New power plant?
 

Everyone complains about the T4R power plant. Under powered and horrible MPGs and I couldn't agree more. Now Toyota is down another notch with the new Bronco Eco Boost option, which is a strong motor and much better MPGs.

Since Toyota can't make a decent engine and get decent MPGs they will have to go to a Hybrid option. They could be looking at the GS450H drive train (3.5-liter V6 Hybrid) with 31 MPG. Put that in the box of a 4runner and maybe get 25?

A hybrid off road would be pretty cool. Lot's of torque and quiet so you don't scary the hikers. ;)

Wake me up when Ford makes a turbo motor that isn't utter shit.

Aside from that, the GX was running around for years with a V8 and no issues, so there's no excuse not to have a 6 speed V8 option.

As for hybrid, just get a crossover and stop telling Toyota to ruin one of the last useful BOF 4x4s.

It's ford... they can't make seatbelts that don't randomly catch on fire.

I'd be all in, especially if you live/travel somewhere at higher altitudes. You lose ~3% of power for every 1,000' of elevation, I live at 6,000' so my engine is running at 18% less than at sea level. A turbo would help overcome that.

I thought to myself if they thought about how a turbo motor is going to behave in low range, while crawling, when the engine is tipped and tilted and then I just laughed and realized they don't give a damn since most of these will never venture onto a trail.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling them to do anything. I'm making a prediction based on Toyota's track record of mediocrity.

I never expect performance based innovation from Toyota, they have always taken the safest route. The 5th gen 4Runner is essentially a 4th Gen with a body kit. Just about everything below the frame is the same.

They have killed every performance oriented car they ever had. The FJ was killed twice! Which is essentially a 4th gen 4Runner with a body kit.

Thinking like Toyota, they will need to do something that they do well that other can't/won't do, which means Hybrid.

Given the choice between a turbo and naturally aspirated, I’ll pick the non-turbo every time.

I would be be pretty disappointed with a hybrid option.

They don't need to add complexity, especially in something that can find its way off-road.

Lets be real, if you bought a BOF truck for mileage you backed the wrong horse. Not everything in the catalog needs to be eco-friendly

Dude what are you talking about? "Toyota track record of mediocrity ?" Pls read this forum in detail and you find guys with 300k mile 4 runners from 3rd gen and 4th gen all over the place. The 4 runner will NEVER be a performance SUV. It will be something that a owner can buy leave stock or customize it for years and when they want to sell it the resale value is only 2nd to the Jeep. It is very reliable and it has been just as capable and even more capable than my Jeeps offroad. I've offroaded for over 30 years and my 4 runners all have been rock solid and able to go anywhere my Jeep bros go. Now if you like something that looks good as the Bronco on paper I would tell you that comes with a serious price. That transmission has been garbage. Those eco boost motors have been garbage as well. 80k will be the mileage that you start to realize new fantasy , and shiney new gadgets are not worth 60k plus in your SUV. The 4 runner 3.4, 4.0 and new 6th gen motor and transmission combo might not be sexy or performance oriented but it will be 4 runner capable and very reliable and will continue to have a extremely high resale value. I love the way the Bronco looks but I'm know that it is a crappy made vehicle and it could never replace my 2018 Trd 4 runner that has NEVER been to the dealership for repairs. My 96 4 runner and 4th gen that now have over 270k miles never went to the dealership either.

When looking at the Bronco it's marketed as a toy for "men". I would say the Ecoboost has much better power, MPGs and is very popular. However, it's unlikely to have the Toyota reputation for reliability. I don't own one so I can't comment from personal experience.

I'm not debating the reliability of the Toyota drive train. Although, the electronics are simply stupid in may cases. It's all the bells and whistles that don't work - see Entune, which is now deprecated 3 months after I bought the truck. Or is so complex, it's unusable while driving. Good thing we have TSS to save us. ;) Seriously though Toyota (and most companies) should stop hiring children, that can't drive, to design their user interfaces.

So yah your right you can drive it forever and modify it six ways from Sunday, and it's still not a performance SUV. In stock trim it should keep up with a baseline Wrangler off road. But when it gets deep the IFS is limiting and the Rubicon is better equipped. However, it's road manors are much better than most as well.

All that adds up to it does a bunch of stuff good enough, but doesn't lead the pack at anything. Except maybe rear leg room.

So what is Toyota going to do to be different? Answer Hybrid.

Personally I can't stand hybrids and it's not my choice, it's the choice of the masses.

Have you ever taken a 4 runner or wrangler offroad? Or are you just repeating nonsense from other so call automobile writers? The Trd pro or offroad in stock form is far superior to the open diff base wrangler. That IFS that everyone keeps knocking is actually far superior to the Rubicon in the desert especially when you have to drive 30 miles of washboard dirt road with pot holes everywhere. My stock trd 4 runner once was on the Mojave dirt road and I completely left my Jeep bros like I was driving a trophy truck. On the Rubicon Jeep trail every IFS 4 runner made it to top with only a few broken front axles which we fixed in 45 mins or less. Those rubicon jeeps broken diffs, rear and front axles, and 1 2017 broke his transmission. As bad ass as some think the Rubicon is it ain't in stock form. EVERYONE has to modify their trail vehicle and every vehicle breaks it is just the 4 runner is built to break less. Hey but if you don't believe me try some serious offroading and watch how stock sucks and then try to modified your vehicle and watch how fewer problem points a 4 runner has over a Jeep. That 4 runner on paper isn't as capable as a stock bronco but how reliable do you actually think a Bronco will be in the real world 100+ miles from any help on a remote trail?

If a Suburban can get 30mpg and have great power output - 17mpg isn't really good enough. Even if we don't care about emissions, I still care about things like range and weight. Toyota has great engines. Toyota isn't putting them in the 4Runner or Tacoma. That's basically all it is. The 5.0L atkinson cycle V8 is fantastic. And it could easily be fitted along with an 8 speed auto in the 4Runner for very little manufacturing cost difference. And would likely get significantly better mpg.

The 1GR is a fine engine. It was top of class when it was introduced in 2002. In 2020 - it's not so competitive anymore. The 3rd gen 4Runner was still on sale and came with a cassette tape deck when the 1GR first started selling in Toyota models. It's a very reliable engine. But it's past time for an update to something with a much wider range of efficient power output.

Sure, I am not opposed to an updated more efficient power plant. My main concern was doing it at the cost of adding complexity through a hybrid drive.

On most models it's now down to about an $800 option. So the cost is minimal. And if it's done right it should be more reliable. Basically a redundant power system. Even if it only had 5-10 miles of EV range, in the event of a major engine failure, 5 or 10 miles could be a lot better than zero miles.

I haven't really heard of any one having issues with any manufacturer's hybrid system reliability. It's more complex. But I really have no reason to think it's any less reliable than the current drive train. Given that it will also reduce the stress on the engine by providing ev power at peak times - I think there's a pretty good chance that the system will last longer as a whole.

Even if the batteries need a replacement every 20 years - is that a problem? As long as the system notifies that it's needed and that a battery failure doesn't result in a broken down vehicle, I'm not sure I'd be opposed to that. I have to replace the normal battery every 4-5 years. If it saved me more money in fuel and maintenance than the battery replacement cost and gave me all of the benefits of EV drive - like unlimited fording depth, and probably great towing performance, etc. I'd probably be in favor of it.

Of course - the other fix is just to put the 4Runner on a massive diet. If it weighed more like 4k lbs, that would go a long way toward fixing the power issue. And frankly, the 1GR really is perfectly adequate in stock form. If you never lifted or modified it - the 1GR is plenty. It's just very limited in efficient operating output. So once you do almost any modification the efficiency falls off a cliff. That's probably one of the best benefits of modern engines - they can be really efficient for a wide range of operating conditions. A GM 5.3 can return great fuel economy and make lots of power. You don't have to trade one for the other. So can Ford's EB engines. And so can Toyota's V35A.

Even Toyota's 3.5V6 is actually pretty good - it's just way too small. It's a 3.5L that can also operate as an effective 2 liter engine. What the Tacoma and the 4Runner need is not a 3.5 that can also be a 2 liter. What they need is a 5 liter that can also be a 3.5L. The idea is correct. The engine choice is wrong for the application. The 3.5 is perfect for the Camry. And actually pretty solid choice in the Highlander. Not such a good choice in the Tacoma or 4Runner.