Lexus Remains Uncommitted to Plug-In Hybrid Technology

Joaquin Ruhi

A FWD Mark X would, most likely, be a rebadge of the latest Avalon.

Also worth noting is that "the Mark X gone" refers to China, where (as the Reiz) it went out of production exactly a year ago. The Mark X is still produced and sold in new Toyota dealerships in Japan.

In the article spwolf posted, it said Mark X production will end this December.

Nevermind it said end date is still unannounced. Volume production has ended (for a while) but it can still be bought with custom order.

I keep hearing about the tt V-8 coming but oddly nothing about a normally aspirated V-8 but that has to be coming too.

I'm now starting to think what next-gen technology will appear on the 5th-gen Prius. Seeing how the Prius has always been the pinnacle of Toyota's powertrain technology, I doubt they will put some half-assed effort like throwing in the M20A with more batteries.

In Toyota's own research papers (published in 2016), they identified future directions to making the 45% efficient engine:
>>Further increasing stroke-to-bore ratio to 1.5. I doubt they will truly implement this since a 2.0L engine will be 75mm (bore) by 112.5mm (stroke). They settled with 1.2 for Dynamic Force as it provides the optimal balance of efficiency and power. 112.5mm is simply too long to produce meaningful power at high rpm and puts too much stress on the bottom end.
>>Incorporate boosted lean-burn. Basically they are following Mazda's approach to use an AFR of 30 to avoid NOx emission. To reduce knock they will be using cooled EGR with up to 30% recirculation.
>>Use longer duration discharge and higher current to better control combustion. I don't know if this means something like Mazda's SCCI, since the paper never mentioned compression ignition. I am amazed by how they can extend combustion duration in a way that it almost occurs uniformly during the expansion stroke so there is very little heat loss to the cylinder wall.
>>Lean-burn will necessitate the use of forced induction, since the engine needs 2.2 times the amount of air which is simply not possible through natural aspiration. However the paper noted turbocharger should be avoided since it adds back pressure and thus increases pumping loss (which is the biggest problem with turbocharging, of course). I expect something like Mazda's 'Lean Supercharger' concept will be used. However given the Prius is a hybrid, I wouldn't be surprised if it uses an electric supercharger. This makes a lot of sense since an electric supercharger basically uses 'free energy' harvested from regenerative braking, while a belt-driven supercharger used in SkyActiv-X still puts a parasitic load on the engine.

The paper makes no mention of continuous VVL, variable compression ratio, or more exotic technology like camless head.

ssun30

I'm now starting to think what next-gen technology will appear on the 5th-gen Prius. Seeing how the Prius has always been the pinnacle of Toyota's powertrain technology, I doubt they will put some half-assed effort like throwing in the M20A with more batteries.

In Toyota's own research papers (published in 2016), they identified future directions to making the 45% efficient engine:
>>Further increasing stroke-to-bore ratio to 1.5. I doubt they will truly implement this since a 2.0L engine will be 75mm (bore) by 112.5mm (stroke). They settled with 1.2 for Dynamic Force as it provides the optimal balance of efficiency and power. 112.5mm is simply too long to produce meaningful power at high rpm and puts too much stress on the bottom end.
>>Incorporate boosted lean-burn. Basically they are following Mazda's approach to use an AFR of 30 to avoid NOx emission. To reduce knock they will be using cooled EGR with up to 30% recirculation.
>>Use longer duration discharge and higher current to better control combustion. I don't know if this means something like Mazda's SCCI, since the paper never mentioned compression ignition. I am amazed by how they can extend combustion duration in a way that it almost occurs uniformly during the expansion stroke so there is very little heat loss to the cylinder wall.
>>Lean-burn will necessitate the use of forced induction, since the engine needs 2.2 times the amount of air which is simply not possible through natural aspiration. However the paper noted turbocharger should be avoided since it adds back pressure and thus increases pumping loss (which is the biggest problem with turbocharging, of course). I expect something like Mazda's 'Lean Supercharger' concept will be used. However given the Prius is a hybrid, I wouldn't be surprised if it uses an electric supercharger. This makes a lot of sense since an electric supercharger basically uses 'free energy' harvested from regenerative braking, while a belt-driven supercharger used in SkyActiv-X still puts a parasitic load on the engine.

The paper makes no mention of continuous VVL, variable compression ratio, or more exotic technology like camless head.

hm, for new Prius, they will use new generation engine for sure, since current one still uses ZR... but I would not expect much. Engine used in Prius has to be affordable. They have 250h for step up effort.

So definitely do not expect any kind of supercharging or anything that will significantly get the price up. Yes, they can increase battery output by increasing the battery size, and maybe even D4S to increase engine power but that is the max. Of course other than improvements that new engine will bring with itself.

This engine goes into base models that have to be affordable to sell well.

250h and 300h are the upgraded powertrains...

As to the electric supercharger... if they power SC with batteries, then how much is left for electric motors to drive the wheels? Pretty sure it will be more efficient that way.

The supercharger doesn't need a 300HP motor like the drive system. I would expect an electric supercharger to be a drain more comparable to an HVAC blower. Regen braking would easily keep it topped off in city driving, as @ssun30 said.

Ian Schmidt

The supercharger doesn't need a 300HP motor like the drive system. I would expect an electric supercharger to be a drain more comparable to an HVAC blower. Regen braking would easily keep it topped off in city driving, as @ssun30 said.

Regen braking certainly cant generate enough power to make both SC and motors usable, that is the problem.
Otherwise, we would have much higher battery output than what we have right now in TMC hybrids... i think largest we have is a bit less than 50hp. So there is no way for it to stay at 50hp and also have supercharger running of battery power.

spwolf

Engine used in Prius has to be affordable. They have 250h for step up effort. So definitely do not expect any kind of supercharging or anything that will significantly get the price up. Yes, they can increase battery output by increasing the battery size, and maybe even D4S to increase engine power but that is the max. Of course other than improvements that new engine will bring with itself.

Prius is not meant to be a cost-minization vehicle. It's a partial technology demonstrator and it has been the way since 1997. If they cared so much about reducing cost they wouldn't put aero wheels, carbon fibre hatch, bioplastics interior and whatnot. The Prius doesn't benefit at all from a rear disc brake yet they do it for the sake of weight reduction (when their mainstream truck carries drums in the rear).

If the 5th-gen Prius debut with the 250h powertrain. What would distinguish it at all from a Corolla hybrid? A Corolla hybrid will be more comfortable, more practical, and cheaper. But the Prius is all about efficiency maximization, a demonstration of Toyota's technology prowess. The Prius is already outshined by BEVs and FCVs, so it absolutely needs some bragging rights to remain relevant, like a 45% ICE, preferably beating SkyActiv-X.

The only scenario I see Prius not needing a 45% ICE is if they use a significantly bigger battery like the BMW i3, basically turning it into a strict EREV. But then it is just diverting the cost to bigger and heavier batteries.

spwolf

As to the electric supercharger... if they power SC with batteries, then how much is left for electric motors to drive the wheels? Pretty sure it will be more efficient that way.

Prius has very short on-time for its ICE in urban driving, something like 20-30%, despite the ICE contributing to 90% of the total energy generated (regen is less than 10%). In the city it almost operates like a EREV; the engine turns on in brief bursts to generate electricity for the battery. The energy taken away from the electric SC during this period is negligible compared to the energy consumed by the motor.

Of course, on highways it's more complicated, since the engine acts as a prime mover AND a sustainer for the motor. In this case an electric SC is less efficient than a belt driven one (due to more pathways for losses). But there will always be some compromise involved in hybrid system design. There is no solution that works best in all scenarios. It will be great if they can do lean burn with natural aspiration, but alas they cannot.

I'm more inclined to them using a belt driven supercharger like Mazda does just because it's proven technology. The point is, a belt driven supercharger always needs to take power away from the ICE, but electric SC can take energy from regen or the plug.

Ian Schmidt

The supercharger doesn't need a 300HP motor like the drive system. I would expect an electric supercharger to be a drain more comparable to an HVAC blower. Regen braking would easily keep it topped off in city driving, as @ssun30 said.

Actually, boosted lean burn requires quite powerful compressors. The paper didn't specify how much power the SC consumes. But if you just look at the air oversupply ratio, it's close to supercar turbo level. For a 30:1 AFR a 2.0L engine is sucking in as much air as a 4.4L. But this only applies to low-load scenarios, when load is high the SC disengages to produce a stoichiometric mixture (they want to avoid the 15-30:1 region where NOx emission shoots up). I think this is also why a turbo is simply unfeasible, as at low-load there simply isn't enough exhaust energy to spool up the turbine. The engine will have horrible response.

Bidding posted by FAW Toyota has confirmed the engine below the M20A is a 1.5L with unknown number of cylinders. Bidding for line construction started back in May while tooling started in late August. Production will start next year with an annual capacity of 108k units. This information got picked up by the auto press in May already. I now feel embarrassed I've ignored such obvious information for five months.

So if we consider this to be a direct down-scaling of the M20A to an Inline-3, it will be producing 90kW/122hp and 150N.m of torque at 40% thermal efficiency. I guess there's nothing special here? It will be a healthy upgrade over the older NR and NZ engines used on Yaris/Vios. Will also allow the C-HR to be price-competitive.

It also partially confirms the smallest TNGA hybrid powertrain will be a 75kW 1.5L plus a ~20kW battery. So 95kW for the next-gen Aqua/Yaris Hybrid (which makes it more powerful than the Prius/Corolla Hybrid?).

Another 'leak' from these biddings is a mid-cycle refresh for the '710B' program, which I suppose is related to the VIOS as that vehicle is due for a refresh. And the timing just matches the plan to introduce a new 1.5.

spwolf

Toyota has released some info to the media in Ireland...
- 2019 Corolla will have 1.6l petrol engine for Europe, together with hybrid from Prius of course. This is first time I have heard of 1.6l in TNGA vehicles, so it is likely to be all new?
- New hybrid vehicle unveil on September 3rd for Europe. Toyota France announced new factory expansion for next-gen Yaris and new model. I assume it is smaller than C-HR SUV, based on next gen Yaris platform. It might also introduce new smaller hybrid system as well as that new 1.6l?

So why are we getting two pieces of contradicting information (1.5 vs 1.6)? And more surprisingly these information both come directly form Toyota.

I think what we can agree on is that this new engine is 99% an Inline-3.

Wouldn't directly scaling down the M20A to a 3 cylinder give an output of 126hp? Regardless of the output this new 1.5l 3 cylinder should be good upgrade over the NZ(too old) and the NR(not enough power) engines. Hopefully this 3 cylinder is smooth.

Is the VIOS refresh a brand new generation or just a facelift? Because it did get a facelift recently in certain markets.

Either that 1.6l is the ZR engine or it's just a typo.

ssun30

Bidding posted by FAW Toyota has confirmed the engine below the M20A is a 1.5L with unknown number of cylinders. Bidding for line construction started back in May while tooling started in late August. Production will start next year with an annual capacity of 108k units. This information got picked up by the auto press in May already. I now feel embarrassed I've ignored such obvious information for five months.

So if we consider this to be a direct down-scaling of the M20A to an Inline-3, it will be producing 90kW/122hp and 150N.m of torque at 40% thermal efficiency. I guess there's nothing special here? It will be a healthy upgrade over the older NR and NZ engines used on Yaris/Vios. Will also allow the C-HR to be price-competitive.

It also partially confirms the smallest TNGA hybrid powertrain will be a 75kW 1.5L plus a ~20kW battery. So 95kW for the next-gen Aqua/Yaris Hybrid (which makes it more powerful than the Prius/Corolla Hybrid?).

Another 'leak' from these biddings is a mid-cycle refresh for the '710B' program, which I suppose is related to the VIOS as that vehicle is due for a refresh. And the timing just matches the plan to introduce a new 1.5.



So why are we getting two pieces of contradicting information (1.5 vs 1.6)? And more surprisingly these information both come directly form Toyota.

I think what we can agree on is that this new engine is 99% an Inline-3.

Interesting, remember all these 1.6 3cly turbo rumos from Japan? I doubt there are several different engines, it might have slightly different displacement due to different bore/stroke? So something like 1.563cc could be both 1.5l and 1.6l depending who you ask?

Also, I think for cheaper cars, it wont get things like D4S, so its output will be lower. Another thing is that I doubt 1.5l will be used for C-HR... at least around here I doubt it... it is positioned as more premium offering everywhere. I do hope it comes for Corolla hatch.

We got cool info finally about new Corolla with 1.8 and 2.0l hybrid... 1.8l will be li-ion while 2.0l will be nimh. Difference is speed is quite substantial at 10.9s vs 7.9s 0-62mph, which is actually quite good. Another interesting part is that 2.0l hybrid gets smaller trunk. Since for Europe they are calculating space under the trunk cover (with organizer), it quite possibly could be that they moved regular battery to the trunk for 2.0l model.

View attachment 3031

spwolf

Also, I think for cheaper cars, it wont get things like D4S, so its output will be lower. Another thing is that I doubt 1.5l will be used for C-HR... at least around here I doubt it... it is positioned as more premium offering everywhere. I do hope it comes for Corolla hatch.

It will depend on whether there is extra capacity for 8NR production. The reason chinese market C-HR will get the 1.5 is because all 8NR capacity are completely used up by the Corolla/Levin. So it makes the most sense to offer a 1.5L C-HR along with the Vios for a combined rate of 108k engines per year. I think FAW/GAC weighted the options: expand capacity for the 8NR, introduce the 1.5 ESTEC, or go directly to the more future-proof 1.5 Dynamic Force. With the tax incentive for <1.2L engines gone there is now zero reason for Toyota to keep producing the expensive 8NR in China. The 1.5 ESTEC is underpowered for anything above the Yaris/Vios, so they couldn't use it for the C-HR or Corolla. Therefore they chose the long-term option. It will be cheaper to build, allows more margins, and can be used on a wider range of vehicles.

Sure Europe won't get 1.5 for C-HR because there's enough 8NR production as is. Plus they just set up the 1.5 ESTEC for the Yaris so there really isn't much incentive for them to build the Dynamic Force 1.5. I think the 8NR will start to be phased out world-wide once WLTC fully kicks in, when turbocharged engines no longer get the unfair advantage.

Finally, I don't understand why you are so against D-4S. The 8NR is already a direct-injected, turbocharged, intercooled engine with VVTi-W head with everything times four. It already has the most complicated tech package on a tiny engine and is thus unnecessarily expensive. What is the problem with D-4S on an engine that is of a similar complexity, but has 1/4 fewer parts? These extra two injectors are definitely cheaper than a turbo, the plumbing, and the intercooler.

@ssun30 will a 3 cylinder of this displacement require balance shaft?

I thought the VIOS recently got mid-cycle refresh?

carguy420

will a 3 cylinder of this displacement require balance shaft?

Any Inline-3 larger than, say, a Kei-car engine will disintegrate themselves without a balance shaft.

ssun30

It will depend on whether there is extra capacity for 8NR production. The reason chinese market C-HR will get the 1.5 is because all 8NR capacity are completely used up by the Corolla/Levin. So it makes the most sense to offer a 1.5L C-HR along with the Vios for a combined rate of 108k engines per year. I think FAW/GAC weighted the options: expand capacity for the 8NR, introduce the 1.5 ESTEC, or go directly to the more future-proof 1.5 Dynamic Force. With the tax incentive for <1.2L engines gone there is now zero reason for Toyota to keep producing the expensive 8NR in China. The 1.5 ESTEC is underpowered for anything above the Yaris/Vios, so they couldn't use it for the C-HR or Corolla. Therefore they chose the long-term option. It will be cheaper to build, allows more margins, and can be used on a wider range of vehicles.

Sure Europe won't get 1.5 for C-HR because there's enough 8NR production as is. Plus they just set up the 1.5 ESTEC for the Yaris so there really isn't much incentive for them to build the Dynamic Force 1.5. I think the 8NR will start to be phased out world-wide once WLTC fully kicks in, when turbocharged engines no longer get the unfair advantage.

Finally, I don't understand why you are so against D-4S. The 8NR is already a direct-injected, turbocharged, intercooled engine with VVTi-W head with everything times four. It already has the most complicated tech package on a tiny engine and is thus unnecessarily expensive. What is the problem with D-4S on an engine that is of a similar complexity, but has 1/4 fewer parts? These extra two injectors are definitely cheaper than a turbo, the plumbing, and the intercooler.

If they are expanding capacity for 1.5l engine, then that means they mean to use it in specific car. So if they put it in C-HR, it is because they planned to use it in C-HR all along...

Keep in mind that 1.2t is another class compared to any 1.5l or 1.6l NA engine... it has a lot more torque from down below. New 1.5l with D4S in CHR is going to be a lot slower than 1.2t, it is going to be 12-13s 0-62mph car.

But sure, for base engine in Corolla, that is good enough, especially in Europe where many people drive it in cities and where we used to have 1.33l 100hp engine before. But it is not going to be replacement for 1.2t.

ssun30

Any Inline-3 larger than, say, a Kei-car engine will disintegrate themselves without a balance shaft.

I haven't looked into the reliability of the Ford 1.0T 3cyl, but that doesn't have balance shafts. They used a counterweighted flywheel (and accessory drive I think I read somewhere?) to even out the vibrations. Of course, we are also talking about a 1.5l so, this may not be as effective on a larger engine.

spwolf

Keep in mind that 1.2t is another class compared to any 1.5l or 1.6l NA engine... it has a lot more torque from down below. New 1.5l with D4S in CHR is going to be a lot slower than 1.2t, it is going to be 12-13s 0-62mph car.

The C-HR uses a CVT, and CVT doesn't care about torque since it can change multiplication ratio on the fly. With that extra launch gear in the new CVT the 1.5L will be on par with if not better than the 8NR with old CVT in acceleration.

ssun30

The C-HR uses a CVT, and CVT doesn't care about torque since it can change multiplication ratio on the fly. With that extra launch gear in the new CVT the 1.5L will be on par with if not better than the 8NR with old CVT in acceleration.

It is not going to happen.... check 0-100kmh in similar 1.5l vehicles with CVT... With 30% more torque, 8NR will always be faster, and especially feel a lot faster due to the torque being available at 1700 rpm.

spwolf

New 1.5l with D4S in CHR is going to be a lot slower than 1.2t, it is going to be 12-13s 0-62mph car.

But sure, for base engine in Corolla, that is good enough, especially in Europe where many people drive it in cities and where we used to have 1.33l 100hp engine before. But it is not going to be replacement for 1.2t.

Ok what you said may have some truth in it. Test results for the GAC C-HR and FAW Izoa don't look good, at all. With the 168hp M20A the car still takes an appalling 10.8s to do 0-100km/h and 17.5s to do 0-400m. So with 37hp more it's outrun by the 131hp 1.5L Honda XR-V by a comfortable margin (which does 10.1s and 16.9s respectively). And it's slower than every ~150hp 1.5T mid-size SUV that is at least one class above its weight. According the reviews the launch gear doesn't do s**t and the transmission almost instantly switches to belt drive. The launch gear was supposed to provide enough torque multiplication to even cause wheelspin but no matter how hard they try they can't get the slightest tyre squeaks out of the C-HR. The reviews mostly give an 'insufficient' score to the C-HR's performance, criticizing harshly on the fact it's slower than 55% of the competitors in the subcompact segment despite having the largest engine with the most horsepower and asking midsize prices. There was a lot of hype before launch with Toyota advertising how awesome the new Dynamic Force engine is, and people genuinely believed 168hp in a subcompact is overkill and will make a fun warm hatch. But apparently the C-HR didn't live up to it.

WTF Toyota? It takes some serious miscalibration to get this poor performance out of such a high powered engine for the class. What a waste. I hope the issue will be addressed with later updates to the transmission software.

Wow, that's kinda scary to think about. Something funky is going on.

ssun30

Ok what you said may have some truth in it. Test results for the GAC C-HR and FAW Izoa don't look good, at all. With the 168hp M20A the car still takes an appalling 10.8s to do 0-100km/h and 17.5s to do 0-400m. So with 37hp more it's outrun by the 131hp 1.5L Honda XR-V by a comfortable margin (which does 10.1s and 16.9s respectively). And it's slower than every ~150hp 1.5T mid-size SUV that is at least one class above its weight. According the reviews the launch gear doesn't do s**t and the transmission almost instantly switches to belt drive. The launch gear was supposed to provide enough torque multiplication to even cause wheelspin but no matter how hard they try they can't get the slightest tyre squeaks out of the C-HR. The reviews mostly give an 'insufficient' score to the C-HR's performance, criticizing harshly on the fact it's slower than 55% of the competitors in the subcompact segment despite having the largest engine with the most horsepower and asking midsize prices. There was a lot of hype before launch with Toyota advertising how awesome the new Dynamic Force engine is, and people genuinely believed 168hp in a subcompact is overkill and will make a fun warm hatch. But apparently the C-HR didn't live up to it.

WTF Toyota? It takes some serious miscalibration to get this poor performance out of such a high powered engine for the class. What a waste. I hope the issue will be addressed with later updates to the transmission software.

well those numbers look a bit slower than UX and Corolla Hatch, due to testing conditions maybe? But in any case, there is no magic with CVT. Turbo engines get torque from bottom of rpm and they are much easier to drive due to that, especially when cars get heavier.

Did C-HR get hybrid in China?

That's is why I'm so concerned about the powertrains that Toyota is putting in their cars.

The current Honda City with it's 1.5L SOHC VTEC engine can do 0-100km/h in 10.8 seconds, while the VIOS with it's 2NR-FE needs a little over 12 seconds to reach 100km/h, both cars equipped with CVTs.

carguy420

That's is why I'm so concerned about the powertrains that Toyota is putting in their cars.

The current Honda City with it's 1.5L SOHC VTEC engine can do 0-100km/h in 10.8 seconds, while the VIOS with it's 2NR-FE needs a little over 12 seconds to reach 100km/h, both cars equipped with CVTs.

It is only driveability that matters. M20A should be easy to drive drive it has D4S that increases torque in lower portion of rpm range.

2NR does not that tech, whatever its replacement, it will be better.

spwolf

well those numbers look a bit slower than UX and Corolla Hatch, due to testing conditions maybe? But in any case, there is no magic with CVT. Turbo engines get torque from bottom of rpm and they are much easier to drive due to that, especially when cars get heavier.

Did C-HR get hybrid in China?

No. Only tnga 2.0L offered。and plan to offer BEV version in 2020.

Car and Driver tested the 2019 Corolla Hatchback with the CVT and found out it go from 0-60mph in 8.3 seconds, 0-100km/h will take just a bit longer.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2019-toyota-corolla-hatchback-automatic-belies-reputation

There's definitely something wrong with that CH-R test.

spwolf

well those numbers look a bit slower than UX and Corolla Hatch, due to testing conditions maybe? But in any case, there is no magic with CVT. Turbo engines get torque from bottom of rpm and they are much easier to drive due to that, especially when cars get heavier.

I wasn't referring to the 8NR vs 1.5 argument. I stand by my point that CVTs do not care peak torque value.

The rant was on the fact that Toyota messed up calibrations for the M20B/CVT (Chinese Domestic Market Dynamic Force engines have 'B' designation). The Honda XR-V is faster with a smaller engine and lower power-to-weight ratio while using a CVT without a launch gear.

spwolf

It is only driveability that matters. M20A should be easy to drive drive it has D4S that increases torque in lower portion of rpm range.

Having an oversized and overpowered engine for a vehicle while not harnessing its capabilities is bad engineering, period. It's even more problematic when it is the most expensive one in the segment, outrun by competitors that are 30% cheaper. There's just no way to defend it. Of course acceleration figure matters when you are paying more money for that extra horsepower. If drivability is the only concern why not just buy a cheaper 1.5L?

carguy420

There's definitely something wrong with that CH-R test.

The 10.8s results is the slowest out of all reviews done. But even fastest results are in the 10.5s range. Due to differences in testing methods, we usually cannot directly compare tests conducted by different organizations. But when we look at relative results conducted by the same organization, the C-HR 2.0 is slower than the XR-V 1.5L (130hp CVT) and Skoda Karoq 1.4T (140hp DSG) and only marginally faster than the Juke 1.5L (110hp CVT). All these vehicles are on average 30% cheaper. In fact at C-HR's price you can get 2.5L mid-size SUVs that are much more practical and slightly faster.

BTW reviews on C-HR and Izoa are generally positive apart from the criticism on acceleration and price. Handling performance was considered 'unrivalled' in the class, with universal praise on its use of double wishbone rear suspension and beefy sway bars (which surprised the reviewers that it has less body roll than most hatchbacks). ACA was considered 'highly effective' at suppressing understeer and adds an extra layer of safety without triggering stability control. However the suspension was considered a bit too hard for daily driving and comfort score took a slight hit as a result.

I'm surprised that the 1.5l XR-V is just as quick as the 1.8l HR-V(XR-V's twin). The 1.8l R18 is an older engine though but it's still more powerful than the L15B1 in the XR-V, at least on paper.

Toyota has sorted out their chassis but their powertrains are not quite there yet. Seriously what the hell is going on Toyota?!

carguy420

I'm surprised that the 1.5l XR-V is just as quick as the 1.8l HR-V(XR-V's twin). The 1.8l R18 is an older engine though but it's still more powerful than the L15B1 in the XR-V, at least on paper.

Toyota has sorted out their chassis but their powertrains are not quite there yet. Seriously what the hell is going on Toyota?!

maybe it depends on the market? M20A has been getting rave reviews in US, and so did new 300h powertrain in Camry and ES.

bunch of new info on upcoming Toyota's in Japan... new TJ cruiser coming next year as well as Prius v/Alpha with 150hp 1.8h hybrid powertrain as well as C-HR GR Sport edition and bunch of other updates (New Yaris coming Dec 2019 with new 1.5l Hybrid)

spwolf

new TJ cruiser coming next year)

https://www.toyota-global.com/showr...cept_cars/concept_car_gallery_tj-cruiser.html

What a practical if brickish looking vehicle. Almost like they mixed a minivan with an armored truck.