks that are high off the ground and shaped like a box. So I ignore it.

 

I would love to have an option to keep the 4.0 and maybe an 8 speed transmission with better gearing. I bet a lot of the complaints about performance would disappear.

 

Yup. The lots are getting smaller and builders are shrinking garages to maintain the square footage inside. One of the first things I did before placing money down on my 4Runner (then GX) was to measure to make sure it fit. There was no way I was going to park my Toyota outside when the city slings rock salt like grass seed during the winter.

It's how I know how many 4Runners are in my area. They are always in the driveways or parked on the street.

 

I'm a realist, too. That's why I said that we accept that we don't get good fuel economy.
That doesn't mean that I don't care, or desire better fuel economy.

Plus, the overall market will always prefer better fuel economy (depending on trade-offs). The people on these forums only represent a small percentage of the market.

 

I wonder how the new 4 banger twin turbo will be to work on. Because we all know this is what the new 4Runner is getting.

Non hybrid





Hybrid

 

4.0 with the ZF 8spd from the JLUR would be awesome.

 

One of the reasons why I rarely work on my GTI, it has the same amount vacuum lines. But yeah it will be a bitch to work on unfortunately.

 

Spark plugs will be easier to change, and there isn't a warm valley between cylinder banks for mice to nest and chew injector wires. Canister oil filter should be easier to drain. Serpentine belt is easier to replace with no fan clutch, driving just the water pump and A/C compressor.

The 2024 Tacoma maintenance booklet is online. Oil change interval is 10k miles with no special conditions specified. Differential oil change interval is reduced to 15k if you tow.

 

I think a lot of people are forgetting that the Tacoma with the 4 cylinder 2TR-FE is pretty popular as a light fleet vehicle. Think smaller landscaping companies, pest control companies, parts delivery vehicles, etc. The 2TR-FE is a commercial engine to it's core: underpowered, ultra reliable, unbreakable, and long-lived. It's also now gone in the 4th generation, to be replaced by the turbo-4.

I think the base turbo-4, which has less power than the tuned turbo-4 and the hybrid, is what was designed as a commercial engine in order to keep similar reliability for fleet sales. The stepped up version is just a tune, but hardware is basically the same. So the guy in the video isn't wrong, IMO.

 

As for point #4: I'm surprised that Toyota never offered power folding mirrors for the 4R. At least in the upper trim levels. Would be a big help for garage parking.

 

Why would anyone want to fold in the mirror manually when it could fold itself in automatically?

 

I wouldn't be worried about a power mirror failing. I'd rather keep everything the same on both sides. Having two different types of mirror adjustments would drive me nuts.

 

I promised myself I would never buy another vehicle with any automatic folding anything. My '86 Accord had pop-up headlights. I had to fix the wiring harnesses every six months for ten years.

 

Yeah, and the flip up headlights on my '85 Celica and my '85 Celica/Supra acted up also. Those vehicles were also made 40 years ago. Electronic gadgets have become a bit more reliable since then.

 

What’s the outcry on gear hunting in the 5th gen? Just put it sport mode and hold the gear? Drove my new ORP from Denver through the Rocky Mountains to Vail, with 4 passengers and luggage. It was fine, easy driving.

granted my 4R is fully stock. Perhaps the most outspoken folks are the ones with larger tires and / or more overlanding weight?

 

I had a number of turbocharged Subarus, considered reliable, and it always turbo-related components that are the first major component to fail. No matter how diligent you are with maintenance and careful when cold, it is still high-speed, high-heat device that requires lubrication.

Turbos are great in racing, where durability measured in engine-hours and the number isn't that high. Turbos are awful in everyday use, where durability is measure in years, include bad weather and other types of extreme use.

The only reason we see so many turbos outside of sports car is because you can cheat on EPA test with them by "driving" your car without boost and pretend such gas mileage/driving mode is possible. Had they revised the test to be more realistic, like including open-throttle merger into 60mph, you would see nothing but NA engines.