Lexus Remains Uncommitted to Plug-In Hybrid Technology

spwolf

i dont think their target audience likes downsizing in the US

Word. Us Americans like big, smooth engines with lots of cylinders.

Now another thing is that it is likely cheaper to use V6 than 2.4l Turbo.

That's an interesting question, along with other issues such as weight and packaging once you figure in the extra parts required for the turbo. It turns out that the 2018 IS300 RWD (2.0t) weighs in at 3,583lb (1625kg) The IS350 (2GR) weighs only 11lb (5kg) more. I'd assume that the new powertrains would be similar in weight, though switching to GA-L will change the overall weight considerably.

In North America, V6 is going to be most important for 4Runner, Tacoma, Highlander, Sienna, base Tundra, RX, GX... passenger cars are probably going to get it just to share costs, at least maybe for one more generation. I can see a good turbocharged 4 cylinder being fine in Camry, Avalon and ES, but those shopping for heavier vehicles that can tow and haul will certainly be looking for a V6.

Still to this day, 2GR-FKS is such a good engine that it's hard to beat for N/A reliability, smoothness, MPG and power. We are months away from 300HP V6 with Dynamic Torque Vectoring AWD on ES/Camry/Avalon. Hard to argue with that for day-to-day driving, even for enthusiasts.

The only cars that are really asking for more than 300hp are heavy 4Runner, Tacoma, RX and GX.

Gecko

In North America, V6 is going to be most important for 4Runner, Tacoma, Highlander, Sienna, base Tundra, RX, GX... passenger cars are probably going to get it just to share costs, at least maybe for one more generation. I can see a good turbocharged 4 cylinder being fine in Camry, Avalon and ES, but those shopping for heavier vehicles that can tow and haul will certainly be looking for a V6.

Still to this day, 2GR-FKS is such a good engine that it's hard to beat for N/A reliability, smoothness, MPG and power. We are months away from 300HP V6 with Dynamic Torque Vectoring AWD on ES/Camry/Avalon. Hard to argue with that for day-to-day driving, even for enthusiasts.

The only cars that are really asking for more than 300hp are heavy 4Runner, Tacoma, RX and GX.

there is no reason for 4cly turbo to replace V6 in TMC sedans unless there is big upside to the MPG or Performance, which there isnt.

It is another story in other markets where more city driving, different taxes and fuel economy standards might prefer 4cly turbo.

spwolf

there is no reason for 4cly turbo to replace V6 in TMC sedans unless there is big upside to the MPG or Performance, which there isnt.

It is another story in other markets where more city driving, different taxes and fuel economy standards might prefer 4cly turbo.

I prefer TMC to further improve the 2GR, if it's possible. (Or a V6 replacement for the 2GR)

Is downsizing from a V6 to a turbocharged 4 cylinder really effective in terms of improving fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions? Because the answers I found are all over the place.

Gecko

In North America, V6 is going to be most important for 4Runner, Tacoma, Highlander, Sienna, base Tundra, RX, GX...

The Tundra dropped the 1GR V6 base engine several years ago. Also, has the GX ever featured a V6 engine in NA? I'm not against a new, spiffier, more efficient engine, but I do question the logic of including these 2 vehicles in this list.

carguy420

I prefer TMC to further improve the 2GR, if it's possible. (Or a V6 replacement for the 2GR)

Is downsizing from a V6 to a turbocharged 4 cylinder really effective in terms of improving fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions? Because the answers I found are all over the place.

I've found much the same. Most of the time I see only marginal improvements at best by downsizing. Another thing is that turbos seem to be more dependent on driving style and environmental conditions (traffic, terrain, weather, etc...) than NA motors, with the exception of high elevation and thin air.

TheNerdyPotato

The Tundra dropped the 1GR V6 base engine several years ago. Also, has the GX ever featured a V6 engine in NA? I'm not against a new, spiffier, more efficient engine, but I do question the logic of including these 2 vehicles in this list.

i think he is referring to the leaked info where next LC is powered by V6tt and that is likely going to go into Tundra as well as LX.

TheNerdyPotato

The Tundra dropped the 1GR V6 base engine several years ago. Also, has the GX ever featured a V6 engine in NA? I'm not against a new, spiffier, more efficient engine, but I do question the logic of including these 2 vehicles in this list.

V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.

carguy420

Is downsizing from a V6 to a turbocharged 4 cylinder really effective in terms of improving fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions? Because the answers I found are all over the place.

From my own experience the answer is exactly 'all over the place'.

I'm currently on a 7000km road trip driving a Volvo XC60. Over 2 tons fully loaded and a 248hp 2.0T. This downsized motor is brutally efficient on highway where I average 5.5L/100km cruising at 100kph. On the other hand in city where there's a ton of acceleration and deceleration it averages over 15L/100km (I turn off start-stop because it's a PITA)

My ES350 averaged 8L/100km but in city it's much less punished at 11L/100km.

So the point is, downsized motors are incredibly efficient during steady-state operation, but get punished heavily when there's a lot of uneven work load. That's why they get an unfair advantage in NEDC or JC08 testing, where the work load is very uniform, unlike the highly erratic EPA cycle.

In the end it depends on your driving style. A hypermiler will get more from a downsized engine but for enthusiasts with lead feet there's very limited gains. For trucks turbocharged is always better, but only when it can be as durable as a large understressed NA engine (which is the question mark with turbos on trucks).

Gecko

V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.

A detuned V35A-FTS gets the job done, mirroring what Ford does with the 3.5 EcoBoost. Less specific power means less boost, less lag, and less stress: sounds like a fine idea.

Gecko

V6 Tundra was dropped because it was just too weak and the 4.6L V8 was only a little more expensive. In the GX, that V8 is only adequate but quite old now and in need of an update. It makes less power than modern V6s.

If there was a newer turbo/twin turbo/naturally aspirated 6 cylinder that made in the neighborhood of 350hp and 370lb-ft of torque, it would be a great replacement for the 4.6L V8 in Tundra and GX, as well as a solid option in the 4Runner and RX. Also quite frankly ES, RC, IS and maybe LF-1 too.

I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.

I agree with you second point, except that a NA V6 won't be able to provide that much torque without upsizing to around 4.5-5.0l. At that point, why not a V8? With 2GR-level specific output you could achieve that 350hp rating with about 4.0-4.2l, but torque would only be just above 300lb-ft. This could be compensated for, somewhat, by having the proper gearing. Sadly, even gear spacing seems to be something Toyota is incapable of.

TheNerdyPotato

I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.

Agree - and the biggest change it needs is an 8AT vs the ancient 5AT. That would make a world of difference... I've just made peace with it at this point.

Gecko

Agree - and the biggest change it needs is an 8AT vs the ancient 5AT. That would make a world of difference... I've just made peace with it at this point.

I think they're on a 6AT now, but I agree. They should put the 8AT on a $50k+ vehicle.

TheNerdyPotato

I think they're on a 6AT now, but I agree. They should put the 8AT on a $50k+ vehicle.

Globally, yes. But not in USA. 4Runner has a 5AT:eek:

My concern is the turbo 4 in the NX/GS/RC and turbo 6 in the LS simply do not overwhelm me. They are perfectly adequate and on paper show benefits but in the real world I am not blown away at all.

When the 3.5 V-6 debuted in 2007 in the GS 350 it was as fast/faster than the old 4.3 V-8 with better MPG. At the time that was one hell of an engine. Over ten years later it is sadly at the rear. When the new turbo 4 and turbo 6 debuted, they did not blow away the V-6 or V-8 in the same manner. Not to mention the competion, hell Ford etc have some amazing engines.

I really really hope something is coming much sooner than later to put them back on the leading engine map. ALA LFA...

mikeavelli

My concern is the turbo 4 in the NX/GS/RC and turbo 6 in the LS simply do not overwhelm me. They are perfectly adequate and on paper show benefits but in the real world I am not blown away at all.

When the 3.5 V-6 debuted in 2007 in the GS 350 it was as fast/faster than the old 4.3 V-8 with better MPG. A the time that was one hell of an engine. Over ten years later it is sadly at the rear. When the new turbo 4 and turbo 6 debuted, they did not blow away the V-6 or V-8 in the same manner. Not to mention the competion, hell Ford etc have some amazing engines.

I really really hope something is coming much sooner than later to put them back on the leading engine map. ALA LFA...

One con to being late to forced induction: Everyone else is already 3-4 generations ahead while Lexus is just rolling into it's second generation. I had really high hopes for the V35A-FTS but as you note, it is merely adequate in the real world and feels/behaves much like a V6. It's no V8 replacement.

I think Lexus' best chance to break through is going to be combining turbocharging and hybrids, like V35A-FTS + Multi-Stage Hybrid system. This eliminates turbo lag and provides more smoothness in day-to-day operation. They could do it - but at what cost?

TheNerdyPotato

I maintain my stance that the 1UR-FE is currently the least competitive engine in Toyota's NA lineup.

I agree with you second point, except that a NA V6 won't be able to provide that much torque without upsizing to around 4.5-5.0l. At that point, why not a V8? With 2GR-level specific output you could achieve that 350hp rating with about 4.0-4.2l, but torque would only be just above 300lb-ft. This could be compensated for, somewhat, by having the proper gearing. Sadly, even gear spacing seems to be something Toyota is incapable of.

As you've said the lack of torque can be compensated by proper gearing. Not somewhat, but almost completely. Engine torque does not matter in acceleration and towing, the torque curve matters.

Sadly it is something Toyota just doesn't do. Their transmissions almost always have questionable gearing.

ssun30

A detuned V35A-FTS gets the job done, mirroring what Ford does with the 3.5 EcoBoost. Less specific power means less boost, less lag, and less stress: sounds like a fine idea.

i dont think it will be detuned... whole point of new powertrains is less variations for improved production/R&D efficiency that make more expensive engines go into cheaper cars. This is why new LC300 info points out that it will have 422hp V35A-FTS.

Or why there is no place for detuned V35A-FTS on the new powertrain chart from TMC.

What is there not to like?

Gecko

One con to being late to forced induction: Everyone else is already 3-4 generations ahead while Lexus is just rolling into it's second generation. I had really high hopes for the V35A-FTS but as you note, it is merely adequate in the real world and feels/behaves much like a V6. It's no V8 replacement.

lets be realistic, TMC is not 3-4 generations late, what does that even mean - 20 years, 30? And V35A-FTS compares well to its peers in pretty heavy vehicle. Only comparo that it had was in MT and it got better mpg and comparable acceleration numbers in heavier vehicle.

As to the hybrid, it is a cost issue. These expensive hybrids barely sell as it is, it is not going to be better to make them even more expensive.

spwolf

lets be realistic, TMC is not 3-4 generations late, what does that even mean - 20 years, 30? And V35A-FTS compares well to its peers in pretty heavy vehicle. Only comparo that it had was in MT and it got better mpg and comparable acceleration numbers in heavier vehicle.

As to the hybrid, it is a cost issue. These expensive hybrids barely sell as it is, it is not going to be better to make them even more expensive.

Yes, let's be realistic indeed. BMW and Mercedes have been offering mainstream turbos (in North America) since 2007. Lexus joined the game in 2014 with the NX with a very underwhelming 2.0T. V35A-FTS is the only engine we've had since then with the new Dynamic Force family.

BMW and Mercedes have released multiple refreshes and redesigns of their turbocharged engines over just the last 5 years. Not to mention Audi who is now building an electric turbocharger.

I'd like to see V35A-FTS in a lighter application than LS 500 because it's hard to gauge what that engine is really capable of in a 5,000lb car. Also, the Motor Trend comparison did not include the 750i and omitted the S Class, when Lexus has stated that they see the V35A-FTS as competitive with "competitor's V8s." Having driven an S560 and a 750i a while ago, and having driven LS 500, I can say that Lexus' 3.5L TT V6 is simply not on par with either of them. Is it weight or is it the engine? Not sure - but it certainly doesn't feel like a V8 in terms of NVH.

Has anyone here wondered where the future holds for Valvematic? IMO it's the most sophisticated valvetrain technology TMC has been developing. And I was surprised it was not part of the Dynamic Force package at launch. The 3ZR-FAE got the same 36% efficiency and 160hp as the 6AR-FSE, despite the latter having the luxury of D-4S and Miller Cycle operation.

Continuous VVL is a very strong tool to improve performance and efficiency, most importantly it allows NA engines to be very competitive against forced induction engines. Surely there's the extra cost, but it should still be cheaper than a turbo system.

It would be interesting to see the GR and UR getting a final tech upgrade with Valvematic. 100hp/L is definitely within reach since the two have a lot of revving potential, not to mention extra efficiency and improved torque curve. A 350hp 2GR and 500hp 2UR 'final edition' could be the last hurrah for natural aspiration. And the best part is that it can be done today. But alas Toyota is known for not bothering the effort no matter how trivial the effort is.

^I could totally be wrong, but I remember hearing at one point aha D4S and Valvematic weren't compatible.

Gecko

Yes, let's be realistic indeed. BMW and Mercedes have been offering mainstream turbos (in North America) since 2007. Lexus joined the game in 2014 with the NX with a very underwhelming 2.0T. V35A-FTS is the only engine we've had since then with the new Dynamic Force family.

BMW and Mercedes have released multiple refreshes and redesigns of their turbocharged engines over just the last 5 years. Not to mention Audi who is now building an electric turbocharger.

I'd like to see V35A-FTS in a lighter application than LS 500 because it's hard to gauge what that engine is really capable of in a 5,000lb car. Also, the Motor Trend comparison did not include the 750i and omitted the S Class, when Lexus has stated that they see the V35A-FTS as competitive with "competitor's V8s." Having driven an S560 and a 750i a while ago, and having driven LS 500, I can say that Lexus' 3.5L TT V6 is simply not on par with either of them. Is it weight or is it the engine? Not sure - but it certainly doesn't feel like a V8 in terms of NVH.

None of that changes the fact that V35A-FTS is very competitive with 6cly turbo engines, which is what it compares against, at similar price points.

Comparing it to V8 bi-turbos and mentioning how Audi has electric turbocharger or how germans did it since 2007, or how 2.0t is not competitive? What does that have to do with V35A-FTS ?

And how does 3-4 generations translate to 10 years of development, do you think they redesign their engines every 2.5 years?

V35A-FTS is great engine. Fact that TMC had ton of turbos in 90's or that did not have any in 2000's, means nothing to V35A-FTS.

Gecko

^I could totally be wrong, but I remember hearing at one point aha D4S and Valvematic weren't compatible.

just issue of pricing it all together... not sure how much effect it has compared with VVT-iE new dynamic force engines have, but in the end, they all have same goal of improving the combustion. D4S is more important since it gives more power when needed - I have driven all of their Valvematic engines in the past, and as usual, they all needed more power.

Gecko

Yes, let's be realistic indeed. BMW and Mercedes have been offering mainstream turbos (in North America) since 2007. Lexus joined the game in 2014 with the NX with a very underwhelming 2.0T. V35A-FTS is the only engine we've had since then with the new Dynamic Force family.

BMW and Mercedes have released multiple refreshes and redesigns of their turbocharged engines over just the last 5 years. Not to mention Audi who is now building an electric turbocharger.

I'd like to see V35A-FTS in a lighter application than LS 500 because it's hard to gauge what that engine is really capable of in a 5,000lb car. Also, the Motor Trend comparison did not include the 750i and omitted the S Class, when Lexus has stated that they see the V35A-FTS as competitive with "competitor's V8s." Having driven an S560 and a 750i a while ago, and having driven LS 500, I can say that Lexus' 3.5L TT V6 is simply not on par with either of them. Is it weight or is it the engine? Not sure - but it certainly doesn't feel like a V8 in terms of NVH.

No Toyota is not generations behind in the turbo game. They are on par with their turbo technology and and far ahead of anyone to do it reliably.
To be honest, they practically helped start the trend of adding turbos to everything. Think of Toyota in the early 90s, the used turbos everywhere for their sporty models, MR2 Celica, Supra, Soarer. And those cars were above and beyond capable in the turbo realm. While Toyota might have detuned them from the factory, they are some of the most competent and well built/ reliable turbo engines ever engineered. Toyota is later to the game on certain technologies because they are perfectionists who take their time to make sure it works and don’t want to introduce something that will be unreliable.

spwolf

None of that changes the fact that V35A-FTS is very competitive with 6cly turbo engines, which is what it compares against, at similar price points.

Comparing it to V8 bi-turbos and mentioning how Audi has electric turbocharger or how germans did it since 2007, or how 2.0t is not competitive? What does that have to do with V35A-FTS ?

And how does 3-4 generations translate to 10 years of development, do you think they redesign their engines every 2.5 years?

V35A-FTS is great engine. Fact that TMC had ton of turbos in 90's or that did not have any in 2000's, means nothing to V35A-FTS.

This discussion started with Mike saying neither the 8AR-FTS nor V35A-FTS have really impressed him and how both feel "adequate." Then followed it up by saying there was a time when Lexus engines were truly impressive.

I agreed with this and stated that Lexus is playing catch up with respect to turbocharging. Lexus touts V35A-FTS as a V8 replacement but you and I agree that it is not. So the point here is: Is V35A-FTS competitive with other turbo V6s? Yes, for sure. Is it a replacement for a V8? No. So based on Lexus' own claims of V35A-FTS being competitive with Mercedes' and BMW's turbo V8s, this engine is not particularly impressive.

Gecko

I agreed with this and stated that Lexus is playing catch up with respect to turbocharging. Lexus touts V35A-FTS as a V8 replacement but you and I agree that it is not. So the point here is: Is V35A-FTS competitive with other turbo V6s? Yes, for sure. Is it a replacement for a V8? No. So based on Lexus' own claims of V35A-FTS being competitive with Mercedes' and BMW's turbo V8s, this engine is not particularly impressive.

The 3.5 V6 turbo is a downsize of naturally aspirated V8s between 4.6L and 5.0L. And it does the job of replacing the 4.6L very well, 5.0 not so much. It is not a downsize of 4.0 V8TTs, which are themselves downsize of V10 and V12 engines. So a comparison between the V35A-FTS and them is inappropriate.

On the other hand, a comparison with the 3.5 Ecoboost is probably the most fair.

Gecko

This discussion started with Mike saying neither the 8AR-FTS nor V35A-FTS have really impressed him and how both feel "adequate." Then followed it up by saying there was a time when Lexus engines were truly impressive.

I agreed with this and stated that Lexus is playing catch up with respect to turbocharging. Lexus touts V35A-FTS as a V8 replacement but you and I agree that it is not. So the point here is: Is V35A-FTS competitive with other turbo V6s? Yes, for sure. Is it a replacement for a V8? No. So based on Lexus' own claims of V35A-FTS being competitive with Mercedes' and BMW's turbo V8s, this engine is not particularly impressive.

The thing is, the V6TT can in theory be a V8 alternative, when the V8 is NA. But it should not be compared to the V8TT that is used in Merc and Audi. The only replacement for a big NA V8 is a smaller Twin Turbo V8. Which is what Mercedes has done.
The LS had a relatively small NA V8, so a TT v6 is an acceptable alternative.

ssun30

Has anyone here wondered where the future holds for Valvematic? IMO it's the most sophisticated valvetrain technology TMC has been developing. And I was surprised it was not part of the Dynamic Force package at launch. The 3ZR-FAE got the same 36% efficiency and 160hp as the 6AR-FSE, despite the latter having the luxury of D-4S and Miller Cycle operation.

Continuous VVL is a very strong tool to improve performance and efficiency, most importantly it allows NA engines to be very competitive against forced induction engines. Surely there's the extra cost, but it should still be cheaper than a turbo system.

It would be interesting to see the GR and UR getting a final tech upgrade with Valvematic. 100hp/L is definitely within reach since the two have a lot of revving potential, not to mention extra efficiency and improved torque curve. A 350hp 2GR and 500hp 2UR 'final edition' could be the last hurrah for natural aspiration. And the best part is that it can be done today. But alas Toyota is known for not bothering the effort no matter how trivial the effort is.

I once read that the 2AR could have had Valvematic mechanisms added with basically no modification of the head because it had an extra cam cradle not normally found in DOHC heads. Upon further research, the 2GR has a similar setup.

2AR-FE:



2ZR-FAE:

2GR-FE:



In the -FAE head, the Valvematic mechanism rides lower in the camshaft housing, with the camshafts sitting higher than normal. As I've read, it would take basically a new cam housing, camshafts, and electronic controls to add this tech to these older engines without the need for a new head casting. However, TMC never did this with the 2AR, opting instead to wait it out and release the new A25A. I'm not sure if the UR series have this cam housing, but they might.

Edit: As for Valvematic + D4-S, it might be an issue of packaging as well as cost. With all this stuff stacked on the head, it may be difficult to make everything fit.

TheNerdyPotato

I once read that the 2AR could have had Valvematic mechanisms added with basically no modification of the head because it had an extra cam cradle not normally found in DOHC heads. Upon further research, the 2GR has a similar setup.

2AR-FE:



2ZR-FAE:

2GR-FE:



In the -FAE head, the Valvematic mechanism rides lower in the camshaft housing, with the camshafts sitting higher than normal. As I've read, it would take basically a new cam housing, camshafts, and electronic controls to add this tech to these older engines without the need for a new head casting. However, TMC never did this with the 2AR, opting instead to wait it out and release the new A25A. I'm not sure if the UR series have this cam housing, but they might.

Edit: As for Valvematic + D4-S, it might be an issue of packaging as well as cost. With all this stuff stacked on the head, it may be difficult to make everything fit.

Valvematic engines produce around 10% more power than their non-Valvematic counterparts, Toyota really should implement it with their Dynamic Force engines.

Theoretically an M20A with Valvematic can produce 185hp, quite a decent increase.

But how's the torque curve of the naturally aspirated Dynamic Force engines? Because it's peak torque comes in at quite a high rpm.

carguy420

Valvematic engines produce around 10% more power than their non-Valvematic counterparts, Toyota really should implement it with their Dynamic Force engines.

Theoretically an M20A with Valvematic can produce 185hp, quite a decent increase.

But how's the torque curve of the naturally aspirated Dynamic Force engines? Because it's peak torque comes in at quite a high rpm.

The only Valvematic engine released in the US is the 2ZR-FAE found only in the Corolla Eco. It increased power over the standard -FE from 132hp to 140hp, or a 6% increase. Still, 178hp (168hp +6%) out of a 2.0l economy car motor would be very respectable.

One thing I'd like to see from TMC is hybrid motors that can do part-time Otto cycle, which would allow the Prius, et al, to have some significant getup and go when needed, even if only under WOT.