Mike Sweers Interview - He wanted a Diesel Tundra (and to keep the 5.7 as an option)

Sharing a news feed that came cross. I found interesting and learned some new stuff.

Speers is not the one that killed these engine options. Diesel compliance in the US and the coming EPA legislation killed them as Toyota was intent on meeting the requirements. According to the interview he tried to keep the 5.7 but they said no.

When I watched early videos of him praising the new engine, I thought he abandoned the 5.7 but he was merely supporting the new engine, after being told no on the Diesel and the 5.7.

To meet standards and stay within a weight range, they had to take 400 lbs out of the old design in order to beef up the cooling for the new engine, which has smaller turbos than the competition but they run much higher boost at 20 PSI. This confirms the reason for all the piping in front, and the space needed there.

He doesn't rule out a Plug In Tundra, but the next steps are to bring Fuel Economy higher with the V6.

https://carbuzz.com/news/toyota-wont-rule-out-plug-in-hybrid-tundra

 

Not sure about the 20psi thing. Everyone that I've talked to that's monitored boost levels with the JB4 said that they only had 6psi stock and bumped to the 11-14 range with the tune.

 

Maybe someone can confirm the actual boost number if the interviewer is wrong.
The part I took note of is that the turbos are smaller than the competition, which would mean I would think, more boost is being used.
Taking 400 lbs from somewhere else in the truck is a lot. All in support of the new engine.

 

I agree here. The engine makes ballpark the same power as the Ecoboost using the same size engine so boost will be on the lower end. If it was a 2.0 liter making those numbers, sure, maybe it would take 20psi. Turbo size and boost aren't always related.

 

Pretty sure our trucks only make like 10PSI stock.
At 20 I’m sure we’d be at another 100hp/140tq lol.

 

Has anyone robbed people of more joy than the EPA?

 

In 1980 I was a victim of the US Pollution Control Board - whoever they were.
I had a 1980 Camaro Z28 with a 5.7 Liter engine - just like in my Tundra.
It made 190 hp.
No joy.

 

lol I remember those days all too well. That 305 was a weak joke.
Every 1/2 ton Chevy I saw had that anemic 305 in it. Till about 87 when the square bodies started coming out with the throttle body full injection 350. Then the body change in 1988.

 

GM did the same thing in 2019 in the name of fuel economy.

 

My dad's 74 Firebird needed 6.6L to make that "much" power.

 

This^^^

 

Absolute vs gauge pressure....

 

Ahh that makes sense. I remember seeing a thread bring this up. It's been a while since I've messed with modding turbo vehicles so I'm a little rusty.

 

I don't know a lot about turbo's but we deal with taking into account absolute pressure when calibrating pressure gauges at work.

 

Blame VW and Chrysler for not getting any more light duty diesels in the US. It takes an insane amount of time now to homologate a light duty diesel. Seems like Mazda was trying with their 2.2L diesel and gave up after delaying their SUV many times.

 

yeah the 20 psi thing sounds like BS to me. Why would they need that much boost when its making the same torque as a 3.5 ecoboost that make it with no more than 15 psi

 

It must also be remembered that more boost PSI does not necessarily equal more air volume. You can’t compare boost psi of two different turbos and engines. The only thing that can really be compared is the air volume which we don’t have the data for. For example, even just changing my exhaust out on my truck to longtube headers would cause me to lose 2 psi of boost on my gauge, but the blower doesn’t move any less air. There is just less resistance to the air flow and therefore less boost pressure buildup.

 

Boost is created by restricting flow. The turbos are feeding more air than the engine can swallow so in order to get it in it has to do so under pressure.

Turbo size wont gave a huge effect on boost for the same power unless the turbos are so snall that they are maxed out already.

 

Also, unless their diesel had hp/torque numbers similar or better than the 3.0 Duramax that would have been an automatic no for me.

Towing a travel trailer into a 30 mph headwind requires a ton of HP.

 

I read that too. The new Hino trucks have moved to Cummins engines now due to the emissions requirements. The EPA has ruined the diesel engine rather efficiently and effectively. They have almost completed their mission.

 

Then that's why they stopped making those medium duty cabovers! Those have Toyota diesel engines and some were hybrid versions that the new Tundra hybrids are using in terms of design philosophy. Now, they moved to heavier duty trucks and using Cummins diesel engines. Not very powerful and torquey compared to the RAM 2500.

 

To boot - the EPA is basing their numbers of Nox and other emissions from a study in the 90’s that calculated them to be 300% higher than actual emissions. But no need to revise the EPA regulations with correct figures.. that would put make things easier for car manufactures and people to get diesels.

@Silver17 is on point about boost figures and comparisons. Boost is a measure of restriction whereas Manifold Absolute Pressure (along with temperature) is a better indicator of how much air is going in to the combustion chamber.

There were a couple of triple compound turbo setups I’ve seen - an LBZ kit was developed and built just down the road from me. They saw lots of boost pressure. A 6.4 ford with triples made something like 125psi! And only made around 1200 HP on the dyno… Sure, 1200 Ho is nothing to sneeze at, but that crazy high boost pressure shows how inefficient and inaccurate boost figures are at comparing apples to apples.

 

Made 1200 hp at like 3000 rpm probably. So ~2200 ft-lbs. Diesels also like to run lean so a properly tuned setup might be running 18+:1 air fuel ratio so it wants to run a lot more air flow than an equally powerful gas engine.

Its a lot easier to compare on a gas engine that has to run a narrow afr range

 

One of the reasons why Cat pulled out of providing their diesels for stripped chassis used for Motorhomes and box trucks.

 

I was offered a brief insight from a toyota engineer regarding the V8.

In his opinion, Toyota is leaving the door open to bring back the V8 with the New Tundra.

His reasoning, is in the design of the new tundra.

Why would Toyota design the front to be longer, wider, and bigger only to fit a smaller V6 engine? First thing he noticed when opened the hood was how much extra space could be taken out from engine bay to reduce the length from the front of the truck. This made no sense to him since a longer front will cause a worse turning radius…..unless toyota is leaving the additional space to accommodate the V8 again?

 

They made the 3rd gen Tacoma the same way. Tons of space left up front. However, that was apparently due to pedestrian safety. Crumple zone for them. I would assume the same for the Tundra, but we can dream.

 

I was under the impression that they made it longer to accommodate all the new cooling features and grilles.

 

The V6 is wider with the turbos and probably longer once you include all the crap needed for intercooling.

A v8 shouldn’t have an issue fitting anywhere a TTV6 does.