Jump to content
christopher collard

Toyota mini motor homes 4 cylinder vs V6 pros and cons of both

Recommended Posts

In your opinion what are the pros and cons of both 22RE vs V6 ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine is a 22RE EFI 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My V6 auto moves quickly considering it is moving 6000 pounds. If doing own work it is difficult to work on due to limited space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V-6 makes a few more horses. Maintenance on 22R is much simpler, unless you are changing the alternator. The V-6 auto does have a locking torque converter which helps with tranny meltdown issues. I have owned both. If I buy another it will likely be a 22RE, with manual trans if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I think other posters have covered this topic better than what I have to say.  Consider this just another opinion.

Handling, power, convenience, MPG, comfort, and durability, these seem to be the considerations. I have very limited experience in the specific category of motor homes. My prior coach was a class C 1976 Dodge El Dorodo with a 360, full floating dual axle set up as a single, 18 footer. The Dodge was a van cab and chassis vs a truck cab and chassis so the 18 foot was nearly equivalent to my current 21 foot Toy. Amenities are same although the space over the cab is bigger on the Toy and the Toy has rooftop air (so not quite the same;-).  The weight was within a couple of hundred pounds.

Handling: Cn't comment on the V6. From comparing the 4 Cyl Toy, hands down the dodge.  Although, nothing I can't deal with and frankly I have driven equivalent Dodges in van trim that handled much worse than my Toy. Maintaining what is there is critical and if done I am OK with the 85 4 cyl Toy.

Power:  I did love the Dodge. 70 MPH, not even remotely a problem as long as you didn't mind 8 or perhaps even less MPG. Frankly I enjoyed that and frequently couldn't stop myself from doing so.  Is that really a good thing?  Why do I really want to take the people I Love so fast in what is such an inherently unsafe vehicle?  The V6 appears to be a big improvement in power but having owned and enjoyed something way beyond that, for me, the increased power simply isn't worth the decrease in MPG. 

Convenience:  Don't have an opinion on this as I haven't serviced a V6.  The 22re is uncomfortable in that the valves need to be adjusted hot and the timing chain tensioner may need to be replaced. The V6 will need the timing belt changed and I don't know how inconvenient that is. From what I can see and after replacing nearly all engine rubber, the 22re is easy to work on and surprisingly the parts are readily available. Assume the availability of parts is the same on the V6 but I don't know how hard the V6 is to work on. (The Dodge, being a van, was no fun and parts are more sketchy.)

MPG:  Truth is on one level you could argue that the Doge wins because it is such a trivial cost in the whole cost of ownership for an RV so of course the V6 is a better choice than the 4.  My take on that is that sometimes rational economics is anything but.  I want better MPG even though it may be tough to make that argument economically. Oil is a finite resource and until there is a viable alternative why do I want to waste something so valuable when I don't have to?

Durability:  Seems to me that engines as durable as the 22Re are a rare breed and I just don't think that the V6 is quite at that level.  Kind of like the Dodge -- a pretty good engine but I think the 22re is a great engine.

Comfort.  Frankly in anything this old all I have to say is make it what you want.

 

Please forgive this rant or enjoy it for what it is -- someone new to this community expressing how amazing I think our little Toys are.  Personally I really like the 4 but I am sure the V6 is still better than the overwhelming majority of competing RVs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the valve maintenance has to be done hot, it is a very easy maintenance. The V-6 maintenance is a #@%!& nightmare. A for the V-6 power being a "big improvement", I guess that depends on your definition of big improvement. I believe the actual number is 10-15 hp.  As for durability, the only issue I see with the V-6 is that you need to stay on top of the valve adjustments. If you don't, you can burn an exhaust valve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difference between the 4 banger and the V6 is actually 45HP. An increase of over 40% in power. That is a big improvement by any standards.

Linda S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wade said:

 

Durability:  Seems to me that engines as durable as the 22Re are a rare breed and I just don't think that the V6 is quite at that level.  Kind of like the Dodge -- a pretty good engine but I think the 22re is a great engine.

I agree that the 3 liter, generally speaking, is not as well designed nor as durable as a 20R or 22R or 22RE.  The 3 liter has a timing belt to deal with, a poorly engineering valve-train, and a history of head-gasket problems from them moving too much.   I don't want an engine that needs lubricated head-gaskets because of excessive movement.  3 liter Toyota and 2.5 liter Subarus are known for that problem.

That all said - the Toyota four-cylinder engines certainly were durable when compared to other engines of the time.  But now?  Plenty of other makes of small engines just as good or better.  Some are lower-tech also.  I find it kind of frustrating that a 4.3 liter GM V6 often gets better fuel-mileage then a Toyota four-banger pulling the same weight and pushing against the same wind resistance. Yet, the 4.3 is pretty much based on a engine that came out in 1955.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what counts is actual road-tests and not max power stats from running on Dynos.  That being said, dyno tests show this:

1988 - 22RE made 114 max HP @  4800 RPM, and 140 lbs. max TQ @ 3600 RPM.
1988 3VZ made 145 max HP @ 4800 RPM and 180 lbs. max TQ @ 3400 RPM.

That HP means little to me.  That extra 40 lbs. of torque at a slightly lower RPM likely makes a nice difference though.

What I do NOT know is how they compare in "normal" driving when the engine is only running around 2400-2600 RPM. I suspect, or hope, not many here drive their RVs around at over 4000 RPM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a dyno comparison of the 2.4 to the 3 liter when running at 2500 RPM which I think is a pretty normal engine speed for general driving. 2.4 makes more torque at lower RPMs.

2.4 four- makes 54 horsepower and 102 pound-feet of torque @ 2500 RPM.
3 liter V6 - makes 66 horsepower and 108 pound-feet of torque @ 2500 RPM (less then the 22RE).

2.4 four- makes 65 horsepower and 115 pound-feet of torque @ 3000 RPM.
3 liter V6 - makes 82 horsepower and 112 pound-feet of torque @ 3000 RPM (less then the 22RE).

2.4 four- makes 72 horsepower and 115 pound-feet of torque @ 3200 RPM.
3 liter V6 - makes 90 horsepower and 118 pound-feet of torque @ 3200 RPM 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made a type. Obviously, the 3 liter @ 2500 RPM makes 6 pound-feet more torque.  At 3000 RPM, the 2.4 beats the 3 in torque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

52 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

Here is a dyno comparison of the 2.4 to the 3 liter when running at 2500 RPM which I think is a pretty normal engine speed for general driving. 2.4 makes more torque at lower RPMs.

2.4 four- makes 54 horsepower and 102 pound-feet of torque @ 2500 RPM.
3 liter V6 - makes 66 horsepower and 108 pound-feet of torque @ 2500 RPM (less then the 22RE).

2.4 four- makes 65 horsepower and 115 pound-feet of torque @ 3000 RPM.
3 liter V6 - makes 82 horsepower and 112 pound-feet of torque @ 3000 RPM (less then the 22RE).

2.4 four- makes 72 horsepower and 115 pound-feet of torque @ 3200 RPM.
3 liter V6 - makes 90 horsepower and 118 pound-feet of torque @ 3200 RPM

Sometimes I think I understand this and I know for a fact that I really like a flat torque curve!  My current car is a Volvo XC70.  The turbo 2.5 puts out it's peak of 230 pound-feet from 1500 rpm till near the red line.  That seat of the pants punch played a huge role in getting me to make a purchase decision I normally would not have made;-)

Here is what I don't really understand.  I remember back in the day having a company F150 with the 300 six and a 4 speed. That 6 cyl put out about the same hp as the 4 cyl Toy, however the Ford put out about twice as much torque.  At some point, in some way, the torque I know I like so much must really amount to not much of anything and that is what I don't understand. I remember taking that F150 up the very same hill loaded to roughly the same weight as my Toy. I know that at some point on the hill, just like with the Toy, I had to shift down to 3rd in order to maintain speed.  Perhaps my memory is faulty but it seems to me like the ability to make that hill was near equal based on the near equal HP and not something where the Ford did nearly 2x as well to match its torque.

Wade

 

 

Edited by Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torque is twisting force.  I.e. it the rotational twisting power of the engine's flywheel to send power to the drive-wheels.  Torque is what keeps you going at a certain speed without fighting the gas pedal.  Horsepower is a number made from torque and math.

I can't speak from your experience, but I also don't get it. I still own a 1995 Ford F150 with the 300 cubic-inch straight six. I also used to have the older 240 cubic inch version in my 1966 F100.  I also had a 1995 Toyota pickup for a long time with a 2.4 engine.  I suspect when it comes to hill-climbing, the 1995 F150 4WD I have right now would beat that 2WD Toyota I had. 

A typical 80s-90s Ford F150 with 2WD weighs around 4500 lbs. and has 265 pound-feet of max torque at a low 2000 RPM.
A typical 80s-90s Toyota 2WD truck weighs around 2800 lbs. and has 140 pound-feet of max torque at 3600 RPM.  

So the Ford has 16.9 lbs. of truck per 1 pound-foot of torque.
The Toyota has 20 lbs. of truck per 1 pound-foot of torque.

I think you are kind of comparing "apples to oranges."  I Toyota truck with a Ford 300 six would go like h*ll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing I didn't see mentioned.  Automatic trans needs 7-9 horsepower to run (that's loss).   I suspect there are more 2.4s around with manual trans then 3 liter V6s.  Another factor when comparing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

Torque is twisting force.  I.e. it the rotational twisting power of the engine's flywheel to send power to the drive-wheels.  Torque is what keeps you going at a certain speed without fighting the gas pedal.  Horsepower is a number made from torque and math.

I can't speak from your experience, but I also don't get it. I still own a 1995 Ford F150 with the 300 cubic-inch straight six. I also used to have the older 240 cubic inch version in my 1966 F100.  I also had a 1995 Toyota pickup for a long time with a 2.4 engine.  I suspect when it comes to hill-climbing, the 1995 F150 4WD I have right now would beat that 2WD Toyota I had. 

A typical 80s-90s Ford F150 with 2WD weighs around 4500 lbs. and has 265 pound-feet of max torque at a low 2000 RPM.
A typical 80s-90s Toyota 2WD truck weighs around 2800 lbs. and has 140 pound-feet of max torque at 3600 RPM.  

So the Ford has 16.9 lbs. of truck per 1 pound-foot of torque.
The Toyota has 20 lbs. of truck per 1 pound-foot of torque.

I think you are kind of comparing "apples to oranges."  I Toyota truck with a Ford 300 six would go like h*ll.

Unfortunately I am not so sure I can speak from my experience as my memory can be a little fuzzy when looking  30 years back;-)  However, I don't think I'm comparing apples to oranges.  I had about 1200 lbs or so in the back of the F150 making it in the ballpark of my lightly loaded 21' Toyota at just a bit under 3 tons total. I clearly remember the need to downshift on that hill because it was unusual to me with such a new and nice truck that up until that point I hadn't driven with such a load in the back.

The math is pounds-feet per second equals horsepower. That is the part that kind of twists my brain (pardon the pun;-).  So the Ford had a whole lot more snort but just couldn't keep it up for very long?  At some point it must come down to the horsepower being the real number even though in general driving experience I prefer more torque.

Perhaps I shifted much earlier in the Toy than what I remember in the Ford. I am sure of my memory in that both trucks moved about the same amount of weight (although much more wind resistance in the Toyota) up the same hill at roughly 55 mph.  Both trucks could not do it in 4th but could in 3rd.  The huge torque advantage of the Ford could not overcome the fact that it couldn't make the hill in 4th and the fact that they both made it at about the same speed seems to me that horsepower is the ultimate limit of what can be done.

Back to the reliability, that is why I am happy enough with the 22re. I am not afraid to use all it has to offer when needed and from what I can tell the driveline can handle it. Pushed hard the Toyota Motor home goes as fast as I need it to.

I am not familiar with the 4.3 but am a bit surprised to hear that it is economical. I thought is was just a short 350.  The 350s I have driven did not impress me as economical.

I wonder what a 4.3, or my personal favorite, a Buick 3800 would do in a Toyota with a good 4 or 5 speed manual?  That would be a pretty neat rig in my opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the early 70s when pickup truck was not as common as today - Hertz Ford pickups had 300 sixes. I rented them often and they were assume.  2WD, standard cab and lots of power (on a relative scale).  Seemed to have much more snot that Chevys HD 292 straight-six.   If you want to compare a 6000 lb. Ford pickup with a 6000 lb. Toyota RV, I think that Ford needs to have a 4.1 to 1 rear-axle ratio and that is unlikely.  Mine has a 3.33 axle-ratio.

I have no idea why the 4.3 GM does so well in some RVs. I drove a 1995 AWD Astrovan for years with a Vortec 4.3 and absolute best highway mileage was 18 MPG. Granted, that was at 65 MPH. I also just sold a 1995 Dodge 3/4 ton van with a 3.9 V6.  That was only 2WD and absolute best mileage was 18 MPG (kind of disappointing).

Many Winnebago Lesharos and Phasars have been converted to Buick 3.8s or Dodge 3.8s.  Reports are they get 15 MPG on the highway as opposed to the 14 MPG they originally got with 2.2 liter gas engines. They weigh around 6000 lbs. and have roofs as high as many Winnebagos.  Single 14" tires in back though.

I love the Dodge/Chrysler 3.8 V6.  My 1998 Dodge AWD Grand Caravan has 300,000 miles and runs like new. Does not burn a drop of oil and never had any major repairs.  Gets 21-22 MPG with a full load and feels like it has all the power my Chevy Astrovan AWD did with the 4.3. It might just be because it is more aerodynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jdemaris said:

Back in the early 70s when pickup truck was not as common as today - Hertz Ford pickups had 300 sixes. I rented them often and they were assume.  2WD, standard cab and lots of power (on a relative scale).  Seemed to have much more snot that Chevys HD 292 straight-six.   If you want to compare a 6000 lb. Ford pickup with a 6000 lb. Toyota RV, I think that Ford needs to have a 4.1 to 1 rear-axle ratio and that is unlikely.  Mine has a 3.33 axle-ratio.

I bet the axle was a big part of it. I know that we got a fleet truck a couple of years newer than the lariat I was talking about. The fleet truck had EFI but it also had a higher ratio rear end. Don't know the numbers of either but the Ford I was talking about ran noticeably lower RPMs and got terrific mileage. (The whole reason we got such a fancy truck in the first place is that Ford was selling them cheap to get their CAFE numbers up.)  The fleet truck with the same engine, EFI, and the taller gearing got much worse MPG.  IIRC, I could get over 20 MPG on the Lariat and I don't think the fleet truck broke 17.

I am not familiar with the Chrysler V6.  Am kind of curious as to why the dakotas got such terrible gas mileage. Isn't that the engine they used?  OTOH, my neighbor got a Dodge regular cab 4WD with the V6 new a couple of years ago and regularly broke 20 mpg and that was a full sized pickup.

Edited by Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3.9 in the Dodge van I had was the same as used in the Dakota. I always heard they were gas-hogs but never owned one.  The van was a conversion but with a standard roof (not raised).  Also did not have a full-floating rear although it was 3/4 ton. Only had 15" tires too. It showed up here in Michigan from Texas and had zero rust. I bought it thinking of  making a camper out of it.  But after several "test" runs on a flat highway at 55 MPH and only getting 18 MPG, I gave up on the idea. Note the van was empty too. I took the electric bed out of the back and it had no cargo in it.  Nice running rig and kind of drove like a 318.  I was hoping for at least the same MPGs as my Dodge Grand Caravan AWD. but nope.  So, I sold it.   "Still better then my 1979 Chevy van with a 350 that was only a 1/2 ton rig and never got better then 11 MPG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hp is basically torque x rpms 

I think the Toyota engines comfortably rev much higher than the larger displacement domestics. That may be the explanation as to why it pulls just as well with half the torque.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2016 at 5:52 AM, 86rader said:

V-6 makes a few more horses. Maintenance on 22R is much simpler, unless you are changing the alternator. The V-6 auto does have a locking torque converter which helps with tranny meltdown issues. I have owned both. If I buy another it will likely be a 22RE, with manual trans if possible.

I can drop an alternator on a 22re and reinstall new one in 10 minutes blind folded... but then again that's because I kept getting bad reman alternators and learned the tricks after my 4th install.

22re with manual trans gets my vote although i have 22re with auto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Totem said:

I can drop an alternator on a 22re and reinstall new one in 10 minutes blind folded... but then again that's because I kept getting bad reman alternators and learned the tricks after my 4th install.

22re with manual trans gets my vote although i have 22re with auto.

Yes the alternator in the 22re with power steering is an ordeal. I even found a YouTube vid where they were supposedly showing how to do it but when it came to pulling it out there was some swearing then they blipped the video all the way to installed. Lucky for me the first alternator I bought was a good one. No power steering and it comes right put the top.

Linda S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that explains my relative ease then... no power steering on mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never done the alternater on the dolphin but did the one on my 22re 4 WD XTRA cab last winter stock ht . but  easer too change then motorhome because it is higher   .. easer to get under . had to remove bottom raditer hose and unbolt the metal pipe mid secion of same. then easy too take out of bottem . my 4 w d is stock. put on a napa premium rebuilt and all has been good. orginal Toyota factury unit was still on there . truck is also 1988 has more then 200,000 on it compared to my 86 chassis 22re dolphin 68 , 000 miles on it . my son had a six 3.0 4 runner doing timing belts and water pump was an awfel job too say the least. put water pump on my 22 RE no big deal.

Edited by 5Toyota
add text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 meant too say both of my Toyotas have power stearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2016 at 1:05 PM, Totem said:

that explains my relative ease then... no power steering on mine.

I've never seen a 80s cab & chassis truck with no power-steering before. Your's must be a oddity.   I hate to admit it, but after years of driving 50s and 60s big trucks with " armstrong steering", I've come to really appreciate power-steering.  I tried to find a way to put it into my 1978 Chinook but decided it is near impossible.  For that reason alone, I would swap the Chinook coach onto a later or different mini-pickup.  I've been very tempted to put it on my 1985 Isuzu 4WD diesel,  but I suspect it would be so gutless it would be miserable to drive.  That has a 2.2 liter diesel.  It DOES have power-steering though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×