I like my 3.0 & compelled to keep it, I'm glad I didn't get the 4cy, but often wished it had something else. Realistically for the $3k+, ya gotta go with anything else besides adding parts to the 3.0, unless you're the one that just wants to be different/special <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" /> .

The turbo'd 3.0 has to say somethin about the gaskets & fastening durability however.

The failed gasket's I've seen deteoriated around the cooling passages by #1 & #6 (same spot on cyl heads). I *belive* it is fact in the industry, there was a material change mandated for gaskets, tho I can't back it up. As mentioned, the iron block with the aluminium componets mixed with corrosive antifreeze is also a likely contributor to failures. The amount of gasket & location of the passage & its surroundings is also a contributor imo.

I suspect alot of the engines overheated before they had the campaign, and the campaign did not necessarilly pay for head work, warped heads may have been reinstalled without ever checking. Especially depending on the dealer & what stage during the campaign the work was done.

Example of 4 cylinder issues. There's a post up on this board where a guy test drives a turbo 4runner. It has a new head, cams, etc.... at 116K miles. Come on guys, if that's all the fight 4 cylinder is going to put up aside from being cost prohibitive, might as well turbo/super charge the V6.

Frank.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by spannky:
<strong>Hey give the 3.0 some credit it may not be toyotas best but its better than 90% of any thing else on the road. I was told the head gasket problem was due to toyota discontinuing asbestos in the gaskets in late 1990 (thats why the 89,s dont appear to have as many problems . As for a supercharger knowing what I know now I wouldnt have put one on my 3.4 (ping)</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Well, its sure a bunch better than anything Chebie did... Hey spannky, give Mike Caskey (www.offroadsolutions) a call on that ping issue, I do believe he can help you cure it. He's done a bunch. Can't just slap the blower on and be done, there's a few other things that make it really work well from what I understand (and someday hope to know from experience... <img border="0" alt="[Drunk]" title="" src="graemlins/drunk.gif" /> ).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by elripster:
<strong>Example of 4 cylinder issues. There's a post up on this board where a guy test drives a turbo 4runner. It has a new head, cams, etc.... at 116K miles. Come on guys, if that's all the fight 4 cylinder is going to put up aside from being cost prohibitive, might as well turbo/super charge the V6.

Frank.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Frank, my thoughts are, a V6 headgasket failure is the symptom of multiple causes and its not just the headgasket. Any time a component bears the bulk of stress due to other factors, its gotta be hell for stout or she'll go. In the case of the V6, I think you nailed it: block deck and head surface must be perfect, head torque must be perfect, and gasket must be perfect, because none is overbuilt. Add a headgasket design change to surfaces that are right at the tolerance limits but not outside them (QA is not black and white, after all) and you get additive out-of-tolerance issues leading to failure. Nail the tolerances to, say, 1/10 of manufacturing limits, darn the cost, and use a very good and expensive headgasket and you have a very reliable motor.

Toyota has to gamble every time they design something, and this time or that time the odds added to each other and they got bit. Any iron deck/aluminum head design is vulnerable, you just have to overbuild it or get it to a gnat's hair of perfect and some of the V6s and I4s whiffed it. Not to mention dealers who don't get it quite right when they change 'em...

Get it absolutely perfect and use the best components and you could probably blow it. But sheesh, that's a lot of work and not cheap compared to alternatives... <END OPINIONATING MODE>

<small>[ June 20, 2003, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Bill_Morgan ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by elripster:
<strong>Example of 4 cylinder issues. There's a post up on this board where a guy test drives a turbo 4runner. It has a new head, cams, etc.... at 116K miles. Come on guys, if that's all the fight 4 cylinder is going to put up aside from being cost prohibitive, might as well turbo/super charge the V6.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">The post you are referring to did not mention WHY the above was done. Perhaps he put a better head and cam in the motor? Or maybe not, I'm not sure. The post also mentioned that the turbo was not rebuilt and that could have been the cause of problems, but a mechanic just threw parts at the motor to try and cure the problem. I won't try and tell you that the CT20 is a stout unit, it is a dog. The motor themselves are stout though, I am running the stock crank and rods in my motor, as are most other turbo guys making a lot more horsepower than the 3.0L.

That said, I don't think <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> that I have driven a truck with a 3.0L. If someone is looking to buy a truck though I would advise them to drive similar vehicles with the different motors to evaluate their options for themselves.

Everything Bill and Harry said is true.

But the more I look at these boards, the more I sit back and say "hey, this 3.0 motor ain't so bad". Sure both have their issues, and I think they certainly do, but when I drive down the road, I simply have the luxury of more torque and power. Sure we don't know why this 86 turbo truck had it's top end done so early, but that fact is it apparently did. Similarly, we don't know why the 3.0's might have their issues early, but apparently they do. The point is, they both have issues but one makes driving much more pleasant than the other.

You nailed it Harry, simply drive examples of both and see what is best for your needs. I have myself suggested that many times in these discussions. I did that hence my decision on the V6. I figure my engine's first priority is to move the vehicle effectively. Second I'd like to to be long lasting, third easy to work on, etc...

Bill, interesting note on taking gambles on fit/finish/tolorances, etc... when I first tore into the front end of my motor to change the water pump, I, after looking around the entire engine bay, got the impression that this motor was rushed to production. The hoses and other components seem haphazardly strewn about the engine bay. Possibly, that is in fact true and contributed to what could be a tolerance oversight in the cylinder head/ block department. After all, look at what was out there in '89. Ford had the Explorer with it's 4.0 litre option. The blazer had the 4.3 litre option. I don't know what Nissan had. At any rate, I'm sure Toyota was rightfully afraid of losing sales. After all, a 3.0 ain't a powerhouse but the 2.4 against a 4.0/4.3, fahgeddaboudit. Likely they simply rushed this engine to production.

The first time I got a look at a 3.4, I immediately noticed how neat and tidy things are under the hood. A pleasant departure.

Well whether you like the either engine I'm sure we can all agree the 3.4 is the best way to go. Easy to install, lots of torque/power, and tasty upgrades as well.

Frank.

Fair 'nuff, all good points. The 3.0 has every appearance of a rushed design. The 3.4 was their second whack at it, and it was outta da park IMHO. Having owned both I have strong feelings on it.

I put reliability and joy of mechanicking a skoash above moving power, so to each their own, which is precisely Harry's point I think.

That 4-Runner is a bad example I believe. The guy said he took it apart for some reason and found the head was shaved or something. So he got a new head. He said the previous owner didn't know what he was doing and messed up a lot of stuff.

<small>[ June 20, 2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: SnoRnr ]</small>

When it comes to the wrenching, you never know, if I ever have to do any thing major to my engine... except remove it and replace it with a 3.4(which I plan to do when it finally goes), I might just agree with you Bill. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Frank.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by SnoRnr:
<strong>That 4-Runner is a bad example I believe. The guy said he took it apart for some reason and found the head was shaved or something. So he got a new head. He said the previous owner didn't know what he was doing and messed up a lot of stuff.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Why would some one shave the head? Maybe because it has no power? You see, it has issues. They all have issues, just different ones. That's been my point all along. I mean you can explain all of them away but when you're done you still have 4 clinder and V6 engines getting lots of top end work. Just the V6 people live day to day with the convenience of more power and for some of us, it's worth the drawbacks.

Frank.