300 series revealed?

[TeCKis300]

I don't believe that turbo motors inherently have bad reliability. But do believe that Ford products aren't as engineered for longevity in the way that Toyota products are.

Yes, I agree turbo motors are slightly more complex with more ancillary parts, but they've also been around for many many decades. Toyota's 2JZ-GTE was awesome and known for incredible feats of strength with durability to last. My 2JZ-GTE vvti was tuned extensively, and still way more reliable than my Porsche Turbo (that uses many of the same VW/Audi parts) that has finicky fittings and check valves. I have to pressure test the vacuum/pressure system on that car every couple years. It was literally never a question on the Yota.

A turbo car is not inherently thirsty. The turbo captures waste energy from the exhaust to be put to work, making the motor potentially more efficient. It has a dual personality in that it can be more efficient, but also has the potential to make more power. To make more power, one has to use more fuel. And that is dependent on how heavy the drivers foot is.

 

[mooneywa]

"But do believe that Ford products aren't as engineered for longevity in the way that Toyota products are."
-That's why I'm here now, and probably why a lot of us are here. I could fill up reams of pages as to the short comings of Ford reliability.

"To make more power, one has to use more fuel. And that is dependent on how heavy the drivers foot is."
-Also dependent? The weight of the vehicle. The heavier it is, say 5500 lbs for an F-150 4WD SCREW or 5700lb 200, the more fuel you'll have to use to generate the power to get it going. If they can somehow drastically lighten the 300, then maybe you can reap both benefits. The same principle obviously applies to a V-8 or any NA engine for that matter, but from my experience with both the 5.7 and the 3.5EB, I'd take what we have any day and twice today.

If there's anyone out there that can make a modern, fuel efficient, reliable engine in low displacement, turbo form it's probably Toyota.

 

[SWUtah]

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.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this post!!

 

[TonyP]

The fear of turbos is a little bizarre. This isn't the 70s and 80s where 'turbo' was synonymous with poor reliability and poor fuel economy. The technology has come a long way. The pros far outweigh the cons.

Either way, Toyota isn't going to put a power-plant with questionable reliability, poorer fuel economy, and less power in a new series of Land Cruiser. That's not even in question. The fact is, a turbo motor is coming, whether the group likes it or not.

Reminds me of the BMW Ms going turbo and all the purists were up in arms over a turbo powered M3/4. Then they drove one and it was phenomenal.

 

[mooneywa]

I don't think anyone here as "fear" of a turbo engine and I'd like to think we're mature enough as a group to not be V-8 fanboys. My point is that there isn't a lower-displacement turbocharged engine on the market by any manufacturer that comes even remotely close to providing what is currently in the 5.7 in terms of capability and reliability.

2JZs for example were reliable but in stock form don't match today's numbers, and the fuel mileage on a Turbo Supra was what... 22 hwy? The Gen 2 Ecoboost makes 450hp/510lb-ft but go on ford raptor forum and read how many problems they STILL have.

When Toyota can make a turbo engine that exceeds current specs, returns a small increase in mileage, and solves the reliability issues such as valve coking, vacuum design, intercooler condensate issues, oil dilution, oil dilution-caused timing chain tensioner failure, timing chain tensioner failure-caused cam phaser failure........ and so on and so forth... then I don't think anyone will have one issue at all with the decision to equip new cruisers with one.

I guess I'm very passionate on this topic because I bought my 200 because of it's world renowned and now confirmed reliability. I'd be devastated to see that go away in future iterations.

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

A lot had been said of smaller displacement, forced induction gas motors. We see them across the board, and they are all pretty good for the vast majority of buyers.

That said, and I can prove this every time. Small displacement gasoline, even if supercharged/turbocharged will be a marked improvement for the stock LC and most drivers. But when someone wants to build up the truck, with heavy, crappy aerodynamic winch bumpers, lifts and off road tires, tons a camping gear, and a family. Small displacement will have to work harder than a larger one. Its just how it works, and when a smaller motor has to use more of its available power, than a larger motor that doesn't have to use as much of its available power, then the mpg will be about the same, and the drivability will be worse on the small displacement motor.

You see that with the 3.5 eco boost. Thing gets low to mid 20s when being a "car", run it as a truck, pulling even a 5,000 lbs load and it gets worse milage than the 5.0 pulling the same trailer. (Personally tested)

Another example, my '96 4cyl Tacoma, '07 6cyl FJ, and my '11 8cyl 200 all get the same millage, both on the highway and city. Why? because the smaller the engine, the harder it works, and these smaller engines have much greater reduction in fuel economy when towing/pushing offroad equipment than a larger engine. All 3 are built the same.

Example 3. I had a 3.0 D4D Hilux overseas, and it was fine for driving around. But slap some weight on it, and the thing got worse millage than our 4.5L 200.

Now I could go on, but for even most of us on this forum, the future smaller displacement 6-8 cyl with forced induction will be a better option. Most of us do small lifts, 1" larger all terrains, and that about it. I think it will be great for damn near everyone.

But for guys that are heavily modified, whose trucks feel like they are towing some heavy load every second of the day because they are lugging around armor and heavy loads, the 5.7 will be the better choice, making more power at lower rpm cruising speed while driving down the road.

Now onto reliability, while I like Toyota the most of all automakers, I've used six diesel Toyotas for extended periods, two of those had their turbos fail with around 30,000 miles of them. Probably not a big deal for anyone with access to Toyota service centers, like in the US, Australia, UAE... but for where I was, it sure did suck.

So if the next LC gets a smaller 8 cyl, like a 4.6-5.0L with a turbo. Fine, I think it will be great. If it gets a 3.5-4.5L 6 cyl, I'll be glad I have my 200. And I don't care about how many cylinders, I just want a lot of fuel and air to mix together and explode. When you move a heavy load, you just need more power on tap. Anyone see a small displacement turbo'ed one ton truck? Exactly.

Regardless of the motor, you know the next LC will be more capable offroad. With the exception of the triple locked 80s, every LC gets better offroad with every series. I expect the 300 to

 

[M1911]

I don't think anyone here as "fear" of a turbo engine and I'd like to think we're mature enough as a group to not be V-8 fanboys.

Me? Mature? Now that's a damn lie

Besides, I like naturally aspirated V8s...

 

[SWUtah]

5.7 L V-8 engine not even working hard good for half million miles “complex” higher RPM higher stress smaller displacement turbo charged six good for 100 to 200,000 miles. That’s not progress. I was going to buy a raptor before they put a V-6 in it now I wouldn’t buy at a super super discount

 

[zmf]

Excuse my drunk ass rambling response. I look at overhead power as a bonus, in computers, in stereos, in cars. You don't use it most of the time, but when you need it, it's there, and you love it, and you love knowing it's there. I've owned 2 V8s, and a bunch of inline and flat 4s - non, low pressure, and regular turbos. My favorites have been the V8s, hands down. It's not always about using the power, but about having it to use when you need it. I think taco nailed it in his post. It's complicated, but I'd shy away from at turbo V6 in the next gen. I'm pretty sure my wife's next car will be a 300 series LX - or whatever. She doesn't need much power-wise, but I'd be disappointed if it was weak. I can't imagine it would be unreliable though. That's another bag of worms. Whatever the 300 comes with will be great. Will I like it? Dunno, but it will probably get better mileage.

-Z

 

[SWUtah]

If it's a turbo won't be having any debates over running regular or premium

 

[ryanCA]

If it's a turbo won't be having any debates over running regular or premium

Debates will continue forever

Crv Honda turbo uses regular unleaded
2017 Honda CR-V - Powertrain - Honda.com while all other turbos I own have used premium

 

[bloc]

Toyota dearly values their title as the landcruiser being the standard bearer for reliability. I'm betting they test the new engine thoroughly.. including sustained towing conditions which are what give small displacement turbo engines headaches.

What worries me is the possibility of them sticking an "eco" engine into the USDM version and giving the rest of the world a v8 or whatever is needed for true reliability/longevity/fuel choices.

 

[TeCKis300]

Toyota dearly values their title as the landcruiser being the standard bearer for reliability. I'm betting they test the new engine thoroughly.. including sustained towing conditions which are what give small displacement turbo engines headaches.

What worries me is the possibility of them sticking an "eco" engine into the USDM version and giving the rest of the world a v8 or whatever is needed for true reliability/longevity/fuel choices.

No worries. We've always gotten the big motor configuration. LC200s abroad usually get the 4.6 that's in the GX460 or diesel. Only the top flight Sahara and LX570 get the big 5.7 option.

 

[SWUtah]

Debates will continue forever

Crv Honda turbo uses regular unleaded
2017 Honda CR-V - Powertrain - Honda.com while all other turbos I own have used premium

I'm stating with a turbo premium will be required

 

[M1911]

I'm stating with a turbo premium will be required

I doubt that will be the case. Many of Ford’s Ecoboost engines only require regular.

 

[JS22STL]

I doubt that will be the case. Many of Ford’s Ecoboost engines only require regular.

The lexus will certainly use premium.

 

[M1911]

The lexus will certainly use premium.

The Lexus likely will. But I doubt the Toyota will.

The LX570 says it requires premium, while the LC does not, even though both use the same 5.7.

That seems to be mostly about marketing. As Ford, GM, and others have shown, just because an engine is turbocharged doesn’t mean it has to require premium fuel.

 

[SWUtah]

Sorry about mentioning regular and premium

 

[M1911]

Sorry about mentioning regular and premium

What is a forum thread without a thread hijack or three?

Speaking of 747s...

 

[OSS]

Another option is Toyota discontinues the Land Cruiser in the USA entirely. Not all that far fetched. Is America really ready for a $100,000 Land Cruiser?