2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

Allen found these unused words:

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!]

Sir F. A. Rien wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

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

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.

If you know the gear ratios you can probably deduce what's needed in the manual model.

How do you eyeball grade percentage?

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.

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:

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.....

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.

"First of One" wrote in news:pKydnWjQ6va5d7_RnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

It looks like that poster was complaining about cruise control causing over-revving in those situations. I don't think the 2.7L 4x4 comes with an auto in any case. I usually get grade info from downhill semi-truck warning signs, e.g. I-80 in the Sierra (CA).

Interesting. I hadn't given much thought to flywheel vs. usable torque vs. other makes, and they say the Toyota does well in that area. As to my original question, it looks like I'll have to go with instinct unless I can get a lengthy test drive.

Allen

SnoBrdr wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Since you seem to own the truck in question (even heavier than the regular cab I'm looking at), how badly does it "struggle" on grades? What gear must it use (manual or auto?) to hold 70 MPH on a 6% grade, etc. I'm looking for as many details as possible; the Devil being therein.

It's impossible to get a long enough test drive to reach the mountains where I am, plus the lack of break-in wouldn't do it full justice.

I'm trying to avoid buying a new 2.7L 4x4 just to find out my non-VVT '96

4x4 has a more usable power/weight ratio. I may end up keeping this '96, but it's been 14 years and seems like time for a change with all the improvements in other areas, like better bed design and oil filter now on top of the engine.

BTW, my '96 still has the original clutch with over 220k miles. Its 2.7L has been very trouble-free, so I trust the basic engine design. Maybe if I wait another few years they'll finally put a clean diesel in a U.S. Tacoma. That would be ideal for torque & MPG.

Allen

"First of One" wrote in news:pKydnWjQ6va5d7_RnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Good point. Usenet seems to be a spotty proposition for serious advice since the Web has taken over. I don't know how many people actually read Usenet vs. its heyday in the 90s. It got started as a science-exchange forum, but it's been dumbed down like the rest of the Net (no offense to anyone here, but you know what I mean). Threads in general tend to veer away from the main question asked.

Allen

What you are asking for is very specific. Regular cab 4x4 isn't all that common in many parts of the country. The dealers in my city are all stuffed with double cab long-bed models, for example. It may still be challenging to get a specific answer in TacomaWorld.