2015/2016 New 3rd gen Tacoma Debut in Detriot

[austintaco]

Much better. Can't wait to get my hands on a brochure, see a few models in person, navigate through the different builds, and maybe start considering a switch. Hmmmmm. How would my Flippac look on one of these.....

 

[p nut]

Ha!

Not enough power anyways.

Hoping they offer the V6 in the SR model.

That's the one I'm looking to get. Double cab, SR (or SR-5), V6, auto, long-bed.

 

[bkg]

All the 1979 to 1995 trucks were T-handles and the 1st gen Tacoma still had a T-handle for both. My 2008 is a stick shift and has a T-handle. I understood the 2nd gen Tacoma automatics were foot pedals? My guess is it's all a consolidation to make one type of parking brake common to both automatic and sticks that isn't a T-handle like it used to be. It does seem like a positive that Toyota doesn't intend to eliminate the manual transmission from the Tacoma otherwise why have a hand brake at all, i.e. the 4Runner and Tundra.

You are correct. Typo on my part. Gen-2 Taco (05-14) were foot (for auto's. Never driven a manual of that Gen).

 

[austintaco]

No mention of front or rear lockers, just the trail select/crawl control. Still quite a few unknowns, but more excited than I was last week.

 

[bkg]

Guessing all makers are migrating this way given the button is cheaper and has less moving parts than the old school keys hanging from ignition set up. GM has taken a beating over their bad ignition issue whats odd is that in the Auto biz parts like that are used by many makers GM wasn't the only one to use that ignition part I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop and we hear about other makers who have that same part in their cars.

Quite possibly correct. I still don't like it. And personally, I'd rather have more moving mechanical parts than more electronics... That's just me.

 

[calicamper]

The I4 is the old 2.7 retuned to match a new 6 speed auto. You can't get a MT with the I4 anymore.

The V6 is a new 3.5 running an Atkinson cycle. Not too many details about this yet, but appears to be an all new engine probably a 2GR-xxx where "xxx" is some new suffix. 6 speed auto or manual with this. The 6 speed manual is new, does not carry over the old 6 speed.

Transfer cases are all new. Rear diffs are all new.

OR package now includes Multi-Terrain-Select and Crawl Control - these features already available on FJ and 4runner.

Interesting the Atkins cycle? I wonder if that changes throttle response from idle? Might make for some frustrated MT owners.

 

[bkg]

Interesting the Atkins cycle? I wonder if that changes throttle response from idle? Might make for some frustrated MT owners.

Someone explain it to me in very small words - just read this form Wiki and now am confused how it makes more power...

Modern Atkinson cycle engines[edit]





A small engine with Atkinson-style linkages between the piston and flywheel. Modern Atkinson cycle engines do away with this complex energy path.
Recently, the term "Atkinson cycle" has been used to describe a modified Otto cycle engine in which the intake valve is held open longer than normal to allow a reverse flow of intake air into the intake manifold. The effective compression ratio is reduced (for a time the air is escaping the cylinder freely rather than being compressed) but the expansion ratio is unchanged. This means the compression ratio is smaller than the expansion ratio. Heat gained from burning fuel increases the pressure, thereby forcing the piston to move, expanding the air volume beyond the volume when compression began. The goal of the modern Atkinson cycle is to allow the pressure in the combustion chamber at the end of the power stroke to be equal to atmospheric pressure; when this occurs, all the available energy has been obtained from the combustion process. For any given portion of air, the greater expansion ratio allows more energy to be converted from heat to useful mechanical energy meaning the engine is more efficient.

The disadvantage of the four-stroke Atkinson cycle engine versus the more common Otto cycle engine is reduced power density. Due to a smaller portion of the compression stroke being devoted to compressing the intake air, an Atkinson cycle engine does not take in as much air as would a similarly designed and sized Otto cycle engine.

Four-stroke engines of this type use the same type of intake valve motion but with a supercharger to make up for the loss of power density are known as Miller cycle engines.

 

[calicamper]

Someone explain it to me in very small words - just read this form Wiki and now am confused how it makes more power...

I'm with you BKG my understanding is with Atkin's cycle the idea is that it increases efficiency at the most inefficient point typically idle I'm not clear on why this is the case but Toyota has used it for years in the Prius however when you give the Prius throttle you also get instant electric motor torque added to the request. So my understanding was that it worked well in the Prius given the electric motor response with its torque off set the nature of Atkins cycle giving what I had read as being a flat throttle response from idle. Maybe they have new techno magic that changes this with the new engines? Perhaps its Atkins cycle at idle but they have some valve magic that more or less ends that cycle when you give it throttle?

 

[Saharicon]

Well, I'm sold. I personally love the design and the improvements. The standard TRD OR GoPro mount really just sent me over... :sombrero:

Maybe they will offer me a decent amount for the 2014 once the 16 comes out.

 

[DVexile]

At this point it seems the consensus is that the Atkinson cycle on the V6 likely only applies in the idle and low power ranges - that it is implemented with VVT and it is Otto cycle the rest of the time. Manufacturers have gotten pretty loose about calling things "Atkinson" even when they strictly aren't. Of course at this stage we really have no details so that is all supposition.

 

[calicamper]

At this point it seems the consensus is that the Atkinson cycle on the V6 likely only applies in the idle and low power ranges - that it is implemented with VVT and it is Otto cycle the rest of the time. Manufacturers have gotten pretty loose about calling things "Atkinson" even when they strictly aren't. Of course at this stage we really have no details so that is all supposition.

I think your right. Probably more along the lines of Marketing dept likes to add it to the list of technical bits to make it look more impressive. Perhaps its along the lines of the fuel cut idea where going down hill no throttle or light throttle input after x amount of time it switches to the Atkins cycle then when the load and throttle comes back ie going back up hill etc it reverts back etc. Sort of the extra fine tuning for every drop of fuel savings that can be saved idea.

 

[duckhunter71]

No mention of front or rear lockers, just the trail select/crawl control. Still quite a few unknowns, but more excited than I was last week.

You can see the rear locker indicator in one of the press photos of the gauges. I'm quite confident it is still available.

 

[drsmonkey]

Doesn't seem possible that they could get a 3.5L to put out numbers close to the 4.0L in a true Atkinson cycle engine.

I could actually deal with a tad less power with improved mpg, my current truck is a 4.0 taco, and compared to my last truck (4.0 Ranger) it almost feels excessive. Not compared to the truck I had briefly in between those two, a 6.0 powerstroke, that was definitely excessive for my use.

I doubt that Toyota would release the 3.5 if the numbers don't at least match the current V6, at least on paper. Until we either see the power and torque curves, and/or somebody unbiased drives it we wont know.

Though I like the way the 2016 OR looks,and some of the new features are enticing (it drives itself! all you have to do is steer!) I still will keep my 2014. Always safer to buy at the end of a model cycle instead of the beginning.

 

[Mrknowitall]

.
Unfortunately this is being driven by buyers. Consider the Tundra. The first Tundra was a decent sized pickup with a moderate sized V8. When it was introduced it was physically smaller than its counterparts from the big 3.
.
And it got its butt kicked in sales from the big 3. As the big 3 emphasized how big their trucks were, how powerful the engines were, and how much they could tow, the Tundra looked puny by comparison. Never mind that most people don't need the power that the full size truck has, the fact that they can get it makes it "more valuable" to them.
.
I call it the "unnecessary capability" conundrum. If you sell a product that can haul 4,000lbs, I can turn around and sell a competing product that hauls 4,500 lbs for a higher price, and the customer will pay more because he perceives that he is "getting more." The fact that he never hauls more than 2,000lbs is irrelevant, because my product has "more" and more=better, always.
.
This is the reason that modern full size trucks look so ridiculous. Because there's a never-ending arms race of bigger, bigger, bigger. Look at how they're advertised: "our truck has a thicker frame" "our truck tows more" "our truck has a bigger payload capacity."
.
The question that never seems to be asked is "what good is having an additional capability if that capability is one I'm probably never going to need or use?" Especially when that "additional capability" comes with a significant cost in initial price, or in fuel economy?
.
It's a good question but those who buy full size trucks don't seem to care, they want bigger & more, so that's what the manufacturers are offering them.

Disagree- the 1st gen Tundra was often scoffed a 7/8 size truck, but it found the same number of customers (aside from the 2007 sales assault) as the bigger truck, that goes toe to toe with the domestics on size and power. The fact that it was more refined and a little more compact was good to set it apart.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Disagree- the 1st gen Tundra was often scoffed a 7/8 size truck, but it found the same number of customers (aside from the 2007 sales assault) as the bigger truck, that goes toe to toe with the domestics on size and power. The fact that it was more refined and a little more compact was good to set it apart.

That was always a knock on the T100, not quite full size. But it was popular with those who saw the benefit. It was only slightly larger externally than the current Tacoma and had more useful space inside and in the bed. That was a truck that I wish was still made. Very stout Japanese-made frame (they actually offered a 1-ton version for a while, but they all had the same frame), improved engine (3.4L) and proven drivetrain but with some elbow room.