Official Lexus Future Product & Powertrain Megathread

[TheNerdyPotato]

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.

 

[TheNerdyPotato]

This illustration is for the 2UR-GSE for a 2014 ISF. You can clearly see the camshaft housing listed as item 4 in the upper-right portion of the image. I have found similar parts while looking up IPCs for the 1UR-FE and 3UR-FE. This would imply that the UR series is Valvematic-capable with minimal modification.

 

[Joaquin Ruhi]

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.

That would be VERY interesting.

Toyota/Lexus pioneered dual Otto/Atkinson cycle functionality on version 2 of the 2UR-FSE 5-liter V8 and on a number of "FKS" engines (all non-hybrid). This at least partially inspired the later 2015 evolution of VW/Audi's EA888 2-liter 4-cylinder turbo and Hyundai's Nu MPi Atkinson Cycle 2-liter 4-cylinder engines.

Turning that on its head to add Otto cycle functionality to Toyota/Lexus hybrids to increase performance sounds like a great idea. Yet, I vaguely recall a Lexus insider once telling me that those hybrids actually already achieve part-time Otto cycle functionality, and Wikipedia's Atkinson Cycle article implies that being the case with most if not all so-called modern Atkinson Cycle engines.

 

[ssun30]

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.

Dynamic Force engines have weak low-end torque because they operate in Atkinson Cycle at low rpm.

Continuous VVL could smooth out the torque curve. Allowing strong low-end torque and an aggressive high rpm cam profile to coexist. A well implemented CVVL could make a flat torque curve on a NA engine like turbocharged engines. This is why Valvematic could be a very nice addition to Dynamic Force.

 

[ssun30]

That would be VERY interesting.

Toyota/Lexus pioneered dual Otto/Atkinson cycle functionality on version 2 of the 2UR-FSE 5-liter V8 and on a number of "FKS" engines (all non-hybrid). This at least partially inspired the later 2015 evolution of VW/Audi's EA888 2-liter 4-cylinder turbo and Hyundai's Nu MPi Atkinson Cycle 2-liter 4-cylinder engines.

Turning that on its head to add Otto cycle functionality to Toyota/Lexus hybrids to increase performance sounds like a great idea. Yet, I vaguely recall a Lexus insider once telling me that those hybrids actually already achieve part-time Otto cycle functionality, and Wikipedia's Atkinson Cycle article implies that being the case with most if not all so-called modern Atkinson Cycle engines.

All modern 'Atkinson Cycle' engines run Otto Mode in transient (non-steady-state) workload. Otherwise throttle response would be so poor the engine becomes unusable. The engine also runs Otto Mode at start-up to heat up the catalytic converter faster and reduce NOx. This is confirmed by a drivetrain calibration engineer at Toyota.

According to this guy the 'Otto-Atkinson Dual Cycle' is just a marketing term. They didn't want people to relate their flagship performance engine to the weak eco engine on the Prius. The principle is no different from regular hybrid engines. The implementation is of course a little different. The so-called 'Dual-Cycle' engines have a wider operating window for Otto Cycle while the 'Eco-Oriented' hybrid engines have a wider operating window for Atkinson Cycle.

And BTW, since this 'Dual-Cycle' thing is just a play with cam profile and fuel map. Nothing prevents them from combining dual-cycle operation and Valvematic. But, as some pointed out above, it would be a packaging challenge.

 

[spwolf]

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.

hm, i dont think it would increase power in modern engine with vvt-iw and D4S though. Not only that, it also increased it only at top end and it was not felt in normal driving, unlike D4S. You can just check Corolla Eco vs regular one.

 

[ssun30]

hm, i dont think it would increase power in modern engine with vvt-iw and D4S though. Not only that, it also increased it only at top end and it was not felt in normal driving, unlike D4S. You can just check Corolla Eco vs regular one.

And, I would like to add a striking fact that many people get wrong: Atkinson Cycle does not reduce available torque in regular driving, it increases it. This is because the engine is more efficient, thus more energy is converted to usable work i.e. engine torque for the same amount of fuel injected. Atkinson Cycle is only weaker at WOT, when reduced volumetric efficiency meant less fuel could be burnt. But WOT is not a 'regular driving' scenario anyway.

 

[TheNerdyPotato]

hm, i dont think it would increase power in modern engine with vvt-iw and D4S though. Not only that, it also increased it only at top end and it was not felt in normal driving, unlike D4S. You can just check Corolla Eco vs regular one.

It would change the valve lift and duration while VVT changes the timing. I don't see how those couldn't work together. As for it being for top-end power only, that's OK because ssun30 suggested high-output versions of the 2GR and 2UR. I understand that it doesn't work too well with low-end, as the 2ZR -FE and -FAE have basically the same peak torque rating.

And, I would like to add a striking fact that many people get wrong: Atkinson Cycle does not reduce available torque in regular driving, it increases it. This is because the engine is more efficient, thus more energy is converted to usable work i.e. engine torque for the same amount of fuel injected. Atkinson Cycle is only weaker at WOT, when reduced volumetric efficiency meant less fuel could be burnt. But WOT is not a 'regular driving' scenario anyway.

As I understand, the Atkinson cycle reduces the size of the charge in the cylinder, thus reducing power but makes up for it in efficiency. So, it seems like you could say it makes the same amount of torque by burning less fuel? Eh, maybe I'm being semantic...

 

[ssun30]

As I understand, the Atkinson cycle reduces the size of the charge in the cylinder, thus reducing power but makes up for it in efficiency. So, it seems like you could say it makes the same amount of torque by burning less fuel? Eh, maybe I'm being semantic...

Exactly. An Atkinson Cycle engine makes the same amount of torque with less fuel burn or more torque with same fuel burn when it's not WOT. At WOT it could not burn the same amount of fuel and torque is lower. The point is Atkinson Cycle engines operate closer to WOT in regular driving. As a result, pumping loss is greatly reduced and efficiency is improved.

Continuous VVL also improves efficiency in a similar way by eliminating the throttle plate, since the intake charge can be controlled by valve lift. Pumping loss is greatly improved since the engine is always at WOT.

 

[carguy420]

Does Valvematic only affect valve lift or does it also affect valve duration?

Also is Valvematic suitable for high performance, high revving engines?

 

[TheNerdyPotato]

Does Valvematic only affect valve lift or does it also affect valve duration?

Also is Valvematic suitable for high performance, high revving engines?

It does affect duration. During low lift events, it only uses the tip of the cam lobe, resulting in low duration. As lift increases it uses more of the wider lobe base which increases duration, but not duration at or near max lift. The exact characteristics will depend on the shape of the cam profile (concave, convex, etc...)

I'm not sure about high-revving engines. It would add some difficulty because the worm gear rockers add reciprocating mass to the valvetrain, but I don't think this is an insurmountable problem. I guess it does also matter what you mean by "high-revving" because there's a big difference between 7-8k rpm and the LFA screaming to 9k because the forces increase exponentially with engine speed.

 

[Gecko]

I still don't understand two things:

1) Placement/execution of V35A-FTS. Comparatively, it lives in no mans land as it's bigger and more powerful than other V6s but well short of competitive V8s.
2) The theoretical coexistence of a 2.4/2.5L T/TT I4 and a mainstream workhorse V6 of 3-3.5 liters, likely with forced induction.

For comparison:
V35A-FTS produces 118hp/L (416hp @ 3.5L)
8AR-FTS: 120hp/L (241hp @ 2.0L)
Average: 119hp/L

Theoretically @ 119 hp/L:
2.4L T/TT I4: 286hp
2.5L T/TT I4: 298hp
3.0L T/TT V6: 357hp
3.5L T/TT V6: 416hp
4.0L T/TT V8: 476hp

We all know that with forced induction, it's much easier to manage different tunes of the same engine with varying degrees of boost, so there is tremendous upside for any of these engines, and especially for high performance variants. Many competitors now have 2.0T engines producing 275-300+hp, and 2.0T I4 is probably the most important global internal combustion engine as it's the most tax-friendly and also serves as the base engine for most models. So if a 2.0T can be scaled up to, say conservatively, 280hp, why do we even need 2.4L or 2.5L I4 producing 280-310hp? Unless that engine is tuned more aggressively than V35A-FTS or 8AR-FTS (as a theoretical revised 2.0T would be), I just don't get it.

At the same time, there needs to be a 300+hp engine for use in: "higher performance" NX, IS, RC, "base" RX and GX potentially base LS/LC/LX, LF-1 depending on the market. This would also be the workhorse engine for 4Runner, Highlander, Tacoma and base for Tundra and Sequoia. At 119hp/L, that comes out to something like 357-416hp depending on displacement, single turbo or dual turbo, specific tune, etc. So let's say the theoretical 2.4L/2.5L T/TT I4 is given a power boost to differentiate it from the lower 2.0T I4... why would we bother with that engine if the V6 will be producing the same amount of power or more?

Furthermore, between 2.0 and 3.9 liters of displacement, isn't the tax burden mostly the same in Europe/Asia? I could be wrong and can't find a tax breakdown online. If the tax burden is the same between 2.4 and 3.5 liters of displacement - regardless of cylinder count - why would you bother with a larger displacement 4 cylinder when you could just opt for a smaller displacement, smoother, less stressed V6 with the exact same financial implication?

I see a lot of overlap between 2.4L/2.5L T or TT I4 and a 3.0L T V6 or 3.5L NA V6, and just don't understand the rationale for having both. I think Toyota knows that SUV and truck buyers will be a hard sell on a smaller displacement turbo I4 instead of their V6, so maybe they plan to force them to live with the GR for another decade and hope they'll see the benefits in a turbo 4 over time. I really don't know but I don't see 4Runner, Tacoma, Highlander, GX and RX customers being excited about a turbocharged 4 cylinder regardless of the power output.

In my view, Toyota/Lexus could really use:

2.0L T I4: ~270-300hp
Lexus applications: UX F, NX 350, IS 350, ES 350, RC 350, base RX 350 for global markets
Toyota applications: Base engine for 4Runner/Tacoma/Highlander/Supra, optional on Rav4 GR/TRD

3.0/3.5L T/TT V6: ~360-400hp
Lexus applications: NX 450, base RX 450 for USA, GX 450, IS 450, ES 450, RC 450, LS 450
Toyota applications: Optional on 4Runner/Tacoma/Highlander, base on Tundra/Sequoia/Land Cruiser

4.0L T V8: ~450 - 500hp
Lexus applications: LS 550, LC 550, LX 550, LF-1 "550", IS F, RC F (if ever on GA-L, RX F)
Toyota applications: Optional on Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser

4.0L TT V8: ~600-625hp
Lexus applications: LS F, LC F, LF-1 F, LX F


Just trying to understand how this will all make sense because as I opened this post with, 2.4/2.5L I4 don't make any sense to me, and nor does the execution of the V35A-FTS.

 

[F1 Silver Arrows]

1) Placement/execution of V35A-FTS. Comparatively, it lives in no mans land as it's bigger and more powerful than other V6s but well short of competitive V8s.
2) The theoretical coexistence of a 2.4/2.5L T/TT I4 and a mainstream workhorse V6 of 3-3.5 liters, likely with forced induction.

To address your confusion, when Jeff Bracken presented the LS500 at NAIAS 2017, he said it would beat the competitors V8's. But not just any V8 engines, more so the Naturally Aspirated units that are found in cars like the Lexus LS460, Genesis (Budget Hyundai) G90, and very low level turbo engines like the 4.7L TT V8 that was in the pre-facelift W222 S-Class.

The coexistence works perfectly fine. Don't worry. I and a couple of others (including Lexus themselves) have stressed the fact that they like to have their cars understressed. I even made a post about this too in the LC-C thread. A 2.0L is still viable, but why not have a larger Twin-Turbocharged 4-cylinder engine and have the same power figures? You also have more opportunities in tuning as well. You can also get greater torque figures too because of the larger bore/stroke. There are a plethora of factors I have to explain JUST about this part of your question, which would result in a massive essay, but I know you have an aptitude towards engineering when we discuss things, so I don't need to explain it, nor do I really want to because I have to list everything (I'm a perfectionist, so yeahhh). Long story short, it makes plenty sense, ESPECIALLY for a brand like Lexus. Just go with it. Trust me and Lexus on this. They will put in a lot of work so even if they try to stress the engine, it will be bombproof. They have plenty experience with forced-induction engines, though not as world renowned as their naturally aspirated engines (exception to this is the 2JZ-GTE), will still knock it out of the park.

We all know that with forced induction, it's much easier to manage different tunes of the same engine with varying degrees of boost, so there is tremendous upside for any of these engines, and especially for high performance variants. Many competitors now have 2.0T engines producing 275-300+hp, and 2.0T I4 is probably the most important global internal combustion engine as it's the most tax-friendly and also serves as the base engine for most models. So if a 2.0T can be scaled up to, say conservatively, 280hp, why do we even need 2.4L or 2.5L I4 producing 280-310hp? Unless that engine is tuned more aggressively than V35A-FTS or 8AR-FTS (as a theoretical revised 2.0T would be), I just don't get it.

You have discussed a point very similar to a point that I made and it was in regards to tuneability. I'll reiterate from what I said above. For example, why is Toyota so adamant for Naturally Aspirated power units for all the reasons that we know but the new Toyota Supra will mark a new generation for mass-produced turbocharged engines across the lineup? Well, they over-engineer the living crap out of everything (you know, The Toyota Way [pun intended ]). Toyota and Lexus do everything to address the big elephants in the room, and that is reliability, durability, dependability, comfort, and high performance. Hell, they are so god damn meticulous and AMAZING in making things to perfection. Now I am straying off, the 2.4 L/2.5 L engines make more sense because of what I talked about in this and the paragraph before. You will be able to venture into regions with more power and torque, just because you can right? You have a larger engine, better technology, and all that insanity will be managed in a controlled manner (Porsche style [old Toyota style too]). You ask why not with 2.0 L engines? Like I mentioned before, there is a lot more ideas and opportunities you can work with under those configurations unlike the 2.0 L engines. You can undercut higher level competitors and spank them in terms of engineering (performance mainly LOL).

At the same time, there needs to be a 300+hp engine for use in: "higher performance" NX, IS, ES, RC, "base" RX and GX potentially base LS/LC/LX, LF-1 depending on the market. This would also be the workhorse engine for 4Runner, Highlander, Tacoma and base for Tundra and Sequoia. At 119hp/L, that comes out to something like 357-416hp depending on displacement, single turbo or dual turbo, specific tune, etc. So let's say the theoretical 2.4L/2.5L T/TT I4 is given a power boost to differentiate it from the lower 2.0T I4... why would we bother with that engine if the V6 will be producing the same amount of power or more?

There will never be any high-performance FWD models if they don't have a extremely good AWD system or switch to RWD period. I assume you mean the future 300+ HP engines will be 4-cylinders for higher power BOF cars? I doubt it. Toyota is moving towards pushing a lot more power and bottom line, staying with V6 engines with the option of a V8. I wouldn't be surprised if they put in the 4-cylinder as a base model, but I feel the V6 would have the higher take rate in the smaller BOF trucks/car based vehicles like 4-Runner/Tacoma/Highlander/Sienna, and the V8 engines for the Sequoia/Land Cruiser/Tundra. I don't think the Twin-Turbocharged units will come in the smaller vehicles like the first set I mentioned above, and will come with the Naturally Aspirated 301 HP V6 as a last hurrah. The larger ones I wouldn't be surprised if all new engine configurations come across those cars. The workhorse engine would probably be the NA V6/TT I4/TT V6 (for larger cars) for the next generation. The generation after that, I wouldn't be surprised if they go other ways. At this point, they could do anything. In terms of Lexus, I am thinking of the mind of the enthusiast, is to base all of their cars with a RWD system and have a damn amazing AWD system at the same time (similar to the SH-AWD or Quattro). Then, they follow Mercedes-Benz's basic playbook except they do it in Lexus style. Also forget about single turbocharging and Twin-Turbocharging the same engine (only exception is the I4 engines), it would case too much complications within their lineup. One of the last things you want to do is to confuse a customer.

Furthermore, between 2.0 and 4.0 liters of displacement, isn't the tax burden mostly the same in Europe/Asia? I could be wrong and can't find a tax breakdown online. If the tax burden is the same between 2.4 and 3.5 liters of displacement - regardless of cylinder count - why would you bother with a larger displacement 4 cylinder when you could just opt for a smaller displacement, smoother, less stressed V6 with the exact same financial implication?

I thought those tax-based countries are going more lenient in the coming years? So it shouldn't be an issue? Not sure to be honest. If so, then you shouldn't worry about it.

I see a lot of overlap between 2.4L/2.5L T or TT I4 and a 3.0L T V6 or 3.5L NA V6, and just don't understand the rationale for having both. I think Toyota knows that SUV and truck buyers will be a hard sell on a smaller displacement turbo I4 instead of their V6, so maybe they plan to force them to live with the GR for another decade and hope they'll see the benefits in a turbo 4 over time. I really don't know but I don't see 4Runner, Tacoma, Highlander, GX and RX customers being excited about a turbocharged 4 cylinder regardless of the power output.

You're 100% right about this one, except one thing. Just expel the thought of a 3.0L engine out of your mind. It's not going to happen. Just focus on the 3.5 L engines. I totally understand from where you're coming from, but in my humble opinion it's not worth stressing this because they already went the 3.5 L route.

In my view, Toyota/Lexus could really use:

2.0L T I4: ~280-300hp
Lexus applications: UX F, NX 350, IS 350, ES 350, RC 350, base RX 350 for global markets
Toyota applications: Base engine for 4Runner/Tacoma/Highlander/Supra, optional on Rav4 GR/TRD

3.0/3.5L T/TT V6: ~360-400hp
Lexus applications: NX 450, base RX 450 for USA, GX 450, IS 450, ES 450, RC 450, LS 450
Toyota applications: Optional on 4Runner/Tacoma/Highlander, base on Tundra/Sequoia/Land Cruiser

4.0L T V8: ~450 - 500hp
Lexus applications: LS 550, LC 550, LX 550, LF-1 "550", IS F, RC F (if ever on GA-L, RX F)
Toyota applications: Optional on Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser

4.0L TT V8: ~600-625hp
Lexus applications: LS F, LC F, LF-1 F, LX F

I'll edit that a little.

2.0L 2.4 L/2.5 L I4 T or TT (we don't know for sure): ~280-300hp
Lexus applications: UX F, NX 350, IS 350, ES 350, RC 350, GS 350, GX350, base RX 350 for global markets
Toyota applications: Base engine for 4Runner/Tacoma/Highlander/Supra, optional on Rav4 GR/TRD, (possibly Sienna too???)

3.0/3.5L T/TT V6: ~360- ~400+hp
Lexus applications: NX 450, base RX 450 for USA, GX 450, IS 450, ES 450, RC 450, LS 450, GS 450, LC 450, LX 450, LF-1 450 (I guess we're going to bring the denominations down from 500 [the LS and LC] to 450)
Toyota applications: Optional on 4Runner/Tacoma/Highlander, base on Tundra/Sequoia/Land Cruiser, (possibly Sienna too???), RAV4 could also make an appearance here

4.0L T V8: ~450 - 500hp
Lexus applications: LS 550, LC 550, LX 550, LF-1 "550", IS F, RC F (if ever on GA-L, RX F) (You can do that if you want to confuse your customers, though I think that's an interesting idea to be honest )
Toyota applications: Optional on Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser

4.0L TT V8: ~600-625hp AND (mid 500 HP range) --> so we're looking at two guises here
Lexus applications: LS F, LC F, LF-1 F, LX F, NX F (if we're looking at this like Mercedes-Benz), RX F (same what I said for NX), IS F, RC F, GS F, ES F (same what I said for NX), GX F and then...... go for the lower tune V8 engine for the ES 500/RX 500 all the way to the flagship models.


And that's how they will have a successful lineup.

 

[ssun30]

120hp(90kW)/L is a very Toyota-esque specific power target. For turbocharged engines, having a low downsizing factor is always beneficial for drivability, peak efficiency, and durability. Toyota picked a common 'middle ground' downsizing factor (1.5). It has nothing to do with their competence. Competitors aimed for 100-110kW(130-150hp)/L to have the downsized engine cover more applications. Toyota just doesn't want to go that far and compensate with raw displacement, hence the 3.5L and 2.5L.

Mazda had a even more modest target of 100hp/L with their turbocharged Skyactiv engine in order to keep the compression ratio high. That 2.5T is a very well reviewed engine compared to some questionable 2.0Ts from competitors.

Specific power is just a number and tells nothing about actual performance. There are too many 250hp 2.0Ts in the market. Some are excellent, some are abysmal. In my example, the 248hp Volvo T5 is absolutely dreadful: intolerable lag, non-existent torque below 2500rpm, and terrible NVH.

 

[Gecko]

To address your confusion, when Jeff Bracken presented the LS500 at NAIAS 2017, he said it would beat the competitors V8's. But not just any V8 engines, more so the Naturally Aspirated units that are found in cars like the Lexus LS460, Genesis (Budget Hyundai) G90, and very low level turbo engines like the 4.7L TT V8 that was in the pre-facelift W222 S-Class.

The problem here is that naturally aspirated V8s are basically a thing of the past in Lexus' competitive set, so yes, the V35A-FTS is in an awkward position in the market. It's been brought up before, but the gestation of the LS was so long that I think originally - yes, a 3.5L TT V6 would have competed well when the S Class and 7er were making 400-430hp, but by the time the LS launched, everyone else was in the realm of 450+ and climbing higher. Similarly, we now have V6s of 380-400hp in compact and midsize cars, so the V35A-FTS actually is quite timely.... but maybe not particularly timely as a flagship engine, if that's what Lexus has planned for it.

I do not mean for this to be an discussion about the LS - it's more about the competitive placement and future of that particular engine in relation to the rest of the lineup. If history is any indication, LS engines will be flagship engines, so that means the V35A-FTS will probably be shared with the LX, Toyota's full size BOF offerings and we can expect some other future products like LF-1. This is why I DON'T think they will simply drop the engine into the IS, 4Runner and everything else, and there could be a lower level V6 engine.

The coexistence works perfectly fine. Don't worry. I and a couple of others (including Lexus themselves) have stressed the fact that they like to have their cars understressed. I even made a post about this too in the LC-C thread. A 2.0L is still viable, but why not have a larger Twin-Turbocharged 4-cylinder engine and have the same power figures?

Because from an international business perspective, that simply makes no sense. 2.0L is most important for global markets that have significant tax implications at 2.1L or higher. If you could buy an IS with a 2.0T that made 280hp but cost you $3k a year in tax, or an IS with a 2.5T with 280hp but cost you $10k a year in tax, which do you choose? 99.9% of consumers choose option 1 and Lexus is a business - they know this.

You have discussed a point very similar to a point that I made and it was in regards to tuneability. I'll reiterate from what I said above. For example, why is Toyota so adamant for Naturally Aspirated power units for all the reasons that we know but the new Toyota Supra will mark a new generation for mass-produced turbocharged engines across the lineup? Well, they over-engineer the living crap out of everything (you know, The Toyota Way [pun intended ]). Toyota and Lexus do everything to address the big elephants in the room, and that is reliability, durability, dependability, comfort, and high performance. Hell, they are so god damn meticulous and AMAZING in making things to perfection. Now I am straying off, the 2.4 L/2.5 L engines make more sense because of what I talked about in this and the paragraph before. You will be able to venture into regions with more power and torque, just because you can right? You have a larger engine, better technology, and all that insanity will be managed in a controlled manner (Porsche style [old Toyota style too]). You ask why not with 2.0 L engines? Like I mentioned before, there is a lot more ideas and opportunities you can work with under those configurations unlike the 2.0 L engines. You can undercut higher level competitors and spank them in terms of engineering (performance mainly LOL).

I am not sure that you are understanding my point here. If Toyota is already going to need to engineer a mainstream workhorse V6 for products like 4Runner, Highlander, Tacoma, GX, RX... why would it make sense to also engineer a completely different engine with similar output but that is more complicated and less durable (a 4 cylinder turbo will be less smooth, durable, reliable than a small V6 of the same output). The only justification I can think of is if the tax burden goes up significantly between 2.6 and 3.0L or 3.5L. Then, a larger displacement 2.4/2.5L engine will be advantageous over a 3.0L+ engine, even if they produce the same amount of power. Maybe someone like @spwolf can explain the displacement taxes to us.

There will never be any high-performance FWD models if they don't have a extremely good AWD system or switch to RWD period. I assume you mean the future 300+ HP engines will be 4-cylinders for higher power BOF cars? I doubt it. Toyota is moving towards pushing a lot more power and bottom line, staying with V6 engines with the option of a V8.

We are here in the age of 300+hp Camry, so I would not say "never." If history is any indication, cost sharing between Toyota and Lexus works well for Toyota because cars like Camry, Avalon and Highlander get large, sophisticated, powerful engines since they are platform-mates with RX and ES. Lexus will have to push higher in the future, especially for RX. I expect some trickle down effect at Toyota. My whole point is that I do not see Toyota putting a turbo 4 under the hood of the 4Runner, Highlander, Tacoma, RX or GX (at least in North America) for quite a while.

2GR-FKS in the Tacoma has been very unpopular with owners/shoppers as it has a very sedan-like torque curve and power delivery. Many 4Runner owners are dreading this engine coming to the 4Runner for this very reason - it's a higher horsepower engine that's higher revving but low on torque. Pretty much exactly what you don't want for an actual work truck or heavy BOF vehicle. Toyota could very well say, "screw it" and drop the 301hp V6 underhood, but it would be nice if they didn't.

In terms of Lexus, I am thinking of the mind of the enthusiast, is to base all of their cars with a RWD system and have a damn amazing AWD system at the same time (similar to the SH-AWD or Quattro). Then, they follow Mercedes-Benz's basic playbook except they do it in Lexus style. Also forget about single turbocharging and Twin-Turbocharging the same engine (only exception is the I4 engines), it would case too much complications within their lineup. One of the last things you want to do is to confuse a customer.

This will simply never happen as Lexus' bread and butter - ES, RX, NX and upcoming UX - are all FWD. As GS is retired, ES prominence and importance will only grow.

I thought those tax-based countries are going more lenient in the coming years? So it shouldn't be an issue? Not sure to be honest. If so, then you shouldn't worry about it.

I haven't seen that... in fact, many of them are starting to ban ICE completely in large cities. Source?


2.0L 2.4 L/2.5 L I4 T or TT (we don't know for sure): ~280-300hp
Lexus applications: UX F, NX 350, IS 350, ES 350, RC 350, GS 350, GX350, base RX 350 for global markets
Toyota applications: Base engine for 4Runner/Tacoma/Highlander/Supra, optional on Rav4 GR/TRD, (possibly Sienna too???)
The 2.4/2.5L I4 will never replace the 2.0T because of global taxes on displacement, as mentioned above.

3.0/3.5L T/TT V6: ~360- ~400+hp
Lexus applications: NX 450, base RX 450 for USA, GX 450, IS 450, ES 450, RC 450, LS 450, GS 450, LC 450, LX 450, LF-1 450 (I guess we're going to bring the denominations down from 500 [the LS and LC] to 450)
Toyota applications: Optional on 4Runner/Tacoma/Highlander, base on Tundra/Sequoia/Land Cruiser, (possibly Sienna too???), RAV4 could also make an appearance here
There will never be a 416hp 4Runner, Tacoma, Highlander, etc. if for no other reason than that engine is way too expensive for mainstream $35-50k applications. 3.5L TT V6 is good as an option on higher trims of Tundra, Sequoia and Land Cruiser - that part is logical. Those vehicles all still need a base engine though - that's logically the optional or standard engine on 4Runner, Tacoma, Highlander, etc.

4.0L T V8: ~450 - 500hp
Lexus applications: LS 550, LC 550, LX 550, LF-1 "550", IS F, RC F (if ever on GA-L, RX F) (You can do that if you want to confuse your customers, though I think that's an interesting idea to be honest )
Toyota applications: Optional on Tundra, Sequoia, Land Cruiser
The more that I think about it, I believe Toyota truly sees the V35A-FTS as their corporate replacement for a flexible, workhorse V8, so this probably won't happen at all. I simply included it as an engine that is a missed opportunity. Tundra will probably be the highest volume vehicle needing a 400+hp engine, and they already have that with the TT V6. I assume Toyota will say that engine is "good enough" and let it stand with no other uplevel option.

4.0L TT V8: ~600-625hp AND (mid 500 HP range) --> so we're looking at two guises here
Lexus applications: LS F, LC F, LF-1 F, LX F, NX F (if we're looking at this like Mercedes-Benz), RX F (same what I said for NX), IS F, RC F, GS F, ES F (same what I said for NX), GX F and then...... go for the lower tune V8 engine for the ES 500/RX 500 all the way to the flagship models.
What? lol

 

[Gecko]

120hp(90kW)/L is a very Toyota-esque specific power target. For turbocharged engines, having a low downsizing factor is always beneficial for drivability, peak efficiency, and durability. Toyota picked a common 'middle ground' downsizing factor (1.5). It has nothing to do with their competence. Competitors aimed for 100-110kW(130-150hp)/L to have the downsized engine cover more applications. Toyota just doesn't want to go that far and compensate with raw displacement, hence the 3.5L and 2.5L.

Thanks for your insight, as always.

I'm curious to know what you think about all of this? Do you think a 2.4 or 2.5L I4 becomes the replacement for the GR V6? If so, at 285-300hp, it just doesn't offer much of an upgrade over the GR and Toyota already has the 2GR-FKS at that power level which is a great engine as it stands.

Even though it would also be in relative "no mans land" in a competitive sense, a 3.0L turbo V6 with say 355hp and 375lb-ft of torque would be a perfect engine for RX, GX, LF-1, IS, RC, upmarket ES option, 4Runner, Highlander, Tacoma, Sienna, base Tundra, etc. I'd love to see something like that happen. It seems logical, but almost too good to be true.

 

[ssun30]

Well luckily for Lexus, its competitors are pushing 400hp-class six-cylinder full-size sedans as well. In that respect, we can say Lexus accidentally jump-started with the LS500. But they certainly didn't plan to do so. The problem is, the competitors have V8s, Lexus doesn't. Competitors also have V12s and plug-ins, the 600h is no more. It's not that the V35A-FTS is a bad flagship engine, Lexus doesn't have a flagship yet.

 

[peterharvey]

If you could buy an IS with a 2.0T that made 280hp but cost you $3k a year in tax, or an IS with a 2.5T with 280hp but cost you $10k a year in tax, which do you choose?

Apart from high specific power output, low stress, and tax implications - of engine displacements, I think Lexus needs to further consider the NVH implications of the larger capacity/displacement turbos.
The larger the engine capacity, the greater the reciprocating mass, and therefore the greater the noise vibration harshness NVH.

For example, the Mazda CX-9 2.5T that I tested last year was okay at small throttle openings, but at large throttle openings, it was loud & coarse revving.

Likewise, apart from my Mercedes 90 degree V6's from the previous decade, my current 4GS 3.5 V6 is the roughest idling & coarsest V6 I have ever owned over the past 30 years.
The previous five 3.0 and one 2.5 V6 that I owned idled reasonably well, and were silky smooth to rev.

 

[ssun30]

Thanks for your insight, as always.

I'm curious to know what you think about all of this? Do you think a 2.4 or 2.5L I4 becomes the replacement for the GR V6? If so, at 285-300hp, it just doesn't offer much of an upgrade over the GR and Toyota already has the 2GR-FKS at that power level which is a great engine as it stands.

Even though it would also be in relative "no mans land" in a competitive sense, a 3.0L turbo V6 with say 355hp and 375lb-ft of torque would be a perfect engine for RX, GX, LF-1, IS, RC, upmarket ES option, 4Runner, Highlander, Tacoma, Sienna, base Tundra, etc. I'd love to see something like that happen. It seems logical, but almost too good to be true.

The only thing that matters is pricing structure. If the 2.5T is the base engine for the IS, it will wipe the floor with the 330i, for example. It doesn't matter, at that point, whether it replaces the 2GR well. Being in the no man's land is actually helpful if it means a competitive advantage. That's what happened with the original XV40 ES350: there was nothing to compare it to.

The same goes for the V35A-FTS IS, if it is priced against the 340i, it will beat it with ease.

 

[Gecko]

The only thing that matters is pricing structure. If the 2.5T is the base engine for the IS, it will wipe the floor with the 330i, for example. It doesn't matter, at that point, whether it replaces the 2GR well. Being in the no man's land is actually helpful if it means a competitive advantage. That's what happened with the original XV40 ES350: there was nothing to compare it to.

The same goes for the V35A-FTS IS, if it is priced against the 340i, it will beat it with ease.

It just seems weird to think that Lexus would abandon the 2.0T as base when there are so many markets that need it. Is it possible that Lexus plans for hybrid models to effectively replace the 2.0T for markets with displacement tax? I really don't know enough about the displacement tax structure in Europe and Asia to make any informed guesses - you guys know more than I do.

It seems to me that you are saying we could have something like:

IS 300h - hybrid option, 2.5L I4 hybrid with 215hp
"IS 350" - base engine, 2.4L turbo or twin turbo I4, ~285hp/310lb-ft of torque
"IS 450" - optional engine, 3.5L TT V6 with 416hp/443lb-ft of torque

... a similar structure could work for NX and RC as well. If so, I like this idea very much. I am just not sure what engine goes into Highlander, 4Runner, Tacoma, RX, GX, base Tundra, base Sequoia, etc. Maybe I am too stuck on the past where GR V6 was the common thread between almost every vehicle in the lineup. Maybe they'll shove 2.5L T under the hood of all of those and just expect consumers to live with it as a V6 replacement?