6th gen 2017 4R, will it exist?

[BlackWorksInc]

The Tacoma kept pretty much the same torque when it went from the old 4.0 to the new 3.5 (266 to 265 ft-lb). Power went up significantly from 236 to 278 hp.

The current 4Runner has 270 hp and 278 ft-lb, so I was assuming that any new V6 in an upcoming 4Runner would keep comparable numbers. Any consumer-apparent change would be the mpg. But like I said a 10% bump is nice but not really a significant difference really, and would be easily erased by a modest price jump. At a minimum the "Keep it Wild" savings would probably disappear, and discounts from the dealer will be more scarce as well.

P.S. - the engineer in me must point out that torque is not power...
P.P.S. - sounds like you got a great deal on that Tundra... basically a free vehicle for 2 years!

I don't know if I quite agree with that, Diesel engines are designed for high torque applications and typically have lower HP ratings, yet some of them can pull off the line as good as some sports cars. HP vs. Torque is a tricky thing as it requires context such as drivetrain, application, ect. to really make it work; but when it comes to true trucks and SUVs, torque tends to be a more important number than HP.

An updated Highlander makes sense -- it was redesigned in 2014, so a mid-cycle refresh in 2017 is about right. You have to wonder if GM's recent move to downsize the GMC Acadia (and one would assume the Traverse and Enclave) will make the competition even more intense for the Highlander since they are around the same size.

That will be great if we see a refreshed 4Runner in '17. I wouldn't be surprised if they did a "refresh" vs. a redesign, like what happened with the 2012 Tacoma and 2014 Tundra.



The biggest issue with Lexus' CUV/SUV line-up is the lack of a 3-row crossover. Prioritizing development of a 3-row crossover is probably way more important than any future development of the GX.

Far as I know the GX is axed in favor of another bland CUV (TX) at least this minivan wanna be has a 3rd row... so yay?

 

[vjack]

I don't know if I quite agree with that, Diesel engines are designed for high torque applications and typically have lower HP ratings, yet some of them can pull off the line as good as some sports cars. HP vs. Torque is a tricky thing as it requires context such as drivetrain, application, ect. to really make it work; but when it comes to true trucks and SUVs, torque tends to be a more important number than HP.

[...]

Maybe you all need to retake high-school physics... :wink2:

ft-lbs is a measure of TORQUE, i.e. rotational force
hp is a measure of POWER, i.e. the rate of work done

They are not the same thing, therefore it is incorrect to call torque "power". I agree, torque is probably the more important factor for acceleration. Power is more important for things like top-end speed and hauling a heavy trailer up a hill.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

Maybe you all need to retake high-school physics... :wink2:

ft-lbs is a measure of TORQUE, i.e. rotational force
hp is a measure of POWER, i.e. the rate of work done

They are not the same thing, therefore it is incorrect to call torque "power". I agree, torque is probably the more important factor for acceleration. Power is more important for things like top-end speed and hauling a heavy trailer up a hill.

Oh, derp... sorry I wasn't thinking of "Power" and "Work" in terms of physics. Yes technically Torque is a measure of Work and HP a measurement of Power. I was more pointing out that torque tends to be the actual work potential of the engine/drivetrain vs. HP which is more about how fast you can get the vehicle going; not to mention HP is a bit of a varied definition depending on what type and where you're talking about it. It was more to point out that there's a better correlation in a vehicle's ability to get work done with torque than with high HP... not sure if I made that example right...

 

[1engineer]

Maybe you all need to retake high-school physics... :wink2:

ft-lbs is a measure of TORQUE, i.e. rotational force
hp is a measure of POWER, i.e. the rate of work done

They are not the same thing, therefore it is incorrect to call torque "power". I agree, torque is probably the more important factor for acceleration. Power is more important for things like top-end speed and hauling a heavy trailer up a hill.

Maybe you need to be here awhile, read a few posts by guys like him, look at all he has done for other members, before going around saying everyone needs to re take high school physics.

 

[Jhalko]

Maybe you need to be here awhile, read a few posts by guys like him, look at all he has done for other members, before going around saying everyone needs to re take high school physics.

But he gave him a winky face! That makes it friendly right? :fro:

 

[wfo9]

Maybe you all need to retake high-school physics... :wink2:

ft-lbs is a measure of TORQUE, i.e. rotational force
hp is a measure of POWER, i.e. the rate of work done

They are not the same thing, therefore it is incorrect to call torque "power". I agree, torque is probably the more important factor for acceleration. Power is more important for things like top-end speed and hauling a heavy trailer up a hill.

There are 100% related when talking about an internal combustion engine. TQ is simply the speed/time independent measurement of output. Once you know TQ and RPM... you know HP.

The only way to know how an engine will perform in the real world is to see the tq curve (which is also the HP curve with a simple formula applied). Max/peak numbers don't really tell you anything useful.

 

[Quentin]

Since cars aren't direct drive, you need to know gearing, too. A pretty good way to account for low torque is to add more gear.

 

[Gecko]

More MPG would be nice, but IMO, a 6 or 8 speed automatic would be most welcome because the engine so badly needs more gears and shorter ratios. Flooring the 4Runner and having it drop 1-2 gears and still barely move out of its own way gets frustrating.

 

[vjack]

Oh, derp... sorry I wasn't thinking of "Power" and "Work" in terms of physics. Yes technically Torque is a measure of Work and HP a measurement of Power. I was more pointing out that torque tends to be the actual work potential of the engine/drivetrain vs. HP which is more about how fast you can get the vehicle going; not to mention HP is a bit of a varied definition depending on what type and where you're talking about it. It was more to point out that there's a better correlation in a vehicle's ability to get work done with torque than with high HP... not sure if I made that example right...

Maybe you need to be here awhile, read a few posts by guys like him, look at all he has done for other members, before going around saying everyone needs to re take high school physics.

Sorry, I know I'm new here and didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.

I guess being picky about dimensional analysis is not a great way to make friends :doh:

 

[BlackWorksInc]

Sorry, I know I'm new here and didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.

I guess being picky about dimensional analysis is not a great way to make friends :doh:

S'all good, I probably could use a brush up on high-school physics... can'y get my hoverboard to float... maybe that funny haired Einstein guy could help with that.

I can be wrong and I do appreciate when people point it out, so no worries.

 

[GG Allin]

A smaller 6 with a couple turbos would be nice, 300+ hp.

 

[1engineer]

Sorry, I know I'm new here and didn't mean to step on anyone's toes.

I guess being picky about dimensional analysis is not a great way to make friends :doh:

Nope. Quoted post is a good start though. Power means many things to many people and is a generic term in the world of engineering. Tim Taylor style.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

A smaller 6 with a couple turbos would be nice, 300+ hp.

Problem is that Ford is doing that and most everyone I have talked to that owns a turbo'd six says the same thing, "it's not a replacement for the V8."

Low end torque is something that's more desirable than high-end HP in a Truck/SUV because in 4WD applications you're not going fast but you need more power to crawl vs. maintaining high speed. I'm all for turbos and superchargers, but I haven't seen too many non-diesel V6 stock applications that get the torque band close to a V8.

 

[marshal]

What we need is a small turbocharged and supercharged 2stroke 4cyl diesel mated to a 8speed gearbox.

 

[JeremyB]

Problem is that Ford is doing that and most everyone I have talked to that owns a turbo'd six says the same thing, "it's not a replacement for the V8."

In Ford's case, the 3.5 ecoboost eat's the 5.0's lunch in low-end torque. People tend to use all the torque the EB has, so your actual mpg is nowhere near the EPA estimate though.

 

[Threev8s]

In Ford's case, the 3.5 ecoboost eat's the 5.0's lunch in low-end torque. People tend to use all the torque the EB has, so your actual mpg is nowhere near the EPA estimate though.

I have to respectfully disagree with the above and agree with what [MENTION=100496]blackworks[/MENTION] posted. I had an Explorer Limited 4WD as a loaner/rental a few weeks back. On paper the numbers look great, but it is a whole different experience behind the wheel. The power is there but it comes on awkwardly at best. It pours on when you don’t necessarily want it and there is often a delay when you do want it. As a vehicle in general, I couldn’t stand it after just a few trips in it.

 

[borfoo3]

Not entirely relevant, but @3:51 they start drag racing the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen Tacomas.. the interesting part starting @4:15 shows how the 2nd gen Taco with the 4.0 V6 5spd (236 hp and 266 lb·ft of torque) outruns the 3rd gen Taco with the 3.5 V6 6spd (278 hp and 265 lb-ft of torque) by quite a bit!



Toyota, if you're following us here, please don't turn our trucks to SlowRunners for 2016.. it was painful enough learning to stab the skinny pedal through the floor liners to kill that dreaded Eco light. Give us power options! Preferably ones that start with a "V' and an "8" on them.. even if its just that 4.6L V8 from the Tundra line

 

[Quentin]

Not entirely relevant, but @3:51 they start drag racing the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen Tacomas.. the interesting part starting @4:15 shows how the 2nd gen Taco with the 4.0 V6 5spd (236 hp and 266 lb·ft of torque) outruns the 3rd gen Taco with the 3.5 V6 6spd (278 hp and 265 lb-ft of torque) by quite a bit!



Toyota, if you're following us here, please don't turn our trucks to SlowRunners for 2016.. it was painful enough learning to stab the skinny pedal through the floor liners to kill that dreaded Eco light. Give us power options! Preferably ones that start with a "V' and an "8" on them.. even if its just that 4.6L V8 from the Tundra line

I wouldn't put much stock in what appears to be an 1/8th mile run at 1 mile elevation.

And a V8 in a US a market 4Runner won't happen again. The 4Runner will be lucky to survive CAFE.

 

[CO-Cygnus]

I have to respectfully disagree with the above and agree with what [MENTION=100496]blackworks[/MENTION] posted. I had an Explorer Limited 4WD as a loaner/rental a few weeks back. On paper the numbers look great, but it is a whole different experience behind the wheel. The power is there but it comes on awkwardly at best. It pours on when you don’t necessarily want it and there is often a delay when you do want it. As a vehicle in general, I couldn’t stand it after just a few trips in it.

Explorer Limited does not have the 3.5 EB engine. It will have the standard 6 cylinder or a smaller 2.4(?) turbo engine.

 

[Threev8s]

Explorer Limited does not have the 3.5 EB engine. It will have the standard 6 cylinder or a smaller 2.4(?) turbo engine.

It was loaded so maybe I assumed limited (prob sport or platinum), but it definitely had the ecoboost.