By on February 19, 2015

2016_Toyota_Tacoma_TRD_OffRoad_004

Hoping for diesel power in the new Toyota Tacoma? You can breathe now.

According to AutoGuide, Tacoma/Tundra engineering chief Mike Sweers said that diesel power won’t be coming to the Tacoma — despite the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon receiving theirs — due to the Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming Tier 3 regulations, set to go into effect in 2017. The regs would greatly tighten emissions on diesel-powered light vehicles, making such vehicles more costly to build for automakers, if not consider in the first place:

Diesel, from a fuel economy standpoint, is about a 30 percent improvement right out of the box. The downside to diesel is the emissions has to be certified at the same level as a gas engine. So the way to do that is you have to put on an after-treatment system. So if we consider that cost, versus the fuel economy improvement, and the fact that diesel is $1 more per gallon more than gasoline, is there a return on the investment?

Even if the ROI from each after-treatment system installed — said to add $3,000 to the cost of a vehicle — was worth it now, Sweers warns it wouldn’t be by 2019, when even-tighter diesel-emissions regs would come into force. He says some diesels would be shelved as a result, automakers deciding those engines aren’t worth the headache.

Thus, the Tacoma will be avoiding the green pump handle, opting for either a gasoline-fueled 2.7-liter I4 or 3.5-liter V6 to provide power.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

68 Comments on “Sweers: Diesel Power Not Coming To Toyota Tacoma...”


  • avatar
    Skink

    Plenty of buyers would have paid the premium for a diesel mill, and they would have recouped it on resale. In the meantime, they would have enjoyed that diesel torque.

    These emission regs have gone too far.

    • 0 avatar
      See 7 up

      No they haven’t
      I had the “luxury” of living near a highway in Los Angeles. You wouldn’t believe the amount of greasy soot that collected on everything. I was constantly sick for that year of my life. Luckily I had the money to move. Many don’t. Ones economic situation should not put one in a position of having health issues due to poor emissions.

      Are modern cars, trucks, semis better? Yes, but imo they can’t get “clean enough” and the argument against it is what? Our cars have been getting cleaner and yet more powerful. My health is worth more than a fast car.

      • 0 avatar
        stevelyon

        Hear, hear! Not many people complain about the air being too clean.

        Look around at what’s available in cars; 300 and 400 HP (not to mention 600 and 700 HP!) cars are common, and they run with emissions that are orders of magnitude cleaner than the “muscle” cars of the 60s, cars with exhaust that would kill daisies at 30 ft.

      • 0 avatar
        Skink

        Or one could chose to live near a major airport along the extended centerline of one of the runways and then complain bitterly about the airplane noise. Oh, wait. People do that, too.

        You must be aware of the gigantic advances in air quality in the previous decades. We have reached a point of vastly diminishing returns in emissions regs. Enough is enough.

        • 0 avatar
          See 7 up

          You do realize your statement of “enough is enough” could have been made at any time over the last 30 years or so. Should we purposely stagnant improvements because some can’t realize they are possible or see the benefits in them.
          By 2050, the us population is expected to go from 315mm to ~415mm. That is an increase an emissions just from population.

          As for your airport comments. Should we not try to improve one thing because there are issues with another?

          • 0 avatar
            Skink

            Diminishing returns. It’s a real thing. Additional regulation imposes additional costs.

            I noticed elsewhere that you won’t be satisfied until emissions reach zero. That means everything else is at risk while the long march to zero enables endless legislation and endless litigation: an endless war on those who must pay the price for someone else’s utopia.

            There’s an option for those who don’t want to live near freeways or airports: become part of the supply side of the farm to table movement. It’s not sprawl if one is farming. Lots of fresh air, peace and quiet.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Right, because everyone being good at farming and wanting to farm is the reason why we have so many people coming into the profession and our small towns across the Midwest are booming.

            Oh, wait.

    • 0 avatar
      formula m

      While I was in school in Northern Ontario (Sudbury) my apartment was right beside the largest nickel mine in the world. The fresh snow would stop falling in the spring time and you could see the blackness cover lawns and snowbanks until they melted which can take a while because it takes a while for it to really warm up.

      One of the few cities (pop is like 100k) I have been in ontario that you can still smoke on patios, etc… I heard they tried to put in a by-law but when they enforced it people would just point to one of the massive smoke stakes that tower over the city lol

  • avatar
    CoastieLenn

    Not a big deal, really. Toyota doesn’t even have to *try* to be competitive with this truck. They could nix the 4cyl all together and only offer a delightful shade of “meconium” and folks would still line up to buy it in droves.

    • 0 avatar
      jjster6

      GM used to try that. Look where it got them. They have learned the error of their ways.

      Cue Dead Weight to start the GM bashing…

    • 0 avatar
      Carrera

      Correct CoastieLenn. Yoyota doesn’t have to try. They are used to selling it no matter what. In my opinion they are a little lazy and resting on their past laurels a lot of times. I don’t need a truck to go rock hopping or mudding. I also don’t tow 10,000 lbs. I would have a Honda Ridgeline any day over the overpriced Tacomas. My dad had an 1992 Toyota pick-up with the bullet proof 4 cal engine. Couldn’t kill it. The new ones are not like that at all.
      I really wish the Colorado and the GMC would teach Toyota a lesson in humility with their new trucks.

  • avatar
    Silverbird

    Not a surprise, since Toyota North America has been all-in on Hybrid and Hydrogen. The only diesels Toyota sells are in Europe, where it’s pretty much expected that a diesel is offered – none of which would meet EPA regs as-is.

    I think that a pickup (or maybe the 4Runner) is a great platform to intro it on in North America

    They like the other Asian mfgs leave Diesel for the Domestics and Germans who have a (little) bit more scale.

    Although I’m happy the RAM diesel is doing well and look forward to what the Canyon diesel can do when it arrives.

  • avatar
    slance66

    I don’t think this will hurt them much. I wonder what the take rate is on diesel Canyons or even on the Diesel RAM 1500.

    Meanwhile, does anyone have specs on the new Tacoma, like dimensions? I’m looking at a new 4Runner but would consider a Tacoma if it fits.

  • avatar
    TDIGuy

    Considering that diesel fuel is less expensive to produce that gasoline, you have to wonder where the big price difference is coming from.

    • 0 avatar
      smartascii

      This explains it pretty well:

      http://www.nacsonline.com/YourBusiness/FuelsReports/GasPrices_2013/Pages/Why-Diesel-Costs-More-Than-Gasoline.aspx

      This leaves out a couple of things, though, which are that every bit of diesel refined in the US that isn’t consumed in the US gets exported to other places where demand is higher (and so are prices), and that you can refine oil into either gas or diesel, but not both, and when you refine into diesel, you get fewer gallons out of a barrel of oil than you do when you refine gas.

      • 0 avatar
        hybridkiller

        “…you can refine oil into either gas or diesel, but not both, and when you refine into diesel, you get fewer gallons out of a barrel of oil than you do when you refine gas.”

        Doesn’t quite work that way. The refining process yields different proportions of gasoline, diesel/heating oil, LPG and other byproducts depending on the grade of crude and the process used, but you won’t see much more than a 40-50% yield of gasoline regardless.

    • 0 avatar
      indi500fan

      Since the govt mandated ULSD, is it really cheaper to produce than gasoline? And based on BTUs per gallon, diesel has more energy value so why wouldn’t it command a higher price?

  • avatar
    bullnuke

    The constant attempts to reduce emissions of ICE machinery is rapidly becoming as ridiculous as the search for zero accidents/injuries in the workplace (“we must find the root cause for the incident where the moon hit the earth last night and place engineering controls in place to prevent reccurrance”). I agree with a great deal that has been done already to reduce emissions – I remember walking to school on winter mornings in the 1950’s choking on the exhaust from the Buicks, Chevys, Fords, etc., as they were warming up curbside emitting noxious unburnt fuel toward me on the sidewalk. I can relive those days by firing up my 1940 9N tractor on a cold morning. But the exhaust of my 1999 F350 with the ancient “dirty” 7.3 is barely noticeable (it was considered a low-emissions vehicle when new). A more reasonable approach to the emissions rules would be a five-year holiday from new rules with atmospheric testing during the period to see the effects on the environment. Won’t happen – far too many environmental degrees out there whose rice bowl depends upon government funding. And, of course, diesels must be eliminated as the owners of these vehicles are not believed to be supporters of the green group-think.

    • 0 avatar
      Onus

      They already do air quality testing. In fact many places in the US do not meet air quality standards. If they all meet the standards there wouldn’t be the constant push to improve emissions.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ambient_Air_Quality_Standards

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “The constant attempts to reduce emissions of ICE machinery is rapidly becoming as ridiculous…”

      You don’t live in a big city, do you?

      Ground-level emissions are an issue in many larger cities, especially those with geographically favourable conditions for smog-forming exist (LA and Toronto come to mind). Days where asthmatics, children and the elderly shouldn’t even go outside are not uncommon.

      When your eyes burn, you can taste the hydrocarbons and, on the really bad days, blow your nose and note grey snot (had that happen in Germany) you live to appreciate emissions controls. And since more people live in cities than in rural areas, well, majority rules. If people didn’t want emissions controls, they’d vote people in who would repeal them.

      • 0 avatar
        jjster6

        Problem is the pollution comes from old cars without functioning pollution controls. One of those puts out the pollution of 10,000 new cars (yes, the ratio is that high but I don’t have a scholarly source to back it up at my finger tips). I agree with Bullnuke. Stop spending resources to improve new cars. Get the dirty old ones fixed or off the road.

        • 0 avatar
          CoastieLenn

          That’ll never happen. We can’t afford to end up like Japan where cars over 60k miles are removed from service and destroyed due to expensive maintenance costs.

          I do agree with you though. The largest offenders aren’t the new cars with efficient engines, it’s the old ones that people are holding onto forever and keep dumping money into to keep them on the road. I understand the monetary return to doing this as long as you can, but the old vehicles on the road should be mandated retrofits, not continuing to choke out new cars.

        • 0 avatar
          See 7 up

          Why not do both?
          Improve new cars and ensure older cars with improperly functioning emission equipment are fixed or removed from the road.
          Very old cars without emissions equip are not the problem due to numbers. I studied it in school. the vast majority of issues are on cars around 15 years old that are not maintained properly (verified by ramp testing emission and cross referencing lic plate for car year. This is a rolling issue although emissions controls are getting more reliable.

          • 0 avatar
            CoastieLenn

            Oh, it’s by FAR the 15-25 year old category. I walked behind a roached out early 00’s Grand Prix yesterday and if I didn’t SEE the car sitting there, I would have sworn that there was an old Chevy Caprice sitting there idling by the smell. It was aweful.

        • 0 avatar
          Duaney

          Your definition of old? Here in Colorado Denver and Colorado Springs you rarely see anything older than 1995, mostly the vehicle fleet is 2000 and newer, so the old vehicles are already gone. If 1 percent is a gross polluter, 1 percent doesn’t add anything to the air pollution.

          • 0 avatar
            See 7 up

            I live in CO. I’d say the vehicle fleet here, on average is older than most places. CO benefits from a dry climate where salt is not used to the degree it is in other locals.

            The age of the car isn’t the actual issue. A car from the 90’s, well maintained, pollutes very little. However, the going theory was that a car was likely to change hands by 15 years. The value at that time low enough that people are less concerned or the buyer does not have the funds to keep them maintained. So its not so much age but upkeep.

            Thankfully, the trends have gotten much better. As anyone knows, emissions equipment on early 90’s era cars is vastly less reliable than on an “old” say 2005 car – (11 years). I expect continual improvements as these systems become more an more robust and hopefully our current cars in 15-20 years are performing better than that age car today.

            One curious aspect was that around 20 years old, the cars were actually pretty clean (as emission reduction after late 80’s are relatively small). The theory there (hard to prove) was that around this age, the cars became rare to be running. The ones left were usually desired (collector, sports car, etc), and kept in good running condition. The caveat being states that allowed emission waivers at some age (although these account for a tiny % of cars, so not an big issue)

    • 0 avatar
      See 7 up

      Sorry, but I am all for zero emissions as a goal. It’s not ridiculous at all. Is it achievable. Probably not, but I see no reason to stagnate where we are at now.

      Your example of “one truck” is the problem. It’s like people that go “rolling thunder” or remove their cats. Do they not realize if everyone did this we would have air quality like China? It’s not a singular vehicle issue, reductions are required because more and more people are here and more and more cars are on the road.

    • 0 avatar
      formula m

      I won’t say this story is funny but…

      My friend is a police officer who responded to a call. He arrives and the wife answers the door. She called because her husband was trying to commit suicide in the garage. He had a tube directing the exhaust of his running Nissan into the cabin and wouldn’t get out of the car. When my buddy pulled him out he said he had been in there for almost 12hrs. New cars are almost 20x cleaner than a pre ’95 ICE engine.

      He said it was obviously a sad situation but pretty funny at the same time

      • 0 avatar
        See 7 up

        And its a fake story, or the car wasn’t fully sealed.
        Perfect stoichiometric combustion will yield CO2 and H20. At 12 hr, you’ll easily pass out due to O2 deficiency, and this is with theoretical “clean” perfect combustion. No car achieves close to that.

        Cops see lots of things and make lots of assumptions. It doesn’t mean they are experts at anything or can spend the time looking at all variables (your friends was probably just glad the guy survived and didn’t make a science experiment out of it)

  • avatar
    Felix Hoenikker

    Enough of the diesel love fest! I don’t have any dog in the diesel fight and am not a professional environmentalist. Let’s face it, all combustion processes are inherently dirty. Diesel is far dirtier than burning gasoline especially when it comes to generating small, opportunistic, carcinogenic, lung seeking particles. It costs far more to clean up diesel exhaust than gas engine exhaust. Diesel has gotten treated favorably over the last 20 years with respect to emissions, but sooner or later the standards will be equalized, and that means more diesel exhaust treatment.

  • avatar
    carve

    There’s simply no longer an economic case to offer diesel cars in the US. Since it went low-sulpher, diesel is more expensive (a lot more than premium where I live), it has a more complicated and expensive emissions control system, and the engine itself is more expensive. Meanwhile, gas powered cars have narrowed the mpg gap, and are far more refined (as good as diesels are now). The only real advantage any more is low-end torque, and even that advantage is going away with DI turbo gas engines. So…why would you want a diesel?

    • 0 avatar
      hybridkiller

      While diesels aren’t the best choice for most drivers (and never were) they do fill a particular niche that resonates strongly with a small percentage of buyers. Sure there are plenty of gassers now that rival diesels in efficiency; plenty of turbo 4s that match the torque; but I can’t think of any that provide hybrid-level mpg (in real world suburban and highway driving) AND V6-level torque in the same package.
      Regarding the “diesel premium” purchase price, I can’t speak to all brands and models, but with my car the difference (last time I checked) in MSRP between the TDI and comparably equipped gas version is only in the $1500 range, not $4-5K as some people assume or imagine.

      There’s simply no economic case to buy anything more expensive than a Corolla, yet plenty of people do. Drive what you like (and can afford).

      flame suit ON…

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “I can’t think of any that provide hybrid-level mpg (in real world suburban and highway driving) AND V6-level torque in the same package.”

        Unmm, hybrids do. :)

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        You can’t get the base car plus $1,500 for the diesel. They sorta force lots of other stuff to defuse the cost, which you’ll say you wanted anyways. Then that’s all good, but it’s still a $5,000 diesel with excess gadgetry thrown in.

        • 0 avatar
          hybridkiller

          Apples to apples, base MSRP 4dr TDI Golf is $22,345. Base MSRP on a 4dr 1.8T is $20,995.

          $1,350 difference – NOT $5,000

          17″ alloys, fog lamps, Bluetooth, heated seats, touchscreen audio – pretty basic stuff, and all stuff I wanted regardless (in 2012). I didn’t consider any of it “forced” or “excess gadgetry”.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Base Golf is $17,995. If the gadgetry isn’t optional, then what is it? Just because you want the additional stuff doesn’t mean everyone’s you.

          • 0 avatar
            hybridkiller

            They don’t offer a 2dr Golf TDI anymore, so like I said, the nearest apples-to-apples comparison is the 4dr gasser. If you consider that the 4dr 1.8T (apparently) comes standard with auto trans at that price then the actual difference for the diesel engine is more like $2K – which is STILL not $5K.

            Spin it any way you want, if you don’t like the car – any car – as equipped you don’t have to buy it. But to continue this “there’s no economic case for buying a diesel” nonsense is pointless, as there’s no economic case for buying ANYTHING more than a stripper economy car (or truck).

            Just because you hate diesels doesn’t mean everyone’s you.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Initial cost isn’t the only downside to diesels. Not by a long shot. But they force a 4-door too? At just $2,000, VW would be selling the TDI at a loss without all the stuff they force. Or let’s see them sell it for that on the base Golf. Not happening.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    I believe the big issue with diesels, even now, is particulates that are too small to be visible, but big enough to damage people’s lungs. Interesting that GDI engines have similar problems.

    I still believe that the economic case for diesel automobiles and small trucks simply doesn’t exist in the U.S., given the price disparity between diesel fuel and regular gasoline and the increased costs of diesel engines over equivalent gasoline counterparts.

    The success of the RAM ecodiesel is due, I believe, to the fact that many people use 1/2 ton pickup trucks like the family car. The RAM does provide a meaningful fuel economy increase over the gasoline engines — at a substantial performance penalty. In particular, the payload of the RAM crew cab in the higher trim levels (e.g. Laramie) is pretty pathetic. Basically, you’re loaded up with 4 200 lb. passengers and a good-sized dog. Of course, given that these trucks are new and in warranty, the long term operating costs of this engine, in comparison to, say, the V-6, are unknown.

    Diesel begins to make sense in a 3/4 ton pickup, where there is a substantial fuel economy advantage and the diesels offer more power and much more torque. Their advantage grows when some of the 3/4 ton motors, e.g. RAM’s 6.4 hemi are specified for premium gasoline and even RAM’s 5.7 hemi is specified for mid-grade.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “RAM’s 6.4 hemi are specified for premium gasoline.”

      Untrue. Both the 6.4L and 5.7L in the trucks are tuned to make advertised power on mid-grade, 89 octane.

  • avatar
    VW16v

    I think Toyota understands how dumb the north American buyer is and knows they there is no need to offer a diesel engine. Toyota has there branded vehicles and see’s no need to put in R and D costs. They have been very successful will out of date drivetrains. Why rock the boat ?

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Yep. We’re too dumb to appreciate the VWs too! Especially VW TDIs!!!

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      The tenet of the Jonathan Gruber School of Economics, “Americans are stupid!”

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        What sells the most is the “smartest” decision for that market. McDonalds is just on it. It may not be the best for me or my favourite spot to grab a bite, but I find myself back there about everyday, or at a random McDonalds on the way somewhere or coming back.

        I was there in the ’80s and ’90s when diesels were the best thing going. And I enjoyed owning them. Now gas engines are “on it”. Worst case, gas engines are cheap and easy to replace. With diesels, you don’t even want to know how much it is too replace/rebuild. What ever you think it is, triple it.

        If it’s not an 18-wheeler, there’s absolutely no “need” for diesels. If you like diesels, it’s a luxury. Then by all means, go for it. Although the smaller the vehicle, the more it’s silly to have a diesel in it.

        Diesel passenger cars are marginally justified in very narrow sets of circumstances, when you look at the whole picture.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I’m NOT a fan of small diesels. The smallest diesel I ever owned was a used 1996 Cummins RAM 2500 pickup truck. To say it was harsh is an understatement. It could tow, you betcha!

          But I AM a rabid fan of diesels in 18-wheeler tractors.

          There’s just something about that diesel in a Volvo, Freightliner, Peterbilt or Kenworth tractor that spews torque at 1200rpm and gushes slow-turning, ass-puckering, balls-rattling, rumbling pulling power under load. I’ve got more than a few miles in them and I still walk away in awe after every such experience.

          If you’ve ever stood close to diesel-electric locomotives with a mile-long string of freight cars behind them when they accelerate from a dead stop, you know what I mean.

          It’s an earth-shaking experience. And to me that’s what diesels are all about.

          Not stuffing these smelly contraptions in sissified passenger cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Numbers_Matching

      Modern diesels present major potential reliability issues if not meticulously maintained. Toyota (and other players) knows this – and understands the demographic for these trucks. That is the reason they are the leader in outdated engine offerings for the American market.

      • 0 avatar
        VW16v

        Toyota has more recalls then any other auto maker in the past five years. Toyota could make a diesel. But they have fools paying for their outdated drivetrains. Perception is the leading value at Toyota.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          What’s so ‘cutting edge’ about diesels?

          • 0 avatar
            VW16v

            Torque, more miles per tank, longevity are the usual qualities if a modern diesel. The current 2.7 four banger in the taco avg about 20 mpg if you are lucky. But is says Toyota on it, so all critical thinking and thought process is out the window.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Modern gas engines have dramatically improved hp/tq, mpg and longevity.

            But we don’t know anything about the longevity of current diesels. Gone is most of the lubricity in new diesel blends.

            Anyone that’s owned 1st gen turbo Cummins pickups would rather have that engine in a new truck, vs the current Cummins, but obviously with the old fuel. Better FE too!

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            The new Cummins diesels are environmentalized and stopped-down to the point where there are more sensors on them controlling exhaust gas than ever before.

            A contractor friend of mine has a 2010(?) Cummins RAM and his has been in the shop for Oxy-sensor problems more than three times when he lived here, and probably more since he moved to San Antonio, TX, after his wife was transferred there.

            The only diesel I would recommend is the Banks Turbo-Diesel in a Ford F350. It is the towing vehicle of choice with my Traveling Elks brethren.

          • 0 avatar
            Numbers_Matching

            What’s so ‘cutting edge’ about diesels?

            Everything.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Numbers_Matching,
            You are quite correct, the modern diesel is a technological piece of kit.

            Many of the technologies in current use for the gasoline engine came straight from diesels.

            GDI engines will require particulate filters as they are heavily particulate polluters compared to the modern diesel and guess where the technology for that will come from;) Some of our US commenters don’t have a clue regarding diesel. It might to hard a concept for them to grasp.

            The actual life cycle of a modern light diesel is around half a million kilometres.

            Far higher than a gasoline engine. I’m not talking about he odd gasoline engine that people claim they’ve owned and have done a 1 million miles. They are so few and fat between.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – Diesels are high tech, but all in the name of emissions. Old skool diesels were dirty, but dead simple and extremely reliable. You couldn’t make them stop working.

            Modern diesels can’t run clean with simple mechanical injection, or without highly sophisticated after-treatment. Nor without high heat and extremely high pressures.

            So we have no idea of the actual life cycles of current complicated, delicate diesels. And as diesel fuel blends continue to lose lubricity, it can’t end well.

            And when it is time to rebuild, you don’t want to be around. If it’s not a newer truck, it’s headed for the boneyard. And if it is a newer truck, you’ll be looking for a gas engine to convert it to, while questioning your sanity for choosing a diesel in the 1st place!

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @DiM,
            High heat?

            Compared to what?

            Better pull out those reference books.

            Or you will be made a fool, again.

            Don’t bother responding as I will not answer whatever you put forward.

            As it will be complete an utter bullsh!t.

            DiM, if you don’t have a clue, why do you make out you are an expert?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – Older diesels would just run cool. Exhaust heat would leave quickly. Overheating and blown head gaskets about never happened. Typically in winter, you’d block the radiator, or they’d never warm up.

            Today with turbos, EGR, regen cycles, extremely high pressure fuel and oil, blown head gaskets are a common diesel failure.

            Lots of heat is necessary for clean diesel emissions.

            So you have to constantly watch your temps to avoid costly repairs and engine damage.

  • avatar
    johnhowington

    From FCA/GM/Ford: Thanks Toyota for considering, its not like you build a serious contender anyway! Maybe the next century?

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    I’m more concerned with what the torque curve looks like on that 3.5L direct injected motor. IMO they should have just stuck in the 270hp variant of the 4.0L 1GRE V6 in there from the 4runner.

    The 22RE was probably considered old and underpowered in the early-mid 90s but it went on to earn a reputation as an unkillable motor.

    the 3.4L 5vzfe V6 in the 95-04 trucks was considered old hat by the early 2000s and it now is achieving a ‘million mile motor’ status in the Toyota 4×4 community.

    The current 4.0L V6 being phased out is also commonly referred to as outdated and behind the times, and I am certain that in 10 years it too will cement itself as yet another rock solid powerplant with legendary longevity.

    If anything, there is a fairly long history of Toyota sometimes screwing up diesels in their Land Cruisers and Hilux trucks, our latest emissions requirements would just add to the risk of releasing something less than stellar.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    From our experience with the Hilux in Australia I think the Taco will go down the same route.

    Toyota will not lose many sales without the diesel. Another problem for Toyota is they don’t have a diesel that’s EuroVI or US EPA compliant.

    All other manufacturers in Australia have dropped the V6 in the midsizers and a few have keep the 4cyl gasoline engines in only the most basic sh!tters.

    The Hilux is still the biggest seller here, but this doesn’t take into account the many “new” 4×4 twin cabs customers buying anything but a Toyota.

    As a percentage of our market Toyota is slipping quite a bit to the point where it will be challenged for it’s dominance. This is a similar fate the “new” 2015 F-150 will encounter.

    Toyota doesn’t have a diesel to offer. I would like to see what the next Hilux diesel will be. I’d bet it’s based on a BMW diesel.

    If the Colorado Canyon are very successful and even sell 20%-25% of their midsizers as diesel you’ll see the current US mid size manufactuers trying to get a piece of the action.

    Toyota is playing the Toyota card again. Offering little and charging a premium for nothing of real value other than the name Toyota. This will change as the Colorado Canyon outstrip the Taco in sales and Toyota will drop prices and add bling to make the pickup more attractive.

    But the Taco will still be one generation behind the Colorado Canyon.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      IIRC FCA had said that the 3.0 Ecodiesel will not be used after 1017. That coincides with the next bump up in emissions regulations. Sweers did comment:” He says some diesels would be shelved as a result, automakers deciding those engines aren’t worth the headache.”
      I do think that Toyota has indicated the direction they are heading by putting an Atkinson cycle engine in the Tacoma.

      Oddly enough we have those who say that small trucks are the domain of cheapskates and we have others arguing that an expensive diesel option will be the saviour of the world.

      Reality is a bit different.
      I do think that people who buy small trucks do so because they want a small truck. Price is secondary.
      That is also one of the reasons why diesel engines sell. That is what the buyer wants. Most of the people I see with HD diesel pickups rarely ever tow or haul to the capabilities of the truck.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @Lou,
    Here’s where we are heading with internal combustion engines. These will be in use within a decade. The engines should be capable of a high 50’s% for thermal efficiency.

    This link is in a Powerpoint presentation using a pdf? Easy to understand. I wonder why the government is wasting so much on EVs and Hybrids.

    http://www.sae.org/events/pfl/presentations/2009/BengtJohansson.pdf

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • thornmark: Norm drives Buicks like all the other blue haired ladies
  • Lightspeed: I had a new ES as a loaner and was pleasantly surprised how much they’ve improved that car.
  • Nm68: I own the same type of Mazda with petrol engine. It is a nice car to drive. The steering is responsive. The car...
  • Lightspeed: I’ve only seen one on the street and it just doesn’t create a strong impression the way a...
  • NormSV650: You mean the $20,000 off MSRP was not enough? The 300 units for sale should last the rest of the decade!

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber