Lets group E-mail Toyota demanding V8

[StarGazer]

That's exactly what I mean. Less than 1 per cent improvement per year. It's an embarrassment. An import car averaged almost 30 mpg in 1989. Today it's close to 35 mpg.

Keep in mind that the added safety/emissions regulations since the 80's have added weight/reduced airflow which skew the numbers a bit. Also, MPG's are calculated differently now than they were back then making today's cars seem less efficient than they otherwise would.

 

[TRDSmokedU]

I'm sorry, I've driven both. The 4Runner needs more power. The V8 gets similar gas mileage, it is smoother and the power is more readily available. Considering the GX has the V8, I think it is more likely to see a V8 than a diesel. I would love to see a diesel and maybe with Toyota's partnership with BMW a diesel may not be out of the realm of possibilities. There is a market for those who need a midsized V8 for towing. Also, Consumer Reports showed only a 1 MPG difference overall and a 2 MPG difference on their 150 mile trip comparing the GX to the 4Runner. Toyota, bring back the V8!!!! I've sent e-mails and send them messages on Facebook.

 

[ClockWork]

I'm sorry, I've driven both. The 4Runner needs more power. The V8 gets similar gas mileage, it is smoother and the power is more readily available. Considering the GX has the V8, I think it is more likely to see a V8 than a diesel. I would love to see a diesel and maybe with Toyota's partnership with BMW a diesel may not be out of the realm of possibilities. There is a market for those who need a midsized V8 for towing. Also, Consumer Reports showed only a 1 MPG difference overall and a 2 MPG difference on their 150 mile trip comparing the GX to the 4Runner. Toyota, bring back the V8!!!! I've sent e-mails and send them messages on Facebook.

Couldn't agree more. The 4.6 would suffice and the 5.7 would be one of the quickest cars on the road.

 

[JB.]

Your engine is typically a heater. If you check the available energy in the fuel and the output energy of your engine you have about 20% efficiency. BTW I am purposely leaving out units for laymen's clarity.

Don't you think there is a little room for improvement there?

About the same efficiency as the human body, I believe. A few years ago I did some quick searches and drew the tentative conclusion that ICEs are a little less mechanically efficient than the body but gasoline is a little more efficient as a fuel than body fat/carbohydrate -- the net result being pretty close parity in overall efficiency of the two systems. A fascinating factoid, I thought, that I only mention on the outside chance of inducing comment from someone who can add something, the vague connection to on-topic being that my laymen's view makes me wonder whether the fact that an evolution manufactured engine is at about 20% has any bearing on how difficult it may be to make large improvements in ICE efficiency.

 

[1engineer]

Max ICE could get is about 38% if made out of iron/steel.

Next
OEM's give the people what they want to an extent. People want power. Government wants more control so they control emissions and fuel efficiency.

Next
My favorite factoid is that at 5252rpm, torque and HP are the same value no matter what type of vehicle. Just a little fun math fact I thought I would throw in.

 

[phillyd2]

After read the last few posts I've decided that I no longer want a V8. No longer want diesel. Hell, I may just buy a damn Honda! :jump:

 

[Antman]

My favorite factoid is that at 5252rpm, torque and HP are the same value no matter what type of vehicle. Just a little fun math fact I thought I would throw in.

I want to know why this is...can you explain please? What exactly does "value" indicate? Sounds like something I would like to add to my brain!

 

[dekeman]

I want to know why this is...can you explain please? What exactly does "value" indicate? Sounds like something I would like to add to my brain!

I don't think you do. This explains it well, but it might hurt a little.
Power and Torque

 

[03_4x4Runner]

Look at all the charts you want but the facts remain that the current 4runner is a dog at low rpms. If toyota would stop adding 400 lbs. of weight with every generation and start loosing weight it would be a big help.

 

[FlyNavy]

Look at all the charts you want but the facts remain that the current 4runner is a dog at low rpms. If toyota would stop adding 400 lbs. of weight with every generation and start loosing weight it would be a big help.

If only the people driving them would follow the same logic...........

 

[1engineer]

This is the important part:
HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252

Note that at 5252 RPM, torque and HP are equal. At any RPM below 5252, the value of torque is greater than the value of HP; Above 5252 RPM, the value of torque is less than the value of HP.

 

[4FL]

Proper gearing is a large factor. I will take some low power with good gearing over high HP with garbage for gears.

I drive around an older LR 90 series for a while, that thing had no power, but with the gears, it could almost idle its way through anything, loved it! I threw 4.56's in my chevy I use to have, it turned it into a monster overnight without even touching the engine.

As for the v8, I love the sound of them. My explorer has a v8 and it gets the same mpg as the v6 version according to everyone who has experience with both, and from my own numbers for comparison.

The current mpg numbers are a factor in what is drawing me to the 4runner, I would most likely not consider it if it was getting 18 or something like that. I wish they could push this thing up to 28 highway.

 

[Quentin]

I'm sorry, I've driven both. The 4Runner needs more power. The V8 gets similar gas mileage, it is smoother and the power is more readily available. Considering the GX has the V8, I think it is more likely to see a V8 than a diesel. I would love to see a diesel and maybe with Toyota's partnership with BMW a diesel may not be out of the realm of possibilities. There is a market for those who need a midsized V8 for towing. Also, Consumer Reports showed only a 1 MPG difference overall and a 2 MPG difference on their 150 mile trip comparing the GX to the 4Runner. Toyota, bring back the V8!!!! I've sent e-mails and send them messages on Facebook.

The GX460 only manages to be .2 sec quicker to 60 and .1 sec quicker in the 1/4 mi than the 4Runner with the new 1GR V6*. For all practical purposes, the performance is the same. More than likely, the GX has a more direct throttle response versus gas pedal position and is more eager to drop a gear because luxury buyers are more concerned about the vehicle being responsive than fuel economy. That probably makes it feel faster. Apples to apples, it is simply marginally faster.

* This is also using CR's numbers.

 

[TRDSmokedU]

The GX460 only manages to be .2 sec quicker to 60 and .1 sec quicker in the 1/4 mi than the 4Runner with the new 1GR V6*. For all practical purposes, the performance is the same. More than likely, the GX has a more direct throttle response versus gas pedal position and is more eager to drop a gear because luxury buyers are more concerned about the vehicle being responsive than fuel economy. That probably makes it feel faster. Apples to apples, it is simply marginally faster.

* This is also using CR's numbers.

The GX is 505 pounds heavier as well. Consumer reports are not comparing apples to apples. The 4Runner test vehicle was an SR5 part time 4x4 compared to a full time 4x4 V8 GX. I bet the 0-60 times for the 4x4 Limited 4Runner are slightly slower than the SR5. The 4x4 Limited is still about 200 lbs heavier than the SR5 and the GX is around 200 lbs. heavier than a limited 4Runner. The 4.6 engine is not that much heavier than the 4.0. Anyway, this is not about 0-60 for me. It's pulling up the steep grades around Beech Mountain NC. The V6 struggles, while the 4.7 breezes up the hills with ease. Forget about adding a trailer. There is not enough disparity between the GX and 4Runner to compare MPG. If you are worrying about 1 MPG, don't buy an SUV. A V8 would be great but a DI V6 or something similar to an ecoboost would satisfy just fine. Not sure why so many argue against more power.

 

[TRDSmokedU]

Couldn't agree more. The 4.6 would suffice and the 5.7 would be one of the quickest cars on the road.

Oh yea, the 5.7 is a wet dream lol!!!! But keep sending the e-mails. It really can't hurt.

 

[1engineer]

The GX is 505 pounds heavier as well. Consumer reports are not comparing apples to apples. The 4Runner test vehicle was an SR5 part time 4x4 compared to a full time 4x4 V8 GX. I bet the 0-60 times for the 4x4 Limited 4Runner are slightly slower than the SR5. The 4x4 Limited is still about 200 lbs heavier than the SR5 and the GX is around 200 lbs. heavier than a limited 4Runner. The 4.6 engine is not that much heavier than the 4.0. Anyway, this is not about 0-60 for me. It's pulling up the steep grades around Beech Mountain NC. The V6 struggles, while the 4.7 breezes up the hills with ease. Forget about adding a trailer. There is not enough disparity between the GX and 4Runner to compare MPG. If you are worrying about 1 MPG, don't buy an SUV. A V8 would be great but a DI V6 or something similar to an ecoboost would satisfy just fine. Not sure why so many argue against more power.

So why do you post in the 5G forum if you are such a die hard V8 guy? I have been up beech mountain in NC - no problems. I was not pulling a trailer but had 4 adults and luggage with bikes on the back. Sorry you do not like higher revving engines. You know, if you bought a Volkswagen Toureg diesel you would really be able to go up highway 105 at about 1500 rpm. If you want more power just drop about 5-6K on URD's supercharger.

 

[Quentin]

The GX is 505 pounds heavier as well. Consumer reports are not comparing apples to apples. The 4Runner test vehicle was an SR5 part time 4x4 compared to a full time 4x4 V8 GX. I bet the 0-60 times for the 4x4 Limited 4Runner are slightly slower than the SR5. The 4x4 Limited is still about 200 lbs heavier than the SR5 and the GX is around 200 lbs. heavier than a limited 4Runner. The 4.6 engine is not that much heavier than the 4.0. Anyway, this is not about 0-60 for me. It's pulling up the steep grades around Beech Mountain NC. The V6 struggles, while the 4.7 breezes up the hills with ease. Forget about adding a trailer. There is not enough disparity between the GX and 4Runner to compare MPG. If you are worrying about 1 MPG, don't buy an SUV. A V8 would be great but a DI V6 or something similar to an ecoboost would satisfy just fine. Not sure why so many argue against more power.

Yes, the GX is ~10% heavier and that does impact acceleration. I wouldn't expect much difference in 0-60 between a Limited and an SR5 because despite the marginally higher drivetrain loss of the FT4WD in the Limited, you can mash the throttle and there will be no slippage instead of playing the traction control game with the, for all practical purposes, RWD SR5. The V8 would be tied to a 6AT as well, so you could expect ~130lbs of weight gain* on a V8, 6AT 4Runner.

I'm curious about your definition of "struggle". Yes, the V6 will have to downshift more often than the V8, but there is plenty of power and torque available after the downshift. Driving through WV mountains, I'll occasionally see 3rd gear on the steepest ones but that is still only 3200RPM or so at interstate speeds. It isn't like the V6 has to rev out to 4500RPM for any time unless you're passing. If you're regularly towing 5000lbs over mountains, maybe the 4Runner isn't the right vehicle for you. I'd be more worried about the brakes and short wheelbase coming down the other side.

I'm not so much arguing against more power as I'm arguing that Toyota probably had a hard time building a business case for the V8. The weaker 1GR in the Tacoma tows 6500lbs compared to the 4Runner's 5000lbs. I'm going to wager that the powerplant isn't the limiting factor in the 4Runner's rating. The additional costs in certifying a 2nd version of the vehicle for crash testing may have pushed it past being a worthwhile venture. Then roll in the fact that more sales may have ended up with the lower margin, japan build V8 4Runner instead of the higher margin, local built V8 Sequoia for those that absolutely needed the V8. Toyota probably made a sound business decision offering only the V6. The 4Runner is a niche product these days.

* I got this number by comparing a base 4x2 double cab 1GR-FE (updated) 5AT Tundra to a base 4x2 double cab 1UR-FE 6AT Tundra. Toyota Tundra Truck - 2012 Performance and Specifications

 

[ClockWork]

Yes, the GX is ~10% heavier and that does impact acceleration. I wouldn't expect much difference in 0-60 between a Limited and an SR5 because despite the marginally higher drivetrain loss of the FT4WD in the Limited, you can mash the throttle and there will be no slippage instead of playing the traction control game with the, for all practical purposes, RWD SR5. The V8 would be tied to a 6AT as well, so you could expect ~130lbs of weight gain* on a V8, 6AT 4Runner.

I'm curious about your definition of "struggle". Yes, the V6 will have to downshift more often than the V8, but there is plenty of power and torque available after the downshift. Driving through WV mountains, I'll occasionally see 3rd gear on the steepest ones but that is still only 3200RPM or so at interstate speeds. It isn't like the V6 has to rev out to 4500RPM for any time unless you're passing. If you're regularly towing 5000lbs over mountains, maybe the 4Runner isn't the right vehicle for you. I'd be more worried about the brakes and short wheelbase coming down the other side.

I'm not so much arguing against more power as I'm arguing that Toyota probably had a hard time building a business case for the V8. The weaker 1GR in the Tacoma tows 6500lbs compared to the 4Runner's 5000lbs. I'm going to wager that the powerplant isn't the limiting factor in the 4Runner's rating. The additional costs in certifying a 2nd version of the vehicle for crash testing may have pushed it past being a worthwhile venture. Then roll in the fact that more sales may have ended up with the lower margin, japan build V8 4Runner instead of the higher margin, local built V8 Sequoia for those that absolutely needed the V8. Toyota probably made a sound business decision offering only the V6. The 4Runner is a niche product these days.

* I got this number by comparing a base 4x2 double cab 1GR-FE (updated) 5AT Tundra to a base 4x2 double cab 1UR-FE 6AT Tundra. Toyota Tundra Truck - 2012 Performance and Specifications

It's a driver experience thing. The usable RPMs are under 3k in the 4Runner. This is what happens when you shoe-horn a V6 into a drivetrain optimized for a low end grunt-y V8. I can accelerate all the way to 70 without going over 2k RPM. You mention you drop into third on ascents: the torque converter is NOT locked in 3rd gear and the heat generation is quite substantial and in the long run could be detrimental to the fluid especially without a transmission cooler. The V8 4th gen has no issue maintaining speeds on grades in 5th gear with the torque converter locked. If it needs to down shift to 4th, the torque converter will happily lock and the car easily accelerates and passes other vehicles. 85% of the V8's torque is available at 1800RPM. Yes, 1800RPM. Accelerating on grades in 5th gear with ease while the torque converter is locked is quite impressive.

0-60 times are only part of the equation, the GX and V8 4R are so much more drivable at the low RPMs. The car moves with absolute ease from idle.

I still believe one of the main reasons there is no V8 in the 5th gen is because Toyota needed to differentiate the GX and 4R more. They did lose numerous customers in doing so, however. If you're happy with the V6 that's great, it just does not do anything for me and is the one reason I will not even consider a 5th gen.

 

[Koz]

I believe the reason there is no V8 is because of cost. I also believe it would get as good or BETTER gas mileage then the V6. Toyota believes (and very well could be) people are ONLY looking at cylinders. This would explain the STUPID decision to put a 4 cylinder (that only got 1 or 2 mpg better). My GX is 500 lbs. heavier then the 4Runner and I have gotten 22 mpg on the highway with the 4.6 V8. This leads me to believe if the 4Runner had the 4.6 V8 it would get as good or better mileage then the 4.0 V6. You have to remember the 4.6 also comes with a 6 speed trans and lower overall gearing. I believe the extra cost was the deciding factor, not mileage.

Koz

 

[ClockWork]

I believe the reason there is no V8 is because of cost. I also believe it would get as good or BETTER gas mileage then the V6. Toyota believes (and very well could be) people are ONLY looking at cylinders. This would explain the STUPID decision to put a 4 cylinder (that only got 1 or 2 mpg better). My GX is 500 lbs. heavier then the 4Runner and I have gotten 22 mpg on the highway with the 4.6 V8. This leads me to believe if the 4Runner had the 4.6 V8 it would get as good or better mileage then the 4.0 V6. You have to remember the 4.6 also comes with a 6 speed trans and lower overall gearing. I believe the extra cost was the deciding factor, not mileage.

Koz

Extra MSRP? The V8 option on the 4th gen was like $1000.