2018 200 series vs GX550 (1 Viewer)

[skrypj]

The 5.7 is reliable and durable, but it isn't perfect -- the first gen radiator crack, the difficulty of replacing the alternator, the valley plate leak, the secondary air injection issues, etc.

Broken valve springs taking out motors.

Toyotas cooling systems suck imho. They cant seem to make one that doesn’t have a decent probability of having a major leak before 200k. But everyone considers replacing radiators regular maintenance. It was the same on the other Toyota groups I’ve been a part of.

 

[tacoduck]

If your only concern is reliability over everything else then you could argue that but there are plenty of benefits to GTDI's in truck applications, especially over a V8, and I would argue even small diesels. The 3.0 Duramax is the first half ton diesel I would consider.



I agree. Loved mine. It’s so relaxed towing and just hums along like a sewing machine.



IDK, how many? I’ve certainly heard in a number. Broken valve springs and valves were definitely an issue at one point.

I’d argue the 5.7 is much more reliable than the 3.5 ecoboost. That said, ford has a boat load in service doing truck things, as well as the 2.7. Toyota should be able to make a super reliable turbo engine, but early results are not promising. I sold my 3.5 powered expedition due to constant check engine lights, flashing check engine light while driving 3 hours from home, and the fact it’s my wife primary driver and our road trip car. I sold it for…. A 5.7 powered lx570.

I hope Toyota fixes their TT motor, because the days of v8’s are numbered due to the epa.

 

[M1911]

Broken valve springs taking out motors.

Toyotas cooling systems suck imho. They cant seem to make one that doesn’t have a decent probability of having a major leak before 200k. But everyone considers replacing radiators regular maintenance. It was the same on the other Toyota groups I’ve been a part of.

From what I’ve read, the second gen of the 200 radiator is pretty bulletproof. The first design had a stress concentration that caused cracking at one location.

 

[2021 LC200]

Having followed the news and discussions around the V35A crankshaft bearing failures;
Root cause seems manufacturing/machining debris left in the block. As pointed out by others, that is (much) more plausible explanation then Toyota not knowing how to design the engine and bearings. While this whole thing puts Toyota in a bad daylight, if that is the root cause the issue is relative simple. Hope they do a good job during the recall so this aspect goes into the history books.

Further related thoughts/possible contributing factors;
Owning a 535d with 3.0 ltr i6 N57 engine and some reported spun bearing failures (be it at higher mileage), the advise there is to make sure the engine is warmed up some before putting your right foot down. Also to replace oil timely to keep the turbo bearings happy and the engine and small bore oil flow paths clean. Both practices I would recommend for any car owner, however specifically for turbo charged engines.

 

[tacoduck]

Broken valve springs taking out motors.

Toyotas cooling systems suck imho. They cant seem to make one that doesn’t have a decent probability of having a major leak before 200k. But everyone considers replacing radiators regular maintenance. It was the same on the other Toyota groups I’ve been a part of.

lol, if your only engine problem is the radiator failing at 150k miles, then sign me up. My radiator failed on my lx470 at 300k miles, and I was still able to limp 10 miles to my mechanic. Try that in a BMW.

GM has lifter failures, transmission failures, DEF failures, all within the first 80k miles. At least their radiator is robust

 

[skrypj]

From what I’ve read, the second gen of the 200 radiator is pretty bulletproof. The first design had a stress concentration that caused cracking at one location.

That’s great. How many years did that take to fix? 10?

 

[tacoduck]

That’s great. How many years did that take to fix? 10?

Radiators are cheap. Replacement engines are not cheap.

 

[skrypj]

Radiators are cheap. Replacement engines are not cheap.

I didn’t bring up coolant leaks, someone else did. I just pointed out that those types of failures are very common in Toyota trucks. GX460’s are know to have radiator failures after 100-150k too.

 

[skrypj]

lol, if your only engine problem is the radiator failing at 150k miles, then sign me up. My radiator failed on my lx470 at 300k miles, and I was still able to limp 10 miles to my mechanic. Try that in a BMW.

GM has lifter failures, transmission failures, DEF failures, all within the first 80k miles. At least their radiator is robust

Why is this devolving into a GM and ford vs Toyota circle jerk again? You brought up that you liked your Ecoboost and I agreed.

I never said the Ecoboost was as reliable as the 5.7L, but, as you stated, it has not seen the failures like the v35 and there is 5 million on the road and people keep buying them. They are good, solid motors

Everyone on these Toyota groups acts like if they bought anything else they wouldn’t be able to get to work half the time. It’s so ridiculous.

 

[M1911]

That’s great. How many years did that take to fix? 10?

I don’t know. But all things considered it wasn’t a big deal and you had a lot of warning before it lets go.

 

[tacoduck]

Why is this devolving into a GM and ford vs Toyota circle jerk again? You brought up that you liked your Ecoboost and I agreed.

I never said the Ecoboost was as reliable as the 5.7L, but, as you stated, it has not seen the failures like the v35

Everyone on these Toyota groups acts like if they bought anything else they wouldn’t be able to get to work half the time. It’s so ridiculous.

I’ve had incredible experiences with my Toyota vehicles. I hope the 3.4 Toyota is a winner. I said earlier that ford makes a TT truck motor that does really well. I had lots of reliability issues with my ford at 100k miles. If the only problem I have with my 5.7 is crappy gas mileage and a radiator at 150k miles, I’ll be a happy camper. Sorry for the circle jerk.

 

[skrypj]

I don’t know. But all things considered it wasn’t a big deal and you had a lot of warning before it lets go.

Which is true of most things that happen with anything on cars. Unless of course you own a V35 and your bottom end seized while driving.

 

[LX Cruiser]

Ford has loads of problems, and problem areas in the 3.5 ecoboost, but you never hear of them grenading at 1 year and or 30k miles.

Agreed. They do have issues at a higher rate than Toyota, though. Even so, Toyota needs to get this V35A-FTS sorted ASAP. Pretty uprecedented debacle.

IDK, how many? I’ve certainly heard in a number. Broken valve springs and valves were definitely an issue at one point.

20 3URs broke camshafts when they came out. Another very small number of them broke a valve spring, but nowhere near enough to be included in the great valve spring recall of 138,000 Toyota and Lexus vehicles 2008-2010.

Because they make less.

No. Toyota’s issues occur at a lower rate. Yes, Ford makes more trucks than Toyota does; they also have a higher % of trucks with drivetrain issues.

 

[LX Cruiser]

I don’t know. But all things considered it wasn’t a big deal and you had a lot of warning before it lets go.

I can’t figure believe they let it run for over 10 years. Out of warranty, not their problem, I guess…

 

[bloc]

They day they put a plastic radiator into vehicle is the day that became a PM item.

 

[gasman4u]

They day they put a plastic radiator into vehicle is the day that became a PM item.

This is a fair point. I'm not a smart man, but fundamentally doesn't every plastic become weaker after whatever amount of thermal cycles? I don't know if it's linear, etc but I am sure there's a timeline involved to point of failure. I bring this point up due to the delta every single time you bring your engine to operating temp vs ambient temperature once you're finished driving. Exaggerated in cold climates vs deserts in the day, but still not zero. Any chemical/SPE members (plastics engineers) care to chime in? TIA.

 

[PDoyle]

Most all vehicles need cooling service after 100 k miles. Most need new radiators at that point.

 

[Madtiger]

Yeah I see your engineering point. Difference is that SpaceX clearly says that these are test rockets and clearly says that they expect failure from these test “mules”. Learning lessons if you will.

That Tacoma failure happened on a full production (not test mule) vehicle and should have been caught very early in development!

And I am angry that Toyota states that this ADD failure was “planned” to avoid further damage. Great……. Except that ADD failure would have stranded the driver in the middle of nowhere!!! Think about that. TFL only got off that mountain bc they had another vehicle to tow it down. If that Tacoma was alone like some of us when we off-road, it would have been stranded far away from main road in the middle of winter…probably not in cell coverage. From that perspective, what is the difference between ADD failure and something more severe that ADD was supposed to prevent???

IMHO, Toyota rep fooled everyone with that marketing BS about it being a “good thing” that ADD failed. Huh?!?!!! It stranded the driver in the middle of nowhere! It only got home via another vehicle towing it down.

I sometimes off-road with my family alone to get to a site or scenic place. If this happened to me, my family would be stranded and to add to insult, Toyota likely would deny repairs because I went off-road. (This is why I am glad that Apple iPhones have satellite communication.)

Given how much Toyota was touting the off-road capability of the platform, you would assume that this weakness in ADD would have been seen early in off-road testing. It almost seems like Toyota did not really test these vehicles like they do in the past. They kinda just threw parts together from the parts bin and call it a day. You know like what Ford/Chevy do.

Kinda like the new Tundra waste gate issue. Come on Toyota!

If I want something to strand me in a precarious situation, then I rather buy a Ford! At least, I would be stranded in a vehicle with Apple CarPlay! I get to listen to my favorite tunes while I freeze to death!

I understand teething issues (rattles, misaligned panels, software glitches, radiators crack from 3rd party, parts manufacturing defect in a batch, etc). But these are major issues in areas where you are literally advertising the hell out of them (off road and 3.4 turbo power).

Toyota engineer’s response to Taco failure…Toyota designed it to meet bare minimum…no over-engineering here. Fix: software to limit power…basically software to fix under-engineering.

 

[Specialeyes]

Understand what you are saying, it depends though what you consider as tech(nology)? I would say the 200 series (LC or LX) is the ultimate in technology when you consider all round capability (from on to off road and towing to comfort) and longevity. I call that top technology which matters.

To be honest a good phone holder like the the proclip with a wireless charger attached achieves the same and is closer to my field of view then CarPlay on a middle display. And Spotify or similar plays happily over bluetooth.

Upgrade wise there are tons of aftermarket well thought out products out there for the LC200, even a module to get CarPlay is very feasible and available for the 200 series.

The GX550 especially in overtrail outfit is nice, no argument there.

View attachment 3514221

I like this mount. Will have to check it out.

 

[kcjaz]

Toyota engineer’s response to Taco failure…Toyota designed it to meet bare minimum…no over-engineering here. Fix: software to limit power…basically software to fix under-engineering.

I can understand your view point and why you say this but I'd offer a different view:

Toyota took a pretty simple/conventional 4x4 drive train, with open differentials, designed for a light duty small pickup aimed at a lower price point market and built the Tacoma. They then added computer aided traction control. Traction control (MTS) allows the mechanical, open diff drive train (yes the off road version has a rear locker) to do things it otherwise couldn't do. MTS does greatly improve the off road performance of truck (especially for 99% of the 10% that actually takes these things off road).

So what happened here? Wy did the diff break? The simple answer is that something in it wasn't strong enough. The next question is why wasn't is strong enough? The answer is, there is a possible use condition that results in overstressing some component in the diff. What caused this condition to exist? The answer is that the MTS logic allowed all the torque to go to one wheel and when that wheel lost traction, the ABS clamped down on it and something broke.

So what's an engineer to do? If the truck didn't have MTS, it likely wouldn't have broke, but it also would likely have not have made it up the hill and would generally perform worse in all off road situations. I would be willing to bet that there were many engineers at Toyota that initially said "lets make the thing that broke stronger". But would doing that result in any actual performance improvement? Would the truck have made it up the hill if it hadn't broke? There's no definitive answer to that. Different line, different driver, lots of factors, who knows. Obviously not blowing up the diff in this situation is more important than making it up the hill, but trying to bullet proof the diff will just lead to finding the next weak link, has risk of its own unintended consequence, would cost a ton, and take a long time time to redesign and build.

IMO, it was the MTS software that killed the diff by allowing a situation to exist that the diff wasn't designed to handle. It allowed too much wheel speed and the ABS to act too quickly and abruptly. The engineers original goal was to tune the system in a way to improve traction performance and not break things. They missed this situation. Had they not missed it, they would have almost certainly tuned the software to protect the diff rather than redesigning the diff. I doubt that whatever software tweaks they made to the MTS system have any significant negative impact to off road performance (I admit this is total assumption). Personally, I'd rather have a software update, even if I lost a little uphill snow wheeling traction control, than a newly designed diff.

So did they use software to to fix under engineering or did they use software to maximize off road performance of an existing mechanical system within its mechanical limits? Both are true, its just perspective. Generally though, an engineer's job is to optimize performance, reliability, cost and schedule in a way that allows the business to make money, and continue to exist. Building the bullet proof brick sh*t house doesn't usually cut it.