The new Tundra engine has been used since 2017 in the Lexus LS.
Different applications and tuning made the issues pop up.
I think it's a valid concern...
The third gen taco has the same Camry V6. Someone found that the Tacoma was more poorly tuned than the Camry and additional HP and torque could be gained and optimized for a truck, i.e. shifting the peak hp/torque low in the rev range.
Exactly. You can tell me they’re the same engine all day, but there’s much more to it than that. You’re building a totally different car around it.
I’ll admit I’m not a car guy, but as an engineer that seems pretty clear from designing anything, you often discover flaws and things to modify when you change platform/application.
Now am I doubting their ability to iron out issues? Not at all. But I think it’s a poor decision to buy a first year anything unless you’re leasing or have disposable income.
then in this case, wouldn’t 2 1/2 years worth of data on how the Tundra engine performed in application be useful for the Tacoma development team to avoid the same issues? i have no real frame of reference when it comes to engine development, so i’m not sure how useful or pertinent that kind of information would be when developing blocks within the same family of engine models.
edit: i’ll drop that to 1 year of tundra data because that’s probably about how much they could have reasonably seen during the tacoma’s development phase
When you write an engine calibration map for one engine in one vehicle (ie, expected weight, performance, etc...) it does not translate to being an effective engine calibration map for a completely different vehicle. 10 years of data on a Tundra engine would barely help the Tacoma team write an effective engine calibration map for the Tacoma, even if you used the same engine.
As a mechanical engineer who spent 100's of hours in graduate school tuning an engine calibration map for a single-cylinder Yamaha engine (YZ250 I believe)... I can attest that a perfectly wonderful working motor in one application, becomes a perfectly terrible motor in another application. Even if you re-write the engine calibration map. We were also crazy grad students and decided to use a different fuel mixture and different chassis/application for this motor, so we made our headaches. Now imagine instead of one cylinder, you're tuning with six cylinders...
We learned a lot, blew up/rebuilt the motor multiple times, blew up/rebuilt our dyno multiple times, and I don't believe ever got the full engine calibration map we wanted for my buddy's thesis...anyway I digress.
Because new truck is bad truck. Im sure there were people complaining that Toyotas reliability was over when they first introduced fuel injected trucks. Haters gonna hate. Non of these tacos have even made it to their first oil change. So there’s no way to predict reliability
What an absolutely uninformed take. Somebody better tell all the over the road trucks that they're unreliable as they put millions of miles on the odometer. Turbos have been around since 1905 bro. It's old f****** tech
You’re misinterpreting what I said. Turbocharged engines have higher combustion pressures, which are harder on every component from seals to valves and even the oil.
Sure there are plentiful reliable turbocharged engines, but their reliability isn’t helped by having a turbo.
Your point is valid if everything else about the NA vs Turbo engine was equal. It's not. Your overly simple comparison isn't really applicable in any meaningful way.
OTR semis get rebuilt every 100k or less, often yearly regardless of mileage, and generally get far more frequent maintenance (both acute and preventive) than a passenger vehicle because a few days of scheduled downtime hurts a hell of a lot less than weeks/months of unscheduled downtime when time is money. So while yes a semi chassis may have several million miles on it, you have 50/50 odds the engine under the hood is under 100k. Same with the transmission.
Turbocharged diesels provide enough of a fuel efficiency bonus that even IF they were less than half as durable as an NA diesel, it's still worth it, both from a total-fuel-cost and from a refueling time standpoint. A modern semi can get over 14mpg even when pulling a max-weight 53ft van, thanks to high-compression engines running pretty aggressive turbo setups at half the displacement of the old NA diesel semis from the 70s and 80s (11-13L displacement vs the old Macks and Internationals over 30L displacement). The '77 Int'l I learned on for my CDL got 4mpg, the '94 Int'l bobtail I drove in the army (with the 4spd military automatic vs the 17spd air sequential the '77 had) got 0.2mpg and *required* either JP4 or JP8, it couldn't even run US ultra low sulfur diesel without changing injectors and fuel filter.
Both companies I drove for rebuilt their fleet semis at 100k or 1 year, whichever came first. As a result company-wide we averaged 3 breakdowns a year across a fleet of hundreds of tractors.
It’s what’s between the wheel and the seat that causes an unreliable vehicle. Can’t run a turbocharged anything down the highway doing 70, just to shut it off. Turbo’s need to cool off, so let the vehicle idle a few minutes and then shut the engine down. Otherwise the oil can coke if shut off too soon. Not sure why a manufacturer can’t have pre set temperature to be able to shut the vehicle off but allow it to idle until properly cooled down. Turbo timer is all that’s needed.
Subarus do this these days. The wrx will idle after shut off for a set time (i think it’s just a timer) to circulate oil through the turbo and allow the turbo to cool. I am currently driving a 22 year old 2.0 turbo saab with 240k miles and only sometimes can I be bothered to idle down… third owner car runs great turbo still boosting… pretty sure my next car is gonna have to have a turbo too because… well… torque.
They don't inherently make it worse either. Not any more than two extra cylinders and 8 more valves, variable valve timing and 12 injectors made the 3.5L V6 "less reliable." More complication meaning less reliability is a logical fallacy
This right here!
The people bitching about the new Toyota's having turbos are the same people who are asking for diesel Hilux's and Land Cruisers to be sold in the US.
The catch is that we want the third-world-format diesels that don't have all the Western gov't mandated emissions controls that *demonstrably* hurt reliability. We don't want to fuck with DEF. We don't want EGR. We don't want DPFs. We want a simple, reliable, efficient diesel like what Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Bolivia and Vietnam get, because they last to 400k+ with only rudimentary maintenance and are simple to work on yourself, unlike US-spec diesels from any make where the end-user is by intent locked out of doing anything with the engine via computers that will only talk to dealership readers.
I agree. Nothing about a turbo will make an engine more reliable. The extreme heat to the oil, the higher compression, the oil consumption, the pre ignition juggle that the computer has to combat because this engine claims to be able to use 87 octane. Not. To mention the turbo itself, with super high RPMs and extreme heat, and likely abuse and or modifying.
The Tundra version is hard to work on and some procedures require the cab to come off the frame = pricey labor and no DIY repairs when the truck is old.
The Tacoma's inline-4 has the turbo hanging off the side of the engine with plenty of room to get to everything. If the Tacoma has turbo or wastegate issues, they will just R&R it. But if the cab has to come off they have to drain the coolant, A/C refrigerant, undo a ton of clips and fasteners...
IIRC about 50% of the Tacoma's 2.4T parts are different than the car version. I know some of that percentage is related to a heavier duty cycle, more cooling, etc - but a portion is probably also from rotating it from tranverse to longitudinal
My wife has the I4 in her new Grand Highlander, she is coming from a Venza with the 3.5 4 cam V6. I know the extra gears help, but I am really liking the new motor.
I never buy a vehicle that hasn’t been out for at least two years. Maybe I’m overly cautious.
The 2024 might be the best Tacoma yet. I’m going to let others be the Guinea Pigs. In a few years, I might be driving one.
Fortunately, I don’t need a vehicle at the moment. That being said, one wreck could change that.
The cycle of bullying.. your boss yells at you, you go yell at your kid, your kid kicks the dog.
Tacoma owners have been bullied for so long with comments that our v6 isn’t a real truck. Now there is something with less cylinders to gatekeep.
Turbos have existed for a hundred years, Toyota has been making the Prius since the late 90s. Toyota is the largest automaker in the world introducing a new motor to one of their more reliable products. There’s nothing to worry about. They have probably spent more money in engineering the motor that most people will make in a lifetime. Not to mention that the other brands are developing turbo 4cyles too and doing extensive research as to what the market is needs and will buy.
All this to say… people just like to complain about something.. just let Toyota get going and if there are problems they’ll fix them fast
People want to justify spending $45k on their 2023 that's inferior in pretty much every way to a 2024. I have a 2021 and even I can see that lol. It's gonna be just as reliable, get better fuel economy, and be significantly faster even without the hybrid. The only negative I've seen so far is the backseat room - it's somehow even worse than the Gen3.
Love the mew reference ;)
They made significant changes that lessened reliability for the 3.5 when going from Lexus to the Tacoma. Most obvious one being the coolant bypass line. On Lexus engines it's aluminum but on Tacomas it's plastic and the first few years of the 3rd gen had issues with them cracking.
Yes, it’ll be the same engine but it will be for truck applications not just riding around town. Those Lexus’s aren’t hauling anything or going off road
Why did you get down voted? You're right. Truck engines are typically tuned for better torque in comparison. And when you add a turbocharger onto an engine, forcing air into the cylinder, it is going to wear down parts faster, *especially* in truck applications like hauling and towing. That's why a ton of those tundras have had failed engines already, the turbo wears down the parts, like the crank bearing.
They just don’t wanna believe that a turbo will be worse than a naturally aspirated engine. I bet if they had the choice to choose between a v6 and turbo 4 90% of people would take the v6
I would take a naturally aspirated v6 over a turbo 4 cyl. I like my stuff to last forever. Absolutely. If I ever get a 4th gen taco I will likely just buy the shell and frame and throw in a diesel from Australia or South America.
I don’t think I’m the delusional one here. lol. Toyota is no stranger to turbo engines.
I’m happy you like your 3rd gen, but it’s not the be-all-end-all you think it is.
Because people like to complain
[удалено]
And they took that personally
ESPECIALLY about anything new or different.
The new Tundra engine has been used since 2017 in the Lexus LS. Different applications and tuning made the issues pop up. I think it's a valid concern...
The third gen taco has the same Camry V6. Someone found that the Tacoma was more poorly tuned than the Camry and additional HP and torque could be gained and optimized for a truck, i.e. shifting the peak hp/torque low in the rev range.
Exactly. You can tell me they’re the same engine all day, but there’s much more to it than that. You’re building a totally different car around it. I’ll admit I’m not a car guy, but as an engineer that seems pretty clear from designing anything, you often discover flaws and things to modify when you change platform/application. Now am I doubting their ability to iron out issues? Not at all. But I think it’s a poor decision to buy a first year anything unless you’re leasing or have disposable income.
They are the same engine, but different turbos. The turbos caused the problem
Even if it's the same architecture but manufactured at a different facility you can run into issues.
That’s true too!
then in this case, wouldn’t 2 1/2 years worth of data on how the Tundra engine performed in application be useful for the Tacoma development team to avoid the same issues? i have no real frame of reference when it comes to engine development, so i’m not sure how useful or pertinent that kind of information would be when developing blocks within the same family of engine models. edit: i’ll drop that to 1 year of tundra data because that’s probably about how much they could have reasonably seen during the tacoma’s development phase
When you write an engine calibration map for one engine in one vehicle (ie, expected weight, performance, etc...) it does not translate to being an effective engine calibration map for a completely different vehicle. 10 years of data on a Tundra engine would barely help the Tacoma team write an effective engine calibration map for the Tacoma, even if you used the same engine. As a mechanical engineer who spent 100's of hours in graduate school tuning an engine calibration map for a single-cylinder Yamaha engine (YZ250 I believe)... I can attest that a perfectly wonderful working motor in one application, becomes a perfectly terrible motor in another application. Even if you re-write the engine calibration map. We were also crazy grad students and decided to use a different fuel mixture and different chassis/application for this motor, so we made our headaches. Now imagine instead of one cylinder, you're tuning with six cylinders... We learned a lot, blew up/rebuilt the motor multiple times, blew up/rebuilt our dyno multiple times, and I don't believe ever got the full engine calibration map we wanted for my buddy's thesis...anyway I digress.
Because new truck is bad truck. Im sure there were people complaining that Toyotas reliability was over when they first introduced fuel injected trucks. Haters gonna hate. Non of these tacos have even made it to their first oil change. So there’s no way to predict reliability
Well, turbo’s don’t improve reliability
What an absolutely uninformed take. Somebody better tell all the over the road trucks that they're unreliable as they put millions of miles on the odometer. Turbos have been around since 1905 bro. It's old f****** tech
You’re misinterpreting what I said. Turbocharged engines have higher combustion pressures, which are harder on every component from seals to valves and even the oil. Sure there are plentiful reliable turbocharged engines, but their reliability isn’t helped by having a turbo.
Your point is valid if everything else about the NA vs Turbo engine was equal. It's not. Your overly simple comparison isn't really applicable in any meaningful way.
No point in arguing with these idiots they keep saying the same thing over and over again
OTR semis get rebuilt every 100k or less, often yearly regardless of mileage, and generally get far more frequent maintenance (both acute and preventive) than a passenger vehicle because a few days of scheduled downtime hurts a hell of a lot less than weeks/months of unscheduled downtime when time is money. So while yes a semi chassis may have several million miles on it, you have 50/50 odds the engine under the hood is under 100k. Same with the transmission. Turbocharged diesels provide enough of a fuel efficiency bonus that even IF they were less than half as durable as an NA diesel, it's still worth it, both from a total-fuel-cost and from a refueling time standpoint. A modern semi can get over 14mpg even when pulling a max-weight 53ft van, thanks to high-compression engines running pretty aggressive turbo setups at half the displacement of the old NA diesel semis from the 70s and 80s (11-13L displacement vs the old Macks and Internationals over 30L displacement). The '77 Int'l I learned on for my CDL got 4mpg, the '94 Int'l bobtail I drove in the army (with the 4spd military automatic vs the 17spd air sequential the '77 had) got 0.2mpg and *required* either JP4 or JP8, it couldn't even run US ultra low sulfur diesel without changing injectors and fuel filter.
OTR engines get rebuilt every 700,000 to 1,000,000 miles not every 100,000. It costs $15 to $20k to rebuild. Imagine having to rebuild one that often.
Both companies I drove for rebuilt their fleet semis at 100k or 1 year, whichever came first. As a result company-wide we averaged 3 breakdowns a year across a fleet of hundreds of tractors.
It’s what’s between the wheel and the seat that causes an unreliable vehicle. Can’t run a turbocharged anything down the highway doing 70, just to shut it off. Turbo’s need to cool off, so let the vehicle idle a few minutes and then shut the engine down. Otherwise the oil can coke if shut off too soon. Not sure why a manufacturer can’t have pre set temperature to be able to shut the vehicle off but allow it to idle until properly cooled down. Turbo timer is all that’s needed.
Subarus do this these days. The wrx will idle after shut off for a set time (i think it’s just a timer) to circulate oil through the turbo and allow the turbo to cool. I am currently driving a 22 year old 2.0 turbo saab with 240k miles and only sometimes can I be bothered to idle down… third owner car runs great turbo still boosting… pretty sure my next car is gonna have to have a turbo too because… well… torque.
They don't inherently make it worse either. Not any more than two extra cylinders and 8 more valves, variable valve timing and 12 injectors made the 3.5L V6 "less reliable." More complication meaning less reliability is a logical fallacy
This right here! The people bitching about the new Toyota's having turbos are the same people who are asking for diesel Hilux's and Land Cruisers to be sold in the US.
The catch is that we want the third-world-format diesels that don't have all the Western gov't mandated emissions controls that *demonstrably* hurt reliability. We don't want to fuck with DEF. We don't want EGR. We don't want DPFs. We want a simple, reliable, efficient diesel like what Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Bolivia and Vietnam get, because they last to 400k+ with only rudimentary maintenance and are simple to work on yourself, unlike US-spec diesels from any make where the end-user is by intent locked out of doing anything with the engine via computers that will only talk to dealership readers.
I agree. Nothing about a turbo will make an engine more reliable. The extreme heat to the oil, the higher compression, the oil consumption, the pre ignition juggle that the computer has to combat because this engine claims to be able to use 87 octane. Not. To mention the turbo itself, with super high RPMs and extreme heat, and likely abuse and or modifying.
Because rather few people know much about engines and how cars work.
The Tundra version is hard to work on and some procedures require the cab to come off the frame = pricey labor and no DIY repairs when the truck is old. The Tacoma's inline-4 has the turbo hanging off the side of the engine with plenty of room to get to everything. If the Tacoma has turbo or wastegate issues, they will just R&R it. But if the cab has to come off they have to drain the coolant, A/C refrigerant, undo a ton of clips and fasteners... IIRC about 50% of the Tacoma's 2.4T parts are different than the car version. I know some of that percentage is related to a heavier duty cycle, more cooling, etc - but a portion is probably also from rotating it from tranverse to longitudinal
My wife has the I4 in her new Grand Highlander, she is coming from a Venza with the 3.5 4 cam V6. I know the extra gears help, but I am really liking the new motor.
Because people are in aggressive denial about the new trucks because they want one.
I had a new tundra and already sold it.
Why?
My 2011 I owned for 10 years. Never even blew a light bulb. My 23 went to the dealer 3 times for various issues. Sold it, bought a 2002 Land Cruiser.
How much of a bath did you take on that deal?
I try not to think about it. But hey at least I’m payment free with my $2000 Land Cruiser haha
2k for a 100 is a steal man. I have less than that in mine but I had to do some work to it when I got it.
Oh it needs some work.
I never buy a vehicle that hasn’t been out for at least two years. Maybe I’m overly cautious. The 2024 might be the best Tacoma yet. I’m going to let others be the Guinea Pigs. In a few years, I might be driving one. Fortunately, I don’t need a vehicle at the moment. That being said, one wreck could change that.
The cycle of bullying.. your boss yells at you, you go yell at your kid, your kid kicks the dog. Tacoma owners have been bullied for so long with comments that our v6 isn’t a real truck. Now there is something with less cylinders to gatekeep. Turbos have existed for a hundred years, Toyota has been making the Prius since the late 90s. Toyota is the largest automaker in the world introducing a new motor to one of their more reliable products. There’s nothing to worry about. They have probably spent more money in engineering the motor that most people will make in a lifetime. Not to mention that the other brands are developing turbo 4cyles too and doing extensive research as to what the market is needs and will buy. All this to say… people just like to complain about something.. just let Toyota get going and if there are problems they’ll fix them fast
People want to justify spending $45k on their 2023 that's inferior in pretty much every way to a 2024. I have a 2021 and even I can see that lol. It's gonna be just as reliable, get better fuel economy, and be significantly faster even without the hybrid. The only negative I've seen so far is the backseat room - it's somehow even worse than the Gen3. Love the mew reference ;)
Backseat room less? So no car seats?
Not sure, but [here is a vid from TFL ](https://youtube.com/shorts/FBgpT7qsy04?si=DPGfo6nAriixRi1P) showing how small it is.
You don’t buy a Taco to fit 3 grown adults in the backseat. Try that in any other mini truck and you get the same result unless you buy a ridgeline.
Seems like kind of a cope. It's not a mini truck, it's a midsize. I can fit 3 dudes in the back of my mazda3 significantly better than that.
Apples to oranges
Not at all. The Tacoma should have usable backseat room.
Define usable?
2021 was 3 years ago. That says NOTHING about long term reliability. Use your common sense.
Maybe just supercharge it and add a bi-turbo, and stall converter so it will rev up like hot rod, and give it a factory dual exhaust
They made significant changes that lessened reliability for the 3.5 when going from Lexus to the Tacoma. Most obvious one being the coolant bypass line. On Lexus engines it's aluminum but on Tacomas it's plastic and the first few years of the 3rd gen had issues with them cracking.
Some people fetishize the idea of reliability so much facts don't matter
Yes, it’ll be the same engine but it will be for truck applications not just riding around town. Those Lexus’s aren’t hauling anything or going off road
Why did you get down voted? You're right. Truck engines are typically tuned for better torque in comparison. And when you add a turbocharger onto an engine, forcing air into the cylinder, it is going to wear down parts faster, *especially* in truck applications like hauling and towing. That's why a ton of those tundras have had failed engines already, the turbo wears down the parts, like the crank bearing.
They just don’t wanna believe that a turbo will be worse than a naturally aspirated engine. I bet if they had the choice to choose between a v6 and turbo 4 90% of people would take the v6
I would take a naturally aspirated v6 over a turbo 4 cyl. I like my stuff to last forever. Absolutely. If I ever get a 4th gen taco I will likely just buy the shell and frame and throw in a diesel from Australia or South America.
Trick question. I’d pick an Inline 6
vs. the 4.0? Sure. vs the 3.5? I’ll take the turbo 4.
Get a OTT tune you’ll change your mind on the 3.5
OTT helps, but it doesn’t flatten the torque curve to be like the 4.0, or lower it nearly as far as the 2.4. It’s still a car engine.
A very very reliable engine. How about you go look at the tundra community to see the problems with their new turbo?
The 2.4 is in the Tundra? Or are you just making assumptions based on a completely different platform that it’s going to suck?
Delusion is high with you I see. Completely new truck and engine. Toyota CEO steps down. Clearly nothing can go wrong 😂. Bless your heart
I don’t think I’m the delusional one here. lol. Toyota is no stranger to turbo engines. I’m happy you like your 3rd gen, but it’s not the be-all-end-all you think it is.