1. Home
  2. Toyota Trucks
  3. New 2.7L Tacoma 4x4 too heavy for engine?

New 2.7L Tacoma 4x4 too heavy for engine?

Has anyone driven a 2005 Tacoma 4x4 regular cab with the 2.7L engine and compared it to older, smaller Tacomas? Local test drives won't let me go on highway grades where torque really counts. I'm not here to be sold on the gas-guzzling V6; I just want firsthand info on the 4's power since that model is more affordable and rated for 19/23 MPG. I have a '97 2.7L 4x4 reg cab now.

On paper it seems that the new engine, despite having 14 more hp and slightly more torque may be sluggish in a truck that's gained over 300 lbs and has 245 stock tires vs. the former 225s. Torque is my main concern since that's what maintains speed on long grades. I wish Toyota had kept the trucks "small" and given them the same vvt engines instead of trying to compete with Dodge Dakotas and other supposed American needs.

From Edmunds.com:
2005 Tacoma regular cab 2.7 MT: 3550 lbs (164 hp & 183 ft lbs) 1995-2004 Tacoma regular cab 2.7 MT: 3215 lbs (150 hp & 177 ft lbs)

The above info gives the following weight/horsepower & weight/torque ratios on paper. These ratings are often listed as power-to-weight but dividing the bigger # by the smaller seems more intuitive. A smaller number usually means better acceleration and more usable torque.

2005 Tacoma regular cab 4wd w/MT: 21.6 & 19.4 1995-2004 Tacoma regular cab 4wd w/MT: 21.4 & 18.2

Based on those calculations, the 2005 loses power in both categories. The new Tacoma is also spinning larger, heavier stock tires, which can't help. Does vvt technology make up for that in powerband traits, or has mindless upsizing ruined the potential of the 2.7L in 4wd trucks?

JT

Reply to
Jack Tyler
Loading thread data ...

I have 3 months/5k miles on my new 2005 2.7 5spd 4x4 ext cab SR5. I had a 91 2.4 5spd 2WD ext cab for 11 years which I loved but always thought was a dog! This new truck is no dog not even close!. Another ref. point, I traded in a 2000 Ranger 2wd ext cab 3.0 6cyl 5sp on this Tacoma. They are very similar in performance. I love the new size (similar to the Ranger) and can live with less than 3.4 performance as I'm getting 24-25 mpg on my ( Mostly hiway) 75 mi daily commute. I'de feel down right glutunous driving that far with the 6. I rarely haul more than some Band PA gear so my power needs are minimal.

Kevin T

Reply to
kgt

My 95 2.7 liter 4x4 is a bit slow. Can't seem to get over 120 on the freeway! The 2.7 is a great engine. All the power you will need unless towing a boat to and from work every day.

Reply to
me

That's good to hear since the access cab is even heavier (3,870 lbs vs.

3,550 lbs) than the regular cab and 18" longer. I still have to wonder, though.

Have you taken it up any 6%+ mountain grades, and if so, can it hold 70 mph in 4th without being at the edge of its limits? My 1997 is working pretty hard in that situation. On paper it just seems slightly underpowered vs. the older ones but there may be something about the way the vvt engine breathes that overrides those equations. Ideally I'm looking for replies from people who've owned the 2.7 in a 1995-2004 4x4 for a direct comparison.

JT

Reply to
Jack Tyler

unless

Owning basically the same truck, that's a serious stretch, but I like the solidity of the engine. It requires planning ahead and a fair amount of downshifting in the mountains, though it's rated up to 80 mph in 3rd gear if you want to scream your way up hills.

I just don't see how these heavier, bigger-tired 2005s can manage without even more strain based on the ratios I'm calculating. The horsepower is up 9% (164 vs. 150) but the torque is only up about 3% (183 vs. 177) and the truck weighs 10% more (in regular cab). Does variable valve timing (vvt) accomplish some magic powerband trick?

JT

Reply to
Jack Tyler

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.