Toyota Turbo plans revealed at Tokyo
11-23-13, 11:45 AM
#16
Start Stop is stupid unless it's a hybrid.
Excerpt from Motor Trend's Kim Reynold's article 2012 BMW 528i Long - Term Update 2
Excerpt from Motor Trend's Kim Reynold's article 2012 BMW 528i Long - Term Update 2
The 40 mile trip required 1 hour and 36 minutes (averaging 25.5 mph), over which the Efficient Dynamics BMW returned 26.7 mpg. But here's the interesting number: 14.71 minutes of this 96-minute drive found the engine actually switched off. That's 15.3 percent, much more than I expected.
Of course that was 14.71 minutes of idling fuel consumption. To see how much gas was actually being saved, I measured the Mass Air Flow sensor while idling and, dividing by the stoichiometric ratio, found that it equates to 0.0041 gallons per minute (or about $0.017/min given the current price of premium fuel). All told I saved 0.06 gallons, 1.15 lbs of CO2, and about $.25 (yep, 25 cents). Notably, were I to have had the A/C on, that quarter in savings would be halved while my CO2 would double to 2.3 lbs. What's this do to my trips mpg?
To travel the 40 miles of frequent-stop commuting I burned 1.498 gallons ($6.22). Had, instead, the engine been idling while stopped, the total would have risen to 1.558 gallons, meaning the mileage would have dropped to 25.7 mpg (1 mpg worse). So that 15.3 % of my trip time spent not-idling ultimately meant 3.9 % percent less fuel consumed. For simplicity, let's just call it 4 percent. Is saving 4 percent in gasoline, $.25 in cost, and 1.15 lbs of CO2, worth 68 instances of car-wobbling engine stopping and restarting (34 episodes of Start/Stop)? I'm not sure.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2lV2fj7J6
Of course that was 14.71 minutes of idling fuel consumption. To see how much gas was actually being saved, I measured the Mass Air Flow sensor while idling and, dividing by the stoichiometric ratio, found that it equates to 0.0041 gallons per minute (or about $0.017/min given the current price of premium fuel). All told I saved 0.06 gallons, 1.15 lbs of CO2, and about $.25 (yep, 25 cents). Notably, were I to have had the A/C on, that quarter in savings would be halved while my CO2 would double to 2.3 lbs. What's this do to my trips mpg?
To travel the 40 miles of frequent-stop commuting I burned 1.498 gallons ($6.22). Had, instead, the engine been idling while stopped, the total would have risen to 1.558 gallons, meaning the mileage would have dropped to 25.7 mpg (1 mpg worse). So that 15.3 % of my trip time spent not-idling ultimately meant 3.9 % percent less fuel consumed. For simplicity, let's just call it 4 percent. Is saving 4 percent in gasoline, $.25 in cost, and 1.15 lbs of CO2, worth 68 instances of car-wobbling engine stopping and restarting (34 episodes of Start/Stop)? I'm not sure.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2lV2fj7J6
Last edited by nabbun; 11-23-13 at 11:49 AM.
11-23-13, 02:00 PM
#17
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
apparently new start/stop from Toyota has AC evap that lets it work long enough when engine is off, unlike old system... like it or not, it will come because of emission rules in europe and japan where it gives 5%-10% better CO2, which means less tax.
Last edited by spwolf; 11-23-13 at 03:52 PM.
11-23-13, 02:38 PM
#18
Driver
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of people claim that but it's simply not true, even on both of our Bimmers there's lag. There's not "lag" in the sense of 1970's/80's era turbo engines where the turbochargers simply wouldn't spool at all below 3000rpm and you had to keep them on boil, but there's definitely lag. The crisp throttle response of a nicely tuned N/A engine isn't there, and you don't pull away from a dead stop at idle with full torque on tap. Cruising around town in 3rd or 4th gear if you suddenly put your foot down when the light ahead turns yellow, the response can be a bit soft also. Physics are physics.
11-23-13, 02:43 PM
#19
Lexus Test Driver
How do they Balance it ? How do they make it last ?
Turbo is a system that Squeeze every bit out of the engine set up as much as possible, but it is not really a gas saver.
Hybrid is different. All of the "would have been wasted" Energy now can become Torque to help the car move, or grip, or both.
Now, that is Real saving.
People can complain about battery, but battery is an easy swap, and it ain't that expensive. I am not too sure about the Super capacitors
11-23-13, 06:39 PM
#22
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes there's no such thing as "no lag". having said that, BMW does nothing "new" with their turbo engines. this on the other hand is "new". integrating the exhaust manifold into the cylinder head is something yet to be done on a production car. this is a major step imo as i always wondered who will be the first to do this on a production car. the next step in turbo tech is widely available variable vane turbos. afaik only porsche/borg warner uses them on petrol engines due to the proprietary metallurgy of the vanes.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....ngine-copy.jpg
http://www.9thgencivic.com/forum/att...efr-turbos.jpg[
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....ngine-copy.jpg
http://www.9thgencivic.com/forum/att...efr-turbos.jpg[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_J_engine#J30A
Maybe this is the first turbo engine to have this feature.
BMW claimed at the time the N54 3.0L I-6 came out that they were using "special metallurgics" in their turbochargers that allowed them to withstand higher exhaust gas temps and in turn run leaner and more efficiently. Might be a thing or two there. They do have class-leading efficiency. Valvetronic is pretty snazzy too.
11-23-13, 07:00 PM
#23
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely! There are always be lag with turbo. Unless, supercharging it, but that waste 15% Power capability of the whole set up.
Also, Turbo Charger is not a Gas saver like people think. The more Air, the more Gas. Unless you are driving under the spool limit of the turbo.
Also, Turbo Charger is not a Gas saver like people think. The more Air, the more Gas. Unless you are driving under the spool limit of the turbo.
Key things:
- Direct Injection which allows 10:1 compression to be used, which helps maintain combustion efficiency even at light loads. With port injection you're in the 8 or 9:1 range which kills light load combustion efficiency. The new 320i is apparently running 11.0:1 compression and is a bit more efficient than the 328i is, which is already pretty impressive.
- Turbocharger that spools immediately means torque is available anywhere, and that you can pull taller gears whereas past turbo engines that didn't spool much or well below 3000 couldn't run gears like these. The smaller engine had to turn faster highway RPMs, which negated the friction advantages of say a 2.0L 4-cyl turbo over an N/A 3-3.5L class V6.
- Tuned for Premium Fuel. I'm convinced that this is where the American engines (esp. Ford) have gone wrong. All of the German turbo engines deliver great efficiency, and they're all designed for premium fuel. Lets them keep the ignition mapping as advanced as possible which helps to maintain peak combustion efficiency, whereas if you're mapped for regular you'll have to back off on timing.
But yes, a downside of turbo engines is that they can make LOTS of power just about anywhere, and if you're making more power you're burning more fuel. It's very easy to drive them grossly inefficiently. This is why I'm a huge diesel fan, because you can drive the snot out of them and still get pretty darned good fuel mileage.
11-23-13, 08:36 PM
#24
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Not true. Honda had exhaust manifolds integrated with the head in their J30A4 engine in 2003, 10 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_J_engine#J30A
Maybe this is the first turbo engine to have this feature.
BMW claimed at the time the N54 3.0L I-6 came out that they were using "special metallurgics" in their turbochargers that allowed them to withstand higher exhaust gas temps and in turn run leaner and more efficiently. Might be a thing or two there. They do have class-leading efficiency. Valvetronic is pretty snazzy too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_J_engine#J30A
Maybe this is the first turbo engine to have this feature.
BMW claimed at the time the N54 3.0L I-6 came out that they were using "special metallurgics" in their turbochargers that allowed them to withstand higher exhaust gas temps and in turn run leaner and more efficiently. Might be a thing or two there. They do have class-leading efficiency. Valvetronic is pretty snazzy too.
As to your 2nd post, compression is lowered on turbo engines for reliability reasons, as you surely know. for instance, latest efficient Mazda 2.0i has 14.0 compression.
Now, I am not sure how high Toyota will go, for enthusiasts, lower is actually better. Plus, they have widely different standard of what's considered reliable. For instance, WD UK showed that in 2012, Toyota engines were almost 5x more reliable and Lexus was 2.2x more reliable than BMW for major engine failures, and that's with awfully unreliable diesels from Toyota, which were simply disaster. Gotta wonder how bad is 2.2x worse.
Both BMW and Audi have best turbos by the numbers, but Japanese will have to balance that with reliability.
11-23-13, 09:46 PM
#25
Driver
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not true. Honda had exhaust manifolds integrated with the head in their J30A4 engine in 2003, 10 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_J_engine#J30A
Maybe this is the first turbo engine to have this feature.
BMW claimed at the time the N54 3.0L I-6 came out that they were using "special metallurgics" in their turbochargers that allowed them to withstand higher exhaust gas temps and in turn run leaner and more efficiently. Might be a thing or two there. They do have class-leading efficiency. Valvetronic is pretty snazzy too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_J_engine#J30A
Maybe this is the first turbo engine to have this feature.
BMW claimed at the time the N54 3.0L I-6 came out that they were using "special metallurgics" in their turbochargers that allowed them to withstand higher exhaust gas temps and in turn run leaner and more efficiently. Might be a thing or two there. They do have class-leading efficiency. Valvetronic is pretty snazzy too.
There's not really a such thing as "driving below the spool point" anymore. My 335i with its turbocharged 3.0L I-6 is significantly more efficient than say a Mercedes CLK 500 with a 5.0L V8 and the same level of performance.
Key things:
- Direct Injection which allows 10:1 compression to be used, which helps maintain combustion efficiency even at light loads. With port injection you're in the 8 or 9:1 range which kills light load combustion efficiency. The new 320i is apparently running 11.0:1 compression and is a bit more efficient than the 328i is, which is already pretty impressive.
- Turbocharger that spools immediately means torque is available anywhere, and that you can pull taller gears whereas past turbo engines that didn't spool much or well below 3000 couldn't run gears like these. The smaller engine had to turn faster highway RPMs, which negated the friction advantages of say a 2.0L 4-cyl turbo over an N/A 3-3.5L class V6.
- Tuned for Premium Fuel. I'm convinced that this is where the American engines (esp. Ford) have gone wrong. All of the German turbo engines deliver great efficiency, and they're all designed for premium fuel. Lets them keep the ignition mapping as advanced as possible which helps to maintain peak combustion efficiency, whereas if you're mapped for regular you'll have to back off on timing.
But yes, a downside of turbo engines is that they can make LOTS of power just about anywhere, and if you're making more power you're burning more fuel. It's very easy to drive them grossly inefficiently. This is why I'm a huge diesel fan, because you can drive the snot out of them and still get pretty darned good fuel mileage.
Key things:
- Direct Injection which allows 10:1 compression to be used, which helps maintain combustion efficiency even at light loads. With port injection you're in the 8 or 9:1 range which kills light load combustion efficiency. The new 320i is apparently running 11.0:1 compression and is a bit more efficient than the 328i is, which is already pretty impressive.
- Turbocharger that spools immediately means torque is available anywhere, and that you can pull taller gears whereas past turbo engines that didn't spool much or well below 3000 couldn't run gears like these. The smaller engine had to turn faster highway RPMs, which negated the friction advantages of say a 2.0L 4-cyl turbo over an N/A 3-3.5L class V6.
- Tuned for Premium Fuel. I'm convinced that this is where the American engines (esp. Ford) have gone wrong. All of the German turbo engines deliver great efficiency, and they're all designed for premium fuel. Lets them keep the ignition mapping as advanced as possible which helps to maintain peak combustion efficiency, whereas if you're mapped for regular you'll have to back off on timing.
But yes, a downside of turbo engines is that they can make LOTS of power just about anywhere, and if you're making more power you're burning more fuel. It's very easy to drive them grossly inefficiently. This is why I'm a huge diesel fan, because you can drive the snot out of them and still get pretty darned good fuel mileage.
2.) small turbos run out of breath in the upper rpm range. the article specifically says that toyota wanted to decrease lag by using the exhaust manifold cylinder heads so that they can run larger turbos.
Last edited by madfast; 11-23-13 at 10:01 PM.
11-24-13, 06:53 AM
#27
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't responding to the original article. And considering you're on boost pretty much as soon as you open the throttle on any turbo engine these days, dynamic compression starts rising from above the base whenever you're consuming any amount of fuel.
11-24-13, 10:12 AM
#29
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
yes i meant a turbo exhaust manifold. being that it's used in racing, it was only a matter of time before a production car used this design. im surprised that toyota looks to be the first. its a big step imo because they didnt just come out with a run of the mill DI turbo 4. instead they went and tried to improve upon it. instead of just DI perhaps they will use D4S? can they even add valvematic? combine this with the exhaust manifold cylinder head and i can see this engine being a winner...
1.) DI + turbo isnt new anymore. its basically the standard. even cheap kias have DI turbos. that's why this new turbo engine may be special. they went above and beyond simply slapping a turbo on a DI engine.
2.) small turbos run out of breath in the upper rpm range. the article specifically says that toyota wanted to decrease lag by using the exhaust manifold cylinder heads so that they can run larger turbos.
1.) DI + turbo isnt new anymore. its basically the standard. even cheap kias have DI turbos. that's why this new turbo engine may be special. they went above and beyond simply slapping a turbo on a DI engine.
2.) small turbos run out of breath in the upper rpm range. the article specifically says that toyota wanted to decrease lag by using the exhaust manifold cylinder heads so that they can run larger turbos.
Australian media write that Lexus head in PR conference that 2.0l was designed to have power of 3.5l V6 and "up to" 350nm.
Not sure what it means, they estimate 300hp and 350nm, but I dont think thats going to happen in NX... Maybe in some other model or maybe they will have several power outputs.
A 2.0-litre four-cylinder petrol unit incorporating both port- and direct-injection and variable valve timing, the new engine – confirmed by CarAdvice earlier this month to lob first in NX and likely wearing 200t badging on the production version – also scores a twin-scroll turbocharger with active wastegate valve and an exhaust manifold integrated into the cylinder head.
Although Lexus refuses to name outputs and emissions for the new engine, it has stated that “through optimisation of the exhaust gas temperature, the cylinder head-integrated exhaust manifold combines a high level of performance with fuel efficiency, clean exhaust emission reliability, while the twin scroll turbocharger operates effectively across the widest possible rev range”.
Lexus has released details of a new 2.0L turbo drivetrain in its LF-NX concept
Lexus also has confirmed that “the new LF-NX Turbo’s 2.0-litre engine paves the way for the introduction of turbocharged powerplants in future Lexus models” with the IS and GS sedan and RC coupe expected prime candidates.
It also hints at different displacements for the new engine family in the future, with Lexus managing directior Ise Kiyotaka telling CarAdvice at an event leading up to the Tokyo motor show that “the engine displacement may be large or relatively small depending on the application”.
Expected outputs for the 2.0-litre are around 220kW power and 350Nm torque, in line with Kiyotaka-san further indicating that large petrol V6 outputs can be expected from the new 2.0-litre turbo.
Although Lexus refuses to name outputs and emissions for the new engine, it has stated that “through optimisation of the exhaust gas temperature, the cylinder head-integrated exhaust manifold combines a high level of performance with fuel efficiency, clean exhaust emission reliability, while the twin scroll turbocharger operates effectively across the widest possible rev range”.
Lexus has released details of a new 2.0L turbo drivetrain in its LF-NX concept
Lexus also has confirmed that “the new LF-NX Turbo’s 2.0-litre engine paves the way for the introduction of turbocharged powerplants in future Lexus models” with the IS and GS sedan and RC coupe expected prime candidates.
It also hints at different displacements for the new engine family in the future, with Lexus managing directior Ise Kiyotaka telling CarAdvice at an event leading up to the Tokyo motor show that “the engine displacement may be large or relatively small depending on the application”.
Expected outputs for the 2.0-litre are around 220kW power and 350Nm torque, in line with Kiyotaka-san further indicating that large petrol V6 outputs can be expected from the new 2.0-litre turbo.
