300 series revealed?
- Thread starter NMNORSSE
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Would not turn that down.
My concern about the 5.7 is not lack of power. What I want is better fuel economy and longer range.
Toyota now sells the euro 6 compliant diesel Hilux, Prado, and 200. With euro 6 being more similar to US regs I’d think the next iteration would easily pass US emissions without a cheat device.
If they did go twin turbo v6 petrol in the US I’d hope they realize that’s a benefit for the luxury crowd and over the diesel. The new Tundra needs a diesel to compete. All
of this is beneficial for CAFE over the v8
If they did go twin turbo v6 petrol in the US I’d hope they realize that’s a benefit for the luxury crowd and over the diesel. The new Tundra needs a diesel to compete. All
of this is beneficial for CAFE over the v8
Unfortunately, the emissions crap on modern diesels sucks fuel economy and power (which is why VW chested). The EU market is moving away from diesels, with a high probability of enacting bans in coming years.
So I wouldn’t hold my breath for a diesel LC in the US.
So I wouldn’t hold my breath for a diesel LC in the US.
In real life driving, turbo V6s aren't better in terms of consumptions vs the V8s that they replaced. Its a scam. They are too throttle sensitive. My previous V6 Macan S would average 14mpg. My LX averages 12mpg. The same has been experienced with the Porsche after they stupidly dumped the V8s in the Cayenne and Panamera for V6s.
Well VAG is known for their scams. But Toyota tends to be more conservative. There is exactly zero chance the fuel consumption will remain the same or go down in the new 300 series vs the 200 series, if it comes with a TT V6. Real world or claimed mpg.
14 mpg in a Macan? Holy crap that is a lot of fuel for such a small car.
Yes. That's why I'm happy with the LX. My driving is spirited most of the time, and I drive 80% of the time in the city.
During road trips, I would get 23-24mpg in the Macan and 18-19mpg in the LX.
bloc
SILVER Star
Unlikely they'd move an engine from a car application directly over to one where towing is a major factor without significant changes, given toyota's well-earned reputation for reliability.
If they could use it in the 300 without changes, they must have left a lot on the table in the LS.
If they could use it in the 300 without changes, they must have left a lot on the table in the LS.
My 3.5L car motor in my Tacoma Pro is pretty lethargic.
It replaced the fantastic 4.0L true truck motor ....
Fantastic might be a reach but from what I have heard about the taco engine...not a deep one.
The Ford Raptor is a twin turbo V6. The new Jeep got a mild hybrid option. You can bet that Toyota will be going new school with the 300-series motor. And it'll be higher performance and more efficient all around so nothing to worry about.
Efficiency is a tough thing for the Land Bruiser. No doubt we will see improvements on that front. But for me, it's not a priority. Many of the ways that OEMs get added efficiency is by optimizing parts in ways that are divergent from the LC mission of durability and robustness. That means chassis and parts are overbuilt (i.e. weight). Same with drivelines. Many efficiency focused vehicles will reduce bearing sizes, gear widths, lighter oils, all to chase mpg. These same qualities can potentially come at the cost of strength and durability. I trust Toyota to get more efficiency while increasing strength and durability.
These boards are funny sometimes. Thank goodness on my sports car forums, that people understand that you might trade off mpg efficiency for other qualities.
Efficiency is a tough thing for the Land Bruiser. No doubt we will see improvements on that front. But for me, it's not a priority. Many of the ways that OEMs get added efficiency is by optimizing parts in ways that are divergent from the LC mission of durability and robustness. That means chassis and parts are overbuilt (i.e. weight). Same with drivelines. Many efficiency focused vehicles will reduce bearing sizes, gear widths, lighter oils, all to chase mpg. These same qualities can potentially come at the cost of strength and durability. I trust Toyota to get more efficiency while increasing strength and durability.
These boards are funny sometimes. Thank goodness on my sports car forums, that people understand that you might trade off mpg efficiency for other qualities.
People talk about efficiency on your sports car forum?
Markuson
SILVER Star
Unless they manage to significantly lighten the vehicle....which would make me question it's build.
The thing is just so dang strong right now. Hope they don't mess around too much with that.
We don't buy cruisers for their MPG.
We buy them for their GMH.
(Get Me Home)
I came from the 3.5L Ecoboost in an F-150. There was zero doubt it was quick... a little turbo lag and hold on. But the reliability, design of the vacuum and injection system, and of special note the fuel economy was sub-par. There was nothing Eco about the Ecoboost unless you wanted to tow consistently between 5000-7000lbs and wanted to be "economical" by not getting an F-250.
If you notice with Ford, Chevy, and Ram they are all using the venerable 6.2, 6.0, and 6.4L gassers in their 2500s. Those trucks are typically fleet work trucks that need to last without a great deal of service attention that turbos, cylinder deactivation, and direct injection may require. While we aren't driving work trucks in the 200, the importance of reliability remains the same. I'd be very nervous to see a lot of "tech" show up on the engine of the next cruiser. I see it as a triple constraint. Power, reliability, economy. Pick two. I'm happy with the first two we have right now.
If you notice with Ford, Chevy, and Ram they are all using the venerable 6.2, 6.0, and 6.4L gassers in their 2500s. Those trucks are typically fleet work trucks that need to last without a great deal of service attention that turbos, cylinder deactivation, and direct injection may require. While we aren't driving work trucks in the 200, the importance of reliability remains the same. I'd be very nervous to see a lot of "tech" show up on the engine of the next cruiser. I see it as a triple constraint. Power, reliability, economy. Pick two. I'm happy with the first two we have right now.
