Dyno: wheel HP/TQ of 4th gen 2024 Tacoma vs. 3rd gen Tacoma (shows 4-cylinder turbo Tacoma underrated from factory)

[MT-Taco]

He talks about the turbo 4 getting close to the gen 2 Tundra V8. That’s the first thing I noticed on my test drive, the power felt almost like my Tuned Tundra!

Sponsored

 

[DawnPatrol]

Underrated from the factory …nice

 

[Rocko]

Underrated from the factory …nice

Yeah, the thing does feel pretty powerful. The 3rd gen and 4th gen are supposed to have the same peak HP, but this video shows that they do not. I think there is about a 15% loss through drivetrain too, so 306 ft lbs of torque at the wheels is pretty impressive. It would be nice to see a few more dyno runs on different dynos. To be fair, he did say that they were at altitude, so the 3rd gen would suffer more than the 4th, but still, impressive. But yeah, underrated for sure.
I would be curious if there is a bigger difference with premium fuel as it is a turbo.

 

[Sandeep1994]

I didn't notice any difference in running premium fuel . When i got truck new for almost a kinth i used regular gas and then from last 3 refills i been buying 94 premium . Did not get any noticeable difference . One thing i would say is with regular gas gas if my rpms were low engine struggles but with premium i can easily drive truck 25 km per hour in 3rd gear easily

before i needed to be at least above 35 to go from 2nd gear to 3 rd gear so engine does not lug

 

[Rocko]

I didn't notice any difference in running premium fuel . When i got truck new for almost a kinth i used regular gas and then from last 3 refills i been buying 94 premium . Did not get any noticeable difference . One thing i would say is with regular gas gas if my rpms were low engine struggles but with premium i can easily drive truck 25 km per hour in 3rd gear easily

before i needed to be at least above 35 to go from 2nd gear to 3 rd gear so engine does not lug

I thought the shift points were a little lower, and also that the motor seems a bit quieter. I did not notice any mpg differences though, so maybe I am just imagining a difference.

 

[Sandeep1994]

I thought the shift points were a little lower, and also that the motor seems a bit quieter. I did not notice any mpg differences though, so maybe I am just imagining a difference.

Shift points are lower compared to previous manual tacoma . I mean like if i have to just cruse at 30km per hour with light throttle in 3 rd gear - no issue but if i have to speed up from there engine lug little . So if i am accelerating i have to push second gear to 35 km speed to get good acceleration in 3 rd gear without luging .

 

[Cabby30]

I'd like to see a dyno run on different octanes to see if 87 octane is truly all that is necessary

 

[MT-Taco]

They unfortunately didn’t say what fuel was used? Could be more power on the table?

I'd like to see a dyno run on different octanes to see if 87 octane is truly all that is necessary

 

[Squashed Target]

Do the numbers compensate for the altitude? If they're in Denver, the NA engine is losing ~3% per 1000' of elevation so around 15% whereas the forced induction engine is losing less than 1% per 1000'.

Forced induction is always king at altitude which is why I'm super excited to upgrade from my 2g 4.0L to the new I4. I can finally experience the power that everyone at sea level feels on a daily basis.

 

[MT-Taco]

Do the numbers compensate for the altitude? If they're in Denver, the NA engine is losing ~3% per 1000' of elevation so around 15% whereas the forced induction engine is losing less than 1% per 1000'.

Forced induction is always king at altitude which is why I'm super excited to upgrade from my 2g 4.0L to the new I4. I can finally experience the power that everyone at sea level feels on a daily basis.

No they didn’t. So basically the Turbo 4 is almost putting its crank rated HP/TQ to the ground?!

 

[LincolnSixAlpha]

Do the numbers compensate for the altitude? If they're in Denver, the NA engine is losing ~3% per 1000' of elevation so around 15% whereas the forced induction engine is losing less than 1% per 1000'.

Forced induction is always king at altitude which is why I'm super excited to upgrade from my 2g 4.0L to the new I4. I can finally experience the power that everyone at sea level feels on a daily basis.

Based on what I noticed in the video, I didn't see any corrections for altitude, temperature, or humidity levels so I'm guessing the numbers are based on Denver at the day/time the dyno was performed. That said, I'm feeling that 15% driveline loss is a pretty generous loss, but is likely a few points higher than 15%.

With that stated, that would make the crank power output roughly 307HP and 352HP, assuming I did my math right -- at conditions if you lived in Denver @ 4500-5000k feet or so.

 

[batman900]

That's wild, thank you for the link. I've had so many vehicles and given the stated numbers, I was wondering if how strong the truck felt was just due to gearing and couldn't figure it out. I never thought Toyota might state lower numbers like some other brands do, usually the Germans.

 

[oldman]

The dyno shows STD correction which is horsepower, but a unicorn is a horse. SAE is the HP the factory uses but I digress. The dyno is done at altitude and the correction factor for NA (normally aspirated) engine like the 3.4 is applied to give the reading of what that engine would put out at sea level so NO the engine dyno would NOT show more HP at sea level. For SAE on the 3.4 you have to chop off 6% (moving target) vs STD.

Now the turbo engine is LESS to even MUCH LESS affected by altitude, correction factors CAN'T be applied to a turbo engine. So we have NO idea what the turbo engine would do at sea level, probably slightly more HP.

Nutshell you can't put a NA and a turbo engine on the same dyno and apply ANY correction factor. They could have posted true HP hitting the rollers but that is second order thinking not expected by nubbes.

Nutshell at altitude the turbo makes more Hp and WAY more torque no surprise there. At see level the turbo probably make slightly more HP and WAY more torque no surprise there either. NA engines more affected by altitude, hence the reason why SAE correction factors were created and applied (under very small percentages).

 

[Slappy]

The dyno shows STD correction which is horsepower, but a unicorn is a horse. SAE is the HP the factory uses but I digress. The dyno is done at altitude and the correction factor for NA (normally aspirated) engine like the 3.4 is applied to give the reading of what that engine would put out at sea level so NO the engine dyno would NOT show more HP at sea level. For SAE on the 3.4 you have to chop off 6% (moving target) vs STD.

Now the turbo engine is LESS to even MUCH LESS affected by altitude, correction factors CAN'T be applied to a turbo engine. So we have NO idea what the turbo engine would do at sea level, probably slightly more HP.

Nutshell you can't put a NA and a turbo engine on the same dyno and apply ANY correction factor. They could have posted true HP hitting the rollers but that is second order thinking not expected by nubbes.

Nutshell at altitude the turbo makes more Hp and WAY more torque no surprise there. At see level the turbo probably make slightly more HP and WAY more torque no surprise there either. NA engines more affected by altitude, hence the reason why SAE correction factors were created and applied (under very small percentages).

so would a RWD Tacoma not have as much of power loss to the wheels as a 4x4 Taco ? mine will break the rears if I stick my foot in it if the ground is slightly damp on them terrible stock tires

Sponsored