2024 Tacoma Front Differential Failure

Very disappointing for a truck known for its legendary durability.
That was a different truck. The only thing that’s still the same is the name of the manufacturer, and I say that as someone who owned four 4x4 Toyota trucks from 1981 until 2004.

Were I in the market for a ‘compact’ truck today I would buy the Nissan.
 
Slippery surface should not be factor in this failure.
The explanation given was because it was so slippery at every wheel the torque management system sent all the torque it could forward at just the wrong time when the front wheels didn't have any traction either and then the traction control clamped down on the brakes to prevent wheel slip that exceeded the maximum torque. The chief engineer claimed the fact they were on ice was contributory as it essentially meant there were no frictional losses reducing torque at the wheels and he went as far as saying this would not have happened on sand or dirt. At least that's his story.
 
It wasn't the "Differential" (Ie: the ring and pinion or spider gears) that failed. It was the sleeve that engages and disengages drive (which IS designed as a fusible link) in the A.D.D. (Automatic Disconnecting Differential) portion of the assembly. That part (and maybe more) are under-designed for the torque capable of being produced.

The Engineer basically said that the traction control system applied the brake to the individual spinning wheels so well, that the amount of torque sent to one wheel through the A.D.D. engagement sleeve, exceeded it's torque capacity, and the sleeve failed. So the fix is to limit how hard each brake can be applied, thus limiting the potential of excessive torque going to one wheel. Which also limits how effective the traction control will be.

I'd personally like to see them strengthen the parts to comfortably handle the torque load in the drivetrain. Of course that would add weight, and potentially negatively effect fuel economy...
Isn't this similar in functionality to the vacuum operated axle disconnect on the Super Duty?

I agree with you, they should have sized the parts properly for the application, as it really sounds like they've gone right on the margin with the expectation that the software will save them (and the money required to make it more robust).
 
Isn't this similar in functionality to the vacuum operated axle disconnect on the Super Duty?

I agree with you, they should have sized the parts properly for the application, as it really sounds like they've gone right on the margin with the expectation that the software will save them (and the money required to make it more robust).

Very similar. Basically a shift fork moves the sleeve, coupler, clutch collar, etc. (different names for the same thing) to engage the axle shaft to the output from the differential.
 
The explanation given was because it was so slippery at every wheel the torque management system sent all the torque it could forward at just the wrong time when the front wheels didn't have any traction either and then the traction control clamped down on the brakes to prevent wheel slip that exceeded the maximum torque. The chief engineer claimed the fact they were on ice was contributory as it essentially meant there were no frictional losses reducing torque at the wheels and he went as far as saying this would not have happened on sand or dirt. At least that's his story.
Oh boy. Wait until they realize ice is pretty regular in CO and other states. IMO, absolute BS driven by marketing concerns.
This will be like transmissions on Highlander and Sienna AWD. Quietly fix issue without recall, which is their modus operandi.
 
Isn't this similar in functionality to the vacuum operated axle disconnect on the Super Duty?

I agree with you, they should have sized the parts properly for the application, as it really sounds like they've gone right on the margin with the expectation that the software will save them (and the money required to make it more robust).
They will do software “fix.”
 
Oh boy. Wait until they realize ice is pretty regular in CO and other states. IMO, absolute BS driven by marketing concerns.
This will be like transmissions on Highlander and Sienna AWD. Quietly fix issue without recall, which is their modus operandi.
Well, they have a software fix that was already developed for the higher-torque hybrid. Not sure how it will affect drivability but who cares, I don't plan on owning one. ;)
 
I’m very sure that I have done U-turns with both axles locked that would scare anyone but the hard core wheelers.
(sounds and feels horrible) …
When the bottom suddenly falls out and you quickly realize you should not have tried that area - I will do that before killing my momentum and not worry that the Rubicon in signature is breaking anything …
 
Poor or missing edge case in programming of its torque distribution. I read it as programming broke the part NOT under engineering. TFL got it fixed for all the vehicles out there and moving forward.

Toyota would have waited for enough warranty items otherwise to indicate a likely very difficult problem to replicate without the video AND pressure to answer bad press.

It would not make me have any pause buying one with updated programming.
 
That was a different truck. The only thing that’s still the same is the name of the manufacturer, and I say that as someone who owned four 4x4 Toyota trucks from 1981 until 2004.

Were I in the market for a ‘compact’ truck today I would buy the Nissan.
no, would buy a Toyota Hilux from that time era😁
 
Back
Top Bottom