Third Generation Tundra … Yes or No

Emissioms from where california? Of thays the case then how are ford chevy and dodge still making v8s
Again all the upgrades aint very much better than what the 2nd 5.7 are. Mpgs really aint much better neither. I put a supercharher on my 2018 and I actually seem to get better mpg.

 

the Feds, ram has discontinued the hemi , they don’t have a v8 either shortly here , they are going hurricane


So it’s ford undersized 5.0, no thanks

or the last one for now, gm 6.2 and hope the lifters don’t shit out , I tested one , but the seats were so awful I turned around and gave it back to them

prior to release I was hoping for a iforce 6.2 head to head with gm , but emissions scared them away, that said , this 3.4 tt is pretty damn good , shit load of torque partly from such a long stroke , longer stroke than the Cummins hard to believe , but anyways , this thing pulls like a champ, and Aisin did what they always do and the 10- speed is the best on the market

 

Actually you could have gone double cab and got the longer bed

 

Ok even when they had the supercharger as an option still killed the turd gen today!
Again you trud gen lovers try to claim your power but ya need twin turbos to even get above a stock 5.7! . Other than that like I said is not much of a gain for the price

 

he said growing family , dc runs out of room real fast, I had one of those too, it’s no crewmax

 

Again your only getting a few more inches in a turd gen CM bed but youre also loosing that in cab space. 2nd gen CM cab space is much bigger than 3rd

 

it’s a shame you don’t realize your making yourself not look very good here, nobody is following you here with that ,

are we going to say a older supra tt is slow without the turbos next as it was only a dog 3.0L straight 6 without them ?

Stick to the longevity argument at least that is debatable like @Terndrerrr usually does

saying the 3.4tt without the turbos to get to a 5.7 is better for power is just a lame argument, and I like the 5.7, great motor , had 2

 

you are not losing all the bed space in the cab going from 2nd gen crewmax 5.5 to a 3rd gen crewmax 6.5

 

Ok and if you want to go that route a NA motor is highly better at longevity that a boosted one!

 

LOL.

All this talk and speculation about longevity when the average user here appears to drive a Tundra that is less than 10 years old.

Give it a rest.

 

Doesnt have to be ten years or older to even prove a point. There are trucks under 10 years that have well over 100k! So your butt in is null and void

 

says the guy with the charger lol

at least your back to some kind of decent argument

can we have beers now?

 

Yup and I know SC and turbos but a huge dampening on motors. But at least I know my Motors. I put on an SC because I wanted to kick ass even more .

 

Yeah, it seems most people value the resale that is a result of the longevity rather than the longevity itself. We are in the 3rd gen forum, though; most people here own trucks less than 3 years old.

With the way interest rates have moved, it’s gonna hurt more than it has for people to swap trucks every few years.

 

There are so many factors that affect engine and overall vehicle longevity you might as well piss up a rope trying to draw any conclusions based solely on NA vs FI factoring in only mileage.

Turbochargers and superchargers don’t kill engines that are properly designed and built from the ground up for running with boost. Witness the millions of turbocharged diesel engines doing the real work of the world powering ships, locomotives, class 8 trucks, heavy equipment, and a bunch of shit I am forgetting to list. On duty cycles that will make your puny 1/2 ton truck with supercharged V8 into a smoldering slag heap.

The pistons, piston rings, con rods, wrist pins, bearings, crank shaft, and engine block don’t know the difference between cylinder pressure and thrust being produced by diesel combustion or gasoline combustion. They are effectively interchangeable from a standpoint of the rotating assembly.

The same is true for the turbos. The hot combustion gases driving that turbine are indistinguishable to the turbine. All that matters is gas velocity, volume, pressure, and temperature. Keep those within the safe working parameters of the turbine and impeller on the opposite side of the shaft and you’re in good shape.

So if construction and materials are appropriate for NA or FI and the quality is equal, it comes down to end user duty cycle, maintenance frequency/quality, environment operating conditions, and many more factors. An engine subjected to lots of low stress unladen or lightly laden constant speed highway miles in clean air, is going to fare a lot better than an engine subjected to frequent heavy load sucking in filthy dusty air that is constantly clogging air filters. That’s with equal maintenance, which is never a given either.

 

This is a waste of time, because I suspect you are having a tough time considering information that is contrary to your pre determined beliefs.

But I’m sitting around in a hotel waiting on a train (which runs turbos by the way) and I’m done in the gym for now, plus the BNSF Railway is now paying me held away penalty at $34/hour or so to try to educate you. So what the hell?

I’m not sure what you’re having such a tough time with here? Reciprocating piston engines are air pumps, power potential and efficiency are directly linked to the ability of that engine to ingest air to mix with fuel for ignition to convert into mechanical force. So the goal is to get as much air in there as possible for a given swept displacement. Turbocharging is a well proven method of significantly increasing the ability of a given engine to ingest more air, in fact it’s the best known method for doing that.

The argument that and engine is relying on turbos to make power is the argument of someone who doesn’t really understand engine operations at all. You might as well be upset that a 3UR-FE requires high RPM’s to achieve peak power. The goal is to ingest as much air as possible, it doesn’t matter how that is achieved. Some engines rely on stratospheric rotation speeds, cams, and cylinder heads that can support those engine speeds. Some utilize turbos to cram air into the cylinders. They’re all relying on something to get air in.

You think the fucking rotating assembly is just going magic some air in based on swept displacement? Without a good set of cylinder heads at a minimum you won’t accomplish shit. So what is the next tard’ argument? Muh’ pushrod V8 is the best because that thar 4V head V8 is using dual cams and fancy valves as a crutch to make more power! I’ve seen that argument put forth, and it’s retarded. Just like yours is.

 

Someone needs to modify their Gen3 enough to break into the top ten 0-60 on dragy. Currently #11 is a 2022 at 5.49s. Dragy numbers don’t remove rollout. For stock numbers: Car and Driver shows 6.4s for a Crewmax 2022 and 6.1s for 2022 Hybrid Crewmax, 6.6s for a 2021 5.7l. 0-60 is obviously very important for 3 ton trucks using the logic: 1) Get truck to go really fast 2) ? 3) Profit!

 

Double cabs aren’t much bigger than the Tacoma I came from. Crew max is what was needed and the long bed was needed too. Using my truck for road trips and business needs and this fit the bill. Now we are all comfortable. And even if they made a second gen with my specifications I probably would have passed unless it was new. People nowadays don’t take care of their stuff and even the 5.7 can have issues if neglected maintenance wise. I’ll take new and be backed by a warranty over used and be hung out to dry if something goes wrong. Not everyone will like the 3rd gen and that’s just fine. But I’m happy with my purchase and haven’t looked back yet.

 

Aw, you mad?

 

There’s a lot of dumbassery in this thread which makes me cringe, but can’t help but dip my toes in. That dude had a JB4 on Map3 on a hybrid too, still a full second slower to 60 than a SC 2nd gen on 35s with just a pulley. Everyone can have their own opinion, but having a quick pickup truck that you also use for your towing and regular truck stuff is just fun. I’d like a sports car too one day, but for right now it’s scratching the itch without having a 2nd vehicle to purchase, store and maintain. Even if I had one, I’m still pretty sure my heavy ass tundra would best it in the 1/8 mile, having done it in 8.30. Aside from rowing through the gears with a manual trans and being nice to look at, there’s not a whole lot of benefit right now.

 

I love my Gen2 but she’s had plenty of issues, a few listed below.
- rear brakes gone at 5k,
- electronic shift control module went twice,
- fuel pump control module,
- 3of 4 ABS sensors lifted(rusted)
- wheel bearing and hub axel shaft bearing,
- power steering cooler pissing all over the place,
- antenna broke, leaving male thread in base (what a pita to fix)

That’s off the top of my head. What I find really funny is I waited several years to buy because… there were engine issues the first few years!

A SC on a truck… compensate much? Lol. The 5.7 is plenty to do real truck stuff.

 

I know theyre not much bigger. Neither is the CM turd gen thats why I dubbed them tacoXL

I bought my 18 used with 14k on it it also came with the factory warrenty plus I got extended! not very hard to do

 

LOL, that meme is so dumb.

Your profile says you’re in Pine Top, AZ?

The elevation there is 6800ft above sea level.

Since superchargers don’t make absolute boost (manifold pressure) and don’t compensate for altitude you’re down 20.4% on rated horsepower and torque. Given 3% a decrease in oxygen content for every 1000ft of altitude.

So your supposed 550hp and 500ft-lb supercharged 5.7L is making 437.8HP and 398ft-lbs where you live.

Meanwhile a turbocharged Gen 3 iForceMax utilizing aforementioned turbocharger makes absolute manifold pressure and makes full rated power up there. So a 3rd Gen iForceMax has more power under the curve and equal peak power to your current truck where you live and drive.

 

Exactly, thanks

 

Whats funny is that im pushing near the same boost numbers etc as guy at or near sea level so you dont knkw shit about my truck. Cmon up and ill smoke your turd gen just for fun and im rolling 35s too

 

That’s interesting it’s a hybrid doing that. I think if I was building I would think to start with just the 3.4TT and switch out turbos, throttle bodies, injectors, pump + tune. Will be curious what design ends up being the fastest in that engine type, a new 10k post “General Turbo Thread” will be created! Then when the 4th gen comes out they can argue about the silly 4 cylinder quad turbo hybrid it has .

 

*Sigh*

Yes you need to move more fuel to combust in that charge air. Until we get to a point a fuel system can’t supply it I don’t see where there’s a problem. The injectors on a 2nd or 3rd Gen can be upgraded as the aftermarket allows, and stock have plenty of room to meet the demands of either engine.

Nice attempt at deflecting from your poorly formulated argument.

Thanks for the personal attack, very classy.

 

Right tundra will be gone in the wind if they drop a tacoma motor in bad enough theyre a XL tacoma now

 

And whats my porty forulated argument? I can have a few to argue esp with dudes who think their TT v6 is better than a NA stock v8 but get all twisted as soon as you say boost the v8 like the turd gen. Then therrs no argument because it beats the v6 all day

 

Don’t own a 3rd Gen. Probably never will. Don’t see enough value.

I guess I could bring along our SS with an LS3 and see how things go if I ever get a wild hair to go to Arizona. Racing trucks is fucking stupid.