 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Trucks / May 2005New 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 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 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. > 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. 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. 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 >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > JT I've got that engine in an '00 PreRunner X-cab. Sure, no 4x4 but all but. The 2.7L did and does seem too small for this truck to me, magnified by the automatic transmission. The AT turns this engine into a pig. I'm surprised Toyota engineers didn't recognize as much and offer a stick. If the manual were offered in this model, I think I'd be nearly perfectly pleased. Low end starts, efforts to merge onto the interstate on short or uphill ramps, and even uphill climbs on access roads are very disappointing. A manual tranny could compensate for that. The truck is fine for casual in-town start and go, and for up to speed interstate travels (as long as the terrain is not filled with hills/mountains). It carries loads of firewood/mulch/building materials adequately. I hope whatever they've done for the 2.7 in the '05 is effective - it had better be with the added weight. All in all, I still love the truck- but I'd like to b!tch slap the engineers or marketing people who negated the stick option. Stew >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Stew Oh, and I was running the OEM 265 Wranglers, now 31" BFGs., fwiw. Stew > I've got that engine in an '00 PreRunner X-cab. Sure, no 4x4 but all but. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > All in all, I still love the truck- but I'd like to b!tch slap the engineers > or marketing people who negated the stick option. I didn't know there was no stick option in the '00 Pre-Runner. My '97 has a 5-speed and being able to control the revs can be critical on grades. In 3rd gear it revs like a banshee but it also climbs like one. I'm happy with the balance between fuel economy and power in my '97, but I wish they'd kept the trucks "small" and offered these same new vvt engines. We'd have more power and better MPG instead of barely breaking even. I noticed the (EPA) MPG figures are nearly the same as previous years but that 4.0 V6 has got to be a hog the way most people drive. If you have to strain to keep a 4x4 moving with the 2.7 it's sure to erode the claimed 19/23 MPG. JT |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.