95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners 4th gen pickups and 3rd gen 4Runners

Why does everyone mess with the 3.0?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 14, 2005 | 02:55 PM
  #61  
93YODER's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
From: ft.collins colorado
Originally Posted by 3car
ROFL, do you think maybe its him? The 4.3 vortec is grossly underpowered and makes the 3.0 feel like a powerhouse? Please step away from the crack pipe...
I have had experience with not one,not two,but three of these damn things,and all of them performed the some way.It might of been just be bad luck,but im not ˟˟˟˟ing you when I say my 3.0 would run circles around that BLAZER.
By the time it was in need of another engine,lucky number three,I was hoping that the other two were just lemons,and if we just shoped around for a good quality rebuilt motor,that this thing would perform the way 4.3 litters should.
Well it didnt, it sucked just as much as the other two.Finaly my dad ˟˟˟˟ canned it,and got something else before this engine decided to die.

Anyone that dosnt believe me,can go buy an s10 blazer, "I dare you"
Reply
Old Feb 14, 2005 | 03:21 PM
  #62  
CoedNaked's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Originally Posted by 3car
ROFL, do you think maybe its him? The 4.3 vortec is grossly underpowered and makes the 3.0 feel like a powerhouse? Please step away from the crack pipe...
I'm gonna take a wild guess, but does the 3.0 maybe make 70 percent of the horsepower & torque that the 4.3 makes?

What are the specs?

Toyota 3.0 V6 3VZE - 150 HP, 180 ft-lbs of torque.

Chevy 4.3?

Also, the vehicle you guys were driving with the 4.3, what is it's curb weight in comparison to similarly equipped vehicles equipped with the 4.3?
Reply
Old Feb 14, 2005 | 03:28 PM
  #63  
Silver_Truck's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
From: B'ham, WA
I go to Spokane and back, so across the pass with hills and headwinds etc. with 396,000 mi on the truck and I don't have much if any problems I can easily stay at 75 the whole way with more speed readily at hand if I need it. Although it does take me 2 full tanks. and it does drink a little oil, and it is a PITA to work on but as long as its runnin fine...oh well
Reply
Old Feb 14, 2005 | 05:11 PM
  #64  
3car's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 231
Likes: 1
From: Crystal River, Florida
Originally Posted by 93YODER
I have had experience with not one,not two,but three of these damn things,and all of them performed the some way.It might of been just be bad luck,but im not ˟˟˟˟ing you when I say my 3.0 would run circles around that BLAZER.
By the time it was in need of another engine,lucky number three,I was hoping that the other two were just lemons,and if we just shoped around for a good quality rebuilt motor,that this thing would perform the way 4.3 litters should.
Well it didnt, it sucked just as much as the other two.Finaly my dad ˟˟˟˟ canned it,and got something else before this engine decided to die.

Anyone that dosnt believe me,can go buy an s10 blazer, "I dare you"
LOL, we have one. Its an 01, auto, 4.3 stock, and it runs like a scalded dog, and gets about 20 mpg on average.
You can see it in this pic.

Last edited by 3car; Feb 14, 2005 at 05:12 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 14, 2005 | 07:04 PM
  #65  
wrenchmonster's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 735
Likes: 1
From: WA State
I tell you folks. The 3.0 is a good motor. True it has it's problems and downfalls, but it's a solid unit. (No pun intended, LOL) I personally love my 3.0. It's not going to win any races, but it keeps going and going and going.

The Chevy 4.3 is a decent motor, but has it's share of problems, more so than the toyota 3.0. If you really want to drive a POS, then find a chevy with a 2.8 liter V6. Now that's a terrible motor.

-Wrench
Reply
Old Feb 14, 2005 | 07:37 PM
  #66  
Bumpin' Yota's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,689
Likes: 4
From: Sarasota, FL
Originally Posted by 93YODER
I have had experience with not one,not two,but three of these damn things,and all of them performed the some way.It might of been just be bad luck,but im not ˟˟˟˟ing you when I say my 3.0 would run circles around that BLAZER.
By the time it was in need of another engine,lucky number three,I was hoping that the other two were just lemons,and if we just shoped around for a good quality rebuilt motor,that this thing would perform the way 4.3 litters should.
Well it didnt, it sucked just as much as the other two.Finaly my dad ˟˟˟˟ canned it,and got something else before this engine decided to die.

Anyone that dosnt believe me,can go buy an s10 blazer, "I dare you"

If you think your 3.0 is faster than a 4.3, go race a Typhoon. Just dont bet any money....LOL

Last edited by Bumpin' Yota; Feb 14, 2005 at 07:40 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 15, 2005 | 10:05 AM
  #67  
ETN4runner's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: Tennessee
agreed on the 2.8 Complete Shiat
Reply
Old Feb 15, 2005 | 10:17 AM
  #68  
X-AWDriver's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,549
Likes: 0
From: Littleton,CO
Originally Posted by Bumpin' Yota
If you think your 3.0 is faster than a 4.3, go race a Typhoon. Just dont bet any money....LOL
Now that's just comparing apples to oranges;I guess I'll compare my former 2.0 which smacked Vipers around.
Reply
Old Feb 15, 2005 | 06:01 PM
  #69  
3car's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 231
Likes: 1
From: Crystal River, Florida
Originally Posted by X-AWDriver
Now that's just comparing apples to oranges;I guess I'll compare my former 2.0 which smacked Vipers around.
yeah, thats compairing a properly designed engine that can handle boost to the headgasketless 3.0 yeah, the syclone and typhoon arent a fair comparison to hardly any truck, but the fact remains that since it's introduction in the s-series, the 4.3 has been a homerun in both power, and durability. the same can't be said for the 3.slow.
Reply
Old Feb 15, 2005 | 09:33 PM
  #70  
green91runner's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
From: thunder bay, ontario
looking at the 4.3L specs:
90-91: 160hp, 230ft-lbs
92-93: 200hp, 260ft-lbs

for 90-91 at least the 3vze comes pretty close (minus the torque), similar weight between the 2 vehicles... guess depending on the gearing, the 3vze might come close?

mind you, im talking stock numbers only...

Last edited by green91runner; Feb 15, 2005 at 09:34 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 15, 2005 | 11:00 PM
  #71  
ianshoots's Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
From: Way down in the hole...
Originally Posted by ROMAD
Power is all good and fine (fun too!) but personally I'd be very happy with the power of my current stock 3.0 (very well tuned and maintained) if I could get 20+ mpg out of it.

The predictions for this summer are once again record high gas prices going well above 2.00+ *everywhere* (yeah I know you 'blue' states have had it for a long time now..) I have yet to pay over $1.89 for regular UL and I rue the day I am forced too...

I just may have to get a 2WD regular cab 22RE 5sp if this keeps up.
In this battle-ground state regular is $1.99 wherever I look, and its only tuesday. I found myself gazing longingly at a honda civic today....
Reply
Old Feb 16, 2005 | 03:14 AM
  #72  
DMG's Avatar
DMG
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Hmmm. Is that a 2wd? (important when you brag about mileage and performance) The 4x4s w/ the crappy 3.42 or whatever they are gears aren't any quicker than a good running 1st gen 3.0, btw.



Originally Posted by 3car
LOL, we have one. Its an 01, auto, 4.3 stock, and it runs like a scalded dog, and gets about 20 mpg on average.
You can see it in this pic.

Last edited by DMG; Feb 16, 2005 at 03:16 AM.
Reply
Old Feb 16, 2005 | 05:13 PM
  #73  
3car's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 231
Likes: 1
From: Crystal River, Florida
Originally Posted by green91runner
looking at the 4.3L specs:
90-91: 160hp, 230ft-lbs
92-93: 200hp, 260ft-lbs

for 90-91 at least the 3vze comes pretty close (minus the torque), similar weight between the 2 vehicles... guess depending on the gearing, the 3vze might come close?

mind you, im talking stock numbers only...
the torque is what matters most though. also, a wide power band, where the 4.3 also wins.
Reply
Old Feb 16, 2005 | 05:17 PM
  #74  
3car's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 231
Likes: 1
From: Crystal River, Florida
Originally Posted by DMG
Hmmm. Is that a 2wd? (important when you brag about mileage and performance) The 4x4s w/ the crappy 3.42 or whatever they are gears aren't any quicker than a good running 1st gen 3.0, btw.
crappy 3.42 gears, why so? the GM trucks are geared for power and economy in their powerband.

Have you any experience with a 4.3 S truck? If you did, I seriously doubt you would say it isnt any quicker than a 1st gen 3.0. :rofl:
Reply
Old Feb 16, 2005 | 08:09 PM
  #75  
93YODER's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
From: ft.collins colorado
Originally Posted by 3car

Have you any experience with a 4.3 S truck? If you did, I seriously doubt you would say it isnt any quicker than a 1st gen 3.0. :rofl:
I would!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
Old Feb 17, 2005 | 03:03 AM
  #76  
DMG's Avatar
DMG
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 3car
crappy 3.42 gears, why so? the GM trucks are geared for power and economy in their powerband.

Have you any experience with a 4.3 S truck? If you did, I seriously doubt you would say it isnt any quicker than a 1st gen 3.0. :rofl:
I am an ASE Master Tech at a Chevy dealer. So yes, I drive a variety of them every day. There is one in my bay right now for an intake leak.

I also have an 88 3.0 4runner but it recently got 33s so it doesn't compare so favorably anymore.

And you never did answer my question about your 2wd blazer you are comparing to a real 4x4. I have only seen the wheels on your blazer on 2wds.


Last edited by DMG; Feb 17, 2005 at 02:31 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 17, 2005 | 11:13 AM
  #77  
p5150's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Spokompton, WA
I think that one of the main problems with the 3vz is the PCV system. When people consistantly use high-wax content oils like Pennzoil, that ˟˟˟˟ collects in the motor EVERYWHERE and clogs everything up. Even recirculation of the PCV into the intake leaves a bunch of CRAP that chokes the motor out. After break in with valvoline, its all synthetic for me on the new block im building.

In addition, you have a poorly designed exhaust manifold and air intake system, not to mention the restrictive exhaust if your cat is a few years old. All of the bull˟˟˟˟ emission control vacuum lines need to go out - along with the EGR valve. The only vacuum lines you really need are for the fuel pressure regulator, brake booster and heater control valve..... The rest are getting capped...

The MOTOR really isnt a poor design. Its a very solid, reliable design. However, the complements to the motor could use some improvements.

The motor really isnt complicated to work on.
Reply
Old Feb 17, 2005 | 04:26 PM
  #78  
3car's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 231
Likes: 1
From: Crystal River, Florida
Originally Posted by DMG
I am an ASE Master Tech at a Chevy dealer. So yes, I drive a variety of them every day. There is one in my bay right now for an intake leak.

I also have an 88 3.0 4runner but it recently got 33s so it doesn't compare so favorably anymore.

And you never did answer my question about your 2wd blazer you are comparing to a real 4x4. I have only seen the wheels on your blazer on 2wds.

your observations about the 2wd wheels are correct, the wheel offset of the 2wd wheels would make them stick out about 3" or so on a 4wd.

Now, the curb weight of a 4wd over a 2wd isnt that much. About the weight of my cousin Bubba. Ill invite him along, and still ruin any stock 3L toyota.

I'm not 3.0 bashing here. I love my truck, but I'm just being honest. I've put alot of miles down in several S-10's, including towing some fairly heavy trailers, and I have alot of basis for comparison.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2005 | 03:30 PM
  #79  
DMG's Avatar
DMG
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 3car
your observations about the 2wd wheels are correct, the wheel offset of the 2wd wheels would make them stick out about 3" or so on a 4wd.

Now, the curb weight of a 4wd over a 2wd isnt that much. About the weight of my cousin Bubba. Ill invite him along, and still ruin any stock 3L toyota.

I'm not 3.0 bashing here. I love my truck, but I'm just being honest. I've put alot of miles down in several S-10's, including towing some fairly heavy trailers, and I have alot of basis for comparison.
The 4wd adds a lot of drag too.............the 2wds seem a lot quicker to me. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the 4.3 is a good motor, btw. I just think that when you add in the weight, trans and gearing advantages of a 1st gen 4runner, it does ok against the 4.3s in a 4x4. I wish I had run my 3.0 in the 1/4 mile before the 33s went on. Then we could compare.



3.0/ 4.3
150 hp/160 hp
180 ftlb/ 220 ftlb
4.10 gears/ 3.42 gears
3600lbs/ 3700-3900 lbs
usual trans 5 sp/ 4t60E AT

Last edited by DMG; Feb 18, 2005 at 03:33 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2005 | 06:33 PM
  #80  
marcbeeme's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: Mooresville, NC
Originally Posted by AgRunner06
We'll see how much you love it when you blow a HG or burn a valve.

The main power complaint about the 3.0 is not because of drag racing or driving fast. It's the matter of being able to pull hills, pass cars, and hold a decent speed with a headwind. My 3.0 is better now that I've done some work to it but there is still more to be desired. The correct gears would also help. Another complaint is that for the lack of power, the gas mileage is pretty crappy. Not to mention the 3.0 is the worst of the Toyota truck engines IMO.
Well said I have had nothing but problems with mine, everything from a $1200 burnt valve to a massive oil leak, to a broken fan bracket and a bad knock sensor. I should have gotten the 3.4 instead. Besides it's so much more fun to go fast!
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:19 AM.