Thoughts if v8 will return within 4 years?

is this the sport mode test? what conditions? I do not believe C&Ds test results at all. Too many conditions, I do however know that my Truck with 35s in sport mode outran a 6.2-liter v8 GMC and probably would keep up with my Gen 2 Raptor and kill my Gen 1 Raptor. It isn't bad for a brick on wheels. I do not race a truck though but for what they are, they are pretty stout especially with the hybrid and 60-88 mph passes.

 

One correction. Toyotas 5.7 still has more HP/TQ than the 2024 Chevy 5.3. The 2024 F150 5.0 is only 400/410 . 2023 Hemi 395/410. So the 5.7 is still an impressive engine when it comes to HP/TQ, 15 years later.

 

Turn the ‘21’s body into aluminum like the ‘23, and I bet it makes up that miniscule gap.

 

Never said C&D test. Quick google search before you post is easy. Even if it's off by .5, that's not impressive for a a 15 year old engine vs a brad new engine that's being held up on a pedestal by many. That's not even mentioning the vast options for Superchargers and turbo kits for the 5.7 that will leave the TT in the dust and still be reliable. By the way , a quick google search shows the 6.2 in the same time brackets. So, it can go either way depending on driver and other conditions like you mentioned.

 

My 1980 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28 with a 350-cu.in. 5.7 Liter V-8 and four-speed manual transmission could go from 0 to 60 miles per hour (mph) in 8.5 seconds. My Tundra trounces it and loaded up too. But going by memory - the Camaro - felt faster - I think due to all the noises - seating position. When a modded Nissan 240z beat me in a stop light race - that was my last GM car outside of a GMC Yukon later for a while.

 

I guess I was thinking more about the older Toyota v6 and v8 engines. The 5.7 is tits (not Tundras in the snow).

 

Had a couple Euro cars, none of them turboed though.
The Tundra is actually the first turboed vehicle I've owned.

I definitely get the all-things-to-all-people aspect. Trucks ain't what they used to be, and that's across the board, no matter the make. And that also means, the average truck buyer is not what HE used to be, either.

Grown-ass old man here. Yep, comfy is good.
I never wanted or expected (much less demanded) a 14" screen in any vehicle. Is it useless? Nah. Flawed, hell yes, but not useless.
Massaging seats? Now that's just silly.
Now, HEATED seats, those are necessary.
The rest is pretty close other than sedentary has only been the last few years.
I will survive the winter regardless of grocery store proximity; maybe not without my heated seats though.

I know I'd very likely be happier with this truck with LESS tech.

Oh, and anyone that thinks any full size truck of any configuration is "fast", has never driven anything fast.
Except this configuration; low 9 quarter is pretty fast:

 

3UR feels sluggish only for one reason: let owners see a double digit MPG. It is a drive-by-wire engine, its response is controlled solely by software. When software is informed that the driver demands more power (by either pressing the TOW/HAUL button or kicking accelerator pedal) it stops saving fuel and unleashes the horses. Expect to see 1-3 MPG. If you find depressing the lethargic stock ECU mapping you can always remap it and enjoy wheels spinning at every traffic light.

I remapped my old turbo car. It barely added any HP/torque, but the response is more linear, like in old good times when throttles were connected to accelerator pedal mechanically. 0-60 is largely the same, but in day to day driving it FEELS like a sports car now.

 

I don't know how much I buy into tests really, they only measure what the magazine wants you to know.

The WRX STI from 2004-2017 had always been tested and consistently brought back zero to sixty in the 4.6-4.8 second range and a quarter at around 13 seconds. In 2018 Subaru changed the ride characteristics putting on different/ softer struts and larger 19 inch tires. The zero to sixty went to 5.4 ish seconds and the quarter mile outside the 13s into the low 14s. They did not make the vehicle better they actually took speed away from it. Was it to be more competitive? I have no idea but a lot of time these tests tend to come out how the magazines want them to.

 

This is definitely true regarding the “5.7 is lethargic” comments. For the 2014+ Toyota neutered the throttle response (which is totally tunable). My 2010 felt way snappier and more responsive that my 2017 even though my 2017 would absolutely crush it in a drag race.

 

I get what you're saying, but in today's production truck environment, what you just went through is totally meaningless from an auto manufacturer standpoint.

Toyota doesn't give a shit about any of what you went through, they are focused on thermal efficiency and emissions, we know why that is and it is what it is, no going back.

look at the thermal efficiency and emissions of the 5.7 and the 3.4 TT, we then have our answer on why it happened, has noting to do with anything else.

that said, back to just my .02 opinion which is also meaningless, people are mistaken saying this 3.4 TT is stressed and high strung, its built for boost and if you look at the thermal efficiency, that tells you its built for this.

out of all the things on my gen 3 vs my older tundras (4 of them), the powertrain and trans is not lacking at all and I don't miss the V8 at all except for the sound, this truck performs, tows, and pulls way better in stock form, although I don't race trucks, just my .02 owning 5 tundras.

I also agree with you on the older 5.7 tuning vs more recent, my 2010 was a different animal vs the 2016 I had, they tweak the tuning for smoother drivability and a little better MPG between those years, it was obvious to all of us.

 

I've designed industrial furnaces with thermal efficiency well over 90% (industry standard), running as efficient as the technology itself allows. They run super hot, like 2000K in the combustion area. They stop every so often for planned burnt pipes replacement - metal literally evaporates from the surface. They often run with pipes ruptured for some time, because stopping and restarting the plant is very costly. Less efficient furnaces, like 60-70%, stop when they run out of fuel. Unlike their bigger cousins, they also happily take any solid fuel, from hay to coal to granulated feces. The most thermally efficient plans - the ones with molten salt nuclear reactors - work until they break, then you basically scrape it all, because there's nothing left in them that can be reused.

There's no free efficiency. The moment you introduce higher thermal and pressure stresses to your design you sacrifice longevity. This is a basic engineering concept.

 

I have owned 100s of rides with about 80 percent of them turbos. I have never blown a engine due to turbo being present. Engines are real simple designs: they use spark, fuel, and air. As long as that ratio is fine then you are going to have a very reliable motor. You start adding more boost you need to add more fuel, the cooling part is done via separate air to air intercoolers which the Tundra has 2, one for each turbo.

 

I actually studied the shit.

 

I don't doubt you did, but you are not talking about a nitro running turbo dragster. I have had high pressure turbos blow clamps off, but I have never blown up a motor due to excessive boost. Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota have been using turbo engines for 50 years or so. I trust they can design great motors. I have owned Turbo MR2s, Turbo 240sxs, Turbo Eclipse, Turbo 300zx, Turbo 3000GT, Turbo Supra, and Turbo STIs. None of them have blown up and if anything, they loved high boost. I trust Toyota engineers did a million-mile test on the Tundra motor like they do every other motor they make. This motor will last just as long as any other motor Toyota has put into their lineup.

 

Where are you getting your info? Tundras do not have two intercoolers. It was one of the things Toyota cheaped out on moving this engine from the Lexus to the Tundra.

 

Toyota should have just kept the 5.7 and slapped a S/C on all of them. With a good tune, I've seen better mpg than a N/A 5.7 @reywcms

 

The conversation had several comments about the V6’s superior performance. It would appear the V6 is less efficient at turning its displacement paired with pressure ratio into power than a V8 from the early 2000s if it’s merely given a little boost is the only point I wished to make. A little boost is readily available in the aftermarket pretty affordably. The V8 is also less susceptible to trash cans…

 

My Hybrid has 2 intercoolers which are daisy chained together, one on the driver's side and one on the passenger's side. I assumed they were air to air but maybe they are coolant (turbo coolant) to air intercoolers either way they are cooling something down. I looked at the parts diagram and maybe they are using 1 large air to air intercooler and 2 smaller water coolant to air intercooling either way they have coolers on them.

 

i thought the turbo's was to lower the rpm ceiling for torque?

 

It does that but these are low boost turbos anyway and the Hybrid system works on low end starting off especially when hauling a trailer. Trust me in 10 years you all will be driving 3rd Gens talking about what dogs the v8s are.

 

Hmmmm I doubt it. I’m currently driving a 20 year old V8 and talk about how awesome it is I can change the timing belt in my driveway in half a day.

 

Mine's paid off and I dont see me getting rid of it anytime soon. If I had to get rid of it for any reason (accident or more towing), I'd get a cummins.

 

lol i do have one, but i have no need for a HV version since we maybe haul/pull something once every xx years.

i am pretty sure we will trade our 23 in before we even pull anything with it.

i mean we are coming up on 2 yrs (22-feb) of owning our current 23 and it only has 11.5k miles on it.

 

Trust me, in ten years I won't be. If my V8 got totaled now, I would move to a Lexus GX460.

Which is also a interesting thing since I was just looking at used GX460. In my area there are more GX550(V6) for sale vs newer GX460. And the GX460 is holding it's valve better.

 

The “V8s are dogs” statement is one of the more egregiously ridiculous things said a lot here. Even by today’s standards 381hp and 401tq is a considerably powerful engine for a half ton truck and nets it a 0-60 under 7 seconds. I bet my dog is quicker than your dog.

 

this is worse than when the Gen 1 Raptor dumped the v8 for an ecoboost Gen 2 Raptor. Comments were similar but the butt hurt was a lot less.

 

And we all know what garbage the Ecoboost is. There's no denying the cam phasers are trash. The smaller Ecoboost are also garbage in all their vehicle line up. But hey at least Ford has no catastrophic engine failures. And they still have the V8, so there's that.

 

And let's not forget that Toyota offered a SC option, which technically isn't aftermarket.