Toyota to OverHaul Engines
10-12-13, 06:06 AM
#46
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're full of **** IMO. Either that or you were driving around with a major mechanical problem in your Rav-4 the whole time.
Went to Car and Driver's website for some truth:
1. 2006 Toyota Rav4 Limited, v6, AWD. 269hp/246 lb-ft torque 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, 0-100 in 17.0, quarter mile 14.9@94mph The car weighs 3660lbs Fuel economy is rated at 20 city/27 highway, Car and Driver got 16mpg.
2. 2013 Ford Escape Titanium, AWD, 2.0 inline four, turbochaged. 240hp/270 lb-ft torque, 0-60 in 7.0 seconds, 0-100mph in 19.6 seconds, quarter mile 15.3@90mph Curb weight is 3804lbs Fuel economy is rated 21city/28 highway, Car and Driver got 19mpg
Seriously, I have a lot of seat time in a 2012 Camry with the same 2GR-FE engine as in that 2006 Rav4. That car absolutely hauls A@@. It has torque down low, it sings at 5000+rpm at 100mph+, its also one of the most refined, smooth, quietest engines I've ever driven. Plus it gets AWESOME fuel economy. 30mpg driving at 75mph. I don't believe you when you say that engine was gutless at low rpm, or slow in the Rav4, despite that SUV weighing maybe 200-400lbs more than a Camry. It does all that without using direct injection or a turbo. For a FWD application, this is BY FAR my favorite engine out on the market right now, and its been around since 2005. Also I'd never buy a new Rav4, since they dropped this engine and they're now only 4 cylinder.
Long live the big displacement engines IMO. Turbos are great, until you get 100k+ miles on them, where there are so many more parts to fail on them. Wastegate, intercooler, turbo bearings, oil cooler lines, etc. Plus the turbo IS GUARANTEED to fail prematurely if you don't change the oil on time and use the wrong oil(ie non-synthetic). Something a lot of idiot midsize sedan drivers are guilty of.
Went to Car and Driver's website for some truth:
1. 2006 Toyota Rav4 Limited, v6, AWD. 269hp/246 lb-ft torque 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, 0-100 in 17.0, quarter mile 14.9@94mph The car weighs 3660lbs Fuel economy is rated at 20 city/27 highway, Car and Driver got 16mpg.
2. 2013 Ford Escape Titanium, AWD, 2.0 inline four, turbochaged. 240hp/270 lb-ft torque, 0-60 in 7.0 seconds, 0-100mph in 19.6 seconds, quarter mile 15.3@90mph Curb weight is 3804lbs Fuel economy is rated 21city/28 highway, Car and Driver got 19mpg
Seriously, I have a lot of seat time in a 2012 Camry with the same 2GR-FE engine as in that 2006 Rav4. That car absolutely hauls A@@. It has torque down low, it sings at 5000+rpm at 100mph+, its also one of the most refined, smooth, quietest engines I've ever driven. Plus it gets AWESOME fuel economy. 30mpg driving at 75mph. I don't believe you when you say that engine was gutless at low rpm, or slow in the Rav4, despite that SUV weighing maybe 200-400lbs more than a Camry. It does all that without using direct injection or a turbo. For a FWD application, this is BY FAR my favorite engine out on the market right now, and its been around since 2005. Also I'd never buy a new Rav4, since they dropped this engine and they're now only 4 cylinder.
Long live the big displacement engines IMO. Turbos are great, until you get 100k+ miles on them, where there are so many more parts to fail on them. Wastegate, intercooler, turbo bearings, oil cooler lines, etc. Plus the turbo IS GUARANTEED to fail prematurely if you don't change the oil on time and use the wrong oil(ie non-synthetic). Something a lot of idiot midsize sedan drivers are guilty of.
Edit: Forgot to add that the Escape had MUCH shorter gearing than the RAV4 V6 does. Its second gear only his 50-55 mph, which gives you nice and strong corner exit performance especially with that much torque. The RAV4 is hobbled with relatively weaker low-end torque and having to pull a 70+ mph 2nd gear out of a slow corner. 270 lb-ft of torque pulling a shorter and more aggressive gear out of a slow corner, vs probably not even 220 lb-ft at the low-end of a 2GR-FE while pulling a much longer gear. It's a huge difference in local and lower speed driving even though, ultimately, yes the RAV4 V6 is faster. Live out in the country and have plenty of open roads and little traffic? I'd probably prefer the V6. Here in cut-n-thrust suburbia where it's tough to ever get above 40-45 mph I'll take an engine that's torque rich in the low-end and mid-range, turbocharged or not, over whatever it makes up top or how fast it will get you to 100 mph any day. On top of that, Toyota's overall calibration of the V6 and 5-speed auto in the RAV4 was lousy. It's a much more polished combination in other vehicles like the Avalon.
Last edited by SteVTEC; 10-12-13 at 08:15 AM.
10-12-13, 07:24 AM
#47
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're full of **** IMO. Either that or you were driving around with a major mechanical problem in your Rav-4 the whole time.
Went to Car and Driver's website for some truth:
1. 2006 Toyota Rav4 Limited, v6, AWD. 269hp/246 lb-ft torque 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, 0-100 in 17.0, quarter mile 14.9@94mph The car weighs 3660lbs Fuel economy is rated at 20 city/27 highway, Car and Driver got 16mpg.
2. 2013 Ford Escape Titanium, AWD, 2.0 inline four, turbochaged. 240hp/270 lb-ft torque, 0-60 in 7.0 seconds, 0-100mph in 19.6 seconds, quarter mile 15.3@90mph Curb weight is 3804lbs Fuel economy is rated 21city/28 highway, Car and Driver got 19mpg
Seriously, I have a lot of seat time in a 2012 Camry with the same 2GR-FE engine as in that 2006 Rav4. That car absolutely hauls A@@. It has torque down low, it sings at 5000+rpm at 100mph+, its also one of the most refined, smooth, quietest engines I've ever driven. Plus it gets AWESOME fuel economy. 30mpg driving at 75mph. I don't believe you when you say that engine was gutless at low rpm, or slow in the Rav4, despite that SUV weighing maybe 200-400lbs more than a Camry. It does all that without using direct injection or a turbo. For a FWD application, this is BY FAR my favorite engine out on the market right now, and its been around since 2005. Also I'd never buy a new Rav4, since they dropped this engine and they're now only 4 cylinder.
Long live the big displacement engines IMO. Turbos are great, until you get 100k+ miles on them, where there are so many more parts to fail on them. Wastegate, intercooler, turbo bearings, oil cooler lines, etc. Plus the turbo IS GUARANTEED to fail prematurely if you don't change the oil on time and use the wrong oil(ie non-synthetic). Something a lot of idiot midsize sedan drivers are guilty of.
Went to Car and Driver's website for some truth:
1. 2006 Toyota Rav4 Limited, v6, AWD. 269hp/246 lb-ft torque 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, 0-100 in 17.0, quarter mile 14.9@94mph The car weighs 3660lbs Fuel economy is rated at 20 city/27 highway, Car and Driver got 16mpg.
2. 2013 Ford Escape Titanium, AWD, 2.0 inline four, turbochaged. 240hp/270 lb-ft torque, 0-60 in 7.0 seconds, 0-100mph in 19.6 seconds, quarter mile 15.3@90mph Curb weight is 3804lbs Fuel economy is rated 21city/28 highway, Car and Driver got 19mpg
Seriously, I have a lot of seat time in a 2012 Camry with the same 2GR-FE engine as in that 2006 Rav4. That car absolutely hauls A@@. It has torque down low, it sings at 5000+rpm at 100mph+, its also one of the most refined, smooth, quietest engines I've ever driven. Plus it gets AWESOME fuel economy. 30mpg driving at 75mph. I don't believe you when you say that engine was gutless at low rpm, or slow in the Rav4, despite that SUV weighing maybe 200-400lbs more than a Camry. It does all that without using direct injection or a turbo. For a FWD application, this is BY FAR my favorite engine out on the market right now, and its been around since 2005. Also I'd never buy a new Rav4, since they dropped this engine and they're now only 4 cylinder.
Long live the big displacement engines IMO. Turbos are great, until you get 100k+ miles on them, where there are so many more parts to fail on them. Wastegate, intercooler, turbo bearings, oil cooler lines, etc. Plus the turbo IS GUARANTEED to fail prematurely if you don't change the oil on time and use the wrong oil(ie non-synthetic). Something a lot of idiot midsize sedan drivers are guilty of.
Beautiful power plant it is. I think the secrets beneath the 2GR is the ultra low friction design and low reciprocating mass which gives it that glass smooth feeling. Truly unique and awesome.
10-12-13, 09:05 AM
#48
There is a good reason why naturally aspirated petrol engines are still the most popular drivetrain choice. They simply offer the best combination of initial cost, efficiency, long term reliability, and operating/maintenance cost.
Hybrids make zero financial sense, except maybe if the vehicle is being heavily used a taxi in NYC - and even then I have my doubts. Just utterly useless technology that can't go away soon enough.
Diesels are great for commercial trucks, as they often mean 10mpg vs 5mpg, and diesel powered trucks seem to keep their resale value higher. But past 100k miles they often become maintenance and repair nightmare, especially the newer clean diesels. For a budget passenger car they make even less sense than hybrids, at least here in the US.
Turbocharged petrol engines are great for performance, but don't even think about keeping one past 100k miles. They are just going to be complete money pits, whereas your average NA engine these days can go well past 200k. In my opinion, if you can afford a turbo charged performance car, and can afford to trade it for a new one every 3-4 years, do it. A turbo 6 or 8 cylinder from the German big three will pin you to your seat like nothing else. But if you are budget conscious, and considering a turbo 4 cylinder over NA 6 cylinder, by all means get the NA 6 cylinder. A turbo four might feel a bit more torqueish off the line, but it's going to be way less efficient, and continue to get less and less efficient with mileage, maintenance is going to be far more costly, and past 100k it will require major repairs, and which point it wont even make financial sense to keep the car.
Hybrids make zero financial sense, except maybe if the vehicle is being heavily used a taxi in NYC - and even then I have my doubts. Just utterly useless technology that can't go away soon enough.
Diesels are great for commercial trucks, as they often mean 10mpg vs 5mpg, and diesel powered trucks seem to keep their resale value higher. But past 100k miles they often become maintenance and repair nightmare, especially the newer clean diesels. For a budget passenger car they make even less sense than hybrids, at least here in the US.
Turbocharged petrol engines are great for performance, but don't even think about keeping one past 100k miles. They are just going to be complete money pits, whereas your average NA engine these days can go well past 200k. In my opinion, if you can afford a turbo charged performance car, and can afford to trade it for a new one every 3-4 years, do it. A turbo 6 or 8 cylinder from the German big three will pin you to your seat like nothing else. But if you are budget conscious, and considering a turbo 4 cylinder over NA 6 cylinder, by all means get the NA 6 cylinder. A turbo four might feel a bit more torqueish off the line, but it's going to be way less efficient, and continue to get less and less efficient with mileage, maintenance is going to be far more costly, and past 100k it will require major repairs, and which point it wont even make financial sense to keep the car.
Last edited by Och; 10-12-13 at 09:10 AM.
10-12-13, 09:17 AM
#49
In my opinion, it would be great if Toyota went with turbocharged engines for its Lexus division and kept Toyota engines NA. Clearly premium car buyers care about performance, and can afford to pay to play, and so Lexus needs turbo charged six and eight cylinders if they want to compete with the Germans. I say dump the useless hybrids and invest the R&D in the turbos.
10-12-13, 05:01 PM
#50
Lexus Fanatic
In my opinion, it would be great if Toyota went with turbocharged engines for its Lexus division and kept Toyota engines NA. Clearly premium car buyers care about performance, and can afford to pay to play, and so Lexus needs turbo charged six and eight cylinders if they want to compete with the Germans. I say dump the useless hybrids and invest the R&D in the turbos.
10-12-13, 09:12 PM
#52
look up Camry 4cly vs Camry Hybrid.
Drive both if possible.
You wont write same words again.
:-)
10-13-13, 01:18 AM
#53
Lexus Champion
In the case of the Camry, I'd choose the V6 (2GR engine) version over the hybrid anyday.
Similar to how I would pick a GS350 F-sport over the GS450h
10-13-13, 08:41 AM
#54
Lexus Fanatic
10-13-13, 08:52 AM
#55
Pole Position
Also he forgets that hybrids if used properly can increase performance : see the Toyota hybrids in Lemans, the Porsche hybrids. The 0 rev ie immediate torque of an electric motor can be highly addictive for a performance hound. Something that turbodiesels still can't quite replicate and the turbo-lag, no matter how small, is still noticeable compared to a well sorted NA engine or petrol-electric hybrid.
10-13-13, 07:03 PM
#56
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a good reason why naturally aspirated petrol engines are still the most popular drivetrain choice. They simply offer the best combination of initial cost, efficiency, long term reliability, and operating/maintenance cost.
Hybrids make zero financial sense, except maybe if the vehicle is being heavily used a taxi in NYC - and even then I have my doubts. Just utterly useless technology that can't go away soon enough.
Diesels are great for commercial trucks, as they often mean 10mpg vs 5mpg, and diesel powered trucks seem to keep their resale value higher. But past 100k miles they often become maintenance and repair nightmare, especially the newer clean diesels. For a budget passenger car they make even less sense than hybrids, at least here in the US.
Turbocharged petrol engines are great for performance, but don't even think about keeping one past 100k miles. They are just going to be complete money pits, whereas your average NA engine these days can go well past 200k. In my opinion, if you can afford a turbo charged performance car, and can afford to trade it for a new one every 3-4 years, do it. A turbo 6 or 8 cylinder from the German big three will pin you to your seat like nothing else. But if you are budget conscious, and considering a turbo 4 cylinder over NA 6 cylinder, by all means get the NA 6 cylinder. A turbo four might feel a bit more torqueish off the line, but it's going to be way less efficient, and continue to get less and less efficient with mileage, maintenance is going to be far more costly, and past 100k it will require major repairs, and which point it wont even make financial sense to keep the car.
Hybrids make zero financial sense, except maybe if the vehicle is being heavily used a taxi in NYC - and even then I have my doubts. Just utterly useless technology that can't go away soon enough.
Diesels are great for commercial trucks, as they often mean 10mpg vs 5mpg, and diesel powered trucks seem to keep their resale value higher. But past 100k miles they often become maintenance and repair nightmare, especially the newer clean diesels. For a budget passenger car they make even less sense than hybrids, at least here in the US.
Turbocharged petrol engines are great for performance, but don't even think about keeping one past 100k miles. They are just going to be complete money pits, whereas your average NA engine these days can go well past 200k. In my opinion, if you can afford a turbo charged performance car, and can afford to trade it for a new one every 3-4 years, do it. A turbo 6 or 8 cylinder from the German big three will pin you to your seat like nothing else. But if you are budget conscious, and considering a turbo 4 cylinder over NA 6 cylinder, by all means get the NA 6 cylinder. A turbo four might feel a bit more torqueish off the line, but it's going to be way less efficient, and continue to get less and less efficient with mileage, maintenance is going to be far more costly, and past 100k it will require major repairs, and which point it wont even make financial sense to keep the car.
10-13-13, 07:07 PM
#57
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody I know recently bought the new Mazda6, which is direct-injected and gets some pretty darned impressive fuel economy. They already own a hybrid, a Prius actually, and were considering all sorts of hybrids both Toyota and others, but ended up with the new Mazda6 for a whole lot less money than any hybrid and are still going to be saving a nice amount of fuel.
10-13-13, 09:57 PM
#58
you would pay more to get half the mpg? :-)
Compared to 4cly, Hybrid is a lot faster, quieter and gets 10+ MPG more... for small increase in price.
Compared to V6, it is slower, but gets 15-20 MPG more avg.
In Europe, nobody gets V6's anymore, fuel is simply too expensive and resale value is too low...
10-13-13, 10:06 PM
#59
Also he forgets that hybrids if used properly can increase performance : see the Toyota hybrids in Lemans, the Porsche hybrids. The 0 rev ie immediate torque of an electric motor can be highly addictive for a performance hound. Something that turbodiesels still can't quite replicate and the turbo-lag, no matter how small, is still noticeable compared to a well sorted NA engine or petrol-electric hybrid.
A four cylinder Camry is just simply a smarter buy for vast majority of shoppers, and if you don't believe me - check the cash register.
In a performance car, I'd take turbos over hybrid any time. Way too many drawbacks with hybrids, and for the most part performance is lacking compared to turbo engines with similar displacement.
10-13-13, 10:09 PM
#60
Went through all of that math when my parents bought their 2012 Camry. Forget the $4k MSRP difference, which is already a huge chunk of money. You can pretty much get the regular Camry at invoice price, whereas the Hybrids go for MSRP, at least when they were buying. Actual street price difference is $6000 to $8000. You will never make that kind of money up in fuel savings with the hybrid. You're not going to "save" any money, so yes it makes little financial sense. You'll certainly save fuel, but not 8-grand worth.
Somebody I know recently bought the new Mazda6, which is direct-injected and gets some pretty darned impressive fuel economy. They already own a hybrid, a Prius actually, and were considering all sorts of hybrids both Toyota and others, but ended up with the new Mazda6 for a whole lot less money than any hybrid and are still going to be saving a nice amount of fuel.
Somebody I know recently bought the new Mazda6, which is direct-injected and gets some pretty darned impressive fuel economy. They already own a hybrid, a Prius actually, and were considering all sorts of hybrids both Toyota and others, but ended up with the new Mazda6 for a whole lot less money than any hybrid and are still going to be saving a nice amount of fuel.
right now, MSRP difference is $3.5k, and with Hybrid you get more equipment and features like dual zone AC, acusting winshield, smart entry, nicer interior.
Plus more powerful and luxurious engine that gets 10 MPG more.
Back when you were shopping, Hybrid was just released, now they sell plenty per month.
Mazda6 still gets a lot lesser MPG than Camry hybrid or Prius.
In fact, here is the shocker - MotorTrend tested Mazda6 vs Camry 2.5l, and Camry got better mpg. So much for that eh?
