Last Toyota for me ...

Turbo engine with broken turbo is far less efficient than a similar displacement natural aspiration engine because of extra intake obstructions, total length, smaller intake manifold, etc. When these new Tundras start to have turbo-related problems they'll be crawling around like if they have a 2.5L inline 4, which is abysmal for such a large truck. Oh, they will actually jump into a limp mode, just to make sure you don't dare to make it home, but park in a ditch next to RAM and wait for a tow truck.

 

Are they in the room with us, right now?

 

Getting better.

Pull a forest chain through there and you'll have a nifty back yard!

 

It was a very fine sarcasm. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a44751227/nissan-titan-pickup-dead/?src=socialflowTW

 

Had this happen 3 times while even using the handle/running boards, it's just cheap plastic. I ended up selling (not for this reason) my Tundra and zip tied the plastic piece to the seat. Not my problem anymore

 

beautiful! silver sky is the OG color.

 

Fewer cylinders = less tailpipe emissions from blow by etc. All the V8’s have a very tough time hitting new emissions targets. Some manufacturers just pay the fine and move on, but Toyota chooses not to pay fines.

 

So all the diesel engines should be naturally aspirated too? Turbos are wearing out all those Class 8 truck engines, earth moving equipment engines, main engines and generators of ships at sea, and locomotives. Everything is just scrap, broken down all the time because turbos.

Turbos aren’t that stressful on an engine designed to operate at higher cylinder pressures.

Around 40 years ago people were bitching about how fuel injection ruins engines, and how they’d all be broken down all the time and how awesome carburetors are instead. They were wrong, and so are you.

 

Makes sense. I never thought that through.

 

But old school N/A diesel is even more reliable. This thing will start and move after sitting in bushes for 70 years.

In head to head comparison, turbo is stressful. For example, I've had basically the same 5 cylinder Volvo engine, one naturally aspirated (B5244S), another is low pressure turbo (B5254T2). N/A usually dies when compression rings wear out completely at around 400k miles. Turbo has these problems non-existent on N/A variation:

- PCV is very complicated and expensive. A multiple revisions of it were done over the years, but it is still basically a consumable part. In later engine version it was replaced by a mechanical vacuum pump, which costs like half of the engine
- Blows seals all the time (because of under-performing PCV when engine is under boost)
- Block cracks the sleeves around cooling passages
- Cylinders develop taper
- Carbon buildup, stuck piston rings
- Cylinder head warps
- Valve stem caps degrade and let oil in the combustion chambers
- All plastic and rubber parts under the hood degrades in order of magnitude quicker because of extra heat in engine compartment
- Zillion of extra sensors fail imminently, it's hard to debug which one went out
- Transmission wears out quicker, because it soaks heat from the engine and has to withstand amount of torque near its design limit
- Turbo itself (very good and durable, made by Mitsubishi) has wear parts, like rubber membranes that die at around 150-200k miles
- Hot half of turbo commonly cracks
- Exhaust manifold warps
- Cat.converter can melt down if oil consumption is not addressed timely

Everything mentioned above does not happen in the same engine without a turbo.

 

re: Fines
Toyota chose to put all their truck/suv's on the same platform/motors for better productivity and efficiency.
I think to keep the 5.7 with the new design is not possible without massive reworking - redesign.
They don't make that many Tundras to warrant this and fill a niche.
Not paying fines is just a benefit that came from this.
I doubt a company the size of Toyota cares about these particular fines.
JMO.

 

But that's the easiest: use a part of existing design. They just wanted to reduce the facility overhead to just one engine/transmission combo and save some of production cost, since they can retool a few assembly lines to other products. This works great until the only remaining option turns out to be a failure, like Toyota happened to have now.

5.7 would work fine on a new platform. It would probably work much more refined with a new gearbox than with old 6AT, and even eat less gas. Look at GM, who keeps a big V8 and just replaces the transmission. V8 has a ton of torque even at idle revs and is known to be the most reliable V8 truck engine Toyota recently had to offer. With the exterior/interior refresh AND with a known 5.7 reliability gen3 would be a much better truck than it is now.

 

All you have observed is that Volvo gasoline engines designed pre-1990 have the issues you mention. Volvo started developing their modular series of engines in the 1970’s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Modular_engine

Which tells us that 34 years ago Volvo put an engine series into production that was based on 1970’s and 1980’s research, and that that engine series has x,y,z problems once it was turbocharged starting in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Turbocharging was pretty clearly an afterthought on this for Volvo, but being a small manufacturer with limited resources they increased performance of an existing engine architecture by applying forced induction. Unsurprisingly there were issues.

Strangely other applications that use turbocharged engines as a norm, that are designed from the ground up for turbocharging seem to maintain more than acceptable levels of reliability. All while offering superior power density than a naturally aspirated engine of the same size.

I am not necessarily in love with the V35A-FTS in the Tundra but it doesn’t have to be inherently less reliable than the 3UR-FE it replaces. Time might very well prove that it is less reliable, but that is a manufacturing and design issue rather than some inherent problem with turbocharging. For example the relatively small percentage of spun main bearings is a manufacturing defect, not an inherent problem because it has turbos.

What I do remain curious about and we will know sooner than later as guys put on more miles, is how difficult servicing the V35A-FTS will be. How often does it need spark plugs, how hard are they to access etc. This is where I think Toyota screwed up by going with a V6, I firmly believe that an inline 6 would have been a superior choice in a large engine bay with no real constraints on packaging. It would have made for an easier to service engine, in addition to the mechanical advantages of an inline 6 over a V6.

 

I agree with that one. Inline rules all the way.

But take any super-good turbo engine, detune it to N/A properly (intake, etc) and it will have even better reliability and longevity. 200k miles is perhaps good for any engine, turbo or not, but it is still true that a more loaded turbo engine will live less than a similarly sized/designed engine without a turbo.

 

I can’t agree with you on living longer just because an engine is naturally aspirated, it simply comes down to cylinder pressure, heat, and how clean combustion is. If cylinder pressures are reasonable, the cooling package can keep the engine running at acceptable temps, and the engine is not overly rich or too lean all the time all other things being equal I would expect plenty of useful service life out of NA or turbocharged engines.

Plus I am in the camp that will accept some trade offs in theoretical longevity way past when I would keep a vehicle in service, if performance is improved. If the V35A-FTS will make it 250K without major overhaul that is 20 years of driving for me, at which point it owes me nothing.

 

BMW is one of the best at in-line 6's going back a long, long way. Their current B58 has better durability results than the M52 inline 6 it replaces.
Both were voted best engines designs by multiple engineering associations and Wards. The B58 is a turbo.

 

I was in that camp too. But about 3 years ago I found myself rebuilding a 15 years old turbo engine with 220k miles

 

I'm wondering the same. I have a 2023 with 6900 miles that won't take more than 23 gallons in its 32.2 gallon tank. It would take over 30 gallons if I ran it down to under 20 miles remaining on the dash originally. I've tried the reset trick by shutting it off in drive, but it persists. Love the truck in general, but this really cut in to my range while towing the boat on a trip recently.

 

That's the approximately 8 gallon fuel reserve

 

As long as my TT V6 gives me 125K trouble free miles, I'll take it over my previous 5.7s any day. I'm loving the better mileage, towing capacity, payload, and overall performance. Time will tell.

Matt

 

Just seems odd that it progressively changed. My first fill up was 30.1 gallons with miles remaining. Mid summer it was 26-27. A couple weeks ago it was 22.8. Last one, today, was 22.2 gallons with 8 miles remaining.

This is coming off issues with my wife's 2020 Rav4 Hybrid a couple years ago that would only take 5 gallons in its warped tank before it was replaced, so I have been suspicious. Good to know it's intentional.

 

They just like to replace rod bearings…

 

This guy fucks !!

 

Hasn't Ford's 3.5 Ecoboost proven to be the most popular and reliable F150 engine over the last decade, even though they still offer the 5.0 Coyote? Why would Toyota's TT V6 be any different?

Matt

 

I think people have paid a premium for the 3.5ECO too. It's not like it was a better deal. Mine was great but I wasn't involved with the cam drama.
I had the chance to drive both a GM 5.3 and 6.2 recently. Even with the 6.2 I missed the whoosh.

 

Hey man, you got rid of the new Tundra already huh? Sorry to hear you had bad luck with it.

 

BTW Nice color ya got there on the new 4Runner!

 

How about a bone stock 2019 PRO with 65K on the clock?

 

If for some reason they did bring in the 5.7 option the Tundra becomes the lead contender for me to replace my 18 Tundra.
But they are selling every Tundra they can make right now for the limited numbers they make so I don't see that happening.
As far as it being a better truck with the 5.7 we won't know unless they do it with a new transmission.
And the owners of new Tundras that like that 3.4 turbo better can't say either because they would not be using the old transmission and gearing with the 5.7.

A family member a few days ago brought a new GMC Denali 6.2 L to our place. It has the Cyl Deactivation and he says he gets 10.8 L /100 about 21-22 mpg highway but in town 17L /100 - 13/14 mpg. It replaced a F150 Limited 3.5 Turbo.

 

Lol. 05 Volvo on 29" tires: