Sulu

As an aside...

I am aware of 1AR (2.7-litre in Venza) and 2AR (2.5-litre in Camry, RAV4, ES 300h) engines, and now 8AR (2.0-litre) engine, but what / where are 3AR, 4AR, 5AR, 6AR and 7AR engines?

spwolf

As much as I know, there are 2.0, 2.5 and 2.7 AR series engines... so I dont think they filled all of the numbers. Toyota considers all of their new engines with this new technologies "all new", so maybe thats why the number 8 here. At the same time, new tech in 1.0 KR and 1.33 NR just added a letter, so who knows. All the engines are released in Japan only right now and there isnt that much information that makes sense from their journalists.

Sulu

Thanks, spwolf!

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

235hp and 258lbft. Right in the thick of the competition. Can't wait to sample a NX be it for training or Launch

SteVTEC

I've driven the BMW 2.0L Turbo engines numerous times in BMW loaner cars (328, X3, 528), and it's a fine engine. Not my cup of tea, especially in a 5-series, but make no mistake it's a FINE engine. The biggest thing I don't like about it is the sound. It sounds like a 4-banger because it is a 4-banger, but it still sounds pretty good for what it is, has a nice sporty sound, and doesn't have the slightest bit of NVH to it. Very smooth running engine at all RPMs and never gets the least bit thrashy. I'd be okay with it in lower end BMWs like a basic 320i 6MT with sport package, but in the $40-50k range or higher, sorry I just gotta have a straight-6. They sound much better and have so much more character to them.

I'd still take most manufacturer's 2.0L turbo engines over most manufacturers 3.5L class NA V6 engines though, simply because the torque delivery is so much better. Had the 2GR-FE in my old RAV4 and sorry, the torque delivery just isn't there for heavier vehicles. The X3 with the 2.0T is so much more responsive, and the power is immediate. Not surprised that somebody mentioned that the new Highlander felt so gutless compared to their V8 Explorer, despite the fact that paper stats say the Highlander is still faster. Yeah, how often do you pin the throttle wide-open and keep it there in a Highlander, where you're using the top-end of the engine? Almost never. In real-world driving, torque and torque delivery rules. My old RAV4 was definitely faster flat out in a straight line than our X5d, but in real-world driving around town and in most situations the X5 with 425 ft-lbs would smoke the RAV4, exiting any 2nd gear 90-degree corner for example, where the RAV4 and the 2GR-FE always felt like a complete dog. Torque, baby!

Just had a 2014 Chevy Impala for a week. I was devastated that it was still the old "Crapala" and not the new Imapala, but it still had the 3.6L DOHC VVT V6 with 300hp and a 6-speed automatic to flog a bit. Nice engine, but I still prefer the torque delivery of 2.0L turbos. Sure flat out into redline that V6 would smoke the little 2.0T engines with 240hp or so, but how often are you doing that? Never. I'm long past my days of sneaking out at night finding people to race. I'll take a nice fat torque curve from idle to 4000-5000 rpm over more peak horsepower above 5000rpm any day.

Too many people confuse turbo lag and throttle response, too. It's not the same thing. No, most modern turbocharged engines really don't have any sort of turbo lag. As soon as you're on the throttle the turbo is spooling and responding, and that didn't use to be the case, especially in the 80's/90's. What turbocharged engines are missing compared to naturally aspirated engines is the throttle response. No you're not going to get a nice sharp throttle response in a turbo engine compared to an NA, but that's different from turbo lag. From idle/closed throttle to wide-open, the time it will take an NA engine to reach the peak torque available at that RPM is always going to be much shorter than the time it will take a turbo engine to reach the peak torque available at that RPM. If I have my N55-powered 335i in 3rd or 4th gear coasting with the throttle closed for 10 or more seconds between 2000-3000rpm and then STAND on it, you can count the seconds and HEAR the turbo spooling up (especially with the top down in my E93 ) as it winds up to full boost and 300 lb-ft. In a reasonably tuned NA engine, you'll get to peak torque pretty much instantly and especially if you have a manual transmission will get a nice sharp neck-snapping response. My old 1999 Maxima with the original VQ30DE engine and a manual transmission was a classic example of that. Neck-snapping response at most any RPM. No turbo engine I've driven is as sharp, and it's just the nature of the beasts.

The only time the softer throttle response aka "modern definition of turbo lag" really bothers me is when trying to pull out into quick moving traffic. Just brake torque a little to pre-spool and the problem is solved. I've noticed it on the BMW 2.0T and it's also a minor issue on our X5 diesel, but less so on my N55 335i.

Both types of engines whether you're talking about an NA V6 or a turbo 4-cylinder have their upsides and downsides. All things considered though, I still prefer turbo-4 power delivery. I make an exception for BMW's classic NA 3.0L Inline-6 engines though. Similarly, if Acura's new K24/8DCT powered TLX is very nice in terms of response and sound and drive and engagement, I could make an exception for one of those over a turbo-4 too. Objectively, lots of torque talks, but there are subjective considerations too. Subjective considerations are why so many BMW fans are missing the high-revving NA M-engines like that old E60 M5 V10, and the E90 M3 V8. The new engines make a lot of sense, but are lacking that high-revving sound and the exhilaration that comes with it. Part of that is missing now.

It's certainly interesting times in the world of automotive engine development.

SteVTEC

BTW, my favorite V6 engine of all time is still the GM 3800 Series II/III engine. They had awesome throttle response, tons of torque immediately available right off the line, and made GM's large 4000 lb boat anchor sedans still seem light on their feet. Unlike the import 3.0L class V6 engines of the time, the 3800 always worked very well with automatic transmissions. Funny how now that the import manufacturers have all upped to 3.5L class engines that nobody is really whining about the lack of manuals anymore. That GM 3800 Series II/III with the Hydramatic 4T65E transmission was a truly awesome combo. Turbine smooth and refined too, with maybe only a little bit of raspy valvetrain noise above 5000rpm. Too bad GM discontinued these engines. Had they continued their development there's no reason that they couldn't have pushed them up to a perfectly competitive 270-280hp today naturally aspirated, and still at a much lower cost than SOHC and DOHC engines. But they made the correct decision to push ahead with their DOHC V6 architecture, probably because of how biased the auto press was, talking about how "antiquated" the old Buick pushrod engine was. Rubbish. It was a great engine, had legions of fans, and even made it onto that 10 best engines of all time list that was floating around recently. The latest 3.6L DOHC is "better", but not any better from idle to 4000rpm where people spend 99% of their time vs the old 3800 Series II/III. The person who bashed this engine earlier in the thread had to be talking about the earlier Series I with only 160hp. Yeah that was a high-end wheezer that lacked power and wasn't that great, but Series II/III were awesome. Never got a chance to drive the supercharged L67, but those kicked some serious *** too.

Ah, the good ol days.

doge

Couldn't agree with you more if I tried!! The 3800 in my Buick LaCrosse is a gem. It has great power, its super smooth and easy to work on! I consistently average 22mpg which is not bad considering my driving style. Its going to be hard for me to find a replacement beater down the line but to be honest she has a lot of life left.

SteVTEC

Those engines made so much torque that they could turn super tall OD gears and get 30+ mpg on the highway when the imports were only making upper-20's at best, and still had decent passing/maneuvering power in 4th. Between all of the converter lockup and partial lockup modes in the 4T65E, which was a brilliant transmission by the way, you never felt like you were short of gears even though it only had 4 of them. One of the best powertrain combos of all time, which is why it made that list.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

co-worker of mine has a clean and lightly modded Grand Prix supercharged. It pulls with authority

spwolf

101seems like the definition of turbo lag... now what takes "seconds" is probably combination of both - throtle input lag and turbo spooling to the maximum boost - it is not instant and while faster than before, it will never be instant. In modern turbo cars, throttle lag is more apparent as thats they way they "cheat" on MPG, so throttle is their way to limit the turbo initially as when using turbo, car spends a lot of fuel. In the end, it doesnt matter what it is really, you feel the lag, so wheather we call it turbo, throttle or turbo+throttle, it doesnt matter. So they could make it always responsive if they wanted to, but it would spend too much fuel then.

I would guess that small engines with big big turbo's get affected more, where N55 likely has 100hp more than that 2.0 4cly, without turbo's.

My 2GR-FSE had instant response when in PWR mode, to the point where it was too fast to drive like that unless you are on the open road.

I have also driven Polo GTI with 1.8T and that car never felt like it had any lag... that was combination of light car, short gearing with manual transmission, powerful engine + turbo.

On the other hand, small 3cly turbo's in small cars like Polo have plenty of lag as the underlying engine is so weak that it could not power the car properly without the turbo.... so combination of that, big turbo with more lag, weak engine, throttle lag, those never feel as fast, no matter what their HP rating is. I have just read comparo between 2 small suv's - Captour and 2008, where one had 0.9 turbo with 20% more torque but ended up being significantly slower 0-60 and actually spending more fuel (despite showing less on EU cycle).

Of course, it might end up being more drivable because it will likely be happy a 1800 rpm, unlike weak 4cly engine but still, it seems like bad application as you pay more for that turbo and end up getting less.

so in the end, tech is there, it is application that matters. Putting turbo on strong 4/6/8cyl engine will always be much faster than N/A engine, especially if same engine. Lag comes from trying to make it more efficient.

For instance, I cant even imagine how much faster this 2.0l turbo is than similar engine (3AR i guess) in Rav4... I guess I can, Rav4 with 3AR goes 0-62mph in 10.7s with S-CVTi. Turbo would probably go full 4.5-5 seconds faster.

Thats night and day difference. Not even night and day, more than that.

LexBob2

According to C&D tests the RAV4 did 0-60 in 8.2 seconds and the X3 with the 2.0t did it in 6.2 seconds. The twin scroll turbo in the NX should be in the ballpark with the X3, I would guess.

These were U.S. spec cars, not sure if there are differences in other regions.

yowps3

The aspect most people forget about turbo & response is that the "air" has a long path to travel. For example the air starts at the turbocharger then flows to the intercooler, then it has to go back all the way up to the intake before it can be used.

But Toyota ain't your convential company. We'll have to wait and see what tricks they have up their sleeves with their new 8AR 2.0T

Och

iTrader: (3)

I've witnessed with my own eyes a V6 Camry laying the smack down on Mazda Speed 3 - right from the dig and only pulling further and further away. And the BMW engine isn't as aggressively tuned as the 2.3 turbo in the Mazda. I've also never driven a car/suv with modern 3.5 class V6 engine that was starving for torque. BMWs 2.0T is an allright engine, but its just nor responsive at least in the X3 that I've driven, and I'd much prefer the old inline six over it. Let's see how the new Toyota engine fares.

spwolf

these are not the same engines... Rav4 you are talking about is powered by 2AR 2.5l engine... 2.0l engine has 20% less capacity and goes to 62 in 10.7s. Lexus will also be heavier so slower than that. So lets say minimum of 4.55s difference.

Something like comparing Prius vs GS350 :-).

so basically, if they are both powered with exactly the same engine except for the turbo, then:
a. Turbo will be much much much faster (100hp more, 150nm of torque more)
b. Turbo will spend more fuel no matter what

Only way Turbo gets better fuel consumption is that N/A version of same engine doesnt get all the technology, like start stop, D4-S, VVT-iE, and what not. And this might actually happen, to keep the price of base model low.

jadu

iTrader: (42)

thanks, got it...

8AR-FTS =
2..0L direct injection turbo