This is the engine the 4runner needs

[Jetboy]

I've said this for a while too. I think a mid size 4cyl turbo would be the ideal engine as a base engine. The 2.7L AR engine with a turbo similar to the 8AR-FTS would be just right with an 8 speed in the 4runner. The 8AR-FTS makes 81hp at only 1650rpms. That's fantastic output - 258 ft/lbs at that low of rpm. It should be better power from 1500-3500rpms than the current 4.0. Interestingly it actually peaks at only 4,800rpms at only 235hp. I don't think most of us could live with that low of power at peak. It would feel like driving a small diesel - but without the mpg benefits.

But if you do a simple conversion displacement to a 2.7L 4cyl, that would be about 350 ft/lbs at 1650rpms. That would be a huge jump in performance during normal driving in the 4runner. Even if it got the same mpg. And you'd expect a peak of 317hp at 4800rpms. That would be a great fit.

Of course an optional 3.5L v6 turbo with 415hp would be great too - and it's already a production engine for Toyota. But I don't think we'll see it anytime soon in a 4runner.

 

[DesertCanyons]

This looks like it would be just about the ideal engine for the 4runner. Diesel like low rpm torque (348 @ 1500) and still making plenty of HP 310 at 5600. Very light (serveral hundred pounds lighter than a diesel...) Should result in almost 30mpg too....

I wish Toyota could pull it off, but I just don't think they have the passion or focus on the truck market to do it. They are so far behind. This engine has been in development for a long time....

Not so sure I would want it in a full size though. Perfect for the mid size and I'm guessing they will put it in the Colorado.

Hi wfo9,

Thanks for bringing this up. I haven't read your thread on the turbocharge install you did for a while, but how is that new turbo serving you? Are you getting a big boost of power and torque from it?

Regarding the GM engine, I never reach 5600 rpm. I drive around 2000 rpm typically and occasionally hit 2500 rpm on a steep hill, when accelerating or running in 4th gear on an incline when either the trans auto shifts for me or I drop out of overdrive.

I don't try to drive the vehicle hard or accelerate fast. I have a soft foot on the gas pedal. Sometimes I drive 80 mph on California freeways but more likely it's 75 or less.

I like the T4R drive train. It serves me well for off-roading and freeway driving. When I bought it I was looking for efficiency, reliability and resale value. I also looked at initial cost compared to the Jeep Wrangler and Lexus LX460. I tried to judge power by perceived acceleration on the test drive as well as the manufacturer's listed HP and Torque. I looked at the Jeep Wrangler for comparison. Both cars were similar in these aspects. If the T4R increased it's initial cost by $5k for turbo drive or a diesel engine, I'd be looking more at the Jeep Wrangler - up to 2017 that is. The Jeep is changing now and costs more. Toyota needs to stay competitive with the Jeep and Lexus LX460 with a V8.

 

[philsey]

What's wrong with wanting Toyota's diesels??? They make a $#!+ of torque, great on gas mileage, they can be modded to make more power, and diesel is usually cheaper than gasoline at the pump.

Do you even know anything about Toyota diesels

Sry man, not harshing you per se, it's just that to think Toyota would bring (no matter how wonderful they surely are) a diesel to the US at this point in time is just folly. They have zero vehicles that would sell in any increased volume enough to justify the overwhelming costs/time to do so.

Would they sell a few MORE Tundras, Tacos, and 4Rs? Sure, but zippo compared to what would be cost effective. They know this.

Yes, I've owner a diesel - a car. Never again either.

You said "diesel is usually cheaper than gasoline at the pump". You can't be serious - or else you live in a very unusual place. You make me ask if YOU'VE ever owner one. F250SD work truck not withstanding.

I didn't say Toyota makes bad diesels. I said there is no USA market for one. Not the same.

 

[wfo9]

No engine maker has solved the direct injection issue yet, not even Mazda. They just try to minimize it by keeping the valves at 400F temp or above... which of course only works when the car is up to temperature. As it cools after shutoff, and as it warms up, the valves cake like any other carmarkers.

Even Toyota uses dual port injection in the 3.5L.

LOL. fear uncertainty and doubt. Powerful concepts.. but not based in reality. Direct injection is here to stay and is very reliable and trouble free overall and only getting better.

 

[Jetboy]

This always goes south. But consider the Toyota diesel in the Prado 150. It has 170hp and does 0-60 in 12 seconds. It would be the slowest car in America. Literally. The current slowest car is a Mitsubishi Mirage G4 that takes 10.9 seconds. The diesel Prado 150 is a full second slower to 60. My 1975 FJ40 did 0-60 in a bout 14 seconds when new. So you'd be right in the same ball park as an FJ40.

 

[wfo9]

Hi wfo9,

Thanks for bringing this up. I haven't read your thread on the turbocharge install you did for a while, but how is that new turbo serving you? Are you getting a big boost of power and torque from it?

Regarding the GM engine, I never reach 5600 rpm. I drive around 2000 rpm typically and occasionally hit 2500 rpm on a steep hill, when accelerating or running in 4th gear on an incline when either the trans auto shifts for me or I drop out of overdrive.

I don't try to drive the vehicle hard or accelerate fast. I have a soft foot on the gas pedal. Sometimes I drive 80 mph on California freeways but more likely it's 75 or less.

I like the T4R drive train. It serves me well for off-roading and freeway driving. When I bought it I was looking for efficiency, reliability and resale value. I also looked at initial cost compared to the Jeep Wrangler and Lexus LX460. I tried to judge power by perceived acceleration on the test drive as well as the manufacturer's listed HP and Torque. I looked at the Jeep Wrangler for comparison. Both cars were similar in these aspects. If the T4R increased it's initial cost by $5k for turbo drive or a diesel engine, I'd be looking more at the Jeep Wrangler - up to 2017 that is. The Jeep is changing now and costs more. Toyota needs to stay competitive with the Jeep and Lexus LX460 with a V8.

I don't have a turbo LOL. I have a supercharger. It is great.... and has served me very well so far.

I think the aftermarket will take care of those wanting more power from the 1grfe... This thread was more about the future of the 4r drivetrain in the next generation.

 

[Bumbo]

What's wrong with wanting Toyota's diesels??? They make a $#!+ of torque, great on gas mileage, they can be modded to make more power, and diesel is usually cheaper than gasoline at the pump.

Do you even know anything about Toyota diesels

It has nothing to do with the diesel motor, and it has everything to do with EPA and Emissions.

Between needing to fill "piss" / DEF Diesel Exhaust Fluid into a truck, and all the crap VW did with getting their Dirty Diesels to illegally pass emissions, I consider the modern Diesel dead in the US markets.

You want to make power with a diesel, you better know a dirty smog shop.

 

[MidnightOffRoad]

Honestly there's nothing wrong with the 4.0

Simply adding a 10R80 would do wonders both in terms of capability and economy.

With modern engine computing, they can skip gears (or not even use them) in certain situations.

This allows for all sorts of possibilities where a very high multiplication only is used in say 4H (or crawl mode) and imagine how great the fuel economy would be with 2 overdrives beyond the current ratio.

Not to mention the interim closeness that improves economy in/around city and stoplight driving.

 

[wfo9]

This always goes south. But consider the Toyota diesel in the Prado 150. It has 170hp and does 0-60 in 12 seconds. It would be the slowest car in America. Literally. The current slowest car is a Mitsubishi Mirage G4 that takes 10.9 seconds. The diesel Prado 150 is a full second slower to 60. My 1975 FJ40 did 0-60 in a bout 14 seconds when new. So you'd be right in the same ball park as an FJ40.

Exactly, people praise the little diesels without ever having driven one in the US where you may need to get up to 80mph quickly to merge into traffic. They fall on their face big time.


That is what sparked my interest in this new 2.7 truck turbo. It would feel like a small diesel in the low RPM, but actually make some respectable HP. I think it may be the right approach in the future for this platform.. But that is just one opinion.

On paper, there is quite a bit of merit to the engineering. Real world is obviously still to be proven.

 

[Bumbo]

The 2.8L diesel is 175HP. That’s kind of the problem with the US market, everyone thinks that’s small and not enough power. It’s amazing how people go anywhere in deepest darkest Africa with them without any power complaints.

If they need to merge onto a freeway with a bunch of other first class a$$holes at 60-80 MPH in the deepest darkest part of Africa while getting passed by a Prius then they might have some objections over there as well.

 

[wfo9]

While I get the OP's point on the empirical specifications of GM's announced turbo-4, I think the mission of the T4R needs to be considered when looking at the technology of GM's little engine.

Turbos, I do believe, generate heat when they are used to create power in a vehicle engine. When a T4R is off-road, it is generally operating a slow speeds and therefore there is less airflow moving to cool the turbo/intercoolers. Turbos and high-heat for long periods do not mix, therefore there is the question of reliability. I know this can be said for regular gasoline engines, I suppose, but turbos seem to be quite a bit more delicate in this respect.

The go anywhere (almost), do anything, good levels of comfort, and ultra-reliability mantra of the T4R means that there needs to be a significant amount of R&D before Toyota would risk their reputation.

While I'm no engineer, I'm curious if Toyota will just completely revamp the current 4.0L to eek more HP/Torque out of it. I do know the 3.5L in the current Tacoma is no marvel in that it uses all kinds of tech but makes no real gains in HP, and actually gives up some torque.

Or, Toyota could put the new turbo tech into the GX, and then move the 4.6L (updated a bit would be nice) into the T4R.

You should learn more about how turbos work. They don't generate heat to make power. They utilize wasted heat to drive the compressor on the exhaust side and concentrate heat like any other compressor on the compressor side. So when you are not trying to make significant power there is no extra heat being generated or concentrated. It runs just like a NA engine when not trying to make boost.

I understand most people don't get the physics behind forced induction or turbos.. But there is really nothing to fear if the engineering is done right. Things have come a long way since the early days. Both the engine management and mechanical improvements in the turbo systems themselves are significant.

There are reasons to stick with static displacement.... but I think forced induction gasoline engines very much has a place in the truck/SUV market going forward. Will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[DesertCanyons]

I don't have a turbo LOL. I have a supercharger. It is great.... and has served me very well so far.

I think the aftermarket will take care of those wanting more power from the 1grfe... This thread was more about the future of the 4r drivetrain in the next generation.

I'd love to see a supercharged 4.0 L in the next gen T4R. My objection to the Supercharger by Magnuson and the other one in beta testing now (forgot the name) is the added cost of premium gas and what if any reduction it may cause in fuel economy.

That's part of why I didn't buy the Lexus LX460. And I wasn't looking for an expensive luxury car full of fancy accessories that can fail, but that's another subject. :hand: I was looking for economy, reliability and a simple vehicle I could work on myself when I needed to.

 

[MidnightOffRoad]

Supercharging isn't as good for efficiency. It's great for making power and immediate torque (in a twin screw or roots type blower) but a turbo is better for efficiency and economy.

The solution would be a smaller motor with twins (to aid in quicker spooling) which is EXACTLY what Ford elected to do with their ecoboost line.

Toyota was already further ahead because their average fleet mpg was better and they just haven't had to pursue these types of things YET. It's almost as if their success in the economy arena makes them a second mover now.

Like I said earlier, a 4Runner doesn't need to be a drag car. It has too short of a wheel base to be a towing monster. There's nothing subpar other than the economy at this point.

The first (and easiest) solution that would go a LONG way would be an 8 or 10 speed auto. That would help both mpg AND pickup/0-60 times.

It would make the vehicle feel more spirited and help with both city and highway fuel economy.

The next major leap would be a small(er) motor (say a 2.8-3.2 liter) with twins. That would produce comparable hp and better torque than it currently has with the 4.0 naturally aspirated. Twins have gotten pretty darn good with response (although it'll never be as good as a bigger N/A motor).

A supercharger is going to help with power (and torque) but as pointed out, it's going to hurt economy.

Turbos use free energy from the exhaust to spin them up and charge the intake air. They're typical more expensive because you either have to do twins (or the lag is worse with a larger single blower) and you have a whole separate exhaust system, heat shielding, etc. But when done from the factory the costs are less impactful.

Ironically a single bigger turbo would be more economical, because they don't spool as quickly and they're rather pedestrian at lower rpms and don't "wake up" until you really intend to get on it.

But either way, charged intake air is going to require premium fuel. (supercharger or turbo) OR E-85. E-85 is actually "safer" than premium 93, but it contains 30% less energy and therefore reduces mile/gallon (but E-85 costs less so the offset is usually a wash).

 

[Bumbo]

You can’t ask for a supercharger and then complain about it needing premium gas… it’s the equivalent of buying a supercar and wishing the right tires didn't cost $500 each.

This is why things like this will never come to exist in a production market… the voice of the economy conscious buyers and the need for Toyota to keep their fleet MPG numbers under control is too strong.

Your dream of a supercharged 4.0 will be met with a cripple tuned 3.5L and a built in rear vacuumed as equipped standard for the children because the 4Runner is basically the baby carrier chariot for the new generation of young adults that won’t buy a minivan

 

[philsey]

I seriously doubt I'll be sorry I bought a 2018.

 

[PeoplecallmeIan]

I personally would love that kind of combo. Just as long as it has the reliability and longevity as the 4.0 i'd totally be on board.

Also based on the comments, most people didn't watch the whole video. Thing that people didn't mention is that the motor would be able to run on regular octane, torque comes in at 1500 RPM, the other cool stuff about turning on/off cylinders. Anyway, it's cool and the right step towards the future of trucks. I just wish Toyota would pay a little more attention to this segment of their fleet.

 

[Frasty]

If they need to merge onto a freeway with a bunch of other first class a$$holes at 60-80 MPH in the deepest darkest part of Africa while getting passed by a Prius then they might have some objections over there as well.

I grew up in South Africa where everyone drives 100-120mph bumper to bumper on the highway with small diesel engines just fine. There's this little thing called torque....

 

[Bumbo]

Sounds like a relaxing commute… You and I must have very different ideas of “just fine”

 

[wfo9]

I grew up in South Africa where everyone drives 100-120mph bumper to bumper on the highway with small diesel engines just fine. There's this little thing called torque....

A 175HP is not enough to go 120mph in these trucks. You can't argue with physics. HP is not some mystery measurement. It's simply torque as it relates to speed. Lots of torque feels good at low RPM, but if you can't make some HP you won't go anywhere fast. Diesels suffer from an extremely slow burn rate and a lot of big heavy slow moving internals and a long stroke. It requires a big diesel with a crap ton of boost (like 90psi) to make significant HP. At that point there is so much unburnt fuel that it would clog up a DPF (required by the EPA) in minutes. Diesels have many applications, but they don't have a great future in the US for non dedicated tow vehicles and heavy equipment. They produce too much pollution. Simple as that.. And the counter measures clog up quickly and are very problematic (especially at extremely high output). Diesels work best with all the emissions crap at a steady load (not too high,,, not to light)

The future (long term) for passenger cars and light trucks is engines that are petrol but run with diesel like compression ignition for extreme efficiency. For now, it will most likely be petrol gas engines that offer extremely flat torque curves that don't fall off at RPM like a diesel of similar displacement.

 

[83Mule]

I agree with WFO.....the Chevy, on paper, is impressive and would make a decent powerplant for a 4Runner. I would rather see a 4.0 with revised heads and a six speed. If they could get 25 or 30 horse and more torque lower in the rev range....AND get 2 or 3 mpg I would be stoked. Toyota....you have a 2.7 block to play with............