Moving from 2nd Gen to 3rd...what to know

MPG has only gotten better the longer I’ve had my 3rd Gen, even with E Rated KO2’s if I drive appropriately I can still hit the EPA numbers no problem.

The 3rd Gen has been an overwhelming success and for better or worse has become an instagram icon, so Toyota’s design philosophy must’ve been at least kinda okay a little bit. Throw a dozen USB ports in the back seat and maybe we can get the car magazines on board too.

 

Sure, just like my wife’s Venza. Cause that’s what it is.

 

Just like corollas and mini vans.

 

I’m not sure I really understand this whole “4.0 is truck motor, 3.5 is a minivan motor” thing. If you’ve ever towed with a decent size V8 then you know as far as ULTRA BADASS TORQUE TOW MY CAMPER UP THE SIDE OF A CLIFF ARGHHHHH they may as well both be minivan motors. But they both tow small trailers, boats etc like champs, so I’m not sure what the big deal is.

 

Ya compared to the Cummins, powerstrokes, and dmax I had in the past they tow like shit compared to those trucks. For a midsize they they do their job, and do it pretty damn good.

 

After looking at the engine's output graph for the 3.5L and 4.0L, I seriously wonder if what people really don't like about the 3.5L is the gearing and shift logic. I don't have enough experience to make a good comparison though. I feel like someone who has owned both at the same time would probably be the best comparison source.

 

Just get a 20 and be happy for the next decade or so. A lot of folks here are being hard on the TW forum, but honestly it's like any forum you just need to sort through it all...and it has been a great resource of info and comedy for that matter. I went with the '18 TRD OR based on the quicksand color.

 

Not doubting you of all people in the slightest, but I gotta ask what your source for this graph is. I have it on good authority that the 3.5 is a minivan motor and the 4.0 makes better than 20% more torque at 2k RPM.

And to answer your question Jeff, it's the throttle mapping. It is very fuzzy on the 3.5 where the 4.0 was much more linear. In my FJ it was anyways.

 

try driving with the ECT button on all the time.......

 

I did for 2 weeks. I don't have any scientific measurements to give you, but literally none of the "problems" of the 3rd gen have ever cropped up for me and I enjoy the drive of the '20 much better than my old '13. I have no idea what chip is on some people's shoulder over this. I'm glad I didn't let all the "horror" stories dissuade me from trying out the '19 and '20 before making my decision to buy one.

 

The data in the graph is from Toyota documentation. I tried to find dyno graphs to compare the data to and it seems consistent with what I could find. Important caveat being that it's very rare to find any dyno data in the lower engine speed ranges. I couldn't find any dynos below about 2300rpm.

The 2GR-FKS is offered in three distinct varieties from Toyota: FF, FR (passenger, also known as the 8GR-FKS in some markets), and FR (commercial, also known as the 7GR-FKS in some markets). The torque curves for each are somewhat similar (they are basically the same engine after all), however both mechanical and tuning differences result in very different torque curves between them.

To illustrate the differences, at 2000 rpm the approximate torque output for each is as follows:

2GR-FKS (FF): 218 lbf-ft
2GR-FKS (Passenger FR): 255 lbf-ft
2GR-FKS (Commercial FR): 248 lbf-ft

The FF version is used in vehicles like the Avalon, Camry, Highlander, Sienna, ES350, and RX350.
The Passenger FR version is used in vehicles like the IS350, GS350, LS350, and RC350.
The Commercial FR version is used in vehicles like the HiAce, Land Cruiser Prado, and Tacoma.

So the question: how much force is pushing you forward at 2000rpm between the 3.5L and 4.0L in the Tacoma. You're going to feel it most in 1st gear from a dig, so let's start there. According to the torque curve from Toyota, at 2000rpm the 1GR-FE makes 235 lbf-ft. I don't know drivetrain losses so they will be ignored for all cases. Vehicle weight is from a base model DCSB 4WD in all cases.

2015 Tacoma 4.0L 5AT
1st: 3.520:1
Final: 3.727:1
Tire Radius: 1.27 ft
Weight: 4195 lbf
Output Torque = 235 * 3.520 * 3.727 = 3083 lbf-ft
Forward Force = 3083 / 1.27 = 2428 lbf
Acceleration = 2428 / 4195 * 32.2 = 18.6 ft/s^2

2016 Tacoma 3.5L 6AT
1st: 3.600:1
Final: 3.909:1
Tire Radius: 1.27 ft
Weight: 4425 lbf
Output Torque = 248 * 3.600 * 3.909 = 3489 lbf-ft
Forward Force = 3489 / 1.27 = 2748 lbf
Acceleration = 2748 / 4425 * 32.2 = 20.0 ft/s^2

Based on some other calculations I ran on acceleration times and the power needed, these seem consistent with the 3.5L being able to run 0-60mph about 0.7s faster than the 4.0L in testing.

But again, my real life experience is pretty limited, so take this for what it's worth.

Jeff

 

One comment on point, the FJ shows it makes more torque quicker than the Tacoma's tune. In fact the FJ's torque curve after the revised SAE J1349 testing procedure actually looks very similar to the Tacoma/Tundra curve from before the revised testing. There were differences in the octane requirement as well.

(All that said, from what I've seen, the Tacoma 4.0L does seem to dyno a bit more than what these curves are showing from Toyota).

Tacoma/Tundra before J1349:


Tacoma/Tundra after J1349:


FJ Cruiser after J1349:

 

The 16 and 17s had the majority of the transmission complaints. Toyota retuned in 18 and again in 20. 2020 also got power/adjustable seats and apple play

 

Thanks for this Jeff,

Mat from OVtune has stated (IIRC) that the OEM calibration for the 2GR-FKS in the Tacoma limits torque in the low end. It's really apparent from 1000-2000 in the M/T at least.
If you run one of his FOB tunes, the difference is right in your face lol.
There will be people who flame this post, so be it.

 

Impressive. But I have yet to find any real life head to head where the 4.0 did not beat the 3.5 0-60.

Just like Ford’s attempt at milage gain by using a turbo, smaller engines under load gain little to no mileage. And , working under load is what truck engines are all about. You want to strictly commute with a 3.5 Taco. Fine, like a Venza and minivan, they’re fine and one of the most economical motors in its class, albeit the SLOWEST among the mid trucks.

Even CR which makes a living dumping on Toyota trucks decried the most redeeming feature of the 2015 and before models was the engine performance. That did a turnabout since in their tests of the new model.

 

The farther we get from it’s intro in the 2016, the greater the improvements in performance. That should be expected. But, we’re now four years out.

 

2017 here. Zero transmission issues. I have had a 1992 toyota pick up, one first gen, 3 2nd gens & one 3rd gen. This last one is by far the best one in every aspect. (Most of the guys complaining about the 3rd gen because it has a minivan motor, the don't even own one) I have zero complaints with my taco, maybe I'm not as picky as other members here, but I sure love my minivan engine.

 

Good points. But toyota could have easily put manual adjustable height in their seats like they have in the RAV le, a decade ago. It’s not rocket science and it doesn’t have to be problematic power seats. It’s a head scratcher why Toyota omits such Little but important items.

 

Well, let’s see. The Rav Prime has 300 plus HP and the regular Hybrid is selling so fast they’re cutting deals now on the straight gas motor models. Toyota has so much experience with hybrids, it could easily find its way into trucks. The feeble attempts by others will imedialy be left behind. The 3.5 will then be used in a different roll as a generator motor. That’s fine.electric motors are the ultimate drive motors. They’ve been an instant success for the RAV.

 

Did some research and reading on the Prime Rav 4 tonight. Pretty impressive.