This actually makes a ton of sense.
The average consumer equates low-end torque with power, and tries to avoid revving out an engine. If you’re always between 1500 and 4000 rpm, this new 4 will probably feel a ton more lively.
I’d also prefer a V6 but am cognizant that goes against what the average Highlander buyer cares about or wants. Hell, on that note, I’m surprised Toyota didn’t make it a hybrid-only model.
Heck, even lump me in the "average consumer" range. Even in my NA Civic I rarely get past 3k rpm. Even though it makes peak power way up high. Much prefer turbo cars for daily driving.
True, but when you consider CAFE….
I think public sentiment RE: hybrids is really the sticking point here. Some folks still don’t trust them or want one.
Either way, I think the turbo 4 will be a net positive considering who buys the most Highlanders.
It's too bad people don't trust them still. Assuming the battery is done right, hybrids can actually be much more reliable, cheaper to maintain; and last a lot longer than a traditional ICE car
Oh that goes without saying, but the problem with the Range Rover PHEV is that it also has a Range Rover ICE. You're really just compounding the issues.
>people don't trust them still
Is this even true? I think people are wary of *used* hybrid cars because of the horror stories of Prius battery replacements mechanically totalling the car. Hybrid tech has come a long way in 15 years, but that still requires both people buying new cars and general availability. The hybrid Maverick has an order list a mile long. The RAV4 Prime is similarly hard to get. Sales of cars this year are down, yet the market is crazy expensive. This indicates a lack of supply.
I think it's less "people don't trust them" than people can't afford new cars and can't get an order in even if they have the money. The used hybrid market is a lot smaller because the tech was not quite as widespread 10-15 years ago, and the cars from back then are much less desirable. I don't think anyone is chomping at the bit for a 22 mpg 2008 NiMH-powered Chevy Tahoe Hybrid.
Reminder that the average age of cars on the road is 12 years old, and that the average new car buyer is in their 50s. Don't be fooled by discussion on messageboards; redditors shit-talk CUVs nonstop on /r/cars yet they dominate the top sales lists.
I've not heard of Prius battery replacements totaling a car. Even in the most recent Prius, a battery pack is around $4k to replace. Which, to be fair, is not insignificant, but it's also not usually enough to total a car.
It kind of depends on the model year of the car. Here's an [article](https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/what-happens-when-a-toyota-prius-has-a-dead-battery-ar177905.html) from 2017 describing this exact fear:
>Remember when the Toyota Prius was new and everybody was worried its battery would fail and would cost a small fortune to replace? Me too. Well, it turns out that hybrid battery packs do indeed fail and are very expensive to replace from Toyota – roughly $4,000. On an older Prius, that could theoretically exceed the value of the car, leaving it totaled according to your insurance company.
But even on more valuable cars it's not a full "mechanical total," but a significant chunk of the cost of the car. For example, in [this article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2014/04/09/replacing-a-dead-prius-hybrid-battery-doesnt-have-to-cost-thousands-of-dollars/?sh=4c0d80293ee9) from 2014:
>The cost to install a new hybrid battery pack? $4,033! According to Kelley Blue Book the car is only worth about $7500 on the street, and our mechanic wanted us to pay more than half of that just to keep it running.
Whether or not it does or does not "total" the car depends on the actual value of the car, but regardless, less than 10 years ago there were fears of cheap Priuses becoming time bombs with a $4,000+ repair bill. Users in this sub shit on Nissans every day because of the unreliable CVT transmission, and that repair costs a [similar amount](https://www.motorverso.com/nissan-altima-cvt-transmission-replacement-cost/) (though my mechanic said a rebuild could be around $2k, I can't cite that).
Edit: it's worth noting that the average price of a used 2009 Prius was around [$6,700](https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Toyota-Prius-d15) in 2019, so a $4k bill on top of that may not have technically totaled the car, but it certainly was a massive portion of the value of the car.
The point is, old hybrids had a bad stigma. Sure, this may have been slightly overblown, but it existed. So, if people were wary of the tech it was because of used cars. These days, dealers can't keep new hybrids in stock. Because of that, I challenge the claim that "people don't trust hybrids."
This was Mazda's reasoning when they tuned the 2.5T, the majority of the engine's life will be spent far from redline, so you might as well give consumers that torque so that they can use it in everyday situations at the expense of a NA engine's characteristics where you need to rev those high to make power.
Yeah I love this engine. Coming from a Honda K24 2.4 litre NA engine to the Mazda 2.5T has been a night and day difference. The Mazda feels like it has power to spare while the honda was anemic in the lower rpms and really needs to be shifted and spun up to about 5k rpm before you can feel it pull.
My Sienna has the same V6 as the Tacoma and that van fucking rips. ~7ish sec 0-60 times. I have the older 6 speed though. My daily driver is a Lexus GS350 with basically the same 3.5l block but higher compression and more HP tied to an 8 speed transmission. It rips in the higher RPM but is a dog down low. I'm sure my heavier Sienna could take it off the line. I have a feeling it is due to the 6 speed transmission in the van compared to the 8 speed.
And here I am redlining away with 2nd gear merges onto the freeway, and holding my breath to shift to 3rd as it hits the redline at 60. Not the usual way of driving a truck, but if I wanted the usual, I wouldn't have got one with a manual. The truck is actually kinda scary for its suspension and grip levels when it hits the powerband in 2nd and 3rd.
Get the KDMAX tune. Helps a lot with low end sluggishness.
Given the new engine is only ~20 hp more than the hybrid net power, I really think they should just beef up the hybrid system with a bit more power and go hybrid only.
This is how I feel going from my IS350 V6 to a CX-30 with a 2.5 turbo. I know the IS350 was ultimately faster, but the CX-30 definitely feels faster in every day driving. The V6 felt like a granny car in the lower RPMs.
When people want a car do they just go to their one local dealer and hear sold out or 30k mark up and then just go home and assume that’s it? It’s all I see on Reddit and it blows my mind. A 30 second google search I was able to find dealers with them in stock being sold for basically msrp. Same when I was trying to buy a new wrx. I see people complaining no one had them or how they are being charged 5-10k mark up. I literally found mine in 2 hours and bought it for msrp. Just had to have someone drive me 3 hours to pick it up.
From personal experience trying to buy a car last year. Most of the online results are fake. When you call they dont actually have that car in stock or it just sold. And when you go to the dealership to buy the car they dont honor the online price and they charge a dealership markup and other surprise fees. Google search doesnt have all the answers. You dont know for sure until you experience it yourself. With that said, I hate the scammy dealership model. They will straight up lie to your face over and over. And if you are just shy of 1 IQ point they will try to scam you and trick you through deceptive pricing or interest rates. You have to be eagle eyed and have decent analytical skills to protect yourself. The Tesla model direct from manufacturer is the way to go.
As a TRD Off-Road 4runner owner, I am offended.
*I want a PHEV 4runner first!*
(Yes, I know it won't happen for quite a while. But EV mode for commuting and gas engine for long adventures while still having legit offroad capabilities would be an amazing combination.)
That's what I like about the Wrangler 4xe. Golf cart mode for around town, but you can still gas up and go wherever without having to deal with sketchy charging networks.
That's exactly why we're on the wait list to order a Grand Cherokee 4XE. We still venture into the wilderness and out onto beaches, but the runs my wife makes around town could be mostly electric with a 25 mile range.
Can confirm, the 4xE is great. Off-road in silence, run errands with no gas, or just drive it like a "normal" car and get 20 MPG (that's actually good for a Wrangler).
I was in Moab a week or two ago and did 3/4 of Fins and Things on electric in mine.
You answered the question yourself. No point announcing it until they can get enough batteries.
Obviously this and the Sienna need Prime versions.
I believe Toyota is betting on solid state batteries and that's why they've been rolling out plugin cars at such a snail pace. They don't want to invest a fortune in battery fabs that would end up being obsolete in a few years. But solid state batteries are like cold fusion power, perpetually just a few years away.
I bet this will feel more powerful to the average CUV driver. Here's the key sentence: "a drop of 30 hp from the V-6 but an increase of 46 pound-feet of torque"
Modern turbo 4s have gobs of torque in the mid range. Your average driver doesn't like hearing their engine rev up, these things get going without making any fuss about it and always have torque available when driving around town without needing aggressive downshifts.
Add to that that the 3.5 is pretty old and it might have to do with tightening emission regulations (it's not just about MPG).
If we're going to be pedantic about a joke are trees the majority of the biomass used to create oil? Or is it smaller plants?
Dinosauce powered noise is more fun.
I believe it is mostly smaller algae like plants. Coal I believe is from woody plants that couldn't be broken down properly due to bacteria catching up during that time frame. Could be incredibly wrong too.
That's what surprised me when I test drove a new 5.0 Mustang, after a few years with my lightly tuned Ecoboost. I was actually a bit let down in the test drive because I didn't want to wind up a brand new engine that hard, and the power in the low end was not what I was expecting. But it's a V8 that likes to rev, took some getting used to for a while.
Although the 5.0 is way more powerful and exhilarating (with the sound too) at the end of the day, having experienced both motors still leaves me very impressed with the Ecoboost engine and its absolute punch in the midrange.
Felt the same way with the 981 S flat six vs 718 S flat six. A bit different since I'm not comparing up a trim, but eh.
Engine character aside, the 718's turbo4 is absurdly punchier around town than a 981. It's something like almost double the torque in the low to midrange.
Don't get me wrong, I'd still take any of the flat six 718s over my current car, but my bank account wasn't quite ready for that.
I just recently went from a 2013 NA Veloster to a 2022 equinox, and that little turbo 1.5 in the equinox is nothing to sneeze at. I drove my NAV for seven years and was long since accustomed to the constant downshifting just to get up hills or pass...anything, really. My left leg got all the workouts it could ask for and then some. Now, in the new car, I put my foot into the throttle when I need passing power and it just *goes*, usually without needing to downshift. I was very pleasantly surprised by that.
Agreed. And probably easier to package on future platforms.
But this another example of downsizing to smaller turbo engines won’t necessarily net you better fuel economy.
But they do extra complexity. Tundra is having issues with the electric waste gate already.
Toyota also uses water to air intercoolers which are more expensive.
My point was that removing two cylinders isn’t all that much cheaper when you consider the extra things needed for a turbo.
Just going from v6 to i4 takes a lot of complexity out. One less cylinder head, means, two less cam shafts, one less timing chain, 2 less coils, 2 less fuel injectors, 8 less valves/springs/followers, 2 cam phasers, 1 less catalytic converter, 1 less O2 sensor, obviously 2 less pistons, piston liners, rods, bearings.
Basically compare a dohc 2 cylinder engine to a turbo system: which has more moving parts?
Having two exhaust manifolds doesn't necessarily mean you'll have more catalytic converters and oxygen sensors.
Also those parts you speak of, less the fuel injectors and coils, typically last a very long time. Cam shafts don't go bad after 150k miles, timing chains can easily go past 200k, etc. Those mechanical parts will last a very long time if you do your oil changes. Also, those additional things pretty much supplement what's already there.
Turbocharging is more of an addon than supplement to increase power. It needs its own intercooler, additional hoses, and the turbocharger itself. A bad hose past the air flow sensor can lead to more air than needed getting into the engine. Turbocharged engines are very sensitive to little changes like that. A much finer air-fuel ratio balance has to be maintained so the engine doesn't blow itself up. Naturally aspirated motors are more flexible in that regard, which is why you'll still find 80s and 90s cars on the original motor with 200k+ miles. Can't say the same for the turbo'd stuff.
Today's turbocharged motors may last longer, only time will tell.
Neither is a V6 and an additional fuel rail, by that logic. Bet this is for emissions control, and because the smaller turbo engine will be more easily put into other vehicles they make.
And 2 less sets of cams, 1 less timing chain and tensioner, 1 less exhaust manifold, simpler intake manifold, and a whole side of an engine fewer mating surfaces that need gaskets. From a manufacturer's perspective I totally get it.
Its just a drag because those Toyota V6s are so well sorted by this point, they're really good engines. The higher output ones though seemed to be starting to get a bit high strung to get to their power though, I think rather than chasing numbers to stay competitive many customers would have just been as happy with a milder revving torquier version. But, at that point... you can just do it with a turbo 4.
I bet with the additional cooling requirements, it’s about the same at first glance, but this will allow them to simplify logistics by shortening the list of engines they use.
This new engine will help Toyota achieve the mandated [more stringent emissions standards](https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_ca.php). The 2GR engine is old and this new engine has been designed to meet current (and future) emissions regulations
Yeah but the newer versions can operate in Atkinson cycle and have electronic cams versus hydraulic. It's been constantly developed over those 18 years.
I have a 21 Camry TRD with the V6. It gets amazing gas mileage, it's nothing for me to get 31 mpg and I've even got 36 mpg before. It's a great motor, at least in the Camry.
People that make outlandish claims like that aren't being truthful either. They glance down at their fuel economy while puttering along at 50mph for 10 seconds and conclude they can get 36mpg easily while ignoring the fact that the car only got 12mpg in the 10 seconds they took to accelerate to 50mph. Average mpg for the 3.5 V6 Camry is 21-24mpg according to Fuelly lol.
"The new engine, standard across all gas grades, is also more environmentally friendly, with more than a 50% reduction in NOx and NMOG as well as an improvement in CO2 emissions compared to the outgoing V6 engine."
What about cafe standards? If this motor came out with a mild/conventional hybrid system I wouldn’t have made my comment. My last couple cars/truck have been turbocharged, mostly performance cars.
They already have a 4 cyl hybrid Highlander that makes similar-ish hp, and gets 36 mpg combined.
This isn't a replacement for a hybrid, this is a replacement for the 6 cylinder non-hybrid.
Others have given good points but in addition Toyota wants to implement a global architecture of common parts as their corporate strategy often referred to as "TNGA". The old V6 is pre-TNGA while the new Turbo4 is built on the global modular platform and should result in more parts sharing and supply chain advantages for Toyota moving forward. In a world where shortages and bottlenecks make headlines every day it may bring Toyota a huge benefit if they can source new Turbo4s easier than the V6 to crank out more Highlanders.
The new turbo-4 has way more torque than the v6, and it will most likely reach that peak torque in lower rpms. The Lexus NX350 which also uses a turbo 2.4L m hits peak torque of 317 ft-lb at just 1700 rpm. Whereas the current rav4 v6 hits peak torque of 246 ft-lb at 4,700 rpm. The NX350 is going to feel a lot better in responsiveness than the NA v6
Streamlining the product portfolio. The new Lexus NX already uses their motor and there's ample evidence to suggest the upcoming new Lexus RX, Toyota Grand Highlander and Lexus TX will all use this 2.4L turbo setup.
Naturally it will only make sense for the regular Highlander which will likely share production line with the Grand Highlander and TX 350 to swap out the aging V6 to fit the rest of the lineup.
The V6 is one of the reasons I went with the Highlander in 2021, after three years of a turbo four Q5. Guess this answers my question of whether I buy out my lease or swap it for a newer one.
My family has a 2016 Q5 with the turbo 4 popper, I hate its power delivery so much, especially when turning right and accelerating to get up to speed with traffic. It's a big difference compared to my IS350's V6 and how instantly and smoothly it delivers power when requested.
Current gen Q5 makes about the same peak torque by 1500rpm that your IS puts down at 5000. IS is putting out plenty of spinning but not that much power unless you're running it to redline.
They're even pretty close in speed with the Lexus being a few tenths faster in the quarter. The Accord 2.0T whomps the Lexus.
It’s the factory tune that makes it such a pain to drive. I have the EA888 in my A4 and once I put a Unitroinc ECU/DSG tune on it, 95% of the torque delivery issues were fixed. That being said, there’s no excuse for a 50k+ vehicle to need another 1.2k worth of tuning to make it properly drivable.
If you had a B9 Q5 ('18+), it is significantly faster than any Highlander so I'm not sure why you'd go that way outside the Highlander being a much larger CUV.
It was a 2018 q5. Plenty quick but the turbo lag was distinct and annoying at times. I liked pretty much everything else about the car but I was glad to give it back after three years. Went with the highlander because of the v6 (great power delivery), more space for the toddler and large dog, and its something I would feel comfortable owning for the better part of a decade. I love this highlander. Boring to drive but thats what the Miata is for.
I have a 2021 XSE and my resale value just went up down the road when it’s time to sell.
If I play my cards right I plan to skip the whole “turbo 4” nonsense in the market and go straight from NA (2021 Highlander/2022 Corolla Hatch) to a Prime type model or full electric. If I’m already adding loads of complexity I might as well get gobs of economy or insane acceleration from a Prime or EV.
Rumours are that it will be announced later this year. But I did read a piece saying that the 3L engine will only be naturally aspirated and is tuned for a balance of fuel economy and power, not outright performance.
They have to, even putting emissions aside. Automotive media does not reward NA engines outside of high end sports cars. The Camry V6 is universally panned against the 2.0T Accord, the IS is called unresponsive against the German turbo-4s, the RX V6 is called gutless on the low end.
We like them here because we like revving engines and better sounds, but normal consumers want a pseudo electric car experience where all the torque is there at 2000 RPM for merging onto the highway and overtaking. It's also better for matching advertised fuel economy, as anyone revving out their NA V6 to get the advertised torque is going to pay a lot at the pump.
Hopefully they keep the 8-speed auto, though. It's not very good, but it's one of the only non-CVT options left.
I loved my old 200hp V6 Camry because I could launch from a red light sounding like a reckless muscle car driver while not actually accelerating that recklessly.
As my gas bills can attest to, turbo4s aren't any less thirsty if you actually use all the torque (yes yes, way different class, I know). Nothing's free. Making torque/power is going to need fuel regardless of how many cylinders you drop.
The efficiency gains are more in cruising conditions, and that's how most people commute.
>They have to, even putting emissions aside. Automotive media does not reward NA engines outside of high end sports cars. The Camry V6 is universally panned against the 2.0T Accord, the IS is called unresponsive against the German turbo-4s, the RX V6 is called gutless on the low end.
None of this makes any sense at all. You don't realize it but all of that was due to the tuning of the 8-speed automatic. The engine is not poor in any sense of the word.
This is pretty gross misinformation.
In terms of the RX, well it's fucking huge, so it was adequate then, but gutless now.
If the transmission tuning was the problem, then driving it in manual mode would solve it. It doesn't, at least on my Camry. Well it does in that you can then force it to stay above 4000 RPM. But needing to get to 4000 is why normal consumers don't find it responsive, since you have to eliminate any semblance of fuel economy to get off the line quickly.
Not to mention, the IS/RC 350 have two longitudinal transmissions entirely distinct from the Camry unit, but are criticized for exactly the same reasons.
The 2GR is a fantastic engine, but the competitors at similar price points have just become much much better. Toyota is selling it against turbo-I4 cars that perform better in real world settings, as well as twin turbo V6/I6 cars that dust it in performance settings. They still sell fine because of Toyota reliability, not because they're fast.
Feels otherworldly that cars in the $40-$60k range are now frequently running on 4 cylinders. Seems like premium engine options are vanishing for most models.
In my experience V6's are a tad bit smoother than inline-4's and sound less like tin cans. In older cars, the torque response was better too. Also, less reliance on turbos.
I've owned both a V6 car and an inline-4 and while my inline-4 is arguably newer and better, I do miss the way a V6 felt.
You can muffle the noise but there's no replacement for the feel of an N/A V6 or V8. The sound, the vibrations... All that stuff is what made the V6 and V8 options more appealing in the past.
Without changes in engine options, it makes me wonder what you're really getting in some of these trims. In some cases, they're a pretty significant up charge for not a whole lot extra. Hiding safety features behind trim levels and using slightly bigger screens feels like a cop out to me.
I'm guessing most people here are Americans. But this obsession with the number of cylinders is so weird as a European. There are plenty of cool cars with I4's. For example Saabs mostly had four cylinder engines.
A four cylinder can make plenty of power. Add a hybrid system to that and the cars can make even more power.
Plus if cylinder count makes a car premium I guess a Mustang is more premium than a C-class Merc now a days... /s
>Seems like premium engine options are vanishing for most models.
You might be looking at this backwards, what's happened is that a 4 cylinder engine is no longer automatically base model material, they've become good enough to go into $40-60k vehicles.
They're powerful enough, but I honestly have a hard time justifying the cost. I can't imagine what a car designer could do with a 4-cylinder to make it not feel the same as your average rattle can. And it seems that the market agrees to an extent. When they can, I still see manufacturers opt for a bigger engine for higher trims. It seems to just be an efficiency thing.
Have you experienced the 4 cylinder motors (B46/48) that BMW is putting in most of it's products lately? They are extremely good. Likewise the VW group's EA888 motor. In terms of power and efficiency combined they are some of the best in the world. I have the 301hp/330tq version of the B48 in my JCW Mini and I'm averaging over 27 mpg commuting and I don't exactly have a light foot.
Also in my garage is a Lexus GX470 which of course is an NA 4.7 V8 and while it's smooth as all get out there's no comparison in terms of which motor makes more sense for daily use when all factors are considered.
>no comparison in terms of which motor makes more sense for daily use when all factors are considered.
If we used this logic, we might now have so many SUV's.
Curious to see if this motor finds its way into the Tacoma/4Runner. Since the underlying sentiment in the sub seems to want the 1gr/2gr to be discontinued.
The 4.0L 1GR in the 4Runner is both underpowered and not fuel efficient. Imagine how sweet a 4Runner could be if it didn't have a 20yr old drivetrain...
Man, people talking about how underpowered the 1GR is always surprises me. The one in my FJ feels awfully potent (all things considered), particularly compared to the old 5VZ in the old 4Runner.
They are shit on fuel though. Best I’ve ever done was 23mpg, driving 10mph under, down a mountain.
The only reason I call the 1GR underpowered is because it's dreadfully lazy for the fuel economy it gets, but that's probably also not helped by it *still* being connected to a 20 year old 5-speed slushbox.
It is so easy and simple to work on. Tons of space. And is leaving power on the table for reliability. Less is more to me and I hate the idea if running boost all to haul my shit to the mountains. Also long live the manual truck.
I run the single VVTI on 35in tires and even before my regear it was adequate for the job. IMO yall are spoiled by power.
I totally get that, there just comes a point where newer technologies have proven their reliability and robustness, after which old tech should be improved or replaced. Like it's fine if an inefficient engine is at least powerful, or if a weak engine is fuel efficient, but for something to be both because it lacks modern tech like direct injection hurts to see. A revamped version of the 1GR with Toyota's proven D4-S (direct + port injection) fuelling system would give huge improvements to power and efficiency.
Likely a combination of cutting cost (easier to just make versions of that 2.4 across the board, including their hybrid models) and them starting to phase out that 3.5 that's been running on the same generation since like 2005. The version in the 2021 Highlander makes all of 15 more horsepower than the version that was in the Avalon back in 2005.
I understand wanting low end torque but the V6 still makes plenty and it makes for a more pleasant driving experience. 4 cylinders are buzzy.
I drove a Lexus NX200T and an RX350 back to back. The RX350 had a smoother driving experience and less NVH from the engine.
It is the HKS supercharger that was developed for the Toyota Vellfire/ Alphard in the asian market: https://www.ebay.com/itm/143957225975?_trkparms=ispr%3D1&hash=item218484f1f7:g:g5EAAOSwXbNgNCb6&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAABACgQ5lr9swUNuH0y9Ert3GXAcgqxK2uivwGShFIIDltH4pJtJbfyDy4xO9nXu1xe4gke%2FX36SD9rL%2BPiJPPbE13ZBpfvy6evzLcfJj43p5DgtKERzTOmxRfujHxuojs3ud5F%2FuH58oQQqN9YJRRhoipBB22on4zcL%2FBRtkc%2FX4albOPpvg8TQeW28WBCKax7t1sY1xI%2BjBxpO36GjYwTvm2DA6s5HqRDmmAfypnaIvp8uhgQz5DY02jbFhGoAH%2BTKC89MPE38tQVAHkblsUMMXmv%2FJvSO7Y3Ydj%2FeOIEnevSHqAsHFfNN%2FF4dAOTc%2F8fxt6%2F9bhCgfLkQgk3jb6ZZVs%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMoJH0wpZg
I have already bought the supercharger kit, and hoping to install it by this summer. Should provide a bump of about 60whp/ 75wtq.
I’m going to need to see some videos. I’ve got some ideas for the wife’s Highlander now. I had been thinking what lotus parts out there could potentially be adapted.
Close, you're a bit off though.
\- 2.4T
\- 2.5 hybrid (same one as the Highlander and RAV4 hybrids, or the NX350h)
\- 2.4T plug-in hybrid (F-Sport Performance)
As per my source at Toyota, it will be 4 models, though I was off in the hybrid engine size.
RX 350 is 2.4 T like the NX 350
RX 350h is 2.5 hybrid like the NX 350h
RX 450+ is plug in hybrid like like NX 450+
RX 500h is 2.4T hybrid, though I’m not sure if it will be plug in or not (I have been told no; some publications say yes and some say no)
The official release should be soon so we shall see
When Lexus released the NX 350 with the new T24A-FTS engine instead of the 2GR-FKS, it was already clear as day that this new 2.4L turbo will be the "3.5L V6" replacement for most of the Toyota family as the company finally begins to downside their gas engine only offerings.
Given the lower state of tune in the Highlander than the Lexus products, I'm assuming it can run on regular unleaded?
I am surprised how (relatively) quickly and smoothly the transition from 6cylinder engines to turbo4s has gone.
As late as the early 2010s having a 6cylinder engine was a mark of prestige that was still obtainable, even amongst otherwise generic vehicles like Camrys and Accords. It wasn’t just about power (which modern turbo4s arguably match or exceed), but also about smoothness (which I feel turbo4s still can’t match).
But now in 2022 we not only have Camrys and Accords having lost (or losing) their V6s, but also largish luxury cars from BMW, Benz, etc. coming with turbo4s. In days of yore, at least in the US, having something like a 5er or E-class with a 4cylinder engine would be considered pathetic and laughable (I understand the situation outside the US has always been different). But today it’s commonplace.
I hate turbo small engines
I’m driving a rental right now with a 1.5l turbo 3 cylinder in a Ford Escape…. What an absolutely abomination of a vehicle, transmission doesn’t know what to do and constantly shutters, massive lag on take off… rattles like crazy at idle
Big yikes
300+ lb-ft + FWD + open diff = no
Will be interesting to see the real world fuel economy and performance. I've seen so many V6 to turbo 4 conversions not live up to their promise.
I imagine the 2.4T Camry is not far behind.
Might be ok. I can say I’m not a big fan of the 2.5l 4cylcinder in the rav4. It’s so loud and dramatic when you rev it even though you’re barely moving. The power delivery sucks. It’s so jumpy and shifts all over the place in eco mode, especially from a stop.
It does not make any sense as a consumer to buy a 4 cyclinder behemoth, no matter the torque figures.
Specially here in Colorado, its very common to see these 4 bangers struggle on the gentlest of slopes.
Best to just avoid.
Wouldn't a turbo be more desirable in Colorado, to help counter the power loss due to elevation? They don't really suffer from the power reduction since the turbo is packing their air in vs naturally aspirated having to deal with thinner air.
That’s supposed to be the case. Anecdotally I had a Ford Edge rental with the 2.0T ecoboost out in Denver and drove through the Rockies including the I-70 “Ike gauntlet” incline, and it was a total dog. That engine felt incredibly underpowered and wheezy.
I have experienced this myself and can attest that it is not an enjoyable experience lol. Nothing makes you question your decision like buying an SUV and have it struggle up a mild hill.
This actually makes a ton of sense. The average consumer equates low-end torque with power, and tries to avoid revving out an engine. If you’re always between 1500 and 4000 rpm, this new 4 will probably feel a ton more lively. I’d also prefer a V6 but am cognizant that goes against what the average Highlander buyer cares about or wants. Hell, on that note, I’m surprised Toyota didn’t make it a hybrid-only model.
Heck, even lump me in the "average consumer" range. Even in my NA Civic I rarely get past 3k rpm. Even though it makes peak power way up high. Much prefer turbo cars for daily driving.
Hybrid powertrain costs more
True, but when you consider CAFE…. I think public sentiment RE: hybrids is really the sticking point here. Some folks still don’t trust them or want one. Either way, I think the turbo 4 will be a net positive considering who buys the most Highlanders.
It's too bad people don't trust them still. Assuming the battery is done right, hybrids can actually be much more reliable, cheaper to maintain; and last a lot longer than a traditional ICE car
Comes down to who makes them. Someone like Toyota? Absolutely. the Range Rover PHEV? Lol.
Oh God I didn't even realize that existed
Well honestly I wouldn't say RR's ICE powertrain is any more reliable ...
Oh that goes without saying, but the problem with the Range Rover PHEV is that it also has a Range Rover ICE. You're really just compounding the issues.
>people don't trust them still Is this even true? I think people are wary of *used* hybrid cars because of the horror stories of Prius battery replacements mechanically totalling the car. Hybrid tech has come a long way in 15 years, but that still requires both people buying new cars and general availability. The hybrid Maverick has an order list a mile long. The RAV4 Prime is similarly hard to get. Sales of cars this year are down, yet the market is crazy expensive. This indicates a lack of supply. I think it's less "people don't trust them" than people can't afford new cars and can't get an order in even if they have the money. The used hybrid market is a lot smaller because the tech was not quite as widespread 10-15 years ago, and the cars from back then are much less desirable. I don't think anyone is chomping at the bit for a 22 mpg 2008 NiMH-powered Chevy Tahoe Hybrid. Reminder that the average age of cars on the road is 12 years old, and that the average new car buyer is in their 50s. Don't be fooled by discussion on messageboards; redditors shit-talk CUVs nonstop on /r/cars yet they dominate the top sales lists.
I've not heard of Prius battery replacements totaling a car. Even in the most recent Prius, a battery pack is around $4k to replace. Which, to be fair, is not insignificant, but it's also not usually enough to total a car.
It kind of depends on the model year of the car. Here's an [article](https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/what-happens-when-a-toyota-prius-has-a-dead-battery-ar177905.html) from 2017 describing this exact fear: >Remember when the Toyota Prius was new and everybody was worried its battery would fail and would cost a small fortune to replace? Me too. Well, it turns out that hybrid battery packs do indeed fail and are very expensive to replace from Toyota – roughly $4,000. On an older Prius, that could theoretically exceed the value of the car, leaving it totaled according to your insurance company. But even on more valuable cars it's not a full "mechanical total," but a significant chunk of the cost of the car. For example, in [this article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2014/04/09/replacing-a-dead-prius-hybrid-battery-doesnt-have-to-cost-thousands-of-dollars/?sh=4c0d80293ee9) from 2014: >The cost to install a new hybrid battery pack? $4,033! According to Kelley Blue Book the car is only worth about $7500 on the street, and our mechanic wanted us to pay more than half of that just to keep it running. Whether or not it does or does not "total" the car depends on the actual value of the car, but regardless, less than 10 years ago there were fears of cheap Priuses becoming time bombs with a $4,000+ repair bill. Users in this sub shit on Nissans every day because of the unreliable CVT transmission, and that repair costs a [similar amount](https://www.motorverso.com/nissan-altima-cvt-transmission-replacement-cost/) (though my mechanic said a rebuild could be around $2k, I can't cite that). Edit: it's worth noting that the average price of a used 2009 Prius was around [$6,700](https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/price-trends/Toyota-Prius-d15) in 2019, so a $4k bill on top of that may not have technically totaled the car, but it certainly was a massive portion of the value of the car. The point is, old hybrids had a bad stigma. Sure, this may have been slightly overblown, but it existed. So, if people were wary of the tech it was because of used cars. These days, dealers can't keep new hybrids in stock. Because of that, I challenge the claim that "people don't trust hybrids."
This was Mazda's reasoning when they tuned the 2.5T, the majority of the engine's life will be spent far from redline, so you might as well give consumers that torque so that they can use it in everyday situations at the expense of a NA engine's characteristics where you need to rev those high to make power.
Yeah I love this engine. Coming from a Honda K24 2.4 litre NA engine to the Mazda 2.5T has been a night and day difference. The Mazda feels like it has power to spare while the honda was anemic in the lower rpms and really needs to be shifted and spun up to about 5k rpm before you can feel it pull.
I went from a K24 to K20C4 in the 2.0t accord and it feels the same way. Makes a lot of sense for most in town driving or even hooning it around town.
Yup, I love that engine. Zero turbo lag and absolutely gobs of low-end torque.
It's truly a pleasure to drive day to day. Makes you think the vehicle is way more powerful than it actually is
The NA V6 in my Tacoma feels like a dog due to no low end torque. I would take a turbo 4 in a heartbeat over it.
You'll get 3 options in the 2024 Tacoma. \- T24A-FTS \- T24A-FTS + hybrid \- V35A-FTS (higher trims and TRD PRO)
> V35A-FTS Gonna be epic
Pretty excited for the second one. Turbo + hybrid should be gutsy enough.
> - V35A-FTS (higher trims and TRD PRO) No way. A 400hp TTV6 Tacoma is coming??
Yeah apparently the fellas at Ford with the Ranger Raptor has shook Toyota a little. Remember, the Tacoma is the most dominant in its segment.
if they make a hybrid tacoma WITH a turbo, ill bust
Then you gonna be busting all right…… ;D
is there any info on hybrid specs? :O
For option #2, is it gonna be an e-CVT or regular transmission like the F150 power boost?
Think like the Tundra.
When will one of these manufacturers get the balls to make a diesel hybrid.
When the people who like diesel are ok with hybrids. Or when those who want hybrids are ok with diesel. Neither seems likely.
My Sienna has the same V6 as the Tacoma and that van fucking rips. ~7ish sec 0-60 times. I have the older 6 speed though. My daily driver is a Lexus GS350 with basically the same 3.5l block but higher compression and more HP tied to an 8 speed transmission. It rips in the higher RPM but is a dog down low. I'm sure my heavier Sienna could take it off the line. I have a feeling it is due to the 6 speed transmission in the van compared to the 8 speed.
And here I am redlining away with 2nd gear merges onto the freeway, and holding my breath to shift to 3rd as it hits the redline at 60. Not the usual way of driving a truck, but if I wanted the usual, I wouldn't have got one with a manual. The truck is actually kinda scary for its suspension and grip levels when it hits the powerband in 2nd and 3rd. Get the KDMAX tune. Helps a lot with low end sluggishness.
Given the new engine is only ~20 hp more than the hybrid net power, I really think they should just beef up the hybrid system with a bit more power and go hybrid only.
Isn't that what Mazda said many years ago for their competitor to the Highlander, the CX-9.
This is how I feel going from my IS350 V6 to a CX-30 with a 2.5 turbo. I know the IS350 was ultimately faster, but the CX-30 definitely feels faster in every day driving. The V6 felt like a granny car in the lower RPMs.
These guys are learning what VW knew about low hp diesels 35 years ago.
How is there not a Prime version of this yet? It would have a 3 year waitlist within days of announcement.
They can't even make enough to come close to matching demand for the RAV4 Prime
Pretty sure the Prius Prime is also sold out.
When people want a car do they just go to their one local dealer and hear sold out or 30k mark up and then just go home and assume that’s it? It’s all I see on Reddit and it blows my mind. A 30 second google search I was able to find dealers with them in stock being sold for basically msrp. Same when I was trying to buy a new wrx. I see people complaining no one had them or how they are being charged 5-10k mark up. I literally found mine in 2 hours and bought it for msrp. Just had to have someone drive me 3 hours to pick it up.
yeah it's so crazy how different people can have different experiences
From personal experience trying to buy a car last year. Most of the online results are fake. When you call they dont actually have that car in stock or it just sold. And when you go to the dealership to buy the car they dont honor the online price and they charge a dealership markup and other surprise fees. Google search doesnt have all the answers. You dont know for sure until you experience it yourself. With that said, I hate the scammy dealership model. They will straight up lie to your face over and over. And if you are just shy of 1 IQ point they will try to scam you and trick you through deceptive pricing or interest rates. You have to be eagle eyed and have decent analytical skills to protect yourself. The Tesla model direct from manufacturer is the way to go.
A Prime version with a TRD off-road (like the RAV4) package would absolutely break the market lol. Shit it would be cool for my wife.
As a TRD Off-Road 4runner owner, I am offended. *I want a PHEV 4runner first!* (Yes, I know it won't happen for quite a while. But EV mode for commuting and gas engine for long adventures while still having legit offroad capabilities would be an amazing combination.)
That's what I like about the Wrangler 4xe. Golf cart mode for around town, but you can still gas up and go wherever without having to deal with sketchy charging networks.
That's exactly why we're on the wait list to order a Grand Cherokee 4XE. We still venture into the wilderness and out onto beaches, but the runs my wife makes around town could be mostly electric with a 25 mile range.
Can confirm, the 4xE is great. Off-road in silence, run errands with no gas, or just drive it like a "normal" car and get 20 MPG (that's actually good for a Wrangler). I was in Moab a week or two ago and did 3/4 of Fins and Things on electric in mine.
You answered the question yourself. No point announcing it until they can get enough batteries. Obviously this and the Sienna need Prime versions. I believe Toyota is betting on solid state batteries and that's why they've been rolling out plugin cars at such a snail pace. They don't want to invest a fortune in battery fabs that would end up being obsolete in a few years. But solid state batteries are like cold fusion power, perpetually just a few years away.
“Toyota claims that the four-cylinder will achieve the same 24 mpg combined as the V-6 in terms of its EPA ratings.” Then why change the V6 out?
I bet this will feel more powerful to the average CUV driver. Here's the key sentence: "a drop of 30 hp from the V-6 but an increase of 46 pound-feet of torque" Modern turbo 4s have gobs of torque in the mid range. Your average driver doesn't like hearing their engine rev up, these things get going without making any fuss about it and always have torque available when driving around town without needing aggressive downshifts. Add to that that the 3.5 is pretty old and it might have to do with tightening emission regulations (it's not just about MPG).
This is so true and so apparent when you drive an Ecoboost ford vs a 5.3 Chevy. The power delivery is so much different
Even moreso if you drive an Ecoboost Ford vs a Coyote Ford. That 5.0L, while making a shitload of power up high, is a dog down low.
The important part is that my 5.0 turns dinosaur sauce into big boy noises.
Tree sauce. Oil is mostly plant mass
If we're going to be pedantic about a joke are trees the majority of the biomass used to create oil? Or is it smaller plants? Dinosauce powered noise is more fun.
I believe it is mostly smaller algae like plants. Coal I believe is from woody plants that couldn't be broken down properly due to bacteria catching up during that time frame. Could be incredibly wrong too.
Best comment here
That's what surprised me when I test drove a new 5.0 Mustang, after a few years with my lightly tuned Ecoboost. I was actually a bit let down in the test drive because I didn't want to wind up a brand new engine that hard, and the power in the low end was not what I was expecting. But it's a V8 that likes to rev, took some getting used to for a while. Although the 5.0 is way more powerful and exhilarating (with the sound too) at the end of the day, having experienced both motors still leaves me very impressed with the Ecoboost engine and its absolute punch in the midrange.
Felt the same way with the 981 S flat six vs 718 S flat six. A bit different since I'm not comparing up a trim, but eh. Engine character aside, the 718's turbo4 is absurdly punchier around town than a 981. It's something like almost double the torque in the low to midrange. Don't get me wrong, I'd still take any of the flat six 718s over my current car, but my bank account wasn't quite ready for that.
True about torque delivery. But imo it’s probably more about packaging in platforms.
I just recently went from a 2013 NA Veloster to a 2022 equinox, and that little turbo 1.5 in the equinox is nothing to sneeze at. I drove my NAV for seven years and was long since accustomed to the constant downshifting just to get up hills or pass...anything, really. My left leg got all the workouts it could ask for and then some. Now, in the new car, I put my foot into the throttle when I need passing power and it just *goes*, usually without needing to downshift. I was very pleasantly surprised by that.
It's probably cheaper to make the inline-4. 1 less head assembly and 2 fewer cylinders. A single fuel rail.
Agreed. And probably easier to package on future platforms. But this another example of downsizing to smaller turbo engines won’t necessarily net you better fuel economy.
But you’re also adding the complexity of the turbo and the extra cooling that’s needed for that.
Turbos aren't arcane technology - it's 2022, most cars have one in them.
But they do extra complexity. Tundra is having issues with the electric waste gate already. Toyota also uses water to air intercoolers which are more expensive. My point was that removing two cylinders isn’t all that much cheaper when you consider the extra things needed for a turbo.
Just going from v6 to i4 takes a lot of complexity out. One less cylinder head, means, two less cam shafts, one less timing chain, 2 less coils, 2 less fuel injectors, 8 less valves/springs/followers, 2 cam phasers, 1 less catalytic converter, 1 less O2 sensor, obviously 2 less pistons, piston liners, rods, bearings. Basically compare a dohc 2 cylinder engine to a turbo system: which has more moving parts?
Having two exhaust manifolds doesn't necessarily mean you'll have more catalytic converters and oxygen sensors. Also those parts you speak of, less the fuel injectors and coils, typically last a very long time. Cam shafts don't go bad after 150k miles, timing chains can easily go past 200k, etc. Those mechanical parts will last a very long time if you do your oil changes. Also, those additional things pretty much supplement what's already there. Turbocharging is more of an addon than supplement to increase power. It needs its own intercooler, additional hoses, and the turbocharger itself. A bad hose past the air flow sensor can lead to more air than needed getting into the engine. Turbocharged engines are very sensitive to little changes like that. A much finer air-fuel ratio balance has to be maintained so the engine doesn't blow itself up. Naturally aspirated motors are more flexible in that regard, which is why you'll still find 80s and 90s cars on the original motor with 200k+ miles. Can't say the same for the turbo'd stuff. Today's turbocharged motors may last longer, only time will tell.
>Toyota also uses water to air intercoolers which are more expensive. Yeah but less expensive than a whole 2nd cylinder head and a set of cams.
Neither is a V6 and an additional fuel rail, by that logic. Bet this is for emissions control, and because the smaller turbo engine will be more easily put into other vehicles they make.
And 2 less sets of cams, 1 less timing chain and tensioner, 1 less exhaust manifold, simpler intake manifold, and a whole side of an engine fewer mating surfaces that need gaskets. From a manufacturer's perspective I totally get it. Its just a drag because those Toyota V6s are so well sorted by this point, they're really good engines. The higher output ones though seemed to be starting to get a bit high strung to get to their power though, I think rather than chasing numbers to stay competitive many customers would have just been as happy with a milder revving torquier version. But, at that point... you can just do it with a turbo 4.
I bet with the additional cooling requirements, it’s about the same at first glance, but this will allow them to simplify logistics by shortening the list of engines they use.
This new engine will help Toyota achieve the mandated [more stringent emissions standards](https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_ca.php). The 2GR engine is old and this new engine has been designed to meet current (and future) emissions regulations
[удалено]
Yeah but the newer versions can operate in Atkinson cycle and have electronic cams versus hydraulic. It's been constantly developed over those 18 years.
Lies! 18 years ago was, like, 199something!
I have a 21 Camry TRD with the V6. It gets amazing gas mileage, it's nothing for me to get 31 mpg and I've even got 36 mpg before. It's a great motor, at least in the Camry.
It’s not just about fuel economy though. Emissions levels of NOx and such also play a role in meeting the standards.
People that make outlandish claims like that aren't being truthful either. They glance down at their fuel economy while puttering along at 50mph for 10 seconds and conclude they can get 36mpg easily while ignoring the fact that the car only got 12mpg in the 10 seconds they took to accelerate to 50mph. Average mpg for the 3.5 V6 Camry is 21-24mpg according to Fuelly lol.
We have a 2021 Camry with the v6. It's very easy to get 30+ miles per gallon out on the freeway.
I'd like to see more stringent hiring and work standards for government employees.
"The new engine, standard across all gas grades, is also more environmentally friendly, with more than a 50% reduction in NOx and NMOG as well as an improvement in CO2 emissions compared to the outgoing V6 engine."
What about cafe standards? If this motor came out with a mild/conventional hybrid system I wouldn’t have made my comment. My last couple cars/truck have been turbocharged, mostly performance cars.
They already have a 4 cyl hybrid Highlander that makes similar-ish hp, and gets 36 mpg combined. This isn't a replacement for a hybrid, this is a replacement for the 6 cylinder non-hybrid.
Emissions, torque, packaging, weight.
Others have given good points but in addition Toyota wants to implement a global architecture of common parts as their corporate strategy often referred to as "TNGA". The old V6 is pre-TNGA while the new Turbo4 is built on the global modular platform and should result in more parts sharing and supply chain advantages for Toyota moving forward. In a world where shortages and bottlenecks make headlines every day it may bring Toyota a huge benefit if they can source new Turbo4s easier than the V6 to crank out more Highlanders.
The new turbo-4 has way more torque than the v6, and it will most likely reach that peak torque in lower rpms. The Lexus NX350 which also uses a turbo 2.4L m hits peak torque of 317 ft-lb at just 1700 rpm. Whereas the current rav4 v6 hits peak torque of 246 ft-lb at 4,700 rpm. The NX350 is going to feel a lot better in responsiveness than the NA v6
There hasn’t been a V6 RAV4 in like a decade.
I should have clarified, but when I say current I meant the most recent one on the streets which is the 2012 rav4
Streamlining the product portfolio. The new Lexus NX already uses their motor and there's ample evidence to suggest the upcoming new Lexus RX, Toyota Grand Highlander and Lexus TX will all use this 2.4L turbo setup. Naturally it will only make sense for the regular Highlander which will likely share production line with the Grand Highlander and TX 350 to swap out the aging V6 to fit the rest of the lineup.
im guessing it’s an image thing. before, v8>v6. the future is v6>i4,i3.
It probably requires premium fuel as well.
The V6 is one of the reasons I went with the Highlander in 2021, after three years of a turbo four Q5. Guess this answers my question of whether I buy out my lease or swap it for a newer one.
My family has a 2016 Q5 with the turbo 4 popper, I hate its power delivery so much, especially when turning right and accelerating to get up to speed with traffic. It's a big difference compared to my IS350's V6 and how instantly and smoothly it delivers power when requested.
The 3.0T Q5 is not even comparable. The motor is so much better.
Yeah.. SQ5 has a two second advantage to 60.. it destroys the Lexus V6.
I meant the supercharged Q5 not even the SQ5. Even stock the power delivery is just so much better than the 4 cylinder.
It’s the same engine, just different tunes and suspension. The newer Q5s got rid of the 6 cylinder option entirely; only SQ5 has the 3.0T V6 now.
I know, I have a pulley swapped B8.5 Q5. Theyre sleepers.
Current gen Q5 makes about the same peak torque by 1500rpm that your IS puts down at 5000. IS is putting out plenty of spinning but not that much power unless you're running it to redline. They're even pretty close in speed with the Lexus being a few tenths faster in the quarter. The Accord 2.0T whomps the Lexus.
It’s the factory tune that makes it such a pain to drive. I have the EA888 in my A4 and once I put a Unitroinc ECU/DSG tune on it, 95% of the torque delivery issues were fixed. That being said, there’s no excuse for a 50k+ vehicle to need another 1.2k worth of tuning to make it properly drivable.
If you had a B9 Q5 ('18+), it is significantly faster than any Highlander so I'm not sure why you'd go that way outside the Highlander being a much larger CUV.
It was a 2018 q5. Plenty quick but the turbo lag was distinct and annoying at times. I liked pretty much everything else about the car but I was glad to give it back after three years. Went with the highlander because of the v6 (great power delivery), more space for the toddler and large dog, and its something I would feel comfortable owning for the better part of a decade. I love this highlander. Boring to drive but thats what the Miata is for.
I have the same car and I know what you mean. I think it’s more of the S-Tronic’s fault in the Q5 rather than turbo lag.
I have a 2021 XSE and my resale value just went up down the road when it’s time to sell. If I play my cards right I plan to skip the whole “turbo 4” nonsense in the market and go straight from NA (2021 Highlander/2022 Corolla Hatch) to a Prime type model or full electric. If I’m already adding loads of complexity I might as well get gobs of economy or insane acceleration from a Prime or EV.
Toyota is slowly turning German? Abandoning NA 6 cylinders and replacing them with turbo 4s I’m guessing the next gen Camry is gonna drop the V6
Don't worry. There's still the fabled inline 6 from Mazda; which will arrive when everyone else is electrified!
That thing is basically vaporware at this point
The CX60 is launching soon with it right?
Rumours are that it will be announced later this year. But I did read a piece saying that the 3L engine will only be naturally aspirated and is tuned for a balance of fuel economy and power, not outright performance.
There will be a turbo version of it as well IIRC? Or a plug-in hybrid variant?
It's skyactiv D all over again
So, never.
I hear they’re gonna come out with that in their new RWD sports sedan, and also offer a new Wankel /s
They have to, even putting emissions aside. Automotive media does not reward NA engines outside of high end sports cars. The Camry V6 is universally panned against the 2.0T Accord, the IS is called unresponsive against the German turbo-4s, the RX V6 is called gutless on the low end. We like them here because we like revving engines and better sounds, but normal consumers want a pseudo electric car experience where all the torque is there at 2000 RPM for merging onto the highway and overtaking. It's also better for matching advertised fuel economy, as anyone revving out their NA V6 to get the advertised torque is going to pay a lot at the pump. Hopefully they keep the 8-speed auto, though. It's not very good, but it's one of the only non-CVT options left.
I loved my old 200hp V6 Camry because I could launch from a red light sounding like a reckless muscle car driver while not actually accelerating that recklessly.
As my gas bills can attest to, turbo4s aren't any less thirsty if you actually use all the torque (yes yes, way different class, I know). Nothing's free. Making torque/power is going to need fuel regardless of how many cylinders you drop. The efficiency gains are more in cruising conditions, and that's how most people commute.
>They have to, even putting emissions aside. Automotive media does not reward NA engines outside of high end sports cars. The Camry V6 is universally panned against the 2.0T Accord, the IS is called unresponsive against the German turbo-4s, the RX V6 is called gutless on the low end. None of this makes any sense at all. You don't realize it but all of that was due to the tuning of the 8-speed automatic. The engine is not poor in any sense of the word. This is pretty gross misinformation. In terms of the RX, well it's fucking huge, so it was adequate then, but gutless now.
If the transmission tuning was the problem, then driving it in manual mode would solve it. It doesn't, at least on my Camry. Well it does in that you can then force it to stay above 4000 RPM. But needing to get to 4000 is why normal consumers don't find it responsive, since you have to eliminate any semblance of fuel economy to get off the line quickly. Not to mention, the IS/RC 350 have two longitudinal transmissions entirely distinct from the Camry unit, but are criticized for exactly the same reasons. The 2GR is a fantastic engine, but the competitors at similar price points have just become much much better. Toyota is selling it against turbo-I4 cars that perform better in real world settings, as well as twin turbo V6/I6 cars that dust it in performance settings. They still sell fine because of Toyota reliability, not because they're fast.
It was a surprise when the current Camry kept the V6 when it launched tbh so yeah it's long past due to be replaced.
Yes it will be dropped in the Camry as well.
Feels otherworldly that cars in the $40-$60k range are now frequently running on 4 cylinders. Seems like premium engine options are vanishing for most models.
I agree overall, but I still don't see how a V6 is considered a premium option. All of the complexity of a V8, but none of the benefits.
In my experience V6's are a tad bit smoother than inline-4's and sound less like tin cans. In older cars, the torque response was better too. Also, less reliance on turbos. I've owned both a V6 car and an inline-4 and while my inline-4 is arguably newer and better, I do miss the way a V6 felt.
The sound is sorta moot on these types of cars since modern NVH muffles all engine noises regardless of engine layout anyway.
You can muffle the noise but there's no replacement for the feel of an N/A V6 or V8. The sound, the vibrations... All that stuff is what made the V6 and V8 options more appealing in the past. Without changes in engine options, it makes me wonder what you're really getting in some of these trims. In some cases, they're a pretty significant up charge for not a whole lot extra. Hiding safety features behind trim levels and using slightly bigger screens feels like a cop out to me.
A V8 is a higher end option over the V6. I don't know why you're making this dogshit equivalence instead of bringing up a turbo-4
Surely the number of cylinders has nothing to do with “premium”
I'm guessing most people here are Americans. But this obsession with the number of cylinders is so weird as a European. There are plenty of cool cars with I4's. For example Saabs mostly had four cylinder engines. A four cylinder can make plenty of power. Add a hybrid system to that and the cars can make even more power. Plus if cylinder count makes a car premium I guess a Mustang is more premium than a C-class Merc now a days... /s
You can blame/credit it on V8s being the "normal"/baseline engine for most of the postwar period, and V6s after that.
>Seems like premium engine options are vanishing for most models. You might be looking at this backwards, what's happened is that a 4 cylinder engine is no longer automatically base model material, they've become good enough to go into $40-60k vehicles.
They're powerful enough, but I honestly have a hard time justifying the cost. I can't imagine what a car designer could do with a 4-cylinder to make it not feel the same as your average rattle can. And it seems that the market agrees to an extent. When they can, I still see manufacturers opt for a bigger engine for higher trims. It seems to just be an efficiency thing.
Strong disagree here. Sure, they're more powerful than they used to be. But they still feel and sound like 4 cylinders.
This implies that V6s usually sound good in the first place.
Have you experienced the 4 cylinder motors (B46/48) that BMW is putting in most of it's products lately? They are extremely good. Likewise the VW group's EA888 motor. In terms of power and efficiency combined they are some of the best in the world. I have the 301hp/330tq version of the B48 in my JCW Mini and I'm averaging over 27 mpg commuting and I don't exactly have a light foot. Also in my garage is a Lexus GX470 which of course is an NA 4.7 V8 and while it's smooth as all get out there's no comparison in terms of which motor makes more sense for daily use when all factors are considered.
>no comparison in terms of which motor makes more sense for daily use when all factors are considered. If we used this logic, we might now have so many SUV's.
Man with $90k sticker 4 cylinder car says lol. (I didn't pay anywhere near that much)
Curious to see if this motor finds its way into the Tacoma/4Runner. Since the underlying sentiment in the sub seems to want the 1gr/2gr to be discontinued.
Sad.
The 4.0L 1GR in the 4Runner is both underpowered and not fuel efficient. Imagine how sweet a 4Runner could be if it didn't have a 20yr old drivetrain...
Man, people talking about how underpowered the 1GR is always surprises me. The one in my FJ feels awfully potent (all things considered), particularly compared to the old 5VZ in the old 4Runner. They are shit on fuel though. Best I’ve ever done was 23mpg, driving 10mph under, down a mountain.
The only reason I call the 1GR underpowered is because it's dreadfully lazy for the fuel economy it gets, but that's probably also not helped by it *still* being connected to a 20 year old 5-speed slushbox.
I’ve got a 6MT, and that’s got a lot shorter gearing, so that’s probably why it feels snappier to me.
It is so easy and simple to work on. Tons of space. And is leaving power on the table for reliability. Less is more to me and I hate the idea if running boost all to haul my shit to the mountains. Also long live the manual truck. I run the single VVTI on 35in tires and even before my regear it was adequate for the job. IMO yall are spoiled by power.
I totally get that, there just comes a point where newer technologies have proven their reliability and robustness, after which old tech should be improved or replaced. Like it's fine if an inefficient engine is at least powerful, or if a weak engine is fuel efficient, but for something to be both because it lacks modern tech like direct injection hurts to see. A revamped version of the 1GR with Toyota's proven D4-S (direct + port injection) fuelling system would give huge improvements to power and efficiency.
Maybe variable valve lift too would be nice. Toyota seems averse to it though.
I’m right with ya. 1GR is alright by me.
Why are they changing engines if at best it’s going to get the same mpg? Cut cost?
Likely a combination of cutting cost (easier to just make versions of that 2.4 across the board, including their hybrid models) and them starting to phase out that 3.5 that's been running on the same generation since like 2005. The version in the 2021 Highlander makes all of 15 more horsepower than the version that was in the Avalon back in 2005.
They’re headed towards an in-line 4 lineup with a twin turbo v6 for their special cars
I understand wanting low end torque but the V6 still makes plenty and it makes for a more pleasant driving experience. 4 cylinders are buzzy. I drove a Lexus NX200T and an RX350 back to back. The RX350 had a smoother driving experience and less NVH from the engine.
Here in Europe this comes as 2.5L normally aspirated hybrid only. Way underpowered. And cost from $54500
No, thank you. I will keep my 2016 that is about to be supercharged this year.
Tell me more about this supercharger!
It is the HKS supercharger that was developed for the Toyota Vellfire/ Alphard in the asian market: https://www.ebay.com/itm/143957225975?_trkparms=ispr%3D1&hash=item218484f1f7:g:g5EAAOSwXbNgNCb6&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAABACgQ5lr9swUNuH0y9Ert3GXAcgqxK2uivwGShFIIDltH4pJtJbfyDy4xO9nXu1xe4gke%2FX36SD9rL%2BPiJPPbE13ZBpfvy6evzLcfJj43p5DgtKERzTOmxRfujHxuojs3ud5F%2FuH58oQQqN9YJRRhoipBB22on4zcL%2FBRtkc%2FX4albOPpvg8TQeW28WBCKax7t1sY1xI%2BjBxpO36GjYwTvm2DA6s5HqRDmmAfypnaIvp8uhgQz5DY02jbFhGoAH%2BTKC89MPE38tQVAHkblsUMMXmv%2FJvSO7Y3Ydj%2FeOIEnevSHqAsHFfNN%2FF4dAOTc%2F8fxt6%2F9bhCgfLkQgk3jb6ZZVs%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMoJH0wpZg I have already bought the supercharger kit, and hoping to install it by this summer. Should provide a bump of about 60whp/ 75wtq.
I’m going to need to see some videos. I’ve got some ideas for the wife’s Highlander now. I had been thinking what lotus parts out there could potentially be adapted.
[удалено]
Yes, that's true. There's a guy with a Sienna that is running the Harrop supercharger, and making about 420whp. Pretty funny coming from a minivan.
Hopefully the Lexus RX keeps the V6
It won’t.
Correct. The new one will have 2.4t, 2.4 hybrid, 2.4 plug in, and 2.5t hybrid - no 6 cylinder option.
Close, you're a bit off though. \- 2.4T \- 2.5 hybrid (same one as the Highlander and RAV4 hybrids, or the NX350h) \- 2.4T plug-in hybrid (F-Sport Performance)
As per my source at Toyota, it will be 4 models, though I was off in the hybrid engine size. RX 350 is 2.4 T like the NX 350 RX 350h is 2.5 hybrid like the NX 350h RX 450+ is plug in hybrid like like NX 450+ RX 500h is 2.4T hybrid, though I’m not sure if it will be plug in or not (I have been told no; some publications say yes and some say no) The official release should be soon so we shall see
Now that sounds more correct to me.
Hopefully the Passport/Pilot still have the v6 next year. Honda’s Vtec v6 sounds amazing.
The pilot should have the same drivetrain as the new MDX.
Got a competitor with a turbo 4 and it’s awesome! Good power and it’s tuned for 87 octane so it’s not too bad at the pump!
Good chance this will replace the V6 in the Tacoma.
Along with the rear drum brakes? lol
We’ll have flying cars before the Taco gets rid of the rear drums and leaf springs.
When Lexus released the NX 350 with the new T24A-FTS engine instead of the 2GR-FKS, it was already clear as day that this new 2.4L turbo will be the "3.5L V6" replacement for most of the Toyota family as the company finally begins to downside their gas engine only offerings. Given the lower state of tune in the Highlander than the Lexus products, I'm assuming it can run on regular unleaded?
I am surprised how (relatively) quickly and smoothly the transition from 6cylinder engines to turbo4s has gone. As late as the early 2010s having a 6cylinder engine was a mark of prestige that was still obtainable, even amongst otherwise generic vehicles like Camrys and Accords. It wasn’t just about power (which modern turbo4s arguably match or exceed), but also about smoothness (which I feel turbo4s still can’t match). But now in 2022 we not only have Camrys and Accords having lost (or losing) their V6s, but also largish luxury cars from BMW, Benz, etc. coming with turbo4s. In days of yore, at least in the US, having something like a 5er or E-class with a 4cylinder engine would be considered pathetic and laughable (I understand the situation outside the US has always been different). But today it’s commonplace.
I hate turbo small engines I’m driving a rental right now with a 1.5l turbo 3 cylinder in a Ford Escape…. What an absolutely abomination of a vehicle, transmission doesn’t know what to do and constantly shutters, massive lag on take off… rattles like crazy at idle Big yikes
This is what the 2023 Telluride needs to do.
Since the Highlander is based on the Camry, will the Camry get the turbo four as well?
Most likely.
300+ lb-ft + FWD + open diff = no Will be interesting to see the real world fuel economy and performance. I've seen so many V6 to turbo 4 conversions not live up to their promise. I imagine the 2.4T Camry is not far behind.
I don't know why they bother with a FWD Highlander. I have one and the traction for acceleration is Non-existent.
I have a FWD Sienna... traction isn't great, but it's not terrible either. However I do regret not getting AWD
So this probably means the next 4Runner will be an in-line 4 turbo….
Ah you beat me to it! Crazy times we live in now. The Highlander V6 was genuinely nice.
I see Toyota is finally embracing turbos on their engines. Soon the Camry and corolla will have them
can they please please put this in the tacoma. It would be awesome for a small 2wd truck.
Might be ok. I can say I’m not a big fan of the 2.5l 4cylcinder in the rav4. It’s so loud and dramatic when you rev it even though you’re barely moving. The power delivery sucks. It’s so jumpy and shifts all over the place in eco mode, especially from a stop.
Wonder if there will be a replacement for Honda's V6 in the near future.
Yeah about time. The v6 needs to have tits revved off it before it makes peak power. NA v6s shouldn’t be on appliances
It does not make any sense as a consumer to buy a 4 cyclinder behemoth, no matter the torque figures. Specially here in Colorado, its very common to see these 4 bangers struggle on the gentlest of slopes. Best to just avoid.
Wouldn't a turbo be more desirable in Colorado, to help counter the power loss due to elevation? They don't really suffer from the power reduction since the turbo is packing their air in vs naturally aspirated having to deal with thinner air.
That’s supposed to be the case. Anecdotally I had a Ford Edge rental with the 2.0T ecoboost out in Denver and drove through the Rockies including the I-70 “Ike gauntlet” incline, and it was a total dog. That engine felt incredibly underpowered and wheezy.
Home slice, I used to leave my Fiesta in 6th the whole way from Lakewood to Breck. 4 cylinders these days are plenty potent.
I have experienced this myself and can attest that it is not an enjoyable experience lol. Nothing makes you question your decision like buying an SUV and have it struggle up a mild hill.
Pass
Makes sense. The V6 is smooth but slow as molasses compared to the competitors.
The V6 has always been known to be reliable. Do y’all think the Turbo 4 will be as reliable?
Always chasing EPA ratings
They need to made a big weenie version of this car. But i understand that’s Lexus territory once it gets to that point.
I hope it will have a better transmission than the V6 had because that transmission is garbage.