550 / 250 or an Inoes?

[rexington14]

I think the location of the starter makes some sense. It's protected and may be cooler than being right next to the exhaust. The GM Northstar v8, Nissan 5.6L v8, and Porsche Cayenne for some generations have them in the V also underneath the intake manifold. Probably a few others. Amazingly I think there are some BMW inline 6 engines that require removing the intake manifold to change the starter. Somehow they found a place on an inline engine to make it just as hard.

I don't think I've ever had a starter actually go out in a Toyota. I'm sure it's happened. But I've never had it on any of mine. Maybe just lucky. Had a few GMs, but they were easy to swap with a few bolts and easy access.

Original starter in both my 05 LC and 06 Corolla. I'll replace it when it fails. It doesn't make sense to me when I see people replacing a factory original Toyota starter for no reason other than PM. Especially on the 2UZ where you need to remove the intake you also risk debris / sand / dirt making it's way inside the intake ports into the engine. I actually consider a 2UZ starter replacement as a potential red flag since you don't know if proper care was taken before and during the job to prevent this. And speaking of needlessly replacing working parts that can last a long time, the same goes for Toyota ignition coils.

 

[rexington14]

The starter on my GX470 went out at 136K or so, and I expect it will need another starter at around 270K. It gets kind of cooked in the valley of the motor. Removing the intake itself is actually fairly easy (maybe 45 min to get it off); the challenge is removing the two rear starter bolts that are up against the firewall, particularly on a rig with SAIS like mine has. The SAIS tubes are downright terrible to remove and there is almost no room to remove the starter bolts themselves. I did the SAIS delete when I did the starter and removed the tubes (no emissions checks here).

The starter pales in comparison to replacing the OEM manifolds with headers. That took me around 21-22 hours to DIY. The UZ is a wide, wide motor and it's right up against the inner fenders, frame, and suspension components. Now that those things are done, I'm left with a buttery-smooth, ultra-reliable, good-sounding, and reasonably powerful Toyota V8 that should run for another 400K+ miles.

I think the engine bay is a bit more cramped in the GX470 than in the 100? I've heard of cracked exhaust manifolds in the very early 100's but it doesn't seem to be as frequent of an issue in the later model years 100 series.

 

[Jetboy]

Original starter in both my 05 LC and 06 Corolla. I'll replace it when it fails. It doesn't make sense to me when I see people replacing a factory original Toyota starter for no reason other than PM. Especially on the 2UZ where you need to remove the intake you also risk debris / sand / dirt making it's way inside the intake ports into the engine. I actually consider a 2UZ starter replacement as a potential red flag since you don't know if proper care was taken before and during the job to prevent this. And speaking of needlessly replacing working parts that can last a long time, the same goes for Toyota ignition coils.

I've also never had an ignition coil go out. I'm sure it happens, but I've never had one go. I haven't kept any of my Toyotas past about 250k, so maybe I'm just not keeping em long enough? I have had head gaskets go out on a 20R and 22R. But those are 40yr old engines at this point.

 

[rexington14]

I've also never had an ignition coil go out. I'm sure it happens, but I've never had one go. I haven't kept any of my Toyotas past about 250k, so maybe I'm just not keeping em long enough? I have had head gaskets go out on a 20R and 22R. But those are 40yr old engines at this point.

40 years is impressive. A few head gaskets have gone out on the 200 3URs around 100k miles. I believe the 200 head gasket failure count is now approaching 25 members here on MUD. Though most of these occurred closer to 200k, that's still way too early too see that type of failure in a Toyota for no specific reason.

Anyways, for all the clamoring about the loss of V8 reliability here we see that GM's recent 6.2 V8 is still worse off than Toyota's TTV6. Both recalled for similar reason (possible machining debris, though the GM's have build issues with the crank as well). And while Toyota is replacing all motors under recall, GM will only replace your motor if it throws a specific code (which would likely only be thrown after the engine seized up and your on the side of the road). Otherwise, GM switches you to 0w40 oil, and sends you on your way with a 150k mile motor warranty.

 

[Rednexus]

I think the engine bay is a bit more cramped in the GX470 than in the 100? I've heard of cracked exhaust manifolds in the very early 100's but it doesn't seem to be as frequent of an issue in the later model years 100 series.

The cracked manifolds also happen on the Tundra/Sequoia. Though, perhaps the 100/LX have a higher quality manifold. The GX/Tundra manifolds are very thin 409SS (probably 18 ga) and crack at the flared end of the pipe, under the flange, where they bolt to the head.

The Doug Thorley long-tube headers I replaced the manifolds with are 14 ga 304 SS (with a coating) with 3/8" thick carbon steel flanges. They also gave the rig quite a bit more midrange torque. They are probably the best mod one can do for a UZ and were worth the $1K cost and 2.5 days of my time.

Here is just how cramped things are. I literally used a 24" long stack of wobble extensions, U-joint extensions, and normal extensions to get these tight. Plus I had to cut a deep socket in half to make a "mid-depth" socket that would work for tightening. Mrs. Rednexus sometimes had to twist the ratchet while I held the stack in place from underneath the rig.

 

[Jetboy]

40 years is impressive. A few head gaskets have gone out on the 200 3URs around 100k miles. I believe the 200 head gasket failure count is now approaching 25 members here on MUD. Though most of these occurred closer to 200k, that's still way too early too see that type of failure in a Toyota for no specific reason.

Anyways, for all the clamoring about the loss of V8 reliability here we see that GM's recent 6.2 V8 is still worse off than Toyota's TTV6. Both recalled for similar reason (possible machining debris, though the GM's have build issues with the crank as well). And while Toyota is replacing all motors under recall, GM will only replace your motor if it throws a specific code (which would likely only be thrown after the engine seized up and your on the side of the road). Otherwise, GM switches you to 0w40 oil, and sends you on your way with a 150k mile motor warranty.

The 6.2 really is a disaster. It's not quite Ford 6.0 level failure, but the failure rate according to GM's own data is 4 times the rate of the Toyota TTV6. And it's all self-inflicted. Toyota was too slow to address the V35A issue, failed in both the engineering and production side on the oil flow design and the processing, and I'm not convinced that they've actually resolved it. BUT - Toyota did ultimately stand behind those engines and made a clear commitment to customers for the long run. GM is just hoping to get them out of warranty and let em fail.

Just for a funny comparison, the V35A engine swap book rate is 13.6 hours of labor. That stupid oil pump belt on the GM 3.0 Duramax is 13.8 hours! GM engineered an engine with a completely unnecessary timing belt that takes more labor hours than an entire engine swap on a very complicated Toyota engine.

The B58 choice by INEOS seems pretty reasonable all things considered. It's a pretty solid engine and running at the low output they've tuned it for, it'll probably be a very low failure rate engine. My one thought about it though is that they're running it with a 280hp tune. That's probably less than what a 3.0L 6cyl engine would make normally aspirated. So the turbos aren't working very hard. I'd guess it rarely exceeds 10psi and probably rarely even goes past 5psi. I really like that engine philosophy and think the Tacoma, 4R, and LC250 would be much better overall with a 300hp low pressure turbo 6cyl instead of the higher stressed 4cyl to make comparable power.

 

[Acrad]

I guess it has now been a while since Isuzu worked with GM on Duramax engines. I hadn't realized it was about 15 years.

 

[numby]

With so many rejects, you have to be pretty picky and specific to go the built-to-order route. In any event, assuming you are right on thousands and thousands of people pulling out their deposit at the last minute, there must be a reason why they did so. I do remember reading in this forum people excited about the Grenadier when it was announced and several putting deposits down.

The company has sold roughly 20,000 vehicles worldwide (their numbers). I have no idea how many did';t follow through on their reservation. I'm willing to speculate that there aren't "thousands and thousands" of leftovers on the US dealer lots any longer. If there were roughly ±1000 spread out over the 20 North American dealerships that would still be 50 per dealership so probably less. I've been to three dealerships over the last year and none of them had anywhere near that number. More like 10-15 at each place.

There are some things you can't easily add later. The sun roofs are one. For the dedicated off highway buyer you'd need to pre-order the lockers, the towing package, and the extra bank of power switches/outlets. Maybe the inverter as well. Some early reservers were just geeking out on a new car to drive and ordered all the blingy stuff but forgot the meat and potatoes.

 

[rexington14]

The 6.2 really is a disaster. It's not quite Ford 6.0 level failure, but the failure rate according to GM's own data is 4 times the rate of the Toyota TTV6. And it's all self-inflicted. Toyota was too slow to address the V35A issue, failed in both the engineering and production side on the oil flow design and the processing, and I'm not convinced that they've actually resolved it. BUT - Toyota did ultimately stand behind those engines and made a clear commitment to customers for the long run. GM is just hoping to get them out of warranty and let em fail.

Just for a funny comparison, the V35A engine swap book rate is 13.6 hours of labor. That stupid oil pump belt on the GM 3.0 Duramax is 13.8 hours! GM engineered an engine with a completely unnecessary timing belt that takes more labor hours than an entire engine swap on a very complicated Toyota engine.

The B58 choice by INEOS seems pretty reasonable all things considered. It's a pretty solid engine and running at the low output they've tuned it for, it'll probably be a very low failure rate engine. My one thought about it though is that they're running it with a 280hp tune. That's probably less than what a 3.0L 6cyl engine would make normally aspirated. So the turbos aren't working very hard. I'd guess it rarely exceeds 10psi and probably rarely even goes past 5psi. I really like that engine philosophy and think the Tacoma, 4R, and LC250 would be much better overall with a 300hp low pressure turbo 6cyl instead of the higher stressed 4cyl to make comparable power.

Ineos probably tuned / detuned it for low end torque and to prioritize reliability (mainly prevent overheating).

But... the B58 is a high(er) performance car / crossover engine. And putting it in a 6k lb 4x4 Grenadier just furthers the trend of shoehorning car / crossover engines into heavier duty BOF 4x4 applications with little to no design / engineering changes other than a software tune.

We are a ways away from the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s when Toyota was designing, building, and iterating on their UZ engines over decades during a no compromises engineering era. Toyota purpose built and over engineered the 2UZ-FE specifically for truck and SUV applications. They gave the 2UZ more power (mostly torque), and a cast iron block for reliability and durability. While the 1UZ (which came prior) and the 3UZ (which came after) both had aluminum blocks.

Since then we've seen the all aluminum 1UR-FE and 3UR-FE which are quite similar besides a longer stroke (more power) in the 3UR. Though the rods on the 1UR look beefier than the 3UR.

And now we have the T24A which you can get in a Highlander or Lexus NX, or, an offroading 4x4 4Runner or Land Cruiser.

 

[SanJuanJ]

Can a mod please correct the spelling in the thread title? It bugs me

 

[Rednexus]

We are a ways away from the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s when Toyota was designing, building, and iterating on their UZ engines over decades during a no compromises engineering era. Toyota purpose built and over engineered the 2UZ-FE specifically for truck and SUV applications. They gave the 2UZ more power (mostly torque), and a cast iron block for reliability and durability. While the 1UZ (which came prior) and the 3UZ (which came after) both had aluminum blocks.

The stock 2UZ is a bit short on power and likes gasoline a bit too much. But, I absolutely love mine. The headers, exhaust, and a tune each really woke it up. It sounds awesome when the ACIS and VVTI kick in (albeit less rowdy than an American V8). Considering it was 270HP/320TQ stock, I'm betting it's close to 300HP/350TQ now. It has a very satisfying NA V8 power band with the 3,400 RPM torque peak - which is a full 1,000 RPM lower than the LM7 5.3 made at the same time. I've never owned a 4Runner, but I think they would be much less satisfying to drive with the V6 relative to the UZ.

 

[Jetboy]

Ineos probably tuned / detuned it for low end torque and to prioritize reliability (mainly prevent overheating).

But... the B58 is a high(er) performance car / crossover engine. And putting it in a 6k lb 4x4 Grenadier just furthers the trend of shoehorning car / crossover engines into heavier duty BOF 4x4 applications with little to no design / engineering changes other than a software tune.

We are a ways away from the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s when Toyota was designing, building, and iterating on their UZ engines over decades during a no compromises engineering era. Toyota purpose built and over engineered the 2UZ-FE specifically for truck and SUV applications. They gave the 2UZ more power (mostly torque), and a cast iron block for reliability and durability. While the 1UZ (which came prior) and the 3UZ (which came after) both had aluminum blocks.

Since then we've seen the all aluminum 1UR-FE and 3UR-FE which are quite similar besides a longer stroke (more power) in the 3UR. Though the rods on the 1UR look beefier than the 3UR.

And now we have the T24A which you can get in a Highlander or Lexus NX, or, an offroading 4x4 4Runner or Land Cruiser.

The 1UZ is a very unusual engine in the low rpm power it produces despite being a relatively wide bore short stroke engine. Typical oversquare engines are what you'd describe as a car engine. They tend to be higher revving but lack low rpm power due to the shorter crank lever arm. Looking at the 1UZ spec sheet alone and I would expect it to be a high revving car type engine. The UR engines are the opposite. The 3UR is an undersquare design that looks like it was designed around low rpm power first and peak HP as a less important factor.

The new turbo engines are far more "truck" type power than the outgoing GR engines or even the v8s. The power curve of the turbo 4 is very similar to the 1UZ under about 4k rpms where the 1UZ continues to build power and the T24A runs out of steam. Everything about the T24A and V35A appear to be designed for low rpm power. They are both narrow bore, long stroke engines that have diesel like designs on the bottom ends and offset cylinder alignment to maximize the torque at expense of higher rpm power. The BMW B58 is also undersquare and should be pretty well suited for lower rpm power. It's the Engine IMO that Toyota should be building instead of the V35A.

Even though they do show up in suvs and cars across the spectrum from Toyota - they're pretty skewed toward lower rpms power like you'd want in a truck engine. And apparently they're pretty different despite sharing the same name between the car and truck versions. In one of the engine discussions on the Tacoma the head of the engine development talks about how the BOF model of the T24A 4cyl only shares about 30% of the parts with the car version. He said that they design the truck version with a 30% longer expected service life and re-engineered a lot of the engine and cooling systems for the higher service life and higher load.

Overall I think the new turbo engines from Toyota from a base design standpoint are really well suited for use in BOF trucks and SUVs. The designs are as close to diesel type power as you could probably get in a gasoline engine. The issue for me is mostly with the choice of application and layout. The turbo 4 is great - it's just do damn small of an engine for a 5k lb plus truck or SUV that also is going to tow something. It should be a base engine and the turbo v6 should be optional for folks who want more power. That's why Toyota really should have gone with an I6 design. It's really easy to make a single turbo I6 that fits half way between the turbo 4 and a twin turbo high output I6. Toyota has the de-tuned V6 in the SR tundra, but they still have all of the same manufacturing costs. Nothing gets cheaper or simpler with the lower power tune. The fully inline design set could also include an I5 if they wanted a real intermediate engine.

Just for a visual - I added a close approximation of the T24A and the V35A on the chart of other Toyota engines. The T24 and 1UZ comparison was mostly what I was looking at along with the 1GR and it's easy to see how well the 1UZ and T24A compare at the lower rpm end where we use them most vs the high rpm power of the NA v6 engines. The V35A is in a bit of a different league of power, but worth adding.

 

[rexington14]

The 2UZ in my truck redlines about 5k RPM. Lower rpm power is preferable for most daily driving conditions whether you are driving a car, truck, or suv. The new engine (and sharing it across segments) makes sense in that regard though it comes at the expense of refinement / NVH which is a relatively common complaint.

It would be interesting to dig through parts diagrams and see what if any of the T24A's actual engine internals are different between the crossover and truck versions. (Engine accessory and bolt-ons are surely different). If they really are built different internally, why wasn't Toyota able to gain any additional power over the crossover versions by running the truck motors on a more aggressive tune? One would assume beefier internals would be able to handle additional power.

 

[Jetboy]

I don't know much about the engine differences. I found one of the comparison interviews with the head of the engine design. He said 54% of the engine is shared with the car version. It sounds like the biggest changes were cooling and internal oiling systems. I know they were pretty proud of increasing engine power output while also eliminating the high octane fuel requirement. I assume that has to do with cooling mostly. They also talked about the duty cycle of the turbos being a lot higher because they expect them to be run a lot hotter for longer than the passenger car specs. They said that they re-designed cooling and oil systems to maintain their function at higher engine angles in all directions to make sure they never starve for oil or coolant in extreme angles that the passenger car version wouldn't ever experience. What that actually means internally - I have only a slight idea and that is oil pumps maybe having higher flow, oil spray tips being different, and water pumps with higher volume and higher pressure. Probably also things like different gaskets, head bolts, bearings, etc.

 

[Jeremy556]

They said that they re-designed cooling and oil systems to maintain their function at higher engine angles in all directions to make sure they never starve for oil or coolant in extreme angles that the passenger car version wouldn't ever experience. What that actually means internally - I have only a slight idea and that is oil pumps maybe having higher flow, oil spray tips being different, and water pumps with higher volume and higher pressure. Probably also things like different gaskets, head bolts, bearings, etc.

I know Toyota has replaced several 1GRFE motors under warranty because of oil starvation at extreme angles. I've witnessed a couple blow up

 

[Jetboy]

I know Toyota has replaced several 1GRFE motors under warranty because of oil starvation at extreme angles. I've witnessed a couple blow up

I wonder if the changes are related to that issue. I've heard of it, but never experienced it in person. I recall the one steepest climb on gold bar rim trail in Moab with a Tacoma with a 2gr where the truck started a lot of black smoke out the exhaust for maybe 30 seconds before the winch pulled him up to a more level position, but didn't have the same issue in my 4Runner. I assumed that was oil flooding the rear cylinders past the rings, but ?? Mine didn't have a starvation issue that I could tell, but it may be that I was just lucky or it was so short that it didn't cause any damage?

I doubt BMW does any sort of similar engine testing on a B58. BMW doesn't make any offroad vehicles, so I'm not sure there's any real reason they'd have a test designed for that.

 

[numby]

I doubt BMW does any sort of similar engine testing on a B58. BMW doesn't make any offroad vehicles, so I'm not sure there's any real reason they'd have a test designed for that.

Supposedly Ineos did some testing of the B58 over the two year pre production period. I believe the vehicle is safe from rollover up to 40°. I don't know about pitch capability. I don't think there are any caveats as regards the engine/oil pump but I haven't googled it.

 

[23GXOR]

B58 engines have a large baffle structure in the oil pan, designed to prevent oil starvation in high G corners. It works, but is not a substitute for a dry sump. No idea if that would help with oil migration or starvation in high angle of attack. Hard to see how it would help very much.

 

[W4632018]

On my drive to Moab from SLC, I counted 12 Ineos grenadiers. Didn’t see a single GX, but did see 3 250’s there

 

[Barry Dingle]

Stick with a 200 series.