Taco Letdown

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
08/17/2015 at 12:28 • Filed to: Truck Yeah, 2016 Tacoma, Toyota

An update on my guesses for the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . So now the news is out that the new V6, which is exactly the 3.5 liter version Toyota has been making for a while only with fancy new cam phasing, hits the middle ground of my 2 estimates. 278hp at 6000 rpm (redline) and 265 lbs-ft at 4600 rpm. Frankly, I’m a little disappointed that they weren’t able to squeeze a little more hp out of it. With the fancy cam phasing they should have been able to raise the redline up another 500 rpm and gotten another 15 hp out if it. Toyota has an aversion to rpms, however, so I guess thats not a huge surprise. The torque is whats really disappoints, 1 fewer lbs-ft at much higher rpms...too bad.

Taking a look at the graph we see the problem; less torque means less power up until and past 3900 rpm. (btw, I guessed on the graph numbers but the peaks are right and the curves are in line)

This is exactly in line with what I’ve heard from people who’s have seat time with this engine, that is, that it feels less punchy.

Basically, what you are getting is slightly more average horsepower, a better peak figure and a few extra mpg for the tradeoff of much less average power in the lower (less than 4000 rpm) band. More numbers:

2016 V6 average hp: 168

2015 V6 average hp: 152

GM V6 average hp: 189

Daily driving zone (1400-3800) average HP:

2016 Tacoma: 131

2015 Tacoma: 133

2015 GM: 136

The fact is that 278 hp is an improvement and it means that the truck WILL tow better at highway speeds but it means you will be into the throttle more to get at those ponies that will all be at or near redline. GM plays the the same game, as you can see, but they also knew to crank the redline way up for that hot selling peak hp number.

Again, these graphs (at least the 2016 V6 lines) are guesses and Toyota may have really knocked it out of the park for tuning the torque curve to be flat as the planes, but I doubt it.

That having been said, I’m sure its enough power for most people and I’m sure it will be mostly the same QDR story as all other Tacoma’s...still, its a letdown.

DISCUSSION (8)

uofime-2 > HammerheadFistpunch
08/17/2015 at 15:05

they were saying that weight was up a couple hundred pounds, do you know if the truck grew dimension wise or just has more reinforcements?

HammerheadFistpunch > uofime-2
08/17/2015 at 15:16

I haven’t heard. I suspect its been reinforced, though I heard that it lost weight...maybe they were saying that they saved weight and added strength (increasing strength to weight) or something. My guess is that the strength went into the body for crash standards, and some into the frame.

uofime-2 > HammerheadFistpunch
08/17/2015 at 15:40

Yeah, David Tracy’s post on Jalopnik wasn’t very clear about it, possibly because they’re still being a bit tight lipped about the exact figures. They made it sound like it was heavier, but they mentioned at least 3 different configurations, so who knows.

HammerheadFistpunch > uofime-2
08/17/2015 at 15:44

I suspect it is a little heavier, but that efforts were made to keep it light. That new front small overlap is hard on vehicles and all of them have gained weight to combat it.

uofime-2 > HammerheadFistpunch
08/17/2015 at 15:50

Yeah, they showed the fuel economy down, which rather surprised me, but I’m always suspicious of the economy numbers, and would rather see real world numbers. Even those are always convoluted by drivetrain and final gear variation between the umpteen packages and trims they make.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > HammerheadFistpunch
08/19/2015 at 14:37

It’ll be interesting how it does in the real world mileage wise compared to the GM twins.

jimmy-buffett > HammerheadFistpunch
08/21/2015 at 11:38

I had this engine in a 2008 Lexus IS350, with premium gas and the proper gearing (probably the same 6-speed auto the Tacoma has) it has some go , but you gotta rev it. My first reaction: it’s a strange engine choice for a truck. Second reaction: maybe they’re doing it to bump the MPG, smaller engine with more gears?

Either way, since the HP numbers were not immediately forthcoming I knew there was a problem. If it was making 320 to the Colorado’s 300 , they’d be shouting it from the rooftops.

Considering their market share in the small truck segment, they seem to want to go cheap and cash in. The primary appeal now is reliability, and just as people would be slow to buy a Tundra diesel, inertia’s in their favor. But that’s not a confidence-inspiring marketing strategy.

HammerheadFistpunch > jimmy-buffett
08/21/2015 at 11:39

Great analysis. Its not the exact same engine as your IS, but its very similar. I think its a strange choice too, but what do I know.