Best speculation of a 2023 6th generation I have seen

[thatoneguy]

Took them long enough!

I'm personally hoping for something a bit smaller than the current 5th gen in length (especially no wasted front overhang), definitely smaller than the new LC250, kept at a reasonable price (shouldn't be hard if production is moving to Mexico on a global platform with a global powertrain), that leans into the offroading a little bit more.

 

[Jetboy]

Cross Post from my post on Mud:

There's not a ton to see yet, but it looks mostly good to me. That low badging is probably a day1 delete for me. Looks like a big PITA to clean around.

Other thoughts: Looks like the frame rails extend far back and have nice protection for the rear end on rocks. I don't see an exhaust hanging down exposed to trail damage anywhere - so it may be more protected than the LC250. Hard to tell. Hitch integration looks great IMO. And hitch looks more robust than prior gen, so I'm guessing it'll get the same towing as Taco/LC250. You can see that the rear handle/camera area is unfinished. Obviously a prototype.

And it has a temp spare tire underneath. That tells me that it most likely has small OEM tires because the temps are probably only in one or two sizes.

 

[thatoneguy]

Cross Post from my post on Mud:

There's not a ton to see yet, but it looks mostly good to me. That low badging is probably a day1 delete for me. Looks like a big PITA to clean around.

Other thoughts: Looks like the frame rails extend far back and have nice protection for the rear end on rocks. I don't see an exhaust hanging down exposed to trail damage anywhere - so it may be more protected than the LC250. Hard to tell. Hitch integration looks great IMO. And hitch looks more robust than prior gen, so I'm guessing it'll get the same towing as Taco/LC250. You can see that the rear handle/camera area is unfinished. Obviously a prototype.

And it has a temp spare tire underneath. That tells me that it most likely has small OEM tires because the temps are probably only in one or two sizes.

Unfortunately, apparently that's the route Toyota wants to go with spares in their 4x4's now (except things like PROs, presumably).

This thread is of a 2024 Tacoma TRD Offroad. It has factory tire size of 265/70R17 (identical to current 4Runner), but the temporary spare is 245/75R17. Really weak to not be putting full size matching spares on the OFFROAD trim.....

I think there's a near zero chance the 6th gen comes on tires smaller than 5th gen. But it might be unchanged. Maybe the PRO will offer the LC250's 1" larger tire size.

Not much room for a larger spare tire under our trucks | 2024 Tacoma Forum (4th Gen) News, Specs, Models - 2.4L, Hybrid, TRD Pro, Trailhunter, Off-Road, Sport, SR5 -- Tacoma4G.com

 

[Jetboy]

The biggest concern I have is that it seems to point toward the trend of lowering the quality of new Toyota GA-F models. The Tundra is not a very good new product. Engines are unreliable, interior fit and finish is not good. Interior parts quality is not very good. The spare tire is potentially a signal that Toyota is headed that way with the 4Runner as well. On the Tacoma anything TRD OR and above gets the full size full spec spare. So, it's possible this is just an SR5 model with the cheap spare and I'm putting too much thought into it. But it's just my speculation from what we can see in the image.

But why put out a marketing image with an unfinished rear door trim? It's obvious everyone was going to see it.

And why put the stupid lights down in the bumper? That's just a huge PITA when they break, they're prone to break in any small bump on the bumper - like someone parking behind you. And makes rear bumpers more expensive. Too much of the design is being done by people who don't drive this class of vehicle.

 

[Quentin]

Probably a reflector in the bumper rather than a light.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thatoneguy]

Everything gets value engineered, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole product is "cheaper" or crappier than before. My 2023 4Runner does not have a locking fuel door, and it's a superior and more reliable and durable product to my 1999 4Runner, which did have one.

We'll see when we see. For now, the 2.4L engine has been in other vehicles for a couple/few years, and it also gets a 1 year trial run in the Tacoma before we get our grubby SUV master race hands on it.

 

[Jetboy]

Everything gets value engineered, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole product is "cheaper" or crappier than before. My 2023 4Runner does not have a locking fuel door, and it's a superior and more reliable and durable product to my 1999 4Runner, which did have one.

We'll see when we see. For now, the 2.4L engine has been in other vehicles for a couple/few years, and it also gets a 1 year trial run in the Tacoma before we get our grubby SUV master race hands on it.

For the tundra - I think it's just an overall feeling that they phoned in the work on it. And TBH I think that's probably what actually happened. Less effort resulted in lesser quality end product.

The V35A was in production for 5 years before it went in the Tundra and it's still not reliable. I read one dealer parts check a while back that had over 100 tundra engines currently in the queue back ordered. LX600's are having engine failures as well. It seems to match up with the seemingly high rate of failures I'm hearing out of the middle east markets with the LC300. There's a reputation developing and it's not a good one.

I hope the 4Runner had more effort put into the engineering side, less CALTY design influence, and less value engineering cuts to QDR. I'm all for value. Just not for declining quality over time.

 

[thatoneguy]

For the tundra - I think it's just an overall feeling that they phoned in the work on it. And TBH I think that's probably what actually happened. Less effort resulted in lesser quality end product.

The V35A was in production for 5 years before it went in the Tundra and it's still not reliable. I read one dealer parts check a while back that had over 100 tundra engines currently in the queue back ordered. LX600's are having engine failures as well. It seems to match up with the seemingly high rate of failures I'm hearing out of the middle east markets with the LC300. There's a reputation developing and it's not a good one.

I hope the 4Runner had more effort put into the engineering side, less CALTY design influence, and less value engineering cuts to QDR. I'm all for value. Just not for declining quality over time.

I've always considered the Tundra engine reliability to be mostly built up rumors, stemming from that whole one batch of bad turbos they got on the earliest 2022 Tundras. You seem to be more up to speed with 3.4L reliability than I am, so maybe they really are having that bad of a time. If that's actually the case, and not just internet rumors, being Toyota, I hope they're working on a refresh of that engine to put fears and issues to rest.

A lot of vehicles got consolidated into TNGA-F, and into two engines, compared to how many different engines they had before. I would hope that means a lot of quality R&D got pumped into everything, since there's so much sharing going on.

If Toyota got the new 2.4L and 8-speed wrong, that'll cost them dearly. I'm giving them serious benefit of the doubt based on their midsize body on frame vehicle track record until if and when I hear otherwise from widespread firsthand reports.

And besides, my 2023 ORP still financially hurts; I'm not giving up this expensive classic uber-reliable thing until at least a few model years into the new generation, once they've proven they're not just causing everyone stupid problems at 30k miles.

 

[Jetboy]

I've always considered the Tundra engine reliability to be mostly built up rumors, stemming from that whole one batch of bad turbos they got on the earliest 2022 Tundras. You seem to be more up to speed with 3.4L reliability than I am, so maybe they really are having that bad of a time. If that's actually the case, and not just internet rumors, being Toyota, I hope they're working on a refresh of that engine to put fears and issues to rest.

A lot of vehicles got consolidated into TNGA-F, and into two engines, compared to how many different engines they had before. I would hope that means a lot of quality R&D got pumped into everything, since there's so much sharing going on.

If Toyota got the new 2.4L and 8-speed wrong, that'll cost them dearly. I'm giving them serious benefit of the doubt based on their midsize body on frame vehicle track record until if and when I hear otherwise from widespread firsthand reports.

And besides, my 2023 ORP still financially hurts; I'm not giving up this expensive classic uber-reliable thing until at least a few model years into the new generation, once they've proven they're not just causing everyone stupid problems at 30k miles.

There appears to be an issue in the 3.4 with the oiling to the lower end of the engine. I haven't seen any real info on the suspected cause, but most failures I've seen are mostly crankshaft bearings. I'm not sure if it's lubrication/oil flow related or machining, but something is definitely wrong. Having over 100 engines in the north america order queue is hard to translate to a number of failures because we don't know the delivery rate. It means at least 100+, but could be only 100 or could be a lot. Just don't know. I'm guessing there are around 250k V35A tundras in customer hands at this point. If it was 1,000 engines - I think that is a pretty high failure rate. 2024s are still having periodic turbo failures too. Hopefully Toyota is continually modifying them to fix these failures not just replacing them until warranty runs out like they do with the needle bearings.

It's not just the engine though. They're having issues with the transmission. The window rattles. Interior trim plastics failing repeatedly in places that are usually non-issues. A lot of little things that normally are fixed before they reach production.

My 4Runner was pretty close to manufacturing perfection as far as quality, durability, and reliability. I would be happy if Toyota just kept the 5th gen 4R as-is but updated the engine and transmission. I think the interior may get decontented like the LC250 where the middle row loses the drop down center and the fold flat cargo area. I'm still betting on the 3rd row being kept available.

The new 2.8L turbo diesel seems to be very well liked so far though. I hope the 2.4 is too. I'm just a bit apprehensive about the lack of attention to detail and lack of engineering effort that went into the tundra carrying over to the 4Runner.

 

[thatoneguy]

I would be happy if Toyota just kept the 5th gen 4R as-is but updated the engine and transmission. I think the interior may get decontented like the LC250 where the middle row loses the drop down center and the fold flat cargo area. I'm still betting on the 3rd row being kept available.

The new 2.8L turbo diesel seems to be very well liked so far though. I hope the 2.4 is too. I'm just a bit apprehensive about the lack of attention to detail and lack of engineering effort that went into the tundra carrying over to the 4Runner.

I've heard this exact line from at least 20 people. It's always possible, but whether there's a business case for them to do so is another story. I don't think it would have been a wise business decision for them to stay the course with the 4.0L/5AT combo, nor to attempt to tweak the aging 4.0L again and get a new transmission behind it. The latter would've at best netted them 1mpg, maybe 1.5mpg if they were incredibly lucky. That would've resulted in them still paying EPA CAFE penalties on the 4Runner, while having a unique engine sold in two countries in the world. Regardless of if they kept the engine, keeping an old unique architecture around forever for it has serious drawbacks, including cost and supply chain complication.

It of course makes supreme production sense for them to put the corporate 2.4L in everything, including the 4Runner. That might lose them 10,000 sales sure, but may gain them 20,000 other sales, for example.

I think it's remarkable the 4.0L/5AT and 5th gen stayed around as long as they have. It's last call time for anybody that wants to go buy a 2024, walk the walk if you want to have the last dinosaur. In the next six weeks, we'll probably know a lot more about the upcoming 4Runner, namely body shape inside and out.

4Runner groups in a year will be going through what Tacoma groups are now with the 2024: splitting into two sides where some current owners brag about how much they hate the new generation and won't buy one, and the other side where they buy the new gen and talk about how much they like it. Seems to happen every time. 2nd gen Tacoma people thought the 3rd gen Tacoma would be the death of the truck. I'm sure plenty of GX460 people hate the GX550 on principle.

 

[Jetboy]

I've heard this exact line from at least 20 people. It's always possible, but whether there's a business case for them to do so is another story. I don't think it would have been a wise business decision for them to stay the course with the 4.0L/5AT combo, nor to attempt to tweak the aging 4.0L again and get a new transmission behind it. The latter would've at best netted them 1mpg, maybe 1.5mpg if they were incredibly lucky. That would've resulted in them still paying EPA CAFE penalties on the 4Runner, while having a unique engine sold in two countries in the world. Regardless of if they kept the engine, keeping an old unique architecture around forever for it has serious drawbacks, including cost and supply chain complication.

It of course makes supreme production sense for them to put the corporate 2.4L in everything, including the 4Runner. That might lose them 10,000 sales sure, but may gain them 20,000 other sales, for example.

I think it's remarkable the 4.0L/5AT and 5th gen stayed around as long as they have. It's last call time for anybody that wants to go buy a 2024, walk the walk if you want to have the last dinosaur. In the next six weeks, we'll probably know a lot more about the upcoming 4Runner, namely body shape inside and out.

4Runner groups in a year will be going through what Tacoma groups are now with the 2024: splitting into two sides where some current owners brag about how much they hate the new generation and won't buy one, and the other side where they buy the new gen and talk about how much they like it. Seems to happen every time. 2nd gen Tacoma people thought the 3rd gen Tacoma would be the death of the truck. I'm sure plenty of GX460 people hate the GX550 on principle.

At this point it really does need to be all new. The engine and mostly transmission updates needed to happen around 2017/2018 when it was due for the model update. Everything I've heard about the 1GR in the LC300 is that it is a huge improvement with a new transmission and new tune. I don't think they can keep it in the USA because of the nox emissions. The T2.4 is probably half or less.

I'm glad they didn't do the Taco 3.5 though. In that case the prior gen really was better. My parents have a 2020 tacoma and the engine sucks. There's really no way around it. The new Tacoma engineers talked about how poor the the drivability of the 3.5 was and how it ended up there. Basically they silo'd the engineering groups and no one was tasked with drivability, so the engine design group and transmission design group and the truck chassis/body teams didn't focus on how it would actually drive as a package. The result was something that looked good on paper for each component but wasn't very good in real life.

There's a lot to like about the new 2.4 - no EGR, easy access to components, much better power at low rpms. I just think it's a bit on the small side for the vehicle. I'd really like to see an engine with more like 325hp/400tq. Something half way between the 2.4 and 3.4.

On a different level - Toyota IMO made a strategic mistake in making the 3.4L a v6 instead of an I-6. The -6 configuration would have shared all the engineering with the 2.4L and would have made it easy to offer mutliple power options and configurations of single and twin turbos - just like the BMW B58 that also can be configured as a diesel. Toyota could have dropped down to only 2 engines that could be configured as diesels or gasoline and a non-turbo, turbo, configured with hybrid or not in each version. That would offer power at 50hp increments from 150-450hp with relatively few parts to design for that many power options. And we wouldn't be pulling cabs off to fix turbos or needing two snorkels.

Anyway - it really does need to be all new at this point. I just think that the body, the layout, the interior setup was all really great on the 5th gen with one exception - the stupid placement of the window switches! Otherwise - stick to the formula. It's popular for a reason.

 

[Buckfever]

Well at least the reveal is coming soon. For me I'll have to see where they slot in the Hybrid compared to the LC250 and shat the dimensions and styling look like.

Still pissed that the TTV6 in the GX is such a pig in MPG's.

 

[thatoneguy]

Well at least the reveal is coming soon. For me I'll have to see where they slot in the Hybrid compared to the LC250 and shat the dimensions and styling look like.

Still pissed that the TTV6 in the GX is such a pig in MPG's.

A 5700lb aerodynamic brick with full-time 4WD and 480 lb-ft of torque will do that!

The upcoming hybrid is the way to go if MPG is the priority. The LC250 is rated 23mpg combined, which is not bad at all when you consider you're getting above V8 levels of torque and full-time 4WD. When the Tacoma/4Runner get the hybrid motor with part time 4WD, they might do 1mpg higher.

 

[Jetboy]

The problem I have is that the GX550 is 20% less mpg than the Sequoia that's a lot more powerful, has a level bigger powertrain, and quite a bit bigger interior. Less than the Tundra. Even somehow less than the slightly larger LX600. The GX hybrid will do a lot better I think. Not sure when the release date is for that though, but it will be a 4cyl so probably comparable to the LC250. 17mpg is a non-starter for a family wagon in my driveway. In a world of 28mpg suburbans, a 17mpg midsize suv with less cargo capacity than a 4Runner will only end up in my driveway as a weekend toy, not as a primary car.

Toyota really should be offering a Sequoia without the hybrid and compromised cargo area. That would be my first choice of the current fleet for my needs with 2 kids, dog, trailer etc. (but only with a 10yr extended warranty on the engine). I'd like to have the cargo space and towing of the Sequoia. A Sequoia on 35s might match the mpg of the stock GX.

Not sure it's necessary, but the crappy part of the sequoia is that the new front diff ADD is a magnetic slide collar that is basically the same mechanism as the e-locker rear end design. That's a problem if you ever want a front locker. I think the new Tundra and Sequoia may not ever get a front locker option because the differential disconnect makes the carrier assembly really complicated and it takes up the spot that the locking mechanism would normally occupy. May never see an option beyond MTS/ATRAC for the front ends if you want to keep the disconnect function.

 

[thatoneguy]

The problem I have is that the GX550 is 20% less mpg than the Sequoia that's a lot more powerful, has a level bigger powertrain, and quite a bit bigger interior. Less than the Tundra. Even somehow less than the slightly larger LX600. The GX hybrid will do a lot better I think. Not sure when the release date is for that though, but it will be a 4cyl so probably comparable to the LC250. 17mpg is a non-starter for a family wagon in my driveway. In a world of 28mpg suburbans, a 17mpg midsize suv with less cargo capacity than a 4Runner will only end up in my driveway as a weekend toy, not as a primary car.

Toyota really should be offering a Sequoia without the hybrid and compromised cargo area. That would be my first choice of the current fleet for my needs with 2 kids, dog, trailer etc. (but only with a 10yr extended warranty on the engine). I'd like to have the cargo space and towing of the Sequoia. A Sequoia on 35s might match the mpg of the stock GX.

It sounds like the hybridized V6 helps the Sequoia's fuel economy, and that the GX's full-time 4WD is a penalty on fuel economy. The old GX550's small V8 didn't do great on fuel either. Toyota refuses to put stop/start in their trucks; that hurts the EPA tests but I appreciate them not caving to that bad technology.

Honestly, I kind of like that Toyota is giving this many options in the SUVs. There's the 4cyl and V6, hybrid and nonhybrid versions of each available in total. Nonhybrid for the folks that want it as simple as possible, hybrid for those that want it all, torque and mpg. I don't think Lexus SUV buyers traditionally care all too much about fuel economy, so it ought to work out for this vehicle. If Toyota added 50% more torque to the 5th gen and held the mpg constant, people would be celebrating lol.

Where's this 28mpg EPA rated suburban? A 2023 diesel gets 26 highway, 22 combined. A 2023 4WD 5.3L V8, which has cylinder deactivation (no thanks) gets 16mpg combined. There's no magical V8 that's getting into the 20's without cylinder deactivation, a mild hybrid, or any other number of bandaids.

But hey, there's always the possibility of beating the EPA ratings. My lifetime average in my 17mpg combined rated 4Runner is 21mpg, offroading, highway, city and all.

 

[PCMSF]

If I had to put money on a concept that turns out to be closest to the eventual production model, it's this one (view on YouTube).

Kind of torn on the styling. It's not bad but it looks like it's trying too hard. And I would miss the differentiation between the 4runner and everything else in the line up.

Alternatively the 6th gen could end up looking like a scaled down Sequoia.

Either way, expect to wait forever and pay minimum 10% over MSRP! I'm keeping my 2015 TEP!

 

[Jetboy]

FWIW - I'm hoping for this:

I think Toyota will keep the trapezoid grill and it will look different from the Tacoma, but probably share similar headlights, fenders, hood. And I think it will keep the forward raked C pillar.

 

[Blackwatch]

FWIW - I'm hoping for this:

I think Toyota will keep the trapezoid grill and it will look different from the Tacoma, but probably share similar headlights, fenders, hood. And I think it will keep the forward raked C pillar.

That is pretty nice and I think looks a bit better than the 5th gen. Just has enough of the LC250 in it. They should have made that pic in heritage blue.

Pretty scary reading the issues over on the Tundra forums though. Lots of computer and electrical issues aside from the engines seizing. Hopefully the 4R doesn't have that many issues.

 

[balong48]

That is pretty nice and I think looks a bit better than the 5th gen. Just has enough of the LC250 in it. They should have made that pic in heritage blue.

Pretty scary reading the issues over on the Tundra forums though. Lots of computer and electrical issues aside from the engines seizing.

I’ve been keeping up with the Tundra forums too, I wouldn’t say there are a ton of electrical and computer issues from what I’ve seen. There’s a handful, but I wouldn’t say it seems out of the ordinary.

Looks like the last reported engine failure was a March 2023 build date, so it seems like the issues should possibly be resolved. Time will tell.

I’m more concerned with the overall fit and finish of the vehicle. So many issues with inconsistent panel gaps - especially with the tailgate, poor adhesives leading to badges and trim pieces falling off, the paint chipping off the tailgate due to expanding and contracting plastics, seat panel cover breaking, and radio knob breaking. I saw a brand new capstone in the showroom at the dealer, tailgate was basically snug on the passengers side and had a massive gap on the drivers side. Someone on the Tundra forums was complaining about that too.

I was able to sit in a new Tacoma that day as well. Fit and finish, though I didn’t go over it with a fine toothed comb, seems to be a bit better than the Tundra. Materials felt better and this was just an SR5. Actually got me excited for the new 4Runner and a bit less worried given the Tundra issues.

 

[Blackwatch]

I’ve been keeping up with the Tundra forums too, I wouldn’t say there are a ton of electrical and computer issues from what I’ve seen. There’s a handful, but I wouldn’t say it seems out of the ordinary.

Looks like the last reported engine failure was a March 2023 build date, so it seems like the issues should possibly be resolved. Time will tell.

I’m more concerned with the overall fit and finish of the vehicle. So many issues with inconsistent panel gaps - especially with the tailgate, poor adhesives leading to badges and trim pieces falling off, the paint chipping off the tailgate due to expanding and contracting plastics, seat panel cover breaking, and radio knob breaking. I saw a brand new capstone in the showroom at the dealer, tailgate was basically snug on the passengers side and had a massive gap on the drivers side. Someone on the Tundra forums was complaining about that too.

I was able to sit in a new Tacoma that day as well. Fit and finish, though I didn’t go over it with a fine toothed comb, seems to be a bit better than the Tundra. Materials felt better and this was just an SR5. Actually got me excited for the new 4Runner and a bit less worried given the Tundra issues.

I can't imagine a 4Runner still built in Japan will be as bad as the Tundra has been. The 5th gen 4R is outstanding for panel gap and quality of materials. My long highway drives would be so much better in a Tundra.