Lexus August 2018 Sales Report

I suppose another issue with the 86 is that it has strayed from its namesake. The AE86 was an inexpensive compact RWD econobox that happened to be fun to drive and not really a sports car. The FBRRSZ86 isn't *expensive* but it's definitely not cheap, either. I guess they just can't build them like they used to.

Fun research: Adjusted for inflation a RWD 1985 Corolla in USA would cost roughly between $19k for a SR5 coupe and $23k for a GTS hatchback. The FWD variants were ~$17k-22k. 2018 Corolla starts at $18,600, while the 86 is $26,255.

Just saying... Maybe a RWD version of the current Corolla would be a better match for the market. TNGA does support a rear drive axle for AWD vehicles. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe it could be tweaked for a longitudinal powertrain for a true Corolla Sports Edition.

I suppose another issue with the 86 is that it has strayed from its namesake. The AE86 was an inexpensive compact RWD econobox that happened to be fun to drive and not really a sports car. The FBRRSZ86 isn't *expensive* but it's definitely not cheap, either. I guess they just can't build them like they used to.

Fun research: Adjusted for inflation a RWD 1985 Corolla in USA would cost roughly between $19k for a SR5 coupe and $23k for a GTS hatchback. The FWD variants were ~$17k-22k. 2018 Corolla starts at $18,600, while the 86 is $26,255.

Just saying... Maybe a RWD version of the current Corolla would be a better match for the market. TNGA does support a rear drive axle for AWD vehicles. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe it could be tweaked for a longitudinal powertrain for a true Corolla Sports Edition.

It is too much of a stretch. The Corolla GR will be FWD and AWD if we were lucky. Nobody wants a stripped out 3 door RWD econobox anymore. The original concept of the E80 Corolla will die a horrible death in a modern market.

It is too much of a stretch. The Corolla GR will be FWD and AWD if we were lucky. Nobody wants a stripped out 3 door RWD econobox anymore. The original concept of the E80 Corolla will die a horrible death in a modern market.

It is too much of a stretch. The Corolla GR will be FWD and AWD if we were lucky. Nobody wants a stripped out 3 door RWD econobox anymore. The original concept of the E80 Corolla will die a horrible death in a modern market.

ssun30

It is too much of a stretch. The Corolla GR will be FWD and AWD if we were lucky. Nobody wants a stripped out 3 door RWD econobox anymore. The original concept of the E80 Corolla will die a horrible death in a modern market.

I am sure new Corolla Hatch will have GRMN edition, if that 1.6l 3cly turbo with 250hp is correct, they will put it across the range... but otherwise 86 is a coupe, and obviously will always be better driver than some Corolla.

ssun30

It is too much of a stretch. The Corolla GR will be FWD and AWD if we were lucky. Nobody wants a stripped out 3 door RWD econobox anymore. The original concept of the E80 Corolla will die a horrible death in a modern market.

I am sure new Corolla Hatch will have GRMN edition, if that 1.6l 3cly turbo with 250hp is correct, they will put it across the range... but otherwise 86 is a coupe, and obviously will always be better driver than some Corolla.

ssun30

It is too much of a stretch. The Corolla GR will be FWD and AWD if we were lucky. Nobody wants a stripped out 3 door RWD econobox anymore. The original concept of the E80 Corolla will die a horrible death in a modern market.

I am sure new Corolla Hatch will have GRMN edition, if that 1.6l 3cly turbo with 250hp is correct, they will put it across the range... but otherwise 86 is a coupe, and obviously will always be better driver than some Corolla.

ssun30

It is too much of a stretch. The Corolla GR will be FWD and AWD if we were lucky. Nobody wants a stripped out 3 door RWD econobox anymore. The original concept of the E80 Corolla will die a horrible death in a modern market.

Don't say 'nobody'. There will always be at least one person. ;)

ssun30

It is too much of a stretch. The Corolla GR will be FWD and AWD if we were lucky. Nobody wants a stripped out 3 door RWD econobox anymore. The original concept of the E80 Corolla will die a horrible death in a modern market.

Don't say 'nobody'. There will always be at least one person. ;)

ssun30

It is too much of a stretch. The Corolla GR will be FWD and AWD if we were lucky. Nobody wants a stripped out 3 door RWD econobox anymore. The original concept of the E80 Corolla will die a horrible death in a modern market.

Don't say 'nobody'. There will always be at least one person. ;)

I can't find any information about Toyota's upcoming 3 cylinder engine. Help! :sob:

I can't find any information about Toyota's upcoming 3 cylinder engine. Help! :sob:

I can't find any information about Toyota's upcoming 3 cylinder engine. Help! :sob:

carguy420

I can't find any information about Toyota's upcoming 3 cylinder engine. Help! :sob:

You are not supposed to. NDAs exist for a reason...

carguy420

I can't find any information about Toyota's upcoming 3 cylinder engine. Help! :sob:

You are not supposed to. NDAs exist for a reason...

carguy420

I can't find any information about Toyota's upcoming 3 cylinder engine. Help! :sob:

You are not supposed to. NDAs exist for a reason...

https://newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/powertrain/tnga/

One of the pictures show that their Dynamic Force engine's number of cylinders start from 4, not sure if that picture is accurate.

https://newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/powertrain/tnga/

One of the pictures show that their Dynamic Force engine's number of cylinders start from 4, not sure if that picture is accurate.

https://newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/powertrain/tnga/

One of the pictures show that their Dynamic Force engine's number of cylinders start from 4, not sure if that picture is accurate.

From 2006: https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413epdf/e413_001uchida.pdf

https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413e.html

Does anyone know when downsizing started? Toyota is surprisingly the last company to get in. I understand that hybrid was an alternative to diesels,

From 2006: https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413epdf/e413_001uchida.pdf

https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413e.html

Does anyone know when downsizing started? Toyota is surprisingly the last company to get in. I understand that hybrid was an alternative to diesels,

From 2006: https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413epdf/e413_001uchida.pdf

https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413e.html

Does anyone know when downsizing started? Toyota is surprisingly the last company to get in. I understand that hybrid was an alternative to diesels,

Levi

From 2006: https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413epdf/e413_001uchida.pdf

https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413e.html

Does anyone know when downsizing started? Toyota is surprisingly the last company to get in. I understand that hybrid was an alternative to diesels,

TL;DR: Toyota didn't rush to join the downsizing revolution because 1) they had very good naturally aspirated engines 2) they already have the most efficient solution (hybridization). When you don't have to turbocharge, you don't add turbochargers, there is no replacement for displacement.

Downsizing is the way of the future. That future is not here yet, but almost. It makes sense to start preparing now, and that's what the relatively underwhelming 8AR-FTS and 8NR-FTS are for.

Now to the long part. Downsizing started with the BMW N54, but the one that pushed it to the mainstream was the VW EA113 TFSI. Turbocharging their Inline-6s was the logical move for BMW since a 3.0L+ unit would be too long. Remember these were the times that large displacement Japanese V6s dominated the premium market with their beastly 280hp+ 3.5L units. Few remember that the XV40 ES350 was once the world's fastest FWD car in a straight line, and that the RAV4 V6 was the fourth fastest SUV behind the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, VW Touareg W12, and BMW X5 46is. The three best engines of 2006 in terms of performance-efficiency balance was 2GR-FSE and VQ35HR followed by N54B30. But the N54 had some questionable reliability records.

What enabled downsizing to become a reality was direct injection. Pre-downsizing era turbos were very inefficient because they have to run very low compression ratios, very rich mixtures, and/or high octane fuel to prevent knocking. Direct injection gave automakers the necessary 'free octane' to run meaningfully efficient engine maps. But the benefit was fair to everyone: naturally aspirated engines also got the free octane and ran very high compression ratios. The rule in auto engineering is that if you don't have to turbocharge, you don't add tubochargers because they are just extra cost. So that's what Toyota did.

The main incentive for German automakers to go for downsizing early was a political one. They conveniently took advantage of NEDC that gave an unfair advantage to downsized motors. They then used their political influence to lobby the Chinese government to adopt a similar cycle and basically drove all naturally aspirated competitors out of the country with the Displacement Tax. They finally completed the takeover of the world's largest auto market by forcing local automakers to join the supply chain. Many local chinese automakers have to use turbocharged engines made by German suppliers because they are 'bundled' with other crucial technologies the nation is desperate for. I have to say I hate German brands because of their takeover of my country's auto industry; it's Economic Colonialism.

Another reason to not turbocharge is exactly what you said: hybridization. Like the turbocharger, electric motors also provide downsizing, downspeeding, and recovery of waste energy, but they also enable load shifting which was a game changer. The efficiency you gain from hybridization was much, much more than what you will ever get from turbocharging alone. They never tried turbo-hybrid because it just made no sense. The point of load shifting was operating the ICE at the optimal thermal efficiency, so it's counter-productive to use a turbocharged engine that has lower maximum thermal efficiency. Turbo-hybrids will eventually come, possibly on the next-gen Prius, when more exotic technologies like variable compression and camless heads become economically feasible. I will say with confidence that TMC will commit to downsizing starting from Dynamic Force 2.0 but that's for 2025. We see Nissan already taking a head start this year with the wonderful VC-T (though the transmission choice is just plain stupid), but it will take time for that technology to trickle down.

I should clarify here that with the same fuel octane, same power target, and same underlying design elements, a turbocharged downsized engine will always have lower maximum thermal efficiency than a comparable naturally aspirated engine. This is because turbocharging increases the knock tendency so the engine will have to run at lower CR, more retarded ignition timing, richer fuel mixture or a blend of the three. But in real world the downsized engine will possibly (note I say possibly) have better fuel efficiency because it tends to operate at a more efficient point. I know this could be somewhat hard to understand, but there are some very intuitive visual explanation of how downsizing shifts engine operating point to optimize efficiency on the Internet.

Levi

From 2006: https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413epdf/e413_001uchida.pdf

https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413e.html

Does anyone know when downsizing started? Toyota is surprisingly the last company to get in. I understand that hybrid was an alternative to diesels,

TL;DR: Toyota didn't rush to join the downsizing revolution because 1) they had very good naturally aspirated engines 2) they already have the most efficient solution (hybridization). When you don't have to turbocharge, you don't add turbochargers, there is no replacement for displacement.

Downsizing is the way of the future. That future is not here yet, but almost. It makes sense to start preparing now, and that's what the relatively underwhelming 8AR-FTS and 8NR-FTS are for.

Now to the long part. Downsizing started with the BMW N54, but the one that pushed it to the mainstream was the VW EA113 TFSI. Turbocharging their Inline-6s was the logical move for BMW since a 3.0L+ unit would be too long. Remember these were the times that large displacement Japanese V6s dominated the premium market with their beastly 280hp+ 3.5L units. Few remember that the XV40 ES350 was once the world's fastest FWD car in a straight line, and that the RAV4 V6 was the fourth fastest SUV behind the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, VW Touareg W12, and BMW X5 46is. The three best engines of 2006 in terms of performance-efficiency balance was 2GR-FSE and VQ35HR followed by N54B30. But the N54 had some questionable reliability records.

What enabled downsizing to become a reality was direct injection. Pre-downsizing era turbos were very inefficient because they have to run very low compression ratios, very rich mixtures, and/or high octane fuel to prevent knocking. Direct injection gave automakers the necessary 'free octane' to run meaningfully efficient engine maps. But the benefit was fair to everyone: naturally aspirated engines also got the free octane and ran very high compression ratios. The rule in auto engineering is that if you don't have to turbocharge, you don't add tubochargers because they are just extra cost. So that's what Toyota did.

The main incentive for German automakers to go for downsizing early was a political one. They conveniently took advantage of NEDC that gave an unfair advantage to downsized motors. They then used their political influence to lobby the Chinese government to adopt a similar cycle and basically drove all naturally aspirated competitors out of the country with the Displacement Tax. They finally completed the takeover of the world's largest auto market by forcing local automakers to join the supply chain. Many local chinese automakers have to use turbocharged engines made by German suppliers because they are 'bundled' with other crucial technologies the nation is desperate for. I have to say I hate German brands because of their takeover of my country's auto industry; it's Economic Colonialism.

Another reason to not turbocharge is exactly what you said: hybridization. Like the turbocharger, electric motors also provide downsizing, downspeeding, and recovery of waste energy, but they also enable load shifting which was a game changer. The efficiency you gain from hybridization was much, much more than what you will ever get from turbocharging alone. They never tried turbo-hybrid because it just made no sense. The point of load shifting was operating the ICE at the optimal thermal efficiency, so it's counter-productive to use a turbocharged engine that has lower maximum thermal efficiency. Turbo-hybrids will eventually come, possibly on the next-gen Prius, when more exotic technologies like variable compression and camless heads become economically feasible. I will say with confidence that TMC will commit to downsizing starting from Dynamic Force 2.0 but that's for 2025. We see Nissan already taking a head start this year with the wonderful VC-T (though the transmission choice is just plain stupid), but it will take time for that technology to trickle down.

I should clarify here that with the same fuel octane, same power target, and same underlying design elements, a turbocharged downsized engine will always have lower maximum thermal efficiency than a comparable naturally aspirated engine. This is because turbocharging increases the knock tendency so the engine will have to run at lower CR, more retarded ignition timing, richer fuel mixture or a blend of the three. But in real world the downsized engine will possibly (note I say possibly) have better fuel efficiency because it tends to operate at a more efficient point. I know this could be somewhat hard to understand, but there are some very intuitive visual explanation of how downsizing shifts engine operating point to optimize efficiency on the Internet.

Levi

From 2006: https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413epdf/e413_001uchida.pdf

https://www.tytlabs.com/english/review/rev413e.html

Does anyone know when downsizing started? Toyota is surprisingly the last company to get in. I understand that hybrid was an alternative to diesels,

TL;DR: Toyota didn't rush to join the downsizing revolution because 1) they had very good naturally aspirated engines 2) they already have the most efficient solution (hybridization). When you don't have to turbocharge, you don't add turbochargers, there is no replacement for displacement.

Downsizing is the way of the future. That future is not here yet, but almost. It makes sense to start preparing now, and that's what the relatively underwhelming 8AR-FTS and 8NR-FTS are for.

Now to the long part. Downsizing started with the BMW N54, but the one that pushed it to the mainstream was the VW EA113 TFSI. Turbocharging their Inline-6s was the logical move for BMW since a 3.0L+ unit would be too long. Remember these were the times that large displacement Japanese V6s dominated the premium market with their beastly 280hp+ 3.5L units. Few remember that the XV40 ES350 was once the world's fastest FWD car in a straight line, and that the RAV4 V6 was the fourth fastest SUV behind the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, VW Touareg W12, and BMW X5 46is. The three best engines of 2006 in terms of performance-efficiency balance was 2GR-FSE and VQ35HR followed by N54B30. But the N54 had some questionable reliability records.

What enabled downsizing to become a reality was direct injection. Pre-downsizing era turbos were very inefficient because they have to run very low compression ratios, very rich mixtures, and/or high octane fuel to prevent knocking. Direct injection gave automakers the necessary 'free octane' to run meaningfully efficient engine maps. But the benefit was fair to everyone: naturally aspirated engines also got the free octane and ran very high compression ratios. The rule in auto engineering is that if you don't have to turbocharge, you don't add tubochargers because they are just extra cost. So that's what Toyota did.

The main incentive for German automakers to go for downsizing early was a political one. They conveniently took advantage of NEDC that gave an unfair advantage to downsized motors. They then used their political influence to lobby the Chinese government to adopt a similar cycle and basically drove all naturally aspirated competitors out of the country with the Displacement Tax. They finally completed the takeover of the world's largest auto market by forcing local automakers to join the supply chain. Many local chinese automakers have to use turbocharged engines made by German suppliers because they are 'bundled' with other crucial technologies the nation is desperate for. I have to say I hate German brands because of their takeover of my country's auto industry; it's Economic Colonialism.

Another reason to not turbocharge is exactly what you said: hybridization. Like the turbocharger, electric motors also provide downsizing, downspeeding, and recovery of waste energy, but they also enable load shifting which was a game changer. The efficiency you gain from hybridization was much, much more than what you will ever get from turbocharging alone. They never tried turbo-hybrid because it just made no sense. The point of load shifting was operating the ICE at the optimal thermal efficiency, so it's counter-productive to use a turbocharged engine that has lower maximum thermal efficiency. Turbo-hybrids will eventually come, possibly on the next-gen Prius, when more exotic technologies like variable compression and camless heads become economically feasible. I will say with confidence that TMC will commit to downsizing starting from Dynamic Force 2.0 but that's for 2025. We see Nissan already taking a head start this year with the wonderful VC-T (though the transmission choice is just plain stupid), but it will take time for that technology to trickle down.

I should clarify here that with the same fuel octane, same power target, and same underlying design elements, a turbocharged downsized engine will always have lower maximum thermal efficiency than a comparable naturally aspirated engine. This is because turbocharging increases the knock tendency so the engine will have to run at lower CR, more retarded ignition timing, richer fuel mixture or a blend of the three. But in real world the downsized engine will possibly (note I say possibly) have better fuel efficiency because it tends to operate at a more efficient point. I know this could be somewhat hard to understand, but there are some very intuitive visual explanation of how downsizing shifts engine operating point to optimize efficiency on the Internet.

Thanks! That was a very valuable contribution.

I had no idea about the German involvement in China. This could explain why VW/Audi got a lead ahead in the Chinese market, and how the DSG issue came to light.

Thanks! That was a very valuable contribution.

I had no idea about the German involvement in China. This could explain why VW/Audi got a lead ahead in the Chinese market, and how the DSG issue came to light.

Thanks! That was a very valuable contribution.

I had no idea about the German involvement in China. This could explain why VW/Audi got a lead ahead in the Chinese market, and how the DSG issue came to light.

^^Ten years ago, Chinese automakers couldn't make an automatic gearbox with more than four gears, so they asked for help, and the Germans showed up with the DSG. As a result no local automaker can make a profit without cutting corners on safety because of overpriced engines and transmissions. Now they have to buy overpriced safety packages from the Germans again and it just becomes a downward spiral. Now you see why China is desperately going for electrification as a way out of this economic colonialism.