Best speculation of a 2023 6th generation I have seen
- Thread starter peter78
- Start date
gomiami
Member
Maybe, that's interesting. I'm not so "concerned" about the 6th gen 4Runner being able to differentiate itself from the GX and the LC. I assume Toyota is intelligent enough to target different audiences.
It's the remnant 5th gen competing with all of the shiny new objects on the horizon that might have a tough time in it's swansong before being put to pasture.
I don't know, given how poor the MPG is on the new GX, that tried and true V6 on the 5th might remain desirable. That's kind of why I'm thinking it has to be the V4 hybrid.
Has anyone been able to confirm the published fuel mileage numbers on the GX? There was some speculation in either this thread or another forum that the numbers couldn't be correct based on how similar engines performed in other Toyota/Lexus vehicles. I hope the mileage turns out to be better since the new GX is now on my short list.
Haven't been able to read the forum in a few days and came back to find the mess has been cleaned up and order has been restored. Hats off to the moderators.
DC
TexasFunRunner
New member
100% agree, thank you to the [MENTION=5653]admin[/MENTION] for banning the troll and deleting the garbage posts.
Jetboy
New member
There's a lot of ways for Toyota to go with the new 4R. But it's almost certainly going to be the turbo 4cyl 2.4L engine. The main reason is EPA ratings both for emissions and for mpg. The turbo engines perform around 20% better in the EPA test. Not as much in real life.
I had assumed the v6 was dead at Toyota - but the new Lexus TX continues with a 2GR and hybrid combo. Not sure why, but TBH it's probably a fantastic combo. Smooth, quiet, super reliable, low maintenance. And the 1GR continues in the LC300. The reports from people who have driven the GRJ300 say that it's a completely different experience with the 8 speed transmission (or 10? I can't remember which it has.) Lots of positive reviews. Some say it's better to drive than the 4.6L v8 in the LC200.
However, the emissions is the issue and I think it'll be the T2.4. In a long form interview with the engineer head of that engine design they discussed how different it is from the car version. Apparently it is significantly changed for the truck version and the truck version requires a substantially higher durability test and about 30% longer expected service life vs the car version. They also do different testing on the truck engine - tilting it to what sounds like the most extreme angles the truck can handle - I think meaning the roll over angles and then run it at max heat load which is less than redline until the turbos turn to red and then to white in color and then they rapidly cool them (water quench??). Lots of very heavy durability testing for the truck engine that isn't done for the car version and make changes as necessary. The claim was that roughly 1/3 of the engine parts are new for the truck version vs the car version. And the truck version has better power and performance on 87 octane than the car version does on 91. (So why not apply the same changes to the car?).
The other 2 interesting comments were that he said that they intentionally engineered hand room and work space into the engine bay so you can work on it with normal tools and maintain and repair it. He also said that they had a metric for the Tacoma design from day 1 that included a driveability factor and that apparently they didn't have that in the last tacoma. So, in the last taco design the powertrain groups were somewhat silo'd apart and at the end then had an engine, transmission, and vehicle that didn't fit well together and made for the poor driveability we all hate about the current Tacoma. How Toyota didn't consider that is remarkable to me. But, apparently that was a base design metric this time and a lot more effort was spent on matching the engine power, efficiency, balance/smoothness, and truck power needs so it doesn't constantly hunt for gears and always feel so underpowered. We'll see... I'm skeptical that the little 4cyl will be enough for a 5k lb SUV. I'm even more skeptical that it would be adequate for a near 6k lb LC250, so I'd be a little surprised to see it in a new Land Cruiser.
Anyway - the general takeaway is that the T24A for the truck models including the new 4Runner most likely, is expected by the design group to be as durable as the outgoing 1GR and to have the same service life. And it has a bunch of internal changes from the car version.
Time will tell if it's a winner. But I'd bet that it's the only engine option and it comes with and without hybrid options plus a possible PHEV model.
Jetboy
New member
The LC300 TTv6 is rated in other countries at 19mpg combined. Real world testing in a few place I've seen is 14-15mpg (16L/100km). In comparison, 17mpg for the GX that may be less aerodynamic is probably about right. The V35A has not shown to be very fuel efficient in real world use. Probably due to being pretty conservative on the tune with a relatively rich AFR to keep internal temps cool. I guess the sliver lining is that in comparison to the 1GR - at least you get 400hp with your 17mpg.
gomiami
Member
Didn't even notice the clown posts were gone. Thanks for pointing it out!
gomiami
Member
It's almost comical that the EPA test is the key metric that car companies have to focus on and its not even a real world number. I guess we should be thankful that there IS a fudge factor...otherwise the engine offerings would be a bit frightening.
Thanks for the insight. 17 mpg overall is better than I get now in my old Suburban. If the GX could get the same as the LC300, even better. What are the HP/Torque ratings for the engine in the LC300?
Along those same lines, the brochure that was put out for the GX has a foot note that says the HP and torque ratings were achieved using 91 octane fuel. It then says this: "If premium fuel is not used, performance will decrease." I wonder if that implies we could use less than 91 octane fuel and still meet warranty requirements and perhaps get a little better mileage. I'm assuming the engine will detune itself if it senses knocking. I'm pretty easy on engines anyway and might only need higher octane fuel when pulling a trailer. Also, the 91 octane is likely a sea level rating so those of us that live at higher elevations could very likely get by with less octane if it doesn't void the warranty.
DC
Jetboy
New member
Yeah, it's annoying for sure. I think the turbo 4 will be better to drive than the outgoing v6 due to the power increases in the lower rpms range - especially at high elevation. I'd probably take it over the 1GR if both were offered at the same price. But I'd rather have power closer to the GM 2.7 if it were possible to scale it up a bit, or scale down the TT3.5 to around 3 liters.
Honestly, I think you'll often see that disclaimer with any 91+ octane recommended high compression ratio and/or turbo engine. I may be wrong, but from what I've heard modern day knock sensors are good enough that you cannot reallly hurt a modern engine by putting lower octane fuel in it and actually some engines (like some of the Mazda turbos) are actually spec'ed with different HP/torque numbers based on running 91 octane versus lower. Effectively the car's sensors accomodate the lower octane fuel with no detrimental effects OTHER than a loss of peak power and torque.
gomiami
Member
Call me crazy but this almost sends the wrong message. The engineer is talking about how easy it will be to repair. That focuses the attention on repairs. I'd rather the engineer talk about how durable and reliable it will be.
I get that Toyota is trying to appeal to the DIY and that repairs are inevitable but jeez. Let's pimp the tank-like qualities first, lol.
TexasFunRunner
New member
My son-in-law is a Toyota master technician, the stories he can tell, including printing some of his own 3-D tools for odd, time consuming repairs.
Jetboy
New member
He was really pushing how durable it is first.
The repair discussion was from a question about whether it's still repairable by normal people. And he basically said "we know Tacoma owners want to be able to repair them and keep them for a long time so Toyota designed in space for hands and access with normal tools."
gomiami
Member
OK, good. When I hear a manufacturer talking about how everyone is going to find it easy to repair I think of the '66 Mustang I owned for 20 years when I was young.
It WAS easy to repair and there was plenty of work room to replace any component that failed. The problem was that I spent half my time replacing components that were failing.
TexasFunRunner
New member
TexasFunRunner
New member
TheSpinDoctor
New member
The rumored round headlights for NA market might be on a different trim... Meanwhile, the square headlights and heritage TOYOTA emblem link very well with the 62 series.
I see a sticked on lip on the lower part of the hood, a front facing camera, and ADAS. I don’t see auxiliary lighting (fog/off-road lights) with this angle, but it should be easy to add (as would be a winch in the lower front rectangle recess).
Edit: the AUS pictures show a more detailed view of the lower front, below the headlight, including a fog light in the (seemingly) empty black rectangle on the NA version.
The front door lower seam/crease looks identical to what we saw on the GX550.
Attachments
Last edited:
TheSpinDoctor
New member
Headlights and headlight assembly seem to differ between AUS and NA pictures.
The AUS headlight as clear side markers, the NA has amber.
For the headlight assembly, the NA version doesn’t come flush with the hood like in the AUS version.
The headlight variations might be associated with local requirements, but also trim levels and whether used in conjunction with a heritage grille or not.
