swenson88 Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Two articles that show the difficulties Toyota has been having on trying to produce a truly competitive fullsize truck and get it to market in a timely fashion: http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?...024/cara_submit http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?...024/cara_submit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 I guess they aren't wanting to do it like Ford...introducing an engine with previous generation engines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01FOCI Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Two articles that show the difficulties Toyota has been having on trying to produce a truly competitive fullsize truck and get it to market in a timely fashion: http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?...024/cara_submit http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?...024/cara_submit Whats the payload capacity of the 4.0L V6 equiped version? Seems awefully dimunitive for a "full size" I suppose its not to different from the old F-150's that had straight six's those things where SLOW... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RancorKeeper Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 (edited) Whats the payload capacity of the 4.0L V6 equiped version? Seems awefully dimunitive for a "full size" I suppose its not to different from the old F-150's that had straight six's those things where SLOW... The Ford's had a 300 cubic inch 6 though, so they had a fair amount of torque & could tow decent loads. Edited December 1, 2006 by RancorKeeper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01FOCI Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 The Ford's had a 300 cubic inch 6 though, so they had a fair amount of torque & could tow decent loads. True, 300CI is 4.916119 liters and where generally in regular cab short box 4X2's. AT least that where I had only seen them. So current Tundra specs are: 4.0-liter DOHC 24-valve EFI V6 with VVT-i 236 hp @ 5200 rpm; 266 lb.-ft. @ 4000 rpm Hope that engine is available in the 4x4 double cab so I can pass them on the hills with my yugo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bec5150 Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 The 300 Six was junk. I mean, hell, after 300 or 500K miles they needed a rebuild...<grin>. Seriously, these big inlines gave torque that V-8's could only dream of and gave new meaning to the term "bulletproof." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
156n3rd Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 Toyota doesn't need to hurry, they are selling everything they build (just about). That Ford I-6 is awesome. I know someone who has bought several and plans on holding onto them keeping one to use, one being re-built and one for future rehab. His current is an extended cab green/brown five speed. It is a beautiful truck. The one being re-built now is a brick red shorty also with a 5-speed. Another beauty. Now forgive me because I'm not a truck guy, but isn't it still prudent to NOT build a regular cab pick-up? Chevy and Dodhe sell them, don't Ford owners want them? Wouldn't that get even more sales back from the competitition? Those short box regular cab Fords of the 90's are awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kotzenjunge Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?...024/PROMOBLOG01 I think this was the other link you meant to post. Nearly $500m over the initial budget. Good thing someone's got money to burn, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 True, 300CI is 4.916119 liters and where generally in regular cab short box 4X2's. AT least that where I had only seen them. So current Tundra specs are: 4.0-liter DOHC 24-valve EFI V6 with VVT-i 236 hp @ 5200 rpm; 266 lb.-ft. @ 4000 rpm Hope that engine is available in the 4x4 double cab so I can pass them on the hills with my yugo! back then there were no crewcabs. pickups were sold for work and the 300 was one of the best work engines out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 In my childhood, my father sometimes used a '59 Dodge pickup that belonged to a guy he shared workspace with. It had a 6-cyl (slant 6 I suppose) and 3-on-the-tree. I remember my impressions of riding in that thing, my dad pulling from a stop, with a load of boards and tools in the back, not running the revs up very high, and just running up through the gears up steep Seattle hills as if the hills weren't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68Cougar Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 The 300 was one engine that Ford should have salvage with tech. Someone at Ford needs to dust off the castings for that and bring it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 That thing is hideous, it looks like a Avalon with a bed.. But I really don't like the fact that for the next 3 years Ford will be down 81 horsepower to frikking Toyota in the market they own.. Ford should have kept the Lightning motor around as an option until the Hurricane arrives whenever that is going to be.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJSteve3 Posted December 3, 2006 Share Posted December 3, 2006 In my childhood, my father sometimes used a '59 Dodge pickup that belonged to a guy he shared workspace with. It had a 6-cyl (slant 6 I suppose) and 3-on-the-tree. I remember my impressions of riding in that thing, my dad pulling from a stop, with a load of boards and tools in the back, not running the revs up very high, and just running up through the gears up steep Seattle hills as if the hills weren't there. My recollection as well - my old Ford was simple enough to drive around town, regardless of conditions or load. I recall loading it with sheets of plywood, all the way to the brim, for a delivery between construction sites in different towns, and while it needed to be driven a bit gingerly, it handled the load, no groaning. Now that I think about how I beat that truck, I also remember a buddy's car breaking down on the way to work, and he did not want to wait for a tow. We lashed his spare to the grille /bumper of my truck, and pushed him about a mile to a spot near the work site. Pickups were generally owned by people who needed them, back in the day. More about function, less aout style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 (edited) The 300 Six was junk. I mean, hell, after 300 or 500K miles they needed a rebuild...<grin>. Seriously, these big inlines gave torque that V-8's could only dream of and gave new meaning to the term "bulletproof." I had a 76 Full sized Ranger 4x4 with a 300 straight six. Frue it was slow, but it would pull harder than any 302 Truck I had used, got better gas mileage and was smoother running. AND it lasted for 289,000 miles when I sold it and it went on after that. Edited December 4, 2006 by ebritt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoss96racing Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 I have a friend that will only buy trucks with the 300 I6... he even is finding them and his sister in law has one... and when one is passed its prime he always finds a way to send them out in a blaze of glory... :happy feet: http://www.geocities.com/truckjumping/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bec5150 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Buddy of mine has a 1993 150 extended cab with a 300/auto drivetrain. If I can get it bought right, I am going to try to get it. They suck gas from what I hear, but it would be cool to have anyway. My Ranger has treated me fine, but I always would like to have a little more room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06StangAwesomecar Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 I guess they aren't wanting to do it like Ford...introducing an engine with previous generation engines... A small number of 5.7 engines were delivered from Japan for pre-production Tundras in San Antonio. But Toyota wants 100 percent of the V-8-equipped pickups made in Texas to contain U.S. engines. The Japanese 5.7 will be shipped temporarily to a second Tundra production line in Princeton, Ind. Then they will just ship them from Japan to Indiana, then to Texas. Then they will say it is 100% American Assembled. And of course people will believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triton-boy Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 the thing that scares me is if ford does not dick tate the specs and leaves it to the supplier were screwed....good eg is the 6.0 litre from international.its a hit and miss motor...........if you got a good one :reading: yea...if you did not toyota is calling you.......and thats a lot of bucks them folks forked out and ford let them slide........and am not even a pickup buyer so if i hear it ................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
06StangAwesomecar Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 the thing that scares me is if ford does not dick tate the specs and leaves it to the supplier were screwed....good eg is the 6.0 litre from international.its a hit and miss motor...........if you got a good one :reading: yea...if you did not toyota is calling you.......and thats a lot of bucks them folks forked out and ford let them slide........and am not even a pickup buyer so if i hear it ................ See thats the rumor I heard that Ford dictated the 6.0, and international didnt want to do it, who knows the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 I guess they aren't wanting to do it like Ford...introducing an engine with previous generation engines... Huh? The 5.7L is Toyota's only new truck engine, the other two are carryovers. The 4.0L V6 is from the Tacoma/4Runner and the 4.7L is the current (and only) Toyota V8 truck engine. They are nothing new. The article does not mention any of the engine's torque stats, only peak horsepower numbers. Hint to AUTOweek: Trucks need broad, flat torque curves, something you never mention. My favorite quotes from the article: "The 5.7 is critical to us," says Ernest Bastien, Toyota's vice president of the vehicle operations group..."The development timetable wouldn't allow it," he says. "Engineering resources are scarce." Yes Toyota, you do need to launch your third strike Tundra with at least one new engine, and you need to push that Alabama engine plant's schedule way ahead of their original launch date. Rush, rush, rush, the new Super Duty is coming and Toyota needs those Tundras. You had better meet their new schedule or Toyota will fire your non-union asses and replace them with Japs! Seriously though, pushing an engine plant's schedule 6-months early on an all-new engine is asking for trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 Seriously though, pushing an engine plant's schedule 6-months early on an all-new engine is asking for trouble. Let the back page recall hightlights begin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprtch06 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I had an 84 F150 with a 300 in it. I abused that thing to no end. I even ran it out of water once and overheated it. I drove it six months after that before the head gasket let go. I yanked it out and put a 351w in. I should have overhauled the ole 300. I still couldn't believe how good the fuel injected 300's ran. I thought they were extremely smooth for an old motor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inteller Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Whats the payload capacity of the 4.0L V6 equiped version? Seems awefully dimunitive for a "full size" I suppose its not to different from the old F-150's that had straight six's those things where SLOW... the old straight six has enough tq to take a Cayenne off the line. I've seen dyno numbers on those things.....its pretty impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 the old straight six has enough tq to take a Cayenne off the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John1983 Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 That thing is hideous, it looks like a Avalon with a bed.. But I really don't like the fact that for the next 3 years Ford will be down 81 horsepower to frikking Toyota in the market they own.. Ford should have kept the Lightning motor around as an option until the Hurricane arrives whenever that is going to be.. LOL LOL, it does look sorta like an Avalon. Stupid Toyota. We laugh at them.........but, in a while, they'll be running this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.