The new 3.5L 6/sp out pull the Canyon Diesel.

[Jetboy]

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DCkBmiZV09w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

vs

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JGDIwZkLQuI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It also outpulled the LC200 with the same trailer

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0RGROWlJqW0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And FWIW - with the turbo the Canyon should do a LOT better at high altitude. Maybe the 3.5L isn't so bad for the '18 4runner.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

I think the diesel did pretty well, it's not a speedster; it's a workhorse engine. The Tacoma was literally screaming to get that time, they had it pegged at the redline for the most part and it netted them less than 5mpg after all was said and done. While the diesel was pegged at the measly sub-4k redline and it eeked out a decent 6+mpg. I'm not entirely sure how much "better" either engine should do, are you saying that the Canyon should be faster or stronger with a turbocharger? I will say that compared to the 2GR-FE it did pull much better (the 2015 netted about 8:49 vs. the 2016 8:05), but both engines were just being pegged to get there; but considering that the 2GR-FKS isn't so much a truck engine as a rear-wheel drive car/CUV engine that's not entirely surprising. It does show promise for the drivetrain though.

I am a bit surprised at the LC200's result though, I think that has to do with the transmission tuning as they mentioned it was being a bit odd on the test drive; mpg didn't surprise me though, that 5.7L sucks down gas. But then again, speedster vs. workhorse I suppose...

 

[Jetboy]

Yes. Turbos are much less affected by altitude than NA engines. It depends in part on the design, but the Canyon should lose maybe 15% at that altitude and the Tacoma probably would expect a 30-35% loss of power. And power = ability to do work. With the adjustment for altitude I would expect the turbo diesel to be pretty close to the Tacoma. The result for the Tacoma was pretty impressive to me.

The Tacoma was way up in the rpm range, but that's just part of the engine design.

The 5.7 was odd. The Tundra with the same engine pulls a much heavier trailer faster in the same test.

Side by side, based on that result, the a 3.5L 4runner with a 6 speed might outrun a LC200 up a hill with a trailer. Not what you might expect.

 

[Dalko43]

What do you mean by "out-pulled?"

It was faster?

It had better acceleration?

FWIW, if I needed a dedicated mid-sized towing pickup, the Canyon (or Colorado) makes perfect sense.

The Tacoma's engine, as good as it might be, is not a true truck engine.

 

[Jetboy]

What do you mean by "out-pulled?"

It was faster?

It had better acceleration?

FWIW, if I needed a dedicated mid-sized towing pickup, the Canyon (or Colorado) makes perfect sense.

The Tacoma's engine, as good as it might be, is not a true truck engine.

It pulled the same trailer up a steep hill faster. Both in acceleration and ability to maintain speed on a steep grade. The Tacoma was about a minute faster over the course of 8 minutes of towing. Both were full throttle and the Canyon could not maintain speed up the hill. And the Tacoma was significantly handicapped by the altitude being NA vs the turbo induction in the Canyon. At lower elevation the gap would grow.

Basically - if you asked the question "how much load can this truck tow at 55mph up this hill?" the answer would be the Tacoma could tow a heavier trailer and maintain speed up hills than the Canyon diesel.

 

[Dalko43]

It pulled the same trailer up a steep hill faster. Both in acceleration and ability to maintain speed on a steep grade. The Tacoma was about a minute faster over the course of 8 minutes of towing. Both were full throttle and the Canyon could not maintain speed up the hill. And the Tacoma was significantly handicapped by the altitude being NA vs the turbo induction in the Canyon. At lower elevation the gap would grow.

Basically - if you asked the question "how much load can this truck tow at 55mph up this hill?" the answer would be the Tacoma could tow a heavier trailer and maintain speed up hills than the Canyon diesel.

I think you're missing the point behind a diesel truck like the Canyon, because speed certainly isn't the main reason for buying it, at least for contractors or people who tow on a regular basis (I can't speak for the tuner crowd).

The Tacoma's V6 has nearly a 100HP over the Canyon's diesel I4, so yeah, it's going to be faster, even at altitude going up a steep pass. BTW, the diesel Canyon, and Colorado, have a higher tow rating (7,600lbs vs the Tacoma's max of 6,700lbs) and much better mpg....that's why diesel trucks have such a big following within the towing community.

Something else to consider, The Fast Lane Truck awarded the the diesel Canyon, not the Tacoma, it's Golden Hitch Award in recognition of its towing capabilities within the mid-sized segment:

2016 Gold Hitch Awards: GMC Canyon Duramax Diesel is TFLtruck of the Year [Video] - Truck News, Views and Real World Reviews

Seeing as you used TFL's videos as a basis for your claim that the Tacoma can "out-pull" the diesel Canyon, maybe this article puts things in perspective for you.

 

[Dalko43]

Basically - if you asked the question "how much load can this truck tow at 55mph up this hill?" the answer would be the Tacoma could tow a heavier trailer and maintain speed up hills than the Canyon diesel.

That statement is just oozing with fanboyism...but go ahead and tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

[Mean TT]

Part of towing is fuel economy under load. Getting 6 MPG vs 15 MPG makes a large cost difference. That's important to a lot of folks.

 

[Jetboy]

That statement is just oozing with fanboyism...but go ahead and tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

It's just a fact. They literally video taped that exact test. See post 1. A mile ahead in 8 miles is a pretty bug difference.

It's purely a difference in power. The tacoma has a LOT more power than the Canyon. Please don't say torque. I can make 1000 ft lbs or torque. It's like saying amps are important when we're talking about energy (which is measured in watts).

I don't have to be a fanboy to say that chevy trucks are pieces of rolling shit. All you have to do is own one or two. Ask me how I know... And I think the new taco was a disappointment. Crappy interior, drum brakes, sticking with rear leafs instead of updating to the 150 platform to name a few things.

 

[Jhalko]

That statement is just oozing with fanboyism...but go ahead and tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

I could care less about towing but I know what impact high altitude has on a normal engine versus turbo and that test is impressive for the Tacoma.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

It's just a fact. They literally video taped that exact test. See post 1. A mile ahead in 8 miles is a pretty bug difference.

It's purely a difference in power. The tacoma has a LOT more power than the Canyon. Please don't say torque. I can make 1000 ft lbs or torque. It's like saying amps are important when we're talking about energy (which is measured in watts).

I don't have to be a fanboy to say that chevy trucks are pieces of rolling shit. All you have to do is own one or two. Ask me how I know... And I think the new taco was a disappointment. Crappy interior, drum brakes, sticking with rear leafs instead of updating to the 150 platform to name a few things.

Yes it pulled ahead at almost a minute, but it drank fuel at a sub-5mpg; where as the Canyon was north of 6mpg. That's a big difference if you're talking about regular towing; the Canyon will be slower, but a far better drivetrain for sustained towing than the 2GR-FKS in terms of efficiency. Yes technically if you want to be picky "Power" is a more accurate term. But, between HP & Torque, torque is a more realistic representation of a work vehicle's potential "Power". The 2GR-FKS is pushing 278HP at 6000 rpm and 265 lb·ft at 4600 rpm; which means by the time you've hit 5k RPM the vehicle is no longer working efficiently to pull the weight. Granted there's an aspect of Newton's Laws in that once the vehicle is at speed it requires less Power to maintain that speed, but that really only applies on flat ground in ideal conditions; the testing is done on a severe grade. That's why the engine is screaming past it's HP band and guzzling down fuel like a 5.7L; towing is less about the Hare and more about the Tortoise. More that likely on a flatter ground the Tacoma will still burn more fuel and need to rev past it's peak torque band to maintain speed when towing vs. the Canyon which will probably be fine at it's relatively low peak torque band.

Now I thought your point was that the new 2GR-FKS is potentially good drivetrain, but it seems you're also heavily in favor of the Tacoma being the better mid-sized truck. I have to disagree to that point, the Canyon showed much better and desirable qualities in a towing vehicle than the Tacoma did.

 

[Antman]

Don't forget the axle ratios here guys.

Tacoma has a 3.91

Canyon has a 3.42


Huge difference there. If they had the same ratio this test would be completely different...

 

[Swarty]

Final ratio

Don't forget the axle ratios here guys.

Tacoma has a 3.91

Canyon has a 3.42


Huge difference there. If they had the same ratio this test would be completely different...

axle ratio isn't as critical as final ratios, but I get what you mean. Just need the ratio somewhere. Doubt those two transmissions are anything alike.

 

[Antman]

axle ratio isn't as critical as final ratios, but I get what you mean. Just need the ratio somewhere. Doubt those two transmissions are anything alike.

Somewhere along the line there is a 1:1 in the trannies (not sure how many overdrive gears they each have) so at that point the final drive is apples/apples not figuring in tire diameter...

Just saying, that's pretty significant.

 

[Dalko43]

It's just a fact. They literally video taped that exact test. See post 1. A mile ahead in 8 miles is a pretty bug difference.

Yes, it is a fact that the Tacoma towed the same load as the Canyon in a shorter amount of time. However, your claim that the Tacoma can tow a heavier trailer, is not a fact, or at least not according to the towing specs that Toyota lists.

It's purely a difference in power. The tacoma has a LOT more power than the Canyon. Please don't say torque. I can make 1000 ft lbs or torque. It's like saying amps are important when we're talking about energy (which is measured in watts).

HP is exactly why the Tacoma is able to perform this task in a quicker time. And yes, HP, at a certain RPM, is simply a reflection of the torque and vice versa. Refer to HP = (Torque x RPM)/5252 if you have doubts about that.

I don't have to be a fanboy to say that chevy trucks are pieces of rolling shit.

Actually, I'd say such a statement is very much indicative of fanboyism. I think it's a given that we are all Toyota fans here, but we should all be able to acknowledge good products made by other companies. The diesel Colorado and Canyon hasn't even been out for a year yet, and you're already willing to call it a rolling piece of shit?

At least give it a chance to prove or disprove itself. I hope it does well and gains a following for 2 reasons:
1) more competition always motivates companies to one up each other, which usually leads to better products for the consumers.
2) hopefully Toyota follows suit and puts a small diesel into some of its SUV's and pickup's.

Don't forget the axle ratios here guys.

Tacoma has a 3.91

Canyon has a 3.42


Huge difference there. If they had the same ratio this test would be completely different...

Yet another valid observation demonstrating why this is not a straight apples to apples comparison of just the engines; the platforms overall have slight differences and nuances.

But I think some on this forum have already made up their minds that the Tacoma rules and everything else sucks!

 

[JeremyB]

Yes it pulled ahead at almost a minute, but it drank fuel at a sub-5mpg; where as the Canyon was north of 6mpg. That's a big difference if you're talking about regular towing

Not quite apples to apples as the Tacoma was also 10% faster on the run. Had it just kept up with the Canyon, the Tacoma's rpms would have been lower and the BSFC higher - resulting in better mpg. Would it have gotten than 6.7mpg? lol, no! But definitely better than 4.5mpg.

They mentioned the V6 gasser version of the Canyon got 3.6mpg. Ouch.

The Lexus finished in 8:28 with 3.8 mpg. I skipped around in the videos, but there must be some unknown (at least to me) factors that determine finishing time besides power. I know early on they stayed at the 60 mph speed limit, not sure what happened later. Traffic?

Not that hard to stick a BT dongle in the OBD-II port and record RPM, speed, GPS data and then output the data for the masses.

 

[Quentin]

The genesis of this post seems to be that the 3.5L will likely haul around a 4Runner alright... not that the Colorado is junk or the Tacoma is the best. But I'm sooooooo glad this thread has been derailed into petty fanboy accusations. I missed that since I stopped visiting Tacoma world after deciding a 4Runner was a better fit for me.

I've attached a trailer to my 4Runners exactly once in over 4 years of ownership. Towing isn't going to be the forte of an SUV with a short wheelbase and soft suspension. Give me acceleration over being able to leave it in a low gear while hauling a trailer. I use the former way more than the latter.

 

[Dalko43]

The genesis of this post seems to be that the 3.5L will likely haul around a 4Runner alright... not that the Colorado is junk or the Tacoma is the best. But I'm sooooooo glad this thread has been derailed into petty fanboy accusations. I missed that since I stopped visiting Tacoma world after deciding a 4Runner was a better fit for me.

I've attached a trailer to my 4Runners exactly once in over 4 years of ownership. Towing isn't going to be the forte of an SUV with a short wheelbase and soft suspension. Give me acceleration over being able to leave it in a low gear while hauling a trailer. I use the former way more than the latter.

OP's title for the thread speaks for itself. The mention of the 3.5L's suitability for the next gen 4runner seemed like a tangential comment, but to that point, I really hope Toyota isn't putting that engine into the next 4runner. Or if it does, I hope that there are other options.

 

[Swarty]

Only true in similar drivelines

Somewhere along the line there is a 1:1 in the trannies (not sure how many overdrive gears they each have) so at that point the final drive is apples/apples not figuring in tire diameter...

Just saying, that's pretty significant.

That's not really how that works unless you are comparing drivelines that are very similar.:behindsofa:
The ECU will pick the best gear to keep the trucks in (hopefully), so they won't be in that 1:1 transmission gear at the same point in the powerband/wheel speed even if they had identical axle ratios. Highest available torque multiplier is the lowest gear for the speed at the time, this is a product of total drive ratio at the time and unless you are in first or final gear either engine can adjust it's the drive ratio as necessary to maximize speed or power.

e.g. if both the Tacoma and the colorado were in 4th (1:1 and 1.16:1 transmission ratio respectively) the drive ratio in 4th gear would be ~3.91 and ~3.96 respectively. In almost every gear the Colorado is at almost exactly the same drive ratio as the Tacoma Colorado/tacoma comparison.

Even this doesn't matter because the diesel Colorado makes it's power and maxes out at 2/3 the revs of the tacoma so they are never in the same gear at the same time respective to speed and acceleration. In order to go the same speed at max revs the Colorado would have had to be around 2 gears higher than the Tacoma at a 30% higher gear ratio. The Diesel Colorado is not meant for speed, I'd be surprised if you can even get it over ~90 MPH. :bored: But it pulls significantly more weight and gets better mileage.:yo:

Axle ratio is really only meaningful for performance in very similar powerband and driveline combos. e.g Jeep unlimited to 4runner. Or if you are figuring out whether a wheel jam will snap an axle or driveshaft first.
:sobbing:

 

[Quentin]

OP's title for the thread speaks for itself. The mention of the 3.5L's suitability for the next gen 4runner seemed like a tangential comment, but to that point, I really hope Toyota isn't putting that engine into the next 4runner. Or if it does, I hope that there are other options.

The only way this topic is relevant to the 5th gen forum is the fact that the engine might wind up in a 4Runner some day. It can't be tangential based on that fact.