Gas Tank Size?

[young]

I test drove the 4.0 three times. I certainly agree that it is reliable. I don't agree that it is quiet. It doesn't have much torque at low RPM. You have to push it to high RPM to get power out of the 4.0 and at high RPM the 4.0 gets noisy and unpleasant, in my opinion. The 5th gen 4Runner gets terrible fuel economy for its size. It's a midsize SUV that gets worse fuel economy than full-size pickups. The transmission desperately needs more gears.

Does the 4.0 get better fuel economy than the 4.7 in my old 4Runner? It sure does. But, in my opinion, it is less pleasant to drive. YMMV.

I haven't driven the new drivetrain. I hope it will have better noise, vibration, and harshness than the 4.0, but I don't know whether that will be the case.

My experience with turbo four cylinders is limited to my wife's 2020 C300. Her previous C300 had a lovely V6 with great NVH and I was skeptical about the turbo four in her new C300. But you know what? That turbo four is a better engine than the V6. It has more low-end torque than the V6. It really scoots, even with low RPMs and moderate throttle. I don't think I've ever needed full throttle and high RPMs. It is quieter at low RPM. And it gets better fuel economy as well.

Will Toyota's 2.4l turbo four have similar NVH to the C300 turbo four? I don't know. The Mercedes four cylinder is a 2.0l, and smaller four cyclinder engines tend to have better NVH than larger ones, so time will tell. The 2.4l turbo four certainly has more horsepower and torque than the 4.0, and these come in at lower RPM.

As for reliability, again, time will tell. I trust Toyota far more than I trust Mercedes to get a turbocharged engine right.

Yes, I drive a 200 Series that gets abysmal fuel economy. I will be replacing it (hopefully soon), not due to its fuel economy, but rather due to frame rust. I'm realistic about its pros (lots of power, good NVH) and cons (horiffically bad fuel economy).

I think we should also be realistic about the pros and cons of the 4.0. The pros? It is reliable. The cons? It has bad NVH, little torque at low RPMs, modest horsepower, and bad fuel economy.

Keep in mind, the 4runner came out in 2010 and the powertrain has been unchanged for 14 years. It has been solid and can reach 500k.

 

[M1911]

Keep in mind, the 4runner came out in 2010 and the powertrain has been unchanged for 14 years. It has been solid and can reach 500k.

I've said multiple times that the 4.0 is reliable. That's about the only thing I like about that drivetrain.

 

[Mr_Bingley]

I had a 1978 Trans Am with the "high output" 6.6L V8 and a 4-speed manual transmission. My 5,900 lb Land Cruiser is faster and gets better fuel economy. A new minivan would probably give my old "muscle car" a run for its money.

We had a 2004 Honda Odessey with the V6...holy moly was that thing quick off the line!

 

[thatoneguy]

I've said multiple times that the 4.0 is reliable. That's about the only thing I like about that drivetrain.

Objectively it's about the only gleaming positive of the drivetrain. The 4.0L had competitive specs in 2005, but 2005 was ever so long ago. The addition of dual VVTI was not enough for it to remain competitive 15 years later, of course.

Yes, having an uber reliable engine in a remote exploration vehicle is great, but as we've seen, it's plenty possible to get ultra high reliability, better power, and better fuel economy out of engines that are not exclusively naturally aspirated V6's and V8's.

 

[thatoneguy]

We had a 2004 Honda Odessey with the V6...holy moly was that thing quick off the line!

My 2003 and 2004 Accord Coupes had a 3.0L version of that V6 and a 6-speed manual. High 13 quarter miles if you're aggressive with it. As quick or quicker than any or almost any muscle car of the 60's/70's. Not bad for an old family car.

 

[Mr_Bingley]

My 2003 and 2004 Accord Coupes had a 3.0L version of that V6 and a 6-speed manual. High 13 quarter miles if you're aggressive with it. As quick or quicker than any or almost any muscle car of the 60's/70's. Not bad for an old family car.

My Bride has a 2016 Accord Touring with the V6 it FLIES

 

[galfordusa]

Fuel Neck Filler

Can someone tell me if this part can be replace:77210-35080.
I need ONLY the part, where the fuel cap is locking, not all of the pipes..
Is it even possible to replace only it?

 

[thatoneguy]

My Bride has a 2016 Accord Touring with the V6 it FLIES

Yep, the 3.5L really has some legs. We have a 2015 Accord Coupe with the V6, auto. It's not impressive south of 4000RPM, but up top it moves. A pretty rock solid 60-120mph in this ordinary budget family car. And some great sounds!

 

[young]

The new tank size shrinks.

 

[thatoneguy]

The new tank size shrinks.

Yep. 19 gallons, down from 23. So with the fuel economy increase, total range is roughly the same or a bit bigger than before, definitely moreso on highway range.

 

[02SE]

Yep. 19 gallons, down from 23. So with the fuel economy increase, total range is roughly the same or a bit bigger than before, definitely moreso on highway range.

I know several people with the I-Force and I-ForceMax (Hybrid) engines, in 250 Landcruisers and Tacomas. None are getting close to the claimed MPG numbers, unless bone stock, and at a gentle 45 mph cruise on a balmy 75° F day, with no AC usage.

Real world numbers are much lower, especially if a more aggressively treaded tire in the stock size and load range is used, and even moreso if they went to a larger tire.

The Landcruiser 250 guys I know really complain about the smaller gas tank, when the actual range due to mediocre MPG is taken into account.

 

[CutthroatSlam]

Leaving it at the 5th gen size is a needless range increase for the 200 overlanders out there that costs them extra as more physical fuel tank size to manufacture, and harms curb weight by the weight of the larger tank and the extra gallons inside of it. It harms everything to go for mondo ranges just for those few little overlanders.

2024 4Runner: 17mpg combined, 23.0 gallon tank. 391 mile range.
2024 Tacoma (nonhybrid): 21mpg combined (4WD), 18.2 gallon tank. 382 mile range.

They will both lose MPG if you put big tires and other paraphernalia on them. This is seriously a non-issue.

The 6th Gen 4Runner gets 1 mpg more than the 5th Gen. For that, you give up the proven reliability of the naturally aspirated 4.0L V6 for unknown reliability of a turbo charged 4 cylinder.

 

[CutthroatSlam]

2005 Honda Accord with 2.4L four cylinder (K24) and 5 spd manual. It’s rated at 160 hp and does 0-60 in 7.0 seconds, which is the same as the original Porsche 911.

 

[thatoneguy]

The 6th Gen 4Runner gets 1 mpg more than the 5th Gen. For that, you give up the proven reliability of the naturally aspirated 4.0L V6 for unknown reliability of a turbo charged 4 cylinder.

This is not the thread for pontificating about future powertrain reliability with absolutely no hard or credible information.

Also a horribly off "1mpg" estimation. Let's be easy on the 5th gen and compare to a 2025 TRD Offroad nonhybrid, which rides on 1" larger tires.

mpg city/highway
2024: 16/19
2025: 19/25

It's 19% more efficient in city and an even more substantial 31% more efficient on highway cycle. Those are not trivial increases. All packaged in something with more get-up-and-go and less fighting the drivetrain than the venerable 4.0L/5AT. You don't have to buy it, or care about it, but they're gonna keep selling six figure production every year in the US.

 

[thatoneguy]

Bonus points: if you care about highway cycle mpg only for road trip range reasons, the new one improves on total highway range with the smaller tank. 455 (new) vs 437 miles (old).

 

[trainman605]

I fill-up every 2-3 weeks and in most cases I still have tank that is 1/2 full, so tank size really doesn't make me too much difference, but I do understand that for some it is important.