- Joined
- Jul 25, 2020
- Threads
- 174
- Messages
- 497
- Reaction score
- 769
- Location
- Tacoma4G.com
- Website
- www.tacoma4g.com
- Vehicle(s)
- Toyota
- Thread starter
- #1
versus the auto transmission...
Sponsored
Last edited:
Sponsored
6-Speed Manual 2024 Tacoma POV Driving Impressions / Review vs. auto transmission POV
- Thread starter Administrator
- Start date
- Watchers 4
versus the auto transmission...
Kielly
Well-known member
- First Name
- Ryan
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2023
- Threads
- 49
- Messages
- 635
- Reaction score
- 615
- Location
- Alberta, Canada
- Vehicle(s)
- 2024 Tacoma Sport+ 6M
That rev limit is weighing hard on my mind. Why would they possibly put it so low? It ain't a diesel lol. I'm not a mechanic but transmission and gear ratio shouldn't be a factor at all when it comes to rev limits correct? If the automatic can have a higher limit I can't see why the manual can't.
Kinda disappointing, the rev hang I can get over, the RPM limit is probably going to get cursed on one too many times.
Kinda disappointing, the rev hang I can get over, the RPM limit is probably going to get cursed on one too many times.
Mrknowitall
Well-known member
Kielly
Well-known member
- First Name
- Ryan
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2023
- Threads
- 49
- Messages
- 635
- Reaction score
- 615
- Location
- Alberta, Canada
- Vehicle(s)
- 2024 Tacoma Sport+ 6M
Interesting, curious now how much HP you'd actually loose with the other fixes he mentioned. I'd almost prefer a loss of HP depending how much than I would loosing that extra 1500rpms. Seems like a very good watch though, going to have to allocate some time to watch it all.
Mrknowitall
Well-known member
Well, its only maybe 900rpm, and they pass up about 7hp vs the automatic.
Sponsored
Bob
New member
- First Name
- Bob
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2023
- Threads
- 1
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Illinois, United States
- Vehicle(s)
- Bronco
Crankshaft hammering cost 600 rpm and the 9 hp loss? I think that's what he said. If it's just noise and vibration concerns (NV) again, what I think he said, then not a big deal. But does that indicate a long-term durability issue? My 7sp Bronco has no such restriction although the sound at 6000rpm is not pleasant.
Mrknowitall
Well-known member
Bob
New member
- First Name
- Bob
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2023
- Threads
- 1
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Illinois, United States
- Vehicle(s)
- Bronco
I agree that the last 600 rpm will be rarely used, but still, it's interesting that the auto version of the same engine does not have the lower redline. Main difference is a flywheel vs flexplate and transmission. I think it's a NVH issue. I find it hard to believe Toyota would produce a truck engine with insufficient support for the crankshaft/weak main bearing caps. 5400 rpm limit in a modern 4 cyl is awfully low. The Ford Motor has been in thousands of Mustangs and Rangers, and I haven't heard of widespread concerns regarding damage due to revving to 6000 rpm. I have 22,000 miles on mine with no problems.
Mrknowitall
Well-known member
The AT application in both Ranger and Tacoma will dampen those vibrations in the Converter. I don't know if the Ranger is available anywhere with the 2.3EB/MT. In the Mustang, the engine would spend very little time in that top band, while in a truck application, the driver could easily hold the engine on the rev limiter for extended periods. I really don't see it as a weakness in the T24, as much as an abundance of caution. Take a look at this pdf. Its for the transverse application, and the crank is definitely well supported. I haven't seen details yet, but the longitudinal truck application has extensive durability improvements over the pass-car version.
Sponsored
