twin-turbo pickup truck issues?

[HemiBenny]

 

[drtyler]

What is stated in the video?

 

[HemiBenny]

What is stated in the video?

He pulls up some data that a Tundra forum is keeping track of in regards to engine failures with its members. He also speaks about a man who shares his experience after his 2024 engine failure at 7500 miles.
Also, I’m not posting the video as a way to bash Toyota, I just found it interesting. I had no idea that they were having these problems. For such a new truck, it seems excessive.

 

[hemioiler]

He pulls up some data that a Tundra forum is keeping track of in regards to engine failures with its members. He also speaks about a man who shares his experience after his 2024 engine failure at 7500 miles.
Also, I’m not posting the video as a way to bash Toyota, I just found it interesting. I had no idea that they were having these problems. For such a new truck, it seems excessive.

They will fix it eventually and then run these engines for another 15 years in new vehicles. Just further proof that toyota isn't above average quality due to better engineering or design choices, they are above average quality because they run old tech forever in new cars after working out the bugs.

But yes, I'd stay away from these tundras for a while.

 

[Arch Stanton]

They will fix it eventually and then run these engines for another 15 years in new vehicles. Just further proof that toyota isn't above average quality due to better engineering or design choices, they are above average quality because they run old tech forever in new cars after working out the bugs.

But yes, I'd stay away from these tundras for a while.

Kind of the same thing the domestics do.

 

[hemioiler]

Kind of the same thing the domestics do.

In isolated spots, the hemi is 20 years old and just died this year. Tundra has always been behind the others in power, interior luxury, tech, ride quality, payload, towing capability etc. This latest gen finally "catches up" and then its instantly outclassed by the next domestic refreshes; then the tundra withers on the vine for the next 10 to 15 years again while the domestics update and battle it out every few years.

Even then, the latest tundra only really met the domestics that year on power outputs, nothing else about the truck is better than what you can find on the domestics. You buy the tundra due to perceived quality/reliability but right now that is completely missing on the new stuff. You're far better off finding a 3 year old tundra with the 5.7.

 

[SatinSilver]

I saw are local dealers has Tundras sitting there for a while I believe. Trying to sell them. Thinking to get one. Most known Toyota try’s to strive for reliability, and keeping their tech on behind. The I-Force Max is definitely using proven batteries whereas the Ford PowerBoost is using a proven engine. PowerBoost does get better MPGs on paper and in real world from what I seen.

I-force maxes sit on the lot compared to the non-hybrid engine. Plus getting the regular engine saves 3-4k depending on trim plus less complex. Also don't want the pano sunroof either which comes standard on the top trims. So I'd lean towards a loaded Limited trim. Toyota just came out with a power package option that adds more HP to the engine for I think 3k. Adds roughly 80 hp I believe. Check out TundraDude34 on YouTube where he breaks down all the trims.

On 22+ Tundras, used ones are showing first oil changes at 10k miles on carfax. I'd be changing at 5k/ 6 months with some early changes in the beginning. Some of these negative videos on YouTube are click bait imo.

 

[HemiBenny]

Some of these negative videos on YouTube are click bait imo.

Yes, most are clickbait. Any video with a sensational title that doesn't address the title's subject with data is just an opinion piece. Some videos are not just clickbait though.
The one I watched and posted had some data from actual owners on a Tundra forum. They go as far as to give the year, vin#, Hybrid/Non-Hybrid, OCI, if they towed anything, lifts, tunes, mileage at failure, etc.
I also looked at a tundra forum and they have 52 members that have experienced engine failure. The 2022 year models have experienced the most, which makes sense since they've been on the road the longest. With some 2023-24's showing up, it looks like Toyota has a problem to sort out, which I'm sure they will.

 

[The Lube Guy]

This reads like a horror story. Makes HEMI lifter issues look like a breeze in comparison.

 

[Torrid]

Regardless of load - the turbos still spin. The rate at which they spin will vary with the boost/load, but they still spin. I wouldn't worry at all about "underused" - that just means that the engine won't see heavy use - which is desirable for longevity on any engine.

And if there is concern about underused turbos the answer to that is to send it every once in a while!

 

[meep]

I think what a lot of people misunderstand when it comes to turbos vs NA, is that RPMs aren't the only indication of "working hard". Kind of like "out of sight out of mind", the turbo engines don't sound like they're getting stressed out towing up a hill, but make no mistake they definitely are, possibly far worse than a big NA.

So people use words like "drama" and "stress free", but those are words describing how we perceive the engine to be doing. That's not necessarily the same thing as whats actually happening to the engine. "drama free"? Not for the engine I'll tell you that.

All that heat in a small block under intense compression and boost/pressure, I know they do design with that in mind, but still. I have to think a big v8 is actually getting stressed less even though its revving higher.

As a side note, I find it interesting how guys in sports cars love the v8, love hearing it wind up, pay extra to get that intense sound, but for some reason many guys in trucks think its a bad thing hearing a v8 working up a hill and find the turbo "drama free". I absolutely love the sound of my engine towing up a grade, hearing it bite and then settle in at 3500+ rpms. I'm probably a little odd.

All good points. My comments are based on NVH and the lack of any experienced failures. In my older 4.7, it needed to spin all day at 2500+, and in the 4k range for starters in hills. At 150k miles it didn’t consume a drop of oil, demonstrating that mechanically it was very healthy, not unlike where a marine engine spends most of its on-plane life.

 

[NH73]

Thanks everyone. After some research, saw that the 3.4 twin turbo is a problem. A recall came out on May 30th, but wasn't large enough. This all effectively squashed getting the Tundra.

 

[Pew]

All issues BMW had with turbos were Mitsubishi ones.

Mitsu is one of the biggest turbo suppliers; for multiple car manufactures. Poor turbo location and poor maintenance is BMW and the owner's problem.

 

[edyvw]

Mitsu is one of the biggest turbo suppliers; for multiple car manufactures. Poor turbo location is BMW's problem.

My point was that they don't have issues, and sometimes they do. There are BMWs with turbo issues (older design) and also those of older design with no issues.
Also, some issues were due to the fact that the actuators were part of the turbo assembly and could not be replaced.

 

[Burt]

What I was thinking of was that if you are not going to have a load most of the time.

Let me give the academic answer from my engineering course many decades ago (the fundamentals haven’t changed):

Turbocharging does wonderful things for a diesel cycle engine because it is auto ignition and works most efficiently under load.

Turbocharging of gasoline engine results in some challenges particularly under load as auto ignition is detrimental to it and requires comprises like ignition timing retardation. The benefit is a smaller, lighter engine running in the sweet spot most of the time with less efficient turbo boost in reserve when you need it. The efficiency benefit of turbocharging a gas engine is more pronounced at part load rather full load. If you’re going to load up an Engine on a constant basis it’s better to go without a gas turbo or go with a diesel turbo.

Stated another way gas turbos are most efficient at relatively lighter loads. If you’re going to put your foot in it, the gas mileage benefit will narrow relative to large non-aspirated engines.

There’s probably better, maybe articulate ways to say it but that’s a start.

 

[Delta]

Sheesh, I surely hope they got the 2.4 I4 turbo engine designed better in my Tacoma or I might be in for a world of hurt

 

[NH73]

Let me give the academic answer from my engineering course many decades ago (the fundamentals haven’t changed):

Turbocharging does wonderful things for a diesel cycle engine because it is auto ignition and works most efficiently under load.

Turbocharging of gasoline engine results in some challenges particularly under load as auto ignition is detrimental to it and requires comprises like ignition timing retardation. The benefit is a smaller, lighter engine running in the sweet spot most of the time with less efficient turbo boost in reserve when you need it. The efficiency benefit of turbocharging a gas engine is more pronounced at part load rather full load. If you’re going to load up an Engine on a constant basis it’s better to go without a gas turbo or go with a diesel turbo.

Stated another way gas turbos are most efficient at relatively lighter loads. If you’re going to put your foot in it, the gas mileage benefit will narrow relative to large non-aspirated engines.

There’s probably better, maybe articulate ways to say it but that’s a start.

Understand that. Heard from others that have them that they do get to drinking the gas when under a load. But they do pull vary good. You have to drive like grandma to get the good mpg's. Someone pretty much said, it is a small engine made to work like a big one.

 

[irekm]

In very simplification, every 14.7psi of boost, you are nearly doubling the "size" of the engine...
Hence the fuel consumption of small turbo engines that are run hard isn't much different that the big ones.

Either eco or boost, never together

 

[supton]

If you’re going to put your foot in it, the gas mileage benefit will narrow relative to large non-aspirated engines.

But is it worse?

A gallon of gasoline has a fixed amount of energy in it. If a turbocharged small engine makes the same mpg doing the same work as a larger NA, then the efficiency is the same. The turbo engine might cost more to purchase, but get better mpg unloaded. No NA engine ever lost a turbo, but they suffer at altitude.

 

[The Lube Guy]

In very simplification, every 14.7psi of boost, you are nearly doubling the "size" of the engine...
Hence the fuel consumption of small turbo engines that are run hard isn't much different that the big ones.

That's why gasoline turbo engines aren't more efficient than their bigger displacement counter parts. In fact, they might get worse real-world fuel economy. However, they are great at cheating their way through EPA fuel economy cycles, and pass emissions. They can also make more torque at lower RPM.

Either eco or boost, never together