Just need to vent...

Agree -- anyone who tells me with a straight-face, that a smaller-displacement engine with a scroll will be just as reliable as a larger, more-cylinder'd predecessor, needs to own one as punishment

Even the turbo models of the past (WRX/STI, Lancer Evolution for example) know that turbos make good power, not extend reliability. The only reliable turbo engines are measured on motorsports timeframes, not DD ones.

Another example: no one calls the older NA C6 Z06 Corvettes more reliable than a vanilla LS3 one... but the C7 supercharged Zogs were in shops all the time, if not kiboshing power with onboard s/w, within a few laps of a desert racetrack like Willow Springs. Boost is by definition harder on everything it touches, that's why ring gap has to be opened up and better rotating assembly spec'd, to get any reliability.

So why Toyota of all marques chose to make a drivetrain that has to be rugged and no-brainer-reliable for work-truck duty, out of a 3.5L V6 with two scrolls... is just silly. More heat so needing constant airflow to keep it cool (not gonna get that, towing or climbing or doing normal worktruck things), bulkier and heavier components, and greater cost of repair -- only Toyota's coffers seems to benefit from the change.

Hope the faithful and their refusal to buy into this gaslight, convince the company to wise up, post-Aiko

 

Started driving in the late 60s. Many car's seat backs only went up to the armpit level for drivers 6 ft & over - which made reaching / twisting your torso around easy - to see out the back much. ½century later - 3point seat belts, taller seats with headrests, & very little visibility out the back & sides? Yeah go figure - cameras make visibility still possible out the rear

 

Lots of folks wanting to hang Microsoft buffoons (yeah I know - redundant) for killing off their publisher program for crappier ways to do what you need to do.

This is why we stopped purchasing latest & greatest software as they try to force you to pay for online versions.

 

Agree in principle... but not willing to revert to the other conventions of the era (lap belts only, tiny pillars so huge rollover mortality potential, lots of non-safety glass and no crumple zones) just see out the rear glass

Haven't had any trouble looking out the back, raised in '80s - '90s with full 'bucket' seats w\ headrests (granted, not so easy after the dreaded head-tilt designs that don't function very well as actual headrests) & 3-points but sans cameras... but then again was actually twisting around said obstacles to get a full view (to this day), regardless of extra obstacles vs. 1960s cars. Bit less flexible vs my 20s of course... but glad I do it regularly enough not change my driving from stiffness.

Understand my case may be in the minority, not everyone will have 40+ yrs doing that, or healthy post-40 spinal posture to begin with (huge behavioural modifier behind the wheel). But for those who can't, also can't say they've not basically demanded thru decades of their own inactions, these cameras exist in most US-market vehicles.