2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s
in [Toyota Trucks]
|
Prev: OEM Toyota Parts Catalogs for Sale
Next: decision time
From: Allen on 23 Jun 2010 16:19 Does anyone who OWNS a regular cab 2005+ 4x4 Tacoma with the 2.7L four- cylinder find it to struggle on steep highway grades, i.e.. over 6%? I have a 1996 Tacoma 4x4 w/2.7L which does the job to my liking, though you have to use 4th or even 3rd in certain cases. I am specifically looking for info on the newer 4x4s, not the 4x2s, which should probably be fine with that engine. The 2.7L has been improved with VVT-i but looks to have a marginal power- to-weight ratio in the fatter, redesigned Tacoma 4x4 (which I think was an unwise design trend; they should have retained the leaner bodies for better performance with the VVT-i engines). Pre-2005 2.7L specs were 150 HP & 177 ft. lbs. and post-2005 specs are 159 HP & 180ft. lbs., which is a scant difference for a truck that's over 300 pounds heavier with bigger stock tires and a wider wind profile. Unless the 2.7L VVT-i has breathing properties that don't show on paper, the 2005+ Tacomas in this configuration would seem to be weaker on steep grades at typical highway speeds. True or false? What gear is needed to hold 70 MPH on a 6% grade, etc? I like the 2.7L in general and it's been ultra-reliable with up to 24MPG highway in a 4x4. I don't tow trailers and prefer the smallest, simplest engine that isn't grossly underpowered. I did a test drive but couldn't get to a hwy situation where I could check this myself, plus the engine wouldn't have been broken in yet. Thanks for any info from 2.7L 4x4 owners who've actually driven in the mountains. Specific examples of roads & grades would be welcome. Allen
From: Allen on 23 Jun 2010 23:25 Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc(a)gbr.online.com> wrote in news:650526hvlrodlh4tft6ia9n9v2cp78936d(a)4ax.com: > A small comparison, I have the 2002 Double Cab with the V-6, and even > that struggles a bit on the steeper grades. The tranny [auto only on > that model that year] shifts well down and revs go well up. When I > towed a light 16' camp trailer, I'd have to lock the over drive off, > even with the tow setting engaged and sometimes go to 2nd to keep the > engine from lugging. > > Examples are the mountains of Nevada, California and Washington, > particularly the 'back' roads over the Sierra and Cascades. > > I'm getting about 22 highway with 60K on the truck, so the V-6 isn't > that much worse than the 4 cylinder !!! [I'm also not a lead foot!] Thanks for the general info, but I'm mainly looking for a specific comparison between the pre and post 2005 2.7L. I prefer four-cylinder (chain cam drive) engines and the price is thousands lower. Also, the 2.7L is offered on a regular cab w/shortest wheelbase for better offroad clearance. I haven't seen the newer 4.0 V6 in anything but an extra or double cab and those are too bulky and hard to park. Part of this is a rant against Toyota's decision to super-size their trucks, especially the latest Tundra-whale. That truck looks fat for the sake of being fat. The newer 4.0L V6 is too thirsty when not under load, even if it might be temporarily more efficient on steep grades due to lower revs. Also, I'd be getting a 5-speed, never an automatic for the 2.7L. Allen
From: First of One on 24 Jun 2010 01:16 "Allen" <allen95737(a)isp.com> wrote in message news:OL-dnafSdcTI8b_RnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d(a)wavecable.com... > Does anyone who OWNS a regular cab 2005+ 4x4 Tacoma with the 2.7L four- > cylinder find it to struggle on steep highway grades, i.e.. over 6%? Don't own a 2.7L myself. You may get better responses in the TacomaWorld forum. This thread says 3rd gear is needed for the automatic model. http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-cylinder/97041-4-cyl-auto-cruise.html If you know the gear ratios you can probably deduce what's needed in the manual model. How do you eyeball grade percentage? > The 2.7L has been improved with VVT-i but looks to have a marginal power- > to-weight ratio in the fatter, redesigned Tacoma 4x4 (which I think was an > unwise design trend; they should have retained the leaner bodies for > better > performance with the VVT-i engines). I agree with you, though the general obese American public wants roomier vehicles. :-) The Nissan Frontier is about 300 lb heavier than a comparably equipped Tacoma. The Dakota is about 400 lb heavier. > Unless the 2.7L VVT-i has breathing properties that don't show on paper, > the 2005+ Tacomas in this configuration would seem to be weaker on steep > grades at typical highway speeds. True or false? What gear is needed to > hold 70 MPH on a 6% grade, etc? VVT-i theoretically should not increase peak power output at all. It alters valve timing to stay "near optimal" at other RPMs, so the torque curve is broader. According to this dyno graph on a 2006 2.7L, 83% of peak torque is available from 1500 rpm onwards. The power curve is linear. Very usable engine: http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-cylinder/57942-2-7l-dyno-results.html -- "War is the continuation of politics by other means. It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
From: Grip on 24 Jun 2010 11:12 On Jun 24, 1:16 am, "First of One" <r...(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: > "Allen" <allen95...(a)isp.com> wrote in message > > news:OL-dnafSdcTI8b_RnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d(a)wavecable.com... > > > Does anyone who OWNS a regular cab 2005+ 4x4 Tacoma with the 2.7L four- > > cylinder find it to struggle on steep highway grades, i.e.. over 6%? > > Don't own a 2.7L myself. You may get better responses in the TacomaWorld > forum. This thread says 3rd gear is needed for the automatic model.http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-cylinder/97041-4-cyl-auto-cruise.htmlIf > you know the gear ratios you can probably deduce what's needed in the manual > model. > > How do you eyeball grade percentage? > > > The 2.7L has been improved with VVT-i but looks to have a marginal power- > > to-weight ratio in the fatter, redesigned Tacoma 4x4 (which I think was an > > unwise design trend; they should have retained the leaner bodies for > > better > > performance with the VVT-i engines). > > I agree with you, though the general obese American public wants roomier > vehicles. :-) The Nissan Frontier is about 300 lb heavier than a comparably > equipped Tacoma. The Dakota is about 400 lb heavier. > > > Unless the 2.7L VVT-i has breathing properties that don't show on paper, > > the 2005+ Tacomas in this configuration would seem to be weaker on steep > > grades at typical highway speeds. True or false? What gear is needed to > > hold 70 MPH on a 6% grade, etc? > > VVT-i theoretically should not increase peak power output at all. It alters > valve timing to stay "near optimal" at other RPMs, so the torque curve is > broader. According to this dyno graph on a 2006 2.7L, 83% of peak torque is > available from 1500 rpm onwards. The power curve is linear. Very usable > engine:http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-cylinder/57942-2-7l-dyno-results.html > > -- > "War is the continuation of politics by other means. > It can therefore be said that politics is war without > bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." FWIW.....I had my beloved 98 Taco 3.4 L bought back by Toyota via the frame rust recall, and replaced it with the same, although now it's a 4L. I miss the smaller sized pickup but.....there is a huge difference between my 98 and 2010 performance wise, slightly better milage as well. I DID test drive a 2010 4 cyl, and compared to a 99 I drove a bunch, it had much better pickup as well. I'm getting used to the new size.....
From: SnoBrdr on 24 Jun 2010 14:55
Grip <mbetts(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Increase good or bad? I had a 2000, also bought back and got the 4x4 Ext Cab with the 2.7. It does struggle on grades as did the other. > >FWIW.....I had my beloved 98 Taco 3.4 L bought back by Toyota via the >frame rust recall, and replaced it with the same, although now it's a >4L. I miss the smaller sized pickup but.....there is a huge difference >between my 98 and 2010 performance wise, slightly better milage as >well. I DID test drive a 2010 4 cyl, and compared to a 99 I drove a >bunch, it had much better pickup as well. I'm getting used to the new >size..... |