Lexus Remains Uncommitted to Plug-In Hybrid Technology

Not sure if you have read this article before but I'll share it regardless. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ush-spurs-rush-at-yamaha-for-plug-in-know-how

Welcome to LE @carguy420

carguy420

Not sure if you have read this article before but I'll share it regardless. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ush-spurs-rush-at-yamaha-for-plug-in-know-how

Welcome to the forum.

I think this is a Toyota Group decision, maybe it doesn't want its two wheeler buddy to be left behind in bike electrification? The Yamaha car thing is a bit strange, since Toyota Motor Corp doesn't really any help from it (they already have big name partners who are EV experts). Is Yamaha is afraid of a deal between TMC and Suzuki? I don't think they can really stop that.

Shame that Yamaha is no longer making sports car engines for Toyota Motor Corp these days. They should have at least asked Yamaha to try with an Inline-6 for the Supra...

ssun30

Welcome to the forum.

I think this is a Toyota Group decision, maybe it doesn't want its two wheeler buddy to be left behind in bike electrification? The Yamaha car thing is a bit strange, since Toyota Motor Corp doesn't really any help from it (they already have big name partners who are EV experts). Is Yamaha is afraid of a deal between TMC and Suzuki? I don't think they can really stop that.

Shame that Yamaha is no longer making sports car engines for Toyota Motor Corp these days. They should have at least asked Yamaha to try with an Inline-6 for the Supra...

I am not sure they dont contribute in R&D of new engines, for instance 1.6l 3cly turbo might be using some of their tech.

RAL

Welcome to LE @carguy420

Thanks!:)

ssun30

A ravigenaux gearset offers three forward ratios and one reverse ratio right? I think those 4ATs usually have an overdrive attached for the 4th gear.

The GS450h only makes use of two out of the three ratios. The multi-stage uses two separate planetary gearsets.

I recall my old 96 Camry with the 4 speed A140E transaxle had a Ravignaux gear in it with no other planetary sets, or at least that's what the FSM said. It's very similar to the A540 used in the V6 Camry and ES300 of the same era. They have 2 reduction gears, direct drive, and overdrive for forward gears. A reverse gear is also included in the same unit. The 6 speed U660 used with the FWD 2GR uses a Lapalletier (spelling?) which is a Ravignaux with an extra planetary set for the 2 additional forward gears.



I found that video a while back. Good info.

Should the next generation Toyota 86 be more of a Toyota and less of a Subaru? But my main question is its engine, in terms of feel and performance it has a lot of room for improvement. Do you think Toyota will commission Yamaha for a better engine?

I don't know. I've seen a lot of rumors and speculation. Every article I've seen has said that Subaru was still committed to the project.

That reminds me, I haven't seen anything about the S-FR since the concept.

TheNerdyPotato

I don't know. I've seen a lot of rumors and speculation. Every article I've seen has said that Subaru was still committed to the project.

That reminds me, I haven't seen anything about the S-FR since the concept.

I think the S-FR is already scrapped, I could be wrong though.

The 86 could definitely use some serious improvements to the engine and interior. A more powerful and higher revving NA engine plus a nicer interior would greatly improve an already good car.

carguy420

The 86 could definitely use some serious improvements to the engine and interior. A more powerful and higher revving NA engine plus a nicer interior would greatly improve an already good car.

Part of the reason why the interior is so blah is because it started as a Scion in the US. Scion had the monospec policy, where there are no trim levels. A hypothetical 86 XSE could be quite nice, while keeping a base SE trim could keep entry level pricing down.

As for the engine, the internet rumormill is pointing to the bored out FA24 as the new engine. I'm OK with the car having relatively low power. What it needs is a fatter low-end for daily driving. A larger displacement engine could meet or beat current high-end while filling in the midrange torque dip. Of course, a top tier turbo version is basically a necessity.

TheNerdyPotato

Part of the reason why the interior is so blah is because it started as a Scion in the US. Scion had the monospec policy, where there are no trim levels. A hypothetical 86 XSE could be quite nice, while keeping a base SE trim could keep entry level pricing down.

As for the engine, the internet rumormill is pointing to the bored out FA24 as the new engine. I'm OK with the car having relatively low power. What it needs is a fatter low-end for daily driving. A larger displacement engine could meet or beat current high-end while filling in the midrange torque dip. Of course, a top tier turbo version is basically a necessity.

If the next 86's engine is going to be the FA24 the consumers in Japan will have to pay a higher road tax which might limit its appeal in its home market.

In which country did Toyota sell the highest amount of 86? USA or Australia or other?

I don't know about JDM, but from what I've gathered, the FR-S/86 sold more in USA than in Europe and Australia combined.

The Internet's biggest problem with the 86 is the lack of a turbo. The true biggest problem with the 86 is that it's a very purist light sports car with zero practicality and comfort. It has harder suspension than most supercars, so having nicer interior is not going to help its non-existent practicality and comfort. Anyone who actually have driven the 86 (myself included) will notice it's a nightmare to go over bumps in this thing. Most of those who claim they will buy a 86 turbo will not end up buying one. Having a turbo will help with sales, but it must also be accompanied with a more benign suspension tuning for wider market appeal, which goes against the original intention of the 86.

I would love to see them cancelling the 86 because it's getting so much unfair comment from people who don't understand what a 86 is. Just build some Yaris or Corolla-based hot hatches; they are easier to sell and cost less to build.

ssun30

Anyone who actually have driven the 86 (myself included) will notice it's a nightmare to go over bumps in this thing.

Except the S Class, every German car is a nightmare over bumps and potholes. That is what happens when 'handling' and stylish rubber-bands are what every buyer wants.

carguy420

If the next 86's engine is going to be the FA24 the consumers in Japan will have to pay a higher road tax which might limit its appeal in its home market.

In which country did Toyota sell the highest amount of 86? USA or Australia or other?

US of course... and main purpose of 86 is brand image, positive reviews, which is what it got.

There is little chance that next 86 or Supra will have some awesome sales, they can only be decent.

Of course, they definitely will not sell like hotcakes.

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.

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. ;)

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...

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,

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.

^^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.

The GR engine was just as good compared to rivals back then and remains competitive even now. The 'issue' is that TMC was and is always about products that sell based on their objective measures and merits rather than products that sell based on consumer's perception created by aspirational marketing strategies.

In terms of engineering know-how and excellence, TMC is very competent, if not the most.

ssun30

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.

You're right about one thing. When taking about gas engines, there is no replacement for displacement. Not to go too off topic here, but much of your post is contradictory. You correctly admit that downsizing for the Germans was mostly political, yet you say downsizing is the future without showing any concrete evidence for this. Just because some automakers are downsizing does not make it the future. Some automakers currently downsizing are doing it for mostly political or regulatory reasons, that's it. Laws or taxes in some countries require downsizing, but this has been true for many, many years in those countries. However speaking about North America, there are no laws or taxes on displacement. There is a gas guzzler tax in the US for bad fuel economy, but this is not directly tied to displacement and can be mitigated (and has been mitigated by various automakers) by many technologies and innovations. The political and regulatory aspects are very much up in the air in North America right now. Also the fact is most customers have not been asking for downsized engines. This is especially true for USA. In America many people still like large displacement, smooth and high torque engines.

I'm no engineer, but I know enough and have driven enough turbo vehicles to know that real world fuel economy suffers a lot with turbo gas downsized engines due to a number of physics principles. Large displacement turbo gas engines don't suffer as much. The vast majority of turbo downsized gas engines were made to defeat regulatory and environment lab testing (without much concern for real world fuel economy), not because there is customer demand for them. Turbo diesel downsized engines are different, but diesel technology is on its way out for most passenger vehicles worldwide.

Regarding future Dynamic Force engines, I really would not jump to conclusions or make such confident proclamations that you are doing. The 8AR and 8NR are not Dynamic Force engines. So far there is absolutely zero evidence, or even zero hints that Toyota wants to downsize with future Dynamic Force engines. So for, the V35A and A25A are not downsized at all. While some may argue the V35A replaces a V8 in the LS, the LS may still receive a new V8 in the coming future. Also the V35A has the same displacement as Toyota's 2GR engine. Furthermore the V35A seems to be large exception in the overall Dynamic Force lineup. Toyota's powertrains are currently in a big state of change. The M20A, being the new global 4 cylinder engine, is not only not downsized, it has been upsized compared to the 2ZR. Toyota in technical documents officially compares the M20A to the 1.8L 2ZR. The key philosophy of Dynamic Force engines includes the principles of high thermal efficiency, world class thermal management, high performance, high response, and low emissions. Downsizing and turbocharging directly conflicts with some of the key Dynamic Force principles. Also Dynamic Force documents and recent statements by Toyota officials heavily imply that Toyota will meet future political and regulatory requirements through a combination of Dynamic Force and TNGA technologies and increased hybridization and electrification, not downsizing and turbocharging.

Unless you are willing to share and directly provide some insider information from Toyota Japan, then no, you cannot say anything "with confidence" regarding Toyota possibly committing to downsizing in the future. To say anything with confidence without direct and concrete proof is misleading and inaccurate. The public evidence we have so far from Toyota says they won't be downsizing in the future.

Downsizing is the way of the future. That future is not here yet, but almost.

That was the point. To enable true downsizing, variable compression is the necessary technology. Turbocharged engines need to run at competitive compression ratios when off-boost and that will eliminate the biggest obstacle to the full benefit of downsizing. Variable compression turbocharging could be proven uneconomical in the near future, and it's up to Nissan to show the 2.0 VC-T is financially sustainable.

Dynamic Force and turbocharging are not mutually exclusive. Otherwise what do you think the V35A-FTS is?

Mind you hybridization is another way of downsizing. By that definition Toyota is already committed to downsizing. What I was saying was not self-contradictory.

If you doubt the validity of downsizing, read the research papers Levi posted above. They come straight out of Toyota's own research center.

If you insist I post proof of my argument, then I have to say you need to overcome a language barrier first. Most of my (advanced) automotive engineering knowledge come from a group of drivetrain engineers on zhihu.com who are generous enough to show parts of their work that are safe to post to the public domain. Unfortunately for you these sources are in Chinese, and those guys who wrote these posts do not allow repost of these information on a different site.

A particularly interesting person is head of drivetrain calibration at TMEC Suzhou who was in charge of calibration of the 6AR-FSE, 8NR-FTS, A25A-FXS, and A20A-FKS. I will try to get permission from this guy to post translations at a future date so stay tuned.