When car media today talk about products from TMC, they have a habit of describing them as "conservatively equipped" mildly or more commonly "outdated". The thing is, TMC actually has one of the largest R&D budgets and lag behind no car company when it comes to technology. Even for EVs, their problem is more at the system integration and software level not at the technology level.
Toyota has a habit of developing a lot of technologies for various components of the car, but use them randomly across their lineup, only to abandon the technology some years later. Sometimes they use an unnecessarily expensive tech on a cheap car, compromising their reliability and cost, while their high-end products tend to be missing features that are standard on competing products. So I don't think "reducing cost" and "better reliability" are good defending arguments for this strange behavior.
Here are some examples:
>> Valvematic: this is the most well-engineered continuous variable valve lift (CVVL) system because it does not increase the heigh of the engine unlike Nissan VVEL and BMW Valvetronic. CVVL adds an extra dimension of valve control so the throttle valve could be completely eliminated and reduces pumping loss because there is no vacuum in the intake manifold. And if you are familiar with VTEC you know VVL also increases air flow at high rpm with the higher lift profile. The result is 3ZR-FAE (with Valvematic) could match the 6AR-FSE (both 2.0L I4 engines) in power, torque and efficiency without D-4S. It has a much lower compression ratio (10.0) compared to 6AR (12.7). So logically they use this technology on Corolla and RAV4, not something that could use better power and fuel efficiency like V8 trucks and sports cars.
>> VVT-iW: the wide-angle VVT-i adjustment allows the intake valve to close very late to simulate Miller cycle operation. It's quite important for products that are more fuel economy sensitive like, you know, pickup trucks and offroad SUVs. So logically Toyota omit it from T24 and V35 used on Tacoma/Tundra. And as a result got barely better fuel efficiency than the engines they replace (2GR and 2UR). Yet they have it on the G16E-GTS, a high performance engine used on very light cars, not a combination demanding the best fuel saving technology.
>> TVD: why would any RAV4 or Highlander owner care about exciting cornering performance offered by a torque vectoring differential? It's purely dead weight and an extra point of failure. And somehow the NX and RX F-Sport don't get it? Not combined with the GR-Four AWD system for GR Corolla?
>> VDIM: this was a very advanced handling package that improves the daily drivability of any car and doesn't come at a big cost. It was a very mature and reliable technology that used to be available on mid-range products like IS, GS, NX, RX, Highlander, Sienna etc since 2004. Today it's packaged with very expensive and unreliable features like rear steering and active stabilizers and only available on RC (but not IS) and LS/LC.
>> Multi-stage hybrid/grounding clutch system: before today's overly complicated 4-stage 500h system is the 2-stage 450h system used on GS and Crown. A 2-stage system could provide very good acceleration while not compromising highway fuel efficiency. 2- or 3-stage serial-parallel hybrid systems like Honda i-MMD and Geely DHT Pro are catching up to HSD despite Toyota's 2-decade head start in hybrid system calibration. And similarly, the Prius PHV used the grounding clutch system to increase acceleration and reduce electrical losses at highway speeds.
>> Parallel hybrid (iForce Max): I think a lot of people here complain Tundar/Sequoia gets iForce Max, but not LX. I used to think it's packaging (they couldn't find space in the LC300 chassis and are waiting more compact batteries), but the Tacoma/LC250 proved me wrong. And if it's a simpler system than 4-stage hybrid, why not on LS/LC?
>> A very advanced V6TT engine design: Toyota has all the ingredients to build a very advanced V6 engine for Lexus F cars and the Supra. It has a 90-degree hot-vee with two variable-geometry turbochargers in serial configuration (like the legendary 2JZ-GTE) and double-intake system. It improved specific output by 50% over an old twin-turbo design. All these sound like technologies forum armchair designers would cram into a sports car engine. This engine is called F33-FTV. Why does a diesel work horse need so much technology and such high specific output? But not on cars that had to use either an outdated V8 or I6 sourced from a competitor?
Toyota has a habit of developing a lot of technologies for various components of the car, but use them randomly across their lineup, only to abandon the technology some years later. Sometimes they use an unnecessarily expensive tech on a cheap car, compromising their reliability and cost, while their high-end products tend to be missing features that are standard on competing products. So I don't think "reducing cost" and "better reliability" are good defending arguments for this strange behavior.
Here are some examples:
>> Valvematic: this is the most well-engineered continuous variable valve lift (CVVL) system because it does not increase the heigh of the engine unlike Nissan VVEL and BMW Valvetronic. CVVL adds an extra dimension of valve control so the throttle valve could be completely eliminated and reduces pumping loss because there is no vacuum in the intake manifold. And if you are familiar with VTEC you know VVL also increases air flow at high rpm with the higher lift profile. The result is 3ZR-FAE (with Valvematic) could match the 6AR-FSE (both 2.0L I4 engines) in power, torque and efficiency without D-4S. It has a much lower compression ratio (10.0) compared to 6AR (12.7). So logically they use this technology on Corolla and RAV4, not something that could use better power and fuel efficiency like V8 trucks and sports cars.
>> VVT-iW: the wide-angle VVT-i adjustment allows the intake valve to close very late to simulate Miller cycle operation. It's quite important for products that are more fuel economy sensitive like, you know, pickup trucks and offroad SUVs. So logically Toyota omit it from T24 and V35 used on Tacoma/Tundra. And as a result got barely better fuel efficiency than the engines they replace (2GR and 2UR). Yet they have it on the G16E-GTS, a high performance engine used on very light cars, not a combination demanding the best fuel saving technology.
>> TVD: why would any RAV4 or Highlander owner care about exciting cornering performance offered by a torque vectoring differential? It's purely dead weight and an extra point of failure. And somehow the NX and RX F-Sport don't get it? Not combined with the GR-Four AWD system for GR Corolla?
>> VDIM: this was a very advanced handling package that improves the daily drivability of any car and doesn't come at a big cost. It was a very mature and reliable technology that used to be available on mid-range products like IS, GS, NX, RX, Highlander, Sienna etc since 2004. Today it's packaged with very expensive and unreliable features like rear steering and active stabilizers and only available on RC (but not IS) and LS/LC.
>> Multi-stage hybrid/grounding clutch system: before today's overly complicated 4-stage 500h system is the 2-stage 450h system used on GS and Crown. A 2-stage system could provide very good acceleration while not compromising highway fuel efficiency. 2- or 3-stage serial-parallel hybrid systems like Honda i-MMD and Geely DHT Pro are catching up to HSD despite Toyota's 2-decade head start in hybrid system calibration. And similarly, the Prius PHV used the grounding clutch system to increase acceleration and reduce electrical losses at highway speeds.
>> Parallel hybrid (iForce Max): I think a lot of people here complain Tundar/Sequoia gets iForce Max, but not LX. I used to think it's packaging (they couldn't find space in the LC300 chassis and are waiting more compact batteries), but the Tacoma/LC250 proved me wrong. And if it's a simpler system than 4-stage hybrid, why not on LS/LC?
>> A very advanced V6TT engine design: Toyota has all the ingredients to build a very advanced V6 engine for Lexus F cars and the Supra. It has a 90-degree hot-vee with two variable-geometry turbochargers in serial configuration (like the legendary 2JZ-GTE) and double-intake system. It improved specific output by 50% over an old twin-turbo design. All these sound like technologies forum armchair designers would cram into a sports car engine. This engine is called F33-FTV. Why does a diesel work horse need so much technology and such high specific output? But not on cars that had to use either an outdated V8 or I6 sourced from a competitor?
Last edited:
