You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
TacomaGeneral discussion forum for the 2005 and later Toyota Tacoma.
This is a discussion thread titled "4.0 V6 Due for a power increase?", within the Tacoma forum, part of the Truck Forums category.
Where were you in the late 70's? In the late 70's tough new fuel economy standards + the high gasoline prices following the 1974 Arab Oil Embargo forced all the automakers to DOWNSIZE most car models and engines. The small block Chevy, for example, which had grown to 350 and 400 cubic inches in the 60's was downsized back down to near its original 265 cubic inches. And alot of inline 6's or V6's were being installed in full size and intermediate cars when formerly (early 70's) nearly all had V8's. And there was a national 55 MPH speed limit ! I remember the highway patrol would get on their bull horn and tell people to slow down if they were going 57 or 58 and if you were going 60 or more they'd give you a ticket.
That might happen again but the main difference between then and now is the technology, specifically engine management systems. Back then it was not practical to use them to any significant degree. Today those constraints no longer exist. Processing power that once filled rooms and cost millions now fits in the palm of your hand for a few hundred dollars.
I think Kathy is right in that we may see some toning down of performance in the near future, but I do not believe it will be nearly as deep as it was in the early '70s.
Last edited by Burger Steak & Eggs; 03-15-2008 at 11:18 PM.
Darn connection, I typed a reply and it timed out & got lost...
Yup, I knew it was an old thread that got bumped...
Kathy, I remember those bad old days but I look back on them as a temporary forced situation -- sorry for the omission. Nothing like crawling across the vast open spaces of the West at a rigorously enforced 55 mph. Remember "rolling roadblocks"?... a patrol car crossing the desert at 55 with a huge wad of vehicles behind him... Thankfully, technology got us past all that and logic allowed more normal speeds. And ever since, most vehicles have once again returned to increases in size... and power. In some cases, you have to question whether enough is simply too much...
Where were you in the late 70's? In the late 70's tough new fuel economy standards + the high gasoline prices following the 1974 Arab Oil Embargo forced all the automakers to DOWNSIZE most car models and engines. The small block Chevy, for example, which had grown to 350 and 400 cubic inches in the 60's was downsized back down to near its original 265 cubic inches. And alot of inline 6's or V6's were being installed in full size and intermediate cars when formerly (early 70's) nearly all had V8's. And there was a national 55 MPH speed limit ! I remember the highway patrol would get on their bull horn and tell people to slow down if they were going 57 or 58 and if you were going 60 or more they'd give you a ticket.
The new fuel economy requirements will definately change the way engineers design vehicles. If you look at the gas mileage numbers from the early 80's till today, you will see they have basically remain unchanged. The horespower ratings, however, have increased. I'm all for a powerful engine but with the current gas prices I think consumers should welcome this change. How about engineering the 4.0 L V6 to put out the same 236HP but deliver 25 to 30 mpg. That's what I would like to see.
As I've stated before, the 1GR will likely end up with the lower friction roller-rocker valvetrain of the newer GR engines. This will improve efficiency. It'll also receive dual VVT-i. Perhaps Toyota will also continue to tweak the piston ring lands, piston skirts, and actual piston ring tension to further reduce friction and increase efficiency. A very small increase in power will come from these modifications, while increasing MPG by 1-3 in the city, and 2-4 in the highway.
The A750E/F should also be replaced with either the Tundra's AB60E/F or the IS350's A960E. The AB60 is overkill, while the IS350's A960 will increase levels of refinement and technology, as well as efficiency with more gearing. Remember the 2GR-FSE has 90% of torque available at 2000rpm, which is more than the 1GR produces at the same RPM. That transmission is rated to take up to 350lb-ft, while the Tundra's can take over 500lb-ft.
Expect to see these changes by model year 2009 or 2010 for both the 4Runner and the Tacoma.
[quote=Jason.MZW20;955075]As I've stated before, the 1GR will likely end up with the lower friction roller-rocker valvetrain of the newer GR engines. This will improve efficiency. It'll also receive dual VVT-i. Perhaps Toyota will also continue to tweak the piston ring lands, piston skirts, and actual piston ring tension to further reduce friction and increase efficiency. A very small increase in power will come from these modifications, while increasing MPG by 1-3 in the city, and 2-4 in the highway.
I would tend to agree with this statement, it's only a matter of time...I mean hey, look what they can get from the 3.5 with dual VVT-i (and the engines are very similar except for displacement), tons of horsepower, decent torque and amazing fuel economy...that's one reason I'm looking at a new Highlander or RAV4 for my next family vehicle (270hp sounds good to me, the 1GR-FE should easily come close to that with VVT-i)
Love my Tacoma, but with the changes for 2009 and the possibility of a power increase, I may be tempted to trade up.
Reducing internal friction will only yield 1-2 hwy MPG. Detuning (HP only not torque) a 2GR-FSE should yield 3+ hwy MPG.
Why not? An updated 1GR will produce more torque due to the unique cam lobe design Toyota uses on its roller-rocker system that increases valve lift. The A760 is used by the 4GR-FSE, but I feel Toyota should move the Tacoma/4Runner/GX/FJ to the A96x series. The ratios of the 2 transmissions differ only very slightly, but the transmission control on the A96x series is more sophisticated, and will therfore help the engine improve efficiency under load.
The 2GR-FSE is a destroked 1GR-FE, so the A960 will bolt up with minimal difficulty, I'd imagine.
Re: 4.0 V6 Due for a power increase?
Linear Mode
