2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 23 Jun 2010, 03:19 pm   #1 (permalink)
Allen
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default 2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

Does anyone who OWNS a regular cab 2005+ 4x4 Tacoma with the 2.7L four-
cylinder find it to struggle on steep highway grades, i.e.. over 6%?

I have a 1996 Tacoma 4x4 w/2.7L which does the job to my liking, though you
have to use 4th or even 3rd in certain cases. I am specifically looking for
info on the newer 4x4s, not the 4x2s, which should probably be fine with
that engine.

The 2.7L has been improved with VVT-i but looks to have a marginal power-
to-weight ratio in the fatter, redesigned Tacoma 4x4 (which I think was an
unwise design trend; they should have retained the leaner bodies for better
performance with the VVT-i engines).

Pre-2005 2.7L specs were 150 HP & 177 ft. lbs. and post-2005 specs are 159
HP & 180ft. lbs., which is a scant difference for a truck that's over 300
pounds heavier with bigger stock tires and a wider wind profile.

Unless the 2.7L VVT-i has breathing properties that don't show on paper,
the 2005+ Tacomas in this configuration would seem to be weaker on steep
grades at typical highway speeds. True or false? What gear is needed to
hold 70 MPH on a 6% grade, etc?

I like the 2.7L in general and it's been ultra-reliable with up to 24MPG
highway in a 4x4. I don't tow trailers and prefer the smallest, simplest
engine that isn't grossly underpowered. I did a test drive but couldn't get
to a hwy situation where I could check this myself, plus the engine
wouldn't have been broken in yet.

Thanks for any info from 2.7L 4x4 owners who've actually driven in the
mountains. Specific examples of roads & grades would be welcome.

Allen
  Reply With Quote
Old 23 Jun 2010, 04:52 pm   #2 (permalink)
Sir F. A. Rien
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: 2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

Allen <allen95737@isp.com> found these unused words:

>Does anyone who OWNS a regular cab 2005+ 4x4 Tacoma with the 2.7L four-
>cylinder find it to struggle on steep highway grades, i.e.. over 6%?
>
>I have a 1996 Tacoma 4x4 w/2.7L which does the job to my liking, though you
>have to use 4th or even 3rd in certain cases. I am specifically looking for
>info on the newer 4x4s, not the 4x2s, which should probably be fine with
>that engine.
>
>The 2.7L has been improved with VVT-i but looks to have a marginal power-
>to-weight ratio in the fatter, redesigned Tacoma 4x4 (which I think was an
>unwise design trend; they should have retained the leaner bodies for better
>performance with the VVT-i engines).
>
>Pre-2005 2.7L specs were 150 HP & 177 ft. lbs. and post-2005 specs are 159
>HP & 180ft. lbs., which is a scant difference for a truck that's over 300
>pounds heavier with bigger stock tires and a wider wind profile.
>
>Unless the 2.7L VVT-i has breathing properties that don't show on paper,
>the 2005+ Tacomas in this configuration would seem to be weaker on steep
>grades at typical highway speeds. True or false? What gear is needed to
>hold 70 MPH on a 6% grade, etc?
>
>I like the 2.7L in general and it's been ultra-reliable with up to 24MPG
>highway in a 4x4. I don't tow trailers and prefer the smallest, simplest
>engine that isn't grossly underpowered. I did a test drive but couldn't get
>to a hwy situation where I could check this myself, plus the engine
>wouldn't have been broken in yet.
>
>Thanks for any info from 2.7L 4x4 owners who've actually driven in the
>mountains. Specific examples of roads & grades would be welcome.
>
>Allen


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!]


  Reply With Quote
Old 23 Jun 2010, 10:25 pm   #3 (permalink)
Allen
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: 2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

Sir F. A. Rien <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote in
news:650526hvlrodlh4tft6ia9n9v2cp78936d@4ax.com:

> 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!]


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
  Reply With Quote
Old 24 Jun 2010, 12:16 am   #4 (permalink)
First of One
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: 2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

"Allen" <allen95737@isp.com> wrote in message
news:OL-dnafSdcTI8b_RnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@wavecable.com...
> Does anyone who OWNS a regular cab 2005+ 4x4 Tacoma with the 2.7L four-
> cylinder find it to struggle on steep highway grades, i.e.. over 6%?


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.
http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-c...to-cruise.html If
you know the gear ratios you can probably deduce what's needed in the manual
model.

How do you eyeball grade percentage?

> The 2.7L has been improved with VVT-i but looks to have a marginal power-
> to-weight ratio in the fatter, redesigned Tacoma 4x4 (which I think was an
> unwise design trend; they should have retained the leaner bodies for
> better
> performance with the VVT-i engines).


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.

> Unless the 2.7L VVT-i has breathing properties that don't show on paper,
> the 2005+ Tacomas in this configuration would seem to be weaker on steep
> grades at typical highway speeds. True or false? What gear is needed to
> hold 70 MPH on a 6% grade, etc?


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:
http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-c...o-results.html

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


  Reply With Quote
Old 24 Jun 2010, 10:12 am   #5 (permalink)
Grip
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: 2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

On Jun 24, 1:16*am, "First of One" <r...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> "Allen" <allen95...@isp.com> wrote in message
>
> news:OL-dnafSdcTI8b_RnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@wavecable.com...
>
> > Does anyone who OWNS a regular cab 2005+ 4x4 Tacoma with the 2.7L four-
> > cylinder find it to struggle on steep highway grades, i.e.. over 6%?

>
> 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.http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-c...-cruise.htmlIf
> you know the gear ratios you can probably deduce what's needed in the manual
> model.
>
> How do you eyeball grade percentage?
>
> > The 2.7L has been improved with VVT-i but looks to have a marginal power-
> > to-weight ratio in the fatter, redesigned Tacoma 4x4 (which I think wasan
> > unwise design trend; they should have retained the leaner bodies for
> > better
> > performance with the VVT-i engines).

>
> 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.
>
> > Unless the 2.7L VVT-i has breathing properties that don't show on paper,
> > the 2005+ Tacomas in this configuration would seem to be weaker on steep
> > grades at typical highway speeds. True or false? What gear is needed to
> > hold 70 MPH on a 6% grade, etc?

>
> 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:http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-c...o-results.html
>
> --
> "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
> It can therefore be said that politics is war without
> bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


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.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 24 Jun 2010, 01:55 pm   #6 (permalink)
SnoBrdr
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: 2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

Grip <mbetts@comcast.net> wrote:

>Increase good or bad?


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.
>
>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.....

  Reply With Quote
Old 25 Jun 2010, 10:40 am   #7 (permalink)
Allen
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: 2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

"First of One" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in
newsKydnWjQ6va5d7_RnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@giganews.com :

> 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.
> http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-c...uto-cruise.htm
> l If you know the gear ratios you can probably deduce what's needed in
> the manual model.
>
> How do you eyeball grade percentage?


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).

>> Unless the 2.7L VVT-i has breathing properties that don't show on
>> paper, the 2005+ Tacomas in this configuration would seem to be
>> weaker on steep grades at typical highway speeds. True or false? What
>> gear is needed to hold 70 MPH on a 6% grade, etc?

>
> 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:
> http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-c...no-results.htm
> l


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
  Reply With Quote
Old 25 Jun 2010, 11:05 am   #8 (permalink)
Allen
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: 2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

SnoBrdr <SnoBrdr@killington.com> wrote in
news:vea726lbnp96fj6riplmfanl9b23o28n7g@4ax.com:

> Grip <mbetts@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Increase good or bad?

>
> 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.


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
  Reply With Quote
Old 25 Jun 2010, 11:49 am   #9 (permalink)
Allen
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: 2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

"First of One" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in
newsKydnWjQ6va5d7_RnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@giganews.com :

> Don't own a 2.7L myself. You may get better responses in the
> TacomaWorld forum...


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
  Reply With Quote
Old 25 Jun 2010, 04:53 pm   #10 (permalink)
First of One
Guest
  • Posts: n/a
  • User Status:


Default Re: 2.7L on highway grades in 2005+ Tacoma 4x4s

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.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"Allen" <allen95737@isp.com> wrote in message
news:wtWdnVm0Fu6-Q7nRnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@wavecable.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



  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 am.

Attribution:
Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers



ToyotaLexusForum.com is an unofficial community for car enthusiasts. ToyotaLexusForum.com is not affiliated with Toyota Motor Corporation in any way.
Toyota Motor Corporation does not sponsor, support, or endorse ToyotaLexusForum.com in any way.
Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.