This is the engine the 4runner needs

[WallyT4R]

The EPA and government taxes on diesel fuel have made sure the diesel in the USA has a limited market. It's sad cuz the diesel is a truly great engine, the fuel is cheaper to make, and diesels (outside of the US) are more efficient than gas engines.

And the next 4Runner drivetrain here will be of the hybrid variety. STAMP IT!

 

[MatraBlue]

How many of those names haven't been bankrupt in the past 10 years?

All of the non US based ones!

 

[83Mule]

There is something inherently wrong with the Toyota 4.0 IMO. My Chevy Express 4.8 3/4 ton gets the same mpg with a thousand pounds in it! My 5.9 Durango 4x4 with a lift and tires gets the same mpg! The 4 liter is a fairly new design compared to the 1968 design in my Dodge! Other similar motors to the Toyota get better mileage too. I just wonder what in the layout or tune is killing the mpg so badly? I am not unhappy with the power, it is OK and my 3.slow '89 4Runner got the same 15 mpg as my '16 4Runner does while barely getting out of it's own exhaust so progress has been made but it just seems it SHOULD produce better numbers so where is the culprit? The exhaust system is one of the more restricted I have ever seen, so I wonder if it is something simple that is dictated by the EPA restrictions or just the architecture of the heads. I definitely think making all the swinging panels from aluminum on the next one would help as cutting 3 to 400 pounds would boost mpg and performance. (of course we will just pile them back on with goodies but HEY!):noidea:

 

[fgeorge098]

Do we know what vehicles this engine will be in?

 

[philsey]

Do we know what vehicles this engine will be in?

It's in the Highlander as we speak.

 

[philsey]

There is something inherently wrong with the Toyota 4.0 IMO. My Chevy Express 4.8 3/4 ton gets the same mpg with a thousand pounds in it! My 5.9 Durango 4x4 with a lift and tires gets the same mpg! The 4 liter is a fairly new design compared to the 1968 design in my Dodge! Other similar motors to the Toyota get better mileage too. I just wonder what in the layout or tune is killing the mpg so badly? I am not unhappy with the power, it is OK and my 3.slow '89 4Runner got the same 15 mpg as my '16 4Runner does while barely getting out of it's own exhaust so progress has been made but it just seems it SHOULD produce better numbers so where is the culprit? The exhaust system is one of the more restricted I have ever seen, so I wonder if it is something simple that is dictated by the EPA restrictions or just the architecture of the heads. I definitely think making all the swinging panels from aluminum on the next one would help as cutting 3 to 400 pounds would boost mpg and performance. (of course we will just pile them back on with goodies but HEY!):noidea:

This is a great question! I hope some knowledge motor-heads chime in.

 

[Jetboy]

All of the non US based ones!

Mercedes quit selling diesels in the USA. So did VW. So you can wipe those off the top. Then there currently are only 13 diesel vehicles sold in about 35 configurations that are not HD trucks. Of those all are sold by GM, FCA, BMW, and Tata. GM and FCA were bankrupt in the past decade. BMW had to ask use about $7billion in USA aid to stay solvent. Tata is the only one who didn't need a bailout and they bought Jag/LR to bail Ford out - but are still using the Ford diesel engine in the LR/Jag products. Not a single one of the engines in any of those models are known for reliability or durability, nor are any of the vehicles they come in.

Is that a track record of success you think Toyota should follow? There's a reason Toyota is successful. Chasing the flavor of the month is not it.

 

[MidnightOffRoad]

This is a great question! I hope some knowledge motor-heads chime in.

It's just aged technology.

Just like Dodge. Mopar heads look at the Demon and go "oooohhh, 800 hp" but the reality is, 800 hp from a blown 360 cubic inch motor on RACE FUEL is nothing sexy or special. In fact, it's where the aftermarket/race crowd was 30 years ago. The engine is bloated and inefficient and the car by enlarge is a pig (weighing in a well over 2 tons).

Compare and contrast to the voodoo engine in my Ford that makes 526 hp without a blower or race fuel on a whopping 318 cubic inches.

Newer tech allows engines to do several things.

1) Air/Fuel mapping and spark are CONSTANTLY updated to maximize engine output for the given situation, which takes into account throttle position, intake air temps, rpm, etc to run the spark out to the maximum/optimal advance. It's able to do this by basically bouncing off the knock sensor. It runs the timing advance all the way out until it encounters knock and then pulls the timing back slightly. This optimizes hp/tq and basically makes the engine a constantly updating "tune" like having your own little dyno tuner riding along with you. In fact, my car has to "learn" the tune after being driven for some time after the parameters are tweaked.

2) Modern internals and component parts help engines rev higher. More RPM's (when combined with proper intake) means more power. The intakes now are crafty and able to adjust runner length again, optimizing based upon the driving conditions.

3) Variable cam timing allows the engine to adjust cam parameters based again, upon other inputs. So down low, where classic "lopey cams" would create a rough idle, the engine can adjust the cam overlap and duration to make for a smooth engine run. Then, as rpms increase it can increase the overlap and duration to behave like a high performance cam. This is essentially the best of both worlds as you get the high hp of a race type cam, but the engine idling of a stock/oem type cam. Guys even run a "cam tune" that simulates the lopey idle of an old school race came (which artificially turns off the feature at idle, ironically making the engine less optimal, but it sounds cool).

Newer developments are even coming about with variable stroke length. This will allow the engine to have a long stroke (for torque) or a very short stroke (for high revving and hp).

All this stuff is great, but it's disrupted technology. In 20 years, combustion engines are probably going to be the minority as electric engines solve the issues of range and recharge time (and lower costs due to improved manufacturing, batteries,) and weight.

Bottom line is that Toyota is living off some obsolete tech and they can do this because as I've posted before, fuel has remained relatively cheap and will continue to do so for a long time. Toyota doesn't care as much about power output numbers because their vehicles aren't competing in those segments. "just enough" is the mantra for Toyota and power. And as far as economy goes, again, they were once class leading, but are now just competitive and don't have to invest in new tech as long as fuel stays cheap.

Like I said in earlier posts, I think Toyota will field a new trans before they adopt a whole new engine platform. And if they're SMART, they're probably working on electric and hybrid tech and not dumping money into a dying internal combustion powertrain.

 

[Jetboy]

This is a great question! I hope some knowledge motor-heads chime in.

A 5.9 durango doesn't get the same mileage as a 4runner. My 4runner on 34" tires still gets 17 on the dash and about 19 corrected for tire size. A 5.9 Durango was epa rated under the old system at 12/17. That would be more like 11/15 in the new ratings. The 4runner is 17/21. It's easily 5mpg better - roughly 25% more fuel efficient. A stock 4runner has no trouble at all getting 20mpg in normal use. A 4runner also has more power and is faster than a 5.9 Durango. The 5.9 Durango only had 245hp and did 0-60 in 8.3 seconds. The 4runner is also 4 inches wider, weighs more, has taller tires stock, has much larger brakes, etc. All of which hurt mileage. For example a 3" lift on a durango still only fits the stock size tire that comes on a 4runner.

Also there's the whole reliability thing. The owner of a still running 5.9 durango must be a hell of a good mechanic. There's a reason you never see them around and a reason that there's a bunch of 4runners still around. And probably the same reason the Durango became a minivan compared to the 4runner that's still a truck with extra seats.

 

[wfo9]

There is something inherently wrong with the Toyota 4.0 IMO. My Chevy Express 4.8 3/4 ton gets the same mpg with a thousand pounds in it! My 5.9 Durango 4x4 with a lift and tires gets the same mpg! The 4 liter is a fairly new design compared to the 1968 design in my Dodge! Other similar motors to the Toyota get better mileage too. I just wonder what in the layout or tune is killing the mpg so badly? I am not unhappy with the power, it is OK and my 3.slow '89 4Runner got the same 15 mpg as my '16 4Runner does while barely getting out of it's own exhaust so progress has been made but it just seems it SHOULD produce better numbers so where is the culprit? The exhaust system is one of the more restricted I have ever seen, so I wonder if it is something simple that is dictated by the EPA restrictions or just the architecture of the heads. I definitely think making all the swinging panels from aluminum on the next one would help as cutting 3 to 400 pounds would boost mpg and performance. (of course we will just pile them back on with goodies but HEY!):noidea:

It's really hard to say. It is definitely not an efficient motor by any stretch of the imagination. Part is the tune, part is the trans, part is the exhaust, part is unrelated to the motor and more the aerodynamics of the vehicle itself. It clearly has potential and will sing really nice at times, but it is simply not balanced out or calibrated correctly. It has a very punchy power-band from the factory in the dual VVTi version. The single VVTi version had less power but a much better feel on the road, but it was also not efficient in terms of MPG.

I go back to the fact that it is simply not a priority for Toyota in their truck market. They focus on durability over all else.. Probably a good thing for a truck. But can be a bit frustrating too.

If you step back and think about Toyota as a whole.. They are like the responsible company run by adults who are strictly in business to make money in a responsible way. They don't do anything exciting at all. They have no desire to push limits. And it seems to be a formula that has worked up to this point (although the new Tacoma may be the start of different pattern). It's the modern 3slow for them, but the difference now is the competition. They have also done a good job with marketing.

It's an interesting tipping point for Toyota in the domestic truck market. Everyone is coming at the mid sized market now with guns blazing... It will be really interesting to see how they respond and if the old formula keeps working for them. My gut feeling is they will be pushed out of the market based on recent patterns (Tacoma...), but they could totally end up winning in the end. They clearly have some very redeeming qualities, but will it be crushed by the wave and excitement of the competition. In the end, I think it will be good for consumers in the segment.

 

[Jetboy]

My guess is that Toyota looks at all the new competition, sits back and says "yep - we've seen this before." When the competitors are driven by quarterly earning reports, Toyota knows that quality will not be part of the product mix. So they also know that long term the Ford/GM/FCA products will be the same as they ever were. Jeeps with frame that were welded without sheild gas (the new JLs have some very serious welding problems), GM interiors that fall apart, diesels that won't start, etc. It's already showing up. Toyota plays the long game. GM, FCA, and Ford have different incentives for short term profit. If they want to - Toyota can simply buy Ford. They have enough cash on hand to do it without even going to the market for capital. My bet is that they'll continue to buy more Subaru and at some point buy Tesla once it hits rock bottom. The future is Prius, not Tundra.

Incidentally I did get a letter yesterday to joint a focus group on designing the new 4runner. Anyone else get it? Its from market research firm called Morpace. Not sure if it's legit or not. It's time to be developing the 7th gen 4runner, not the 6th gen. The 6th gen should be all but completed in most meaningful design choices if it's going to be produced in 2020ish.

 

[wfo9]

And if they're SMART, they're probably working on electric and hybrid tech and not dumping money into a dying internal combustion powertrain.

Granted that tech is important in the auto industry as a whole, but I just don't see it being mainstream in the truck market.

Towing, go anywhere... are truck like things that I just can't see electrics or hybrids being mainstream in anytime soon. I could be wrong, but the added complexity is just not worth the squeeze in a real truck. Crossover type vehicles... sure. Some minor hybrid assist stop/start.. sure. But real hybrid electric.. just don't see it myself.

 

[Pathfinder!]

There is something inherently wrong with the Toyota 4.0 IMO. My Chevy Express 4.8 3/4 ton gets the same mpg with a thousand pounds in it! My 5.9 Durango 4x4 with a lift and tires gets the same mpg! The 4 liter is a fairly new design compared to the 1968 design in my Dodge! Other similar motors to the Toyota get better mileage too. I just wonder what in the layout or tune is killing the mpg so badly? I am not unhappy with the power, it is OK and my 3.slow '89 4Runner got the same 15 mpg as my '16 4Runner does while barely getting out of it's own exhaust so progress has been made but it just seems it SHOULD produce better numbers so where is the culprit? The exhaust system is one of the more restricted I have ever seen, so I wonder if it is something simple that is dictated by the EPA restrictions or just the architecture of the heads. I definitely think making all the swinging panels from aluminum on the next one would help as cutting 3 to 400 pounds would boost mpg and performance. (of course we will just pile them back on with goodies but HEY!):noidea:

I'm curious how exactly you are only getting 15mpg out of your 4runner. The only time I've gotten that bad of gas mileage is when I've been towing a trailer and had a couple hundred lbs of stuff strapped to the roof.

 

[Frasty]

Mercedes quit selling diesels in the USA. So did VW. So you can wipe those off the top. Then there currently are only 13 diesel vehicles sold in about 35 configurations that are not HD trucks. Of those all are sold by GM, FCA, BMW, and Tata. GM and FCA were bankrupt in the past decade. BMW had to ask use about $7billion in USA aid to stay solvent. Tata is the only one who didn't need a bailout and they bought Jag/LR to bail Ford out - but are still using the Ford diesel engine in the LR/Jag products. Not a single one of the engines in any of those models are known for reliability or durability, nor are any of the vehicles they come in.

Is that a track record of success you think Toyota should follow? There's a reason Toyota is successful. Chasing the flavor of the month is not it.

VW scamming the system and ruining market perception on diesels doesn't mean diesels weren't profitable for every manufacturer. Mercedes is still making a fortune supporting diesels anyway. A friend of mine is a service advisor for Mercedes in my small city of 300,000 people, he says he rings through $25,000 a day on his till alone and there are two tills.

The diesel I had in my 2016 RRS was fantastic. 3L engine, 254hp and 440 lb-ft torque, 8-speed ZF trans. Curb weight of 5500lbs which is heavier than the 4Runner. Real world fuel economy was 23.5mpg in the city, saw 42mpg on the highway driving like a non-idiot. I drove like a mad man for 7 and a half hours through the hills/mountains on one trip and got 30.55mpg. I got rid of the RRS for many other issues but the engine was not one of them. I would absolutely love an engine and trans like that in a 4Runner any day.

 

[MidnightOffRoad]

Granted that tech is important in the auto industry as a whole, but I just don't see it being mainstream in the truck market.

Towing, go anywhere... are truck like things that I just can't see electrics or hybrids being mainstream in anytime soon. I could be wrong, but the added complexity is just not worth the squeeze in a real truck. Crossover type vehicles... sure. Some minor hybrid assist stop/start.. sure. But real hybrid electric.. just don't see it myself.

Electric motors is a disruptive technology.

There are MBA examples of this, but the classic example is the telephone. When the telephone first came about, telegraph had a range of 30 miles+, while the telephone only had a range of a couple of blocks. No one wanted it when Bell first started, and only a couple of businesses that had office buildings close together bought in. Over time, as the capabilities improved, it "displaced" the previous old technology and pushed it out the door.

Electric motors (in vehicles) is the same. Outside of some NEWER disruptive tech, in a couple decades everything will be electric. Including tractor trailers, etc, etc. And yes that includes "off road" and towing/utility vehicles.

The problems with electric motors (for now) are:
1) Cost, which is improving by leaps and bounds for multiple reasons, scale, experience, competition, etc, etc.
2) Range. This is generally the biggest detractor and it too has improved SUBSTANTIALLY since the tech first emerged. Soon, vehicles will not only surpass the traditional ranges drivers have come to expect (on a 25 gallon or less tank, or even a truck with 2 tanks) but may in the future SURPASS the ranges we think are necessary now. Who knows, at some point we might see vehicles that run for thousands of miles before the driver needs to recharge/refuel them.
3) Weight. Obviously you can create a battery that lasts a long time and provides the requisite power to go fast and have long range, but the challenge is weight and volume. And THAT has improved as well.
4) Safety, despite the campaigns by the energy companies and auto companies, safety will be addressed and who knows, in the future, electric cars might be even safer than all the accidents associated with the entire combustible engine value stream.

The advantages that e motors already have over internal combustion are here.
Theoretically limitless power and torque, instant power and torque, quiet (mufflers? Who needs a muffler?)

Hell, all this stuff is coming, at an accelerated rate. In 50 years, people may not even be driving cars. We may all get picked up by autopiloted drones to go everywhere and land based travel may be a relic.

Just like e motor technology, driverless cars are going to take over as well. I envision that the only people who will be able to "drive" will be the wealthy. Everyone else will ride buses and transports and cars that are all managed by centralized computing that all but eliminates vehicle accidents, reduces traffic congestion, optimizes group routes and pickups/drop-offs, etc.

The bottom line is that we're seeing "disruptive" technologies that are going to continue and eventually push the old world out the door (just like the auto did to horses and steam engines).

 

[Jetboy]

Mercedes is still making a fortune supporting diesels anyway. A friend of mine is a service advisor for Mercedes in my small city of 300,000 people, he says he rings through $25,000 a day on his till alone and there are two tills.

This is exactly why.

Both why Toyota sells more of individual models than Mercedes sells its entire lineup of cars. And why diesels are not popular. First Mercedes manufactures shitty cars. I will not own another unless it's a unimog. And diesel small engines that meet USA emissions standards have generally not been very reliable. Mostly because they've almost universally from the low quality brands who need something different to compete. That's why you only see them from Land Rover, Mercedes, BMW, etc. Those brands simply can't go head to head with Toyota, Subaru, Honda, etc. So they pick up scraps on the margins where they can. Both at the high end and the low end of the market. They don't play in the middle.

Your RR is a perfect example. It is not a competitor in with the 4runner. It's much closer to an RX350 in performance and unibody crossover design. An RX350 would get pretty close in mileage with a simple NA 3.5L gas engine, but with far better reliability. Lower overall fuel cost because gas is cheaper. And has more power too and is faster. And the hybrid version actually has a LOT more torque than the RR diesel. The electric drive system alone has 349ft/lbs plus the gas engine has another 275. How much you can use is a matter of software, but the hybrid drive train has a lot more torque and hp available. The diesel RR is an interesting product. But it's a fringe market that isn't worth the effort to go after for Toyota. Why would Toyota produce a vehicle with worse performance, lower fuel economy, and less power?

 

[Soupbean]

Resurrect the 22-RE

In the ‘80s and early ‘90s I had the pleasure of owning and driving four different Toyota pickups with 22-R motors, all with 5 speed manuals. Two of them carbureted, two of them with injection. The Toyota pickups were smaller and lighter than the Tacoma’s of today, but in that platform it was the perfect motor.
Great low end torque from the carbureted engines, the injected motor didn’t seem as torquey at low rpms but was a smother running engine. The 22-R as we all know had iconic reliability.
Straight 4’s, 6’s and 8 cylinder gas motors can be built into very reliable torque motors. Do a modern straight 6 of 4.0 liters overbored with an 8 or 10 speed auto. Or better yet, an 8 cylinder straight with the same transmission.

 

[northcoast]

Serious question, and I don't know the answer, if there even is one:

Living in West Virginia, there are lots of hills and and associated roads that demand power from the vehicle. For example, the on-ramp to the highway I use every day is probably a tenth of a mile long on a decent incline, and the incline continues after the merge. The highway is set for a 65 mph speed limit, and if I keep the RPMs around 3k and leave it in 4th, that's pretty much the speed I'm at as I merge.

In situations like this where there I'm asking a fair amount out of my power train on a daily basis (this is just an example of many), what would be better... maximizing output out of smaller displacement engines, or the fewer-moving-parts gas-hog larger displacement engine? This is in terms of an overall durability standpoint.

 

[MSRP.]

This is exactly why.

Both why Toyota sells more of individual models than Mercedes sells its entire lineup of cars. And why diesels are not popular. First Mercedes manufactures shitty cars. I will not own another unless it's a unimog. And diesel small engines that meet USA emissions standards have generally not been very reliable. Mostly because they've almost universally from the low quality brands who need something different to compete. That's why you only see them from Land Rover, Mercedes, BMW, etc. Those brands simply can't go head to head with Toyota, Subaru, Honda, etc. So they pick up scraps on the margins where they can. Both at the high end and the low end of the market. They don't play in the middle.

Your RR is a perfect example. It is not a competitor in with the 4runner. It's much closer to an RX350 in performance and unibody crossover design. An RX350 would get pretty close in mileage with a simple NA 3.5L gas engine, but with far better reliability. Lower overall fuel cost because gas is cheaper. And has more power too. The diesel RR is an interesting product. But it's a fringe market that isn't worth the effort to go after for Toyota.

It is a shame that Toyota pulled out of Formula 1 when they did.
Had they stayed in and developed a hybrid system like they currently use to supplement their v6's, you would have eventually seen the tech trickle down through their lineup like you see the hypercar mills of Mclaren/Ferrari and now, Mercedes.

AMG announced their "AMG 53" lineup that offers similar performance to their turbo v8's from a turbo inline 6 cylinder assisted with an electric motor and battery. The latter providing a mere 21hp, but wooping 184 ft/lbs!

Sure, the AMG is using the electric motors to "torque fill" and provide instant response while the turbo is spooling up, but I can see it repurposed for a truck. Utilize the electric motors during stop/go and moving the truck up to say 20-30mph, where the regular v6 will then kick in for higher speeds and highways.

Give the v6 folks the torque that they lust for, while also maintaining reliability. Turbos and long term reliability do not exist in the same sentence. I assume the Highlander Hybrid is exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm no engineer, so I doubt it can be slapped on to a 4runner without some major redesign, but here's to hoping that tech will eventually enter the 4R.

 

[sn_85]

I think [MENTION=106176]wfo9[/MENTION] brings up a good point. All the Toyota trucks/SUVs are running long in the tooth. The Land Cruiser barely sells (here), The Sequoia is the same, the Tundra is still running a 11 year old drive train that nets 13/17mpg, and the 4Runner is aging. I think the next 2-3 years are critical for Toyota to completely update their truck/suv models to stay competitive (or kill some of them *cough Sequoia) . The truck/suv segment is advancing fast and the competition is getting too strong for them to rest on their laurels which they have done so for a long time.

I don't think Toyota ever needs to be on the bleeding edge or forefront and risk their reputation and reliability but I do think they need to catch up and close the gap to stay competitive. I don't think they can wait 10 years for model or drivetrain refreshes anymore. They need to start doing refreshes every 7-8 years to stay within distance. Everyone can moan and complain about govt restrictions and the push towards more efficient vehicles but those regulations are here to stay and only going to get stricter. Toyota is going to have to advance and adapt to them, there's really no way around it. The next 2-3 years will be very interesting for Toyota.