2001 Tacomas: 4-cyl vs. 6-cyl

[Jon Martin]

Yesterday I go test drive new 2001 Tacomas in order to figure out
which model I need/want. Fully prepared to go with the v6 5spd manual,
I was instead disappointed with its around-town acceleration. The
4-banger 5spd seemed much zippier in town. This perceived performance
was also true up hills (in-town, not on the highway). Without having
any hard numbers, the 4-cyl 5spd seemed 'torquier'. Of course none of
the specs I have read would account for this difference. Has anyone
else noticed this, or did I get a particularly well-adjusted 4 and/or
a particularly poorly-adjusted 6, or was I just hallucinating?

Thanks . . .

[Verolom]

With Toyota's gazzilion years of experience with 4 cylinder engines, old V6
engine design, current gas prices, and price difference (both initial cost
and maintenance) I'd definitely go for the 4 cylinder and maybe with an
additional option (ie, 4x4 instead of prerunner), unless you want to tow
heavy things or have a higher resale value (for some odd reason).

Verolom

(That 9.5 second 0-60 mph acceleration on the V6 was a product of someone's
imagination.)

"Jon Martin" <jma...@ebmud.com> wrote in message
news:f0ae19f7.01091...@posting.google.com...

[Dan G.]

There is practically no mileage benefit with the 4cyl engine in the 4x4, they both
will do high teens in the MPG. The V6 has a lot more HP, and even more braking HP
(a good off-road tool). I can assure you the 3.4 will run rings around any 4cyl,
and most V6's on the road.
The 4cyl has less maintenance and lower initial cost, but the cost to operate will
be almost the same otherwise.

"Jon Martin" <jma...@ebmud.com> wrote in message
news:f0ae19f7.01091...@posting.google.com...

[Paul]

Before I purchased my 2001 4x4 V6, I test-drove the 4x4 4-cyl also. I
personally felt the V6 was more peppy going up hills. However, the
4-cyl wasn't too bad. It was certainly more peppy than the stock 22RE
4x4 I used to drive. But factoring in the negligible MPG difference
and the significantly higher resale value for the 6-cyl, I decided to
go with the V6. Perhaps the V6 truck you drove had a problem? Drive
another and see.

Paul

P.S. Terrorism is perpetrated by weaklings.

jma...@ebmud.com (Jon Martin) wrote in message news:<f0ae19f7.01091...@posting.google.com>...

[Rob Pilgrim]

Dan,

Are you serious in saying that there is practically no mileage
difference between the V6 and the I4?

My boss has a '96,I4 Tacoma 4x4, extended cab, M/T and I have a '98,V6
Tacoma 4x4, extended cab, A/T, TRD edition and I get about 19MPG while
he gets near 30MPG - easily. He drives the thing like a madman on the
highway and he still gets great mileage, I don't understand how you
can say that there is little mileage difference?!?!

I do have bigger tires (265/75 R15 vs 225/70 R15) but I can't see just
that making a huge difference like that.

Anyways, is there anybody else who can confirm that most I-4 and V-6
Tacoma's get similar gas mileage? Maybe my truck is a lemon?!?!

Regards,

-Rob

"Dan G." <Da...@spamless.org> wrote in message news:<9njk3v$2o2g$1...@reader.nmix.net>...

[Robert Koss]

I've got a 98 4x4 Tacoma with the 3.4 and I'm lucky to get 16. My
average is 14-14.5, almost all in town and ont he freeway I might pull
16-17, running at a steady 75-80. It wouldn't be nearly so bad if
they would at least give me a larger tank - 14 gallons with that
mileage really stinks.

On 11 Sep 2001 16:37:19 -0700, robpi...@adboivin.com (Rob Pilgrim)
wrote:

[Robert Mathey]

I have a 99' 4x4 xtd cab with the 3.4 and I get 20 or better unless i'm
doing serious out in the country stuff. I change my oil every 2500 miles
and grease everything and i've put 45,000 mile on it in twos years and it
runs as good as the day i bought it. If anything my milage has improved.

-Robert-

"Robert Koss" <lost...@anonmail.net> wrote in message
news:ofdtptkhu7t4v36tr...@4ax.com...

[JAB]

chuckta...@altavista.com (Paul) wrote in message news:<d2424e82.01091...@posting.google.com>...

I have the 4cyl. 2.4L-5 spd. Tacoma ext. cab. On my last vacation
I averaged 30mpg at 60-70mph. In town its in the 20s. I just changed
over to syn. in engine-trans. & diff. Mileage seems to be better but I
have not averaged it out as yet. It will not win any races but it can
carry a 1000lbs.(air shocks) without to much trouble. It's a good
truck.

[Han Sang Rhee]

Maybe that is perception? Smoother and/or quieter engines tend to mute
the sense of acceleration.

In article <f0ae19f7.01091...@posting.google.com>,

[Rob Pilgrim]

OK,

once again the "negligible mileage difference" is mentioned...I don't
get it.

My truck (V6), on the highway will get maximum 19MPG at around 70MPH.
My boss' truck (I4), travelling the same speed, in the same
conditions, will get 30 or better MPG.

How can anyone say that they get the same gas mileage? Do I have a
lemon or something? Hole in my tank maybe?

A description of both trucks is somewhere near the start of this
thread.

Has anybody actually done a head-to-head comparo like I have, or are
they using hearsay and sticker info? I sometimes use my truck for
business (the V6 taco) and other times I use the company truck (I-4
Taco) so I get to drive the same distances, same speeds, same roads
and the I-4 gets at least 30MPG or better while I get a harsh 19MPG,
sometimes worse. That's a huge difference, i.e. big enough to make me
kick myself in the @$$ for not getting the 4-cyl.

-Rob

chuckta...@altavista.com (Paul) wrote in message news:<d2424e82.01091...@posting.google.com>...

[Dan G.]

I assure you that no one is getting 30mpg in a 4x4 truck, unless it's a 22RE going
55mph. Your boss is stretching the truth a bit. Your V6 will get 25mpg at 55, and
it will drop off pretty quickly above 55 to around 17 at 75-80mph. The MPG ratings
are clearly marked on the windows at the dealership, I suggest you have a look. If
you had taken the time to do a search of this NG, you'd have seen that people have
been reporting similar mileage on the 2 engines for quite some time. On average,
the difference will be 2-3 MPG.

"Rob Pilgrim" <robpi...@adboivin.com> wrote in message
news:f69299b8.01091...@posting.google.com...

> OK,
>
> once again the "negligible mileage difference" is mentioned...I don't
> get it.
>
> My truck (V6), on the highway will get maximum 19MPG at around 70MPH.
> My boss' truck (I4), travelling the same speed, in the same
> conditions, will get 30 or better MPG.
>
> How can anyone say that they get the same gas mileage? Do I have a
> lemon or something? Hole in my tank maybe?
>
> A description of both trucks is somewhere near the start of this
> thread.
>
> Has anybody actually done a head-to-head comparo like I have, or are
> they using hearsay and sticker info? I sometimes use my truck for
> business (the V6 taco) and other times I use the company truck (I-4
> Taco) so I get to drive the same distances, same speeds, same roads
> and the I-4 gets at least 30MPG or better while I get a harsh 19MPG,
> sometimes worse. That's a huge difference, i.e. big enough to make me
> kick myself in the @$$ for not getting the 4-cyl.
>
> -Rob
>

> > Thanks . . .

[T Thome]

Not too sure about this being on topic, but 30MPG on the highway is a
stretch... My previous truck, an 89 xtracab I4 (22RE w/EFI) 5SP 4*2 with a
cab high shell, never got over 24 mpg on the highway, around 20 in town...

My Tundra V8, get around 15 in town, 18 on the highway.. 4*2 SR5 Access Cab
open bed (tailgate up)

Tim

"Rob Pilgrim" <robpi...@adboivin.com> wrote in message
news:f69299b8.01091...@posting.google.com...

[Verolom]

So, fine! The V6 gets at most 19 MPG, the I4 gets at most 24 MPG. For 5
more MPG I'd take the I4, especially if performance is similar, I have to
pay about 2 grand less for the new rig, and my maintenance would be cheaper
and easier.

The simple (and awful to those of us stuck with it) truth is that the 3.4 l
V6 is an old generation engine, designed to be cheaper and simpler rather
than to perform better and in most cases it's not worth the extra cash to
have it.

Verolom

"T Thome" <t_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YvUo7.8127$6c5.2...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...

[Dan G.]

Who told you the performance was similar? No comparison, I run circles around the
4's all the time, and my 3.4 can get up to 25mpg at 55 mph. As for being an old
design, you're way off base there too. Are you confusing the old Toyota V6 with
the 3.4?

"Verolom" <Ver...@SPAMMENOTearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Om2p7.1647$Md5.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

[Verolom]

Jon Martin mentioned his experience when he started the thread. If you get
25 MPG on your V6 that means that you are a lucky one. That also means there
are lucky ones with an I4 that get 30 MPG. No, I am not confusing the old
3.0 l, 150 hp, 185 lb/ft V6 with the 3.4 l, 190 hp, 220 lb/ft V6. I am
confusing the 3.4 l, 190 hp, 220 lb/ft V6 with the 3.0, 220 hp, 222 lb/ft V6
found in the Highlander for example.

I could be way off base and confused right now. My point is that the
"obviously" better V6 in a Taco might not be better in some cases :)

"Dan G." <Da...@spamless.org> wrote in message

news:9o2dpl$26f$1...@reader.nmix.net...

[Robert Koss]

Been that way since I bought it new in late 97. It only has about 65k
on it now - religious with maintenance - plugs, wires, oil,
rearpend/transmission oil changes. I've just grown to accept it.
Wouldn't be nearly as bad with 20-25 gallon tank.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 04:10:32 GMT, "Robert Mathey" <pan...@home.com>
wrote:

[Rob Pilgrim]

Dan,

I have driven both of these vehicles for extended periods of time and
I assure you that my bosses truck (97, 2.7L I4, Ext Cab, 4x4 Tacoma)
gets between 28-30MPG consistently while my truck (98, 3.4L V6, Ext
Cab, 4x4 Tacoma) gets around 19MPG. BOTH vehicles run at or near
70-75MPH at all times on the highway. Both trucks are regularly and
meticulously maintained by me. The only variable that remains is the
tire size - his are about 1" narrower and about 1" less in diameter
than mine, this may be the culprit.

As for the sticker claims, they're often not realistic and for your
information, I used to work at a Toyota dealership part-time and I've
seen my share of them. Also, as for doing a search of this newsgroup,
I have, and that's why I was still puzzled by the mileage difference,
thus I persisted. Beyond this, I am also a member of the TTORA Delphi
Forum and I have done some research there as well - it's a heck of a
lot more in-depth, clear and concise than this one is, but I thought
I'd throw it out here too - after all, it's for discussion.

So, next time you'd like to make smart remarks, try not to assume
things. The attitude is not appreciated. I was just trying to get to
the bottom of something.

Regards,

-Rob

"Dan G." <Da...@spamless.org> wrote in message news:<9o0cmp$27e3$1...@reader.nmix.net>...

[JerryO]

robpi...@adboivin.com (Rob Pilgrim) wrote:
> OK, once again the "negligible mileage difference" is mentioned...I don't
> get it.
>
> My truck (V6), on the highway will get maximum 19MPG at around 70MPH.
> My boss' truck (I4), travelling the same speed, in the same
> conditions, will get 30 or better MPG.

What does "negligible mileage difference" mean to you?

Consider that in 100k miles, 20 mpg will take 5k gallons of gas, while
30mpg will take 3,333 gallons of gas. That (nearly) 1,700 gallons of
gas at $2.50 per gallon average price (make your own guess, of course)
will be $4,000. Taking your 10 year cost of vehicle plus insurance,
license, maintenance and fuel, Many will figure $4,000 to be rather
'negligible'.

On the other hand, to some of us, even $1,000 over 10 years (that is
$100/year) is important. Depends on who you are.

JerryO