Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Toyota Not Following Everyone Else With Small Turbo Engines, Sticking With Large Displacement Engines

    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    October 17, 2013

    The trend with powertrains is to do small-displacement engine with turbochargers to provide the performance of a larger engine with the fuel economy of the small engine. Toyota looks to be bucking the trend.

    In a interview with Automotive News, Koei Saga, senior managing officer in charge of drivetrain research and development for Toyota said the company will be investing into turbocharged engines, but it will not "emphasize turbocharging across many product lines." Instead, Saga says the company believes that using large-displacement engines with the Atkinson cycle.

    Here's why Toyota believes this is the right idea. Atkinson cycle engines keep the intake valves open longer than a normal gas engine, which cuts the length of the compression stroke and in turn cuts pumping losses. The end result is improve efficiency at the cost of torque. This is why you see Atkinson cycle engines used in hybrid vehicles since the electric motor can provide the low-end torque. When paired with a large-displacement engine, the hope is that you keep the efficiency while gaining back the loss in torque.

    In addition to the large-displacement Atkinson cycle engines, Toyota will invest heavily into continuously variable and fixed-gear automatic transmissions, as well as its fuel-cell vehicle program.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Small displacement + turbocharging doesn't pan out for better efficiency. It never did and it still hasn't. The reason is simple... by going from a 2.0L I4 to a 1.4L I4 you haven't changed the frictional losses that much because you still have the same number of valves, guides, followers, pistons, rods, etc. The main efficiency gains come from having smaller cylinders working at bigger throttle openings which allows the engine to operate at a higher effective compression -- because larger throttle openings equals lesser vacuum and squishing less vacuum equals higher effective compression. But turbocharging mandates an ~2 point reduction in compression ratio while providing no charge density improvements at cruise. This cancels out much of the efficient gains from displacement loss.

    The best non-hybrid efficiency is actually achieved with a large displacement Atkinson Cycle engine with least amount of camshafts, valves and cylinders. If you want the most fuel efficient 140hp you'll use a 2.5L 3-cylinder engine with 17.0:1 static compression and a 70% Atkinson cycle cam for a 11.9:1 effective compression @ peak volumetric efficiency. You'll use a single overhead cam or a in-block cam with roller followers/lifters. You'll use 2 valves per cylinders. And, you'll use direct injection. Apart from DI, you'll basically do the exact opposite of what many automakers are doing.

    In the end, 1.4L Turbo, 2.0L NA and 2.5L Atkinson engines probably have approximately the same output. The 2.5 Atk has the best fuel efficiency whereas the 1.4T has the highest cost and most reliability concerns. The 1.4T is only useful as so far as to take advantage of various countries' displacement tax laws to lower the new car and annual taxes. Whether this is significant depends on the country.

    • Agree 4
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I wouldn't mind retiring to somewhere walkable where I don't need to drive, but can drive when I want to..  
    • Right now I am looking at retirement in Latin America. Maybe somewhere where I won't even have to own a car. Life without driving might be really interesting.  Modern cars are indeed amazing.  Sadly yes, I love flying on the 737 MAX. It's just a matter of the ethical flaws of Boeing in its production... I demand the restoration of that picture of a white Pontiac G6 I posted in 2012...you ungrateful internet host...(sarcasm...) This particular Lexus is lust worthy. 
    • Argh.  This is a question I almost want to avoid. The A380 is incredible.  Yes, I had a roundtrip through AA on British.  They have a small economy section at the back, upstairs.  Then I flew a one way from Italy to New York-JFK on an Emirates "fifth freedom" flight segment.  They have economy taking the entire main level, with none upstairs. Economy seats are a little wider on the A380 ... definitely on Emirates, at least.  It was an outstanding flight because of that.  On British, I paid for an economy seat upstairs and the curvature of the exterior translates into windows that are too sloped and with an odd and bigger void in between the cabin and the exterior.  I will be sitting downstairs if there is a future flight on one. The 747-8 isn't as comfortable in economy because the seats are traditional economy width.  I feel more comfortable in one because I know it.  It's also much more photogenic all the way around.  You feel good when it pulls up to the gate and you see that beautiful and proportioned machine through the big glass windows. The humidification is good on both planes. It's really sad that no more passenger quadjets are being produced.  It's easier to get onto an A380 if Europe bound (British, Lufthansa, Emirates, and others via connections, with Air France holding back).  For a 747-8, Lufthansa is the only choice and I am grateful to them for that.
    • My car has a supposed 525 mile highway crusing range on a full tank (19.5 gallons).   I haven't fully tested that since I tend to fill up at 1/2 tank when on road trips..but I have recorded averages of 29.5 and 30 mpg on road trips, which is pretty good for a comfortable 4200lb AWD sedan..
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search