Tacoma World Forums

Tacoma World Forums (http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/)
-   4 Cylinder (http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-cylinder/)
-   -   4 cylinder 2.7 liter DUAL-VVT-i (http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/4-cylinder/162685-4-cylinder-2-7-liter-dual-vvt-i.html)

Scott K 06-18-2011 08:14 AM

4 cylinder 2.7 liter DUAL-VVT-i
 
So I've done some Extrapolating by look at current engines to ascertain how much power a hypothetical redesigned 2.7 liter 4 cylinder with Dual VVT-i would have it Toyota decided to offer it.

I've looked at displacement in liters, versus HP and TQ output in the current Tacoma engines as a comparison, and then looked at some of the new Toyota truck engines with Dual VVT-i to help ascertain where I feel the new 2.7 liter will be power and torque wise.

So the current 2.7 liter
159 HP/180 TQ
HP per liter = 58.8
TQ per liter = 66.6

Current 4.0 liter single VVT-i
236 HP/266 TQ
HP per liter = 59
TQ per liter = 66.5

So you can see in the above comparison, the engines are pretty comparable from a HP and TQ per liter standpoint, as they share similar technologies (single variable valve timing). I would attribute the ever so slight difference in TQ per liter of the 4 cylinder being to the fact that inline 4 cyliners are naturally more torquey, and the V6 having slightly more HP per liter than the 4 cylinder for the same reason above - inline engines are naturaly more torquey than V engines often times.

So here are a few of the newer Toyota engines

4.0 liter with DUAL VVT-i (4runner/FJ Cruiser/Tundra, should be present in Tacoma soon some speculate)
270 HP/278 TQ
HP per liter = 67.5
TQ per liter = 69.5

4.6 liter Dual VVT-i (Tundra/Sequoia, etc.)
310 HP/327 TQ
HP per liter = 67.4
TQ per liter = 71.0

5.7 liter Dual VVT-i (Tundra/Sequoia/Landcruiser/Lexus, etc.)
381 HP/401 TQ
HP per liter = 66.8
TQ per liter = 70.35

I would attribute the fact that the 4.6 liter has slightly more HP and TQ per liter in comparison to the 5.7 liter as being due to the fact that the 4.6 liter was designed about 3 years later than the 5.7 liter. I would attribute the slightly less TQ of the 4.0 liter to the V8's as maybe due to the different stroke depths, or the fact it's a V6, or perhaps they wanted a little more fuel economy, who knows. But the bottom line is in the above engines you DO see a trend between HP and TQ per liter versus technology. You also see a trend that seems to be present in the current 4 cylinder relative to the current V6. So this is the basis for myself using this data to apply to what I think the next (if they decide to make it) 2.7 liter 4 banger will put out HP and TQ wise.

So to do this, I'm going to take an average of the newer engines mentioned above with Dual VVT-i and then apply it to 2.7 liters worth of displacement.

So the average HP for the 3 engines above per liter = 67.23 HP/L
Average TQ for the above 3 engines = 70.28 TQ/L

So using the above averages with 2.7 liters of displacement means the new
2.7 liter with Dual VVT-i could have:
181.52 HP
189.76 TQ

But because it's an inline engine compared to the above V-style engines, coupled with being a later engine design with the latest technology I'm going to speculate it's going to put out between a range of 180-184 HP, and 190-192 ft-lbs of TQ.

Now if my extrapolation holds based on displacement versus output per liter scenario played out above, mated to at least a 5 speed auto (or manual), but hopefully a 6 speed auto, how would you feel about about such an engine above?

To put this into perspective for current 4 cylinder owners, thats 20+ HP and 10+ ft-lbs of torque gained, plus hopefully an extra transmission gear or two, on top of a flatter power band due to the dual VVT-i, AND as good, if not better fuel efficiency.

ohdrj1all 06-18-2011 09:24 AM

Interesting... I hope they do build it. You're numbers seem like a reasonable extrapolation.

05RedTaco 06-18-2011 11:44 AM

Umm... There is 2.7L with dual VVT-i... It's called 1AR-FE and has been in the Venza, Highlander and Sienna since late 2008.

Ratings are as follows;

For Venza;

182hp & 182lb-ft

For Highlander;

187hp & 186lb-ft

Scott K 06-18-2011 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 08WhiteTaco (Post 3325925)
Umm... There is 2.7L with dual VVT-i... It's called 1AR-FE and has been in the Venza, Highlander and Sienna since late 2008.

Ratings are as follows;

For Venza;

182hp & 182lb-ft

For Highlander;

187hp & 186lb-ft

Yeah, but it's a front wheel drive engine designed for a car chassis (unibody) that those vehicles have, designed to be mounted transversely to power a transaxle/transmission. Perhaps they could take that engine and mount it longitudally (orientation of the drive shaft relative to the length of vehicle) to power a transfer case/rear wheels but I would suspect they'd want to build an entirely different engine that is tuned/geared more towards truck like performance with more lower end torque, with probably different stroke versus bore diameters.

05RedTaco 06-18-2011 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott K (Post 3326075)
Yeah, but it's a front wheel drive engine designed for a car chassis (unibody) that those vehicles have, designed to be mounted transversely to power a transaxle/transmission. Perhaps they could take that engine and mount it longitudally (orientation of the drive shaft relative to the length of vehicle) to power a transfer case/rear wheels but I would suspect they'd want to build an entirely different engine that is tuned/geared more towards truck like performance with more lower end torque, with probably different stroke versus bore diameters.

The 2tr-fe has square bore and stroke of 95mmx95mm with compression of 9.6:1, the 1ar-fe has bore of 90mm and stroke of 105mm and compression of 10.0:1.

Those number clearly suggests that these are two completely different engines even though the displacement is very similar.

What the Tacoma needs is torque and the 2tr-fe has 180lb-ft versus 182 and 186lb-ft...

Scott K 06-19-2011 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 08WhiteTaco (Post 3327831)
The 2tr-fe has square bore and stroke of 95mmx95mm with compression of 9.6:1, the 1ar-fe has bore of 90mm and stroke of 105mm and compression of 10.0:1.

Those number clearly suggests that these are two completely different engines even though the displacement is very similar.

What the Tacoma needs is torque and the 2tr-fe has 180lb-ft versus 182 and 186lb-ft...

And with Dual VVT-i the current 2tr-fe would have MORE torque. Note that the 1ar-fe HAS Dual VVT-i where as the current 2tr-fe does NOT have dual VVT-i but instead single VVT-i (intake only). Thats the entire point of my thread - that assuming Toyota truck engines share the same displacement versus HP/TQ outputs versus technologies, that a new version of the 2tr-fe would have around 180-184 HP and 190+ ft-lbs of torque if it shared the same output as it's Toyota truck engine big brothers. But it's based on extrapolation/comparison. All we can do is hope that we see a beefed up 4 cylinder.

Kelson 06-20-2011 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 08WhiteTaco (Post 3325925)
Umm... There is 2.7L with dual VVT-i... It's called 1AR-FE and has been in the Venza, Highlander and Sienna since late 2008.

Ratings are as follows;

For Venza;

182hp & 182lb-ft

For Highlander;

187hp & 186lb-ft

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott K (Post 3326075)
Yeah, but it's a front wheel drive engine designed for a car chassis (unibody) that those vehicles have, designed to be mounted transversely to power a transaxle/transmission. Perhaps they could take that engine and mount it longitudally (orientation of the drive shaft relative to the length of vehicle) to power a transfer case/rear wheels but I would suspect they'd want to build an entirely different engine that is tuned/geared more towards truck like performance with more lower end torque, with probably different stroke versus bore diameters.

the 1AR could technically be used in a RWD application as well if toyota decided to. It's not uncommon, especially four cylinder vehicles, for the same engine to be shared across platforms and drivetrain configurations, with some modifications. just by the looks of it the 1AR does look like a decent truck motor, as the vehicles that use it are quite heavy, and would need the torque of a truck engine.

What kind of block does the 1AR use? Im thinking it would aluminum since its a pretty new motor, and the truck market may be better served with a motor with an Iron block for durability vs. weight.

I do doubt however that they would choose to use the 1AR simply because of the fact that the TR series engines are used in a variety of longitudinally mounted engined vehicles, across the globe, and I think that by simply upgrading the 2TR, which would probably be incorporating Dual VVT-i and/or other technologies, would be the smart move on Toyota's part as well as the better choice for the consumer.

DGXR 06-20-2011 10:00 AM

I always wondered why Toyota didn't employ dual VVTi on all its 4-cyl applications once they got it figured out... it seems totally obvious. :confused:

91r100gs 06-20-2011 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGXR (Post 3332999)
I always wondered why Toyota didn't employ dual VVTi on all its 4-cyl applications once they got it figured out... it seems totally obvious. :confused:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

JEA86 06-22-2011 07:30 AM

yeah i think the 2.7 is a peppy little motor but it for sure gets old having to gear down to go up inclines. I mean its a whole lot better since i got some intake mods but overall its still pretty underpowered

Turp 06-25-2011 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 08WhiteTaco (Post 3325925)
Umm... There is 2.7L with dual VVT-i... It's called 1AR-FE and has been in the Venza, Highlander and Sienna since late 2008.

Ratings are as follows;

For Venza;

182hp & 182lb-ft

For Highlander;

187hp & 186lb-ft

We test drove a 4cyl Venza. It had respectable performance.

Just a question, doesn't the FJ equipped 4.0 liter with DUAL VVT-i require premium octane to obtain optimum performance?

I do think the Ops suggestion of Toyota updating the 2.7 further sounds pretty good.

Scott K 06-25-2011 01:02 PM

I think there is a bit of discrepency that has unfortunately rang true to this day.

When the FJ Cruiser first came out, it had the original 4.0 liter with Single VVT-i back in 2006 if I'm not mistaken, which in the Tacoma and 4runner at the time was 236 HP and 266 ft-lbs of torque. Well the FJ Cruiser had 239 HP and 278 ft-lbs of torque listed as its published rating. Many speculated it might have been a differet "tune" of the 4.0 liter with single VVT-i at the time, but the consensus as I understand it was that slightly different HP & TQ rating was a result of 91 octane gas, which led to the consensus among many that obviously this engine being a higher compression engine would show benefit from using higher octane gas, but would have the the original/same output as the TAcoma/4runner with regular 87 octane gas. It also led to some people speculating that you HAD to use 91 octane gas in the FJ which simply isn't true.

The new Dual VVT-i 4.0 V6 is as different animal, so to speak, with 270 HP and 278 ft-lbs of torque. I haven't read the owenrs manual of Toyotas that have it, but I'm pretty confident that's the rating with regular gas.

Having said that, in my '07 Tacoma with the single VVT-i 4.0 V6, I run 91 octane and it performs noticeably better on top of the increase in fuel mileage, and what appears to be slightly smoother running engine.

The new 4.0 dual VVT-i V6 does have a higher compression ratio than the 4.0 with single VVT-i, which to me indiates that it could benefit even further from high octane gas.

I don't think I would be far off if I speculated that if/when Toyota does decide to offer a Dual VVT-i 2.7 liter in their Tacoma (and maybe the 4runner once again possibly?), that it will probably utilize a slightly higher compression than the current 2.7 on top of the added Dual VVT-i technology. That to me suggests it would have a base rating of what I mentioned above (hopefully/speculating), with perhaps a bit more jam with higher octane gas.

Honestly, I would LOVE it if Toyota would have 2 performance and mileage ratings for their engines - 1 with 87, another with 91. Then people could make an informed decision about which gas to run.

prdltakid 07-06-2011 06:50 PM

What they need to do is get rid of the 4cyl 2.7l and keep the 4.0 V6 and add a diesel engine to replace the 4silly. But, that is only my opion. Trcuks dont deserve little engines. My only regret in buying my Taco is that i didnt by the 4.0L.

05RedTaco 07-06-2011 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prdltakid (Post 3400986)
What they need to do is get rid of the 4cyl 2.7l and keep the 4.0 V6 and add a diesel engine to replace the 4silly. But, that is only my opion. Trcuks dont deserve little engines. My only regret in buying my Taco is that i didnt by the 4.0L.

MEH... For starters I drive under geared 5lug Taco. 2.7L, 5speed with 3.33 rear end, lift and 31x10.5x15 tires. Yes I have to shift a lot when I want to accelerate and yes I have to rev it up when I want to merge on the highway.

On the other hand my truck is not a poser truck. I use my truck as a work truck. I always haul something in the bed, appliances, drywall, sewer snake, etc... I towed with my truck 5x9 uhaul utility trailer loaded up, I had TWO atv's in the bed of my truck. It does FINE. Its a bit slow BUT thats expected from 4cylinder truck.

IMHO I would consider the bigger engine only if I were to get a double cab Taco...

05RedTaco 07-06-2011 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hedlesbrmstkbass (Post 3332615)
What kind of block does the 1AR use? Im thinking it would aluminum since its a pretty new motor, and the truck market may be better served with a motor with an Iron block for durability vs. weight.

Without looking it up or researching it I can tell ya with 100% certainty that 1AR-FE is made of aluminum. most modern engines are made of aluminum.

I absolutely hate aluminum, its weak and bolt holes strip way too easy on aluminum block. The car manufacturers love aluminum... It's light & cheap!

ohdrj1all 07-07-2011 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prdltakid (Post 3400986)
What they need to do is get rid of the 4cyl 2.7l and keep the 4.0 V6 and add a diesel engine to replace the 4silly. But, that is only my opion. Trcuks dont deserve little engines. My only regret in buying my Taco is that i didnt by the 4.0L.

:confused::confused::confused:
Toyota trucks built their reputation on the 4cyl engine. Hardly a "4silly".

I would like to see Toyota (and lots auto manufacturers) offer more diesel engines in their vehicle lines... but keep in mind... diesel engines are expensive to buy and more expensive to maintain (and right now more expensive to put fuel into). Even if Toyota did offer a diesel option the 4cyl would still likely remain in the lineup as an affordable utilitarian powerplant for those who don't need the V6 or don't want to pay the expense(s) of the diesel.

All that said... I am always a bit baffled by the V6 worship that some Tacoma owners have... I mean, it's a fine engine, no doubt... but it's hardly a superstar. Have none of these folks ever driven a truly fast/powerful engine before? The 4.0L is nothing particularly special in context of what else is out there (even with the Toyota lineup of vehicles). I mean, if a person needs the V6 because they want to tow or just need the extra power that's fine... but quit acting like it's some kind of high performance purebred engine that makes everything else pale by comparison. It's not. Just sayin....

BigRedToy 07-07-2011 07:09 AM

This is the way I see it:

Toyota needs to overhaul the current 4cyld. Offering 30+Mpg (HWY) with more HP and Torque.

OR

They need to drop the 4clyd in favor of the new 4.0L V6. The current V6 could be out performing the 2.7L, if the V6 was offered in the Regular cabs. Toyota could also offer an "Eco" tuned 4.0L with 5-10% increased fuel efficiency, by sacrificing some performance.


The current 2.7L is, a hair above under performing, considering the Mid-size truck platform it goes in to. Toyota should address the 2.7L Tacoma issues, because there is a lot of room for improvement.

Kelson 07-07-2011 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prdltakid (Post 3400986)
What they need to do is get rid of the 4cyl 2.7l and keep the 4.0 V6 and add a diesel engine to replace the 4silly. But, that is only my opion. Trcuks dont deserve little engines. My only regret in buying my Taco is that i didnt by the 4.0L.

btw if toyota did put a diesel in the Tacoma, it would prob be a four cylinder. fyi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedToy (Post 3402650)
This is the way I see it:

Toyota needs to overhaul the current 4cyld. Offering 30+Mpg (HWY) with more HP and Torque.

OR

They need to drop the 4clyd in favor of the new 4.0L V6. The current V6 could be out performing the 2.7L, if the V6 was offered in the Regular cabs. Toyota could also offer an "Eco" tuned 4.0L with 5-10% increased fuel efficiency, by sacrificing some performance.


The current 2.7L is, a hair above under performing, considering the Mid-size truck platform it goes in to. Toyota should address the 2.7L Tacoma issues, because there is a lot of room for improvement.

the thing is though, the 4 cyl can get good mileage on a regular basis no matter what. the V6 can get good mileage, but doesn't come that close to the 2.7

why do you think they came out with MORE 4 cyl models? specifically the double cabs (6 and 5 lug) powered by the 2TR? Toyota knows what theyre doing (for the most part) They wouldn't invest in new configurations of the truck if they knew it wasn't worth it.

you also need to take into account the uncanny reliability of a simple, 4 cyl toyota engine. do not tell me your V6 is just as bulletproof as a 4 cyl toyota truck motor. you will not hear the end of it lol.

stick updated 2TR w dual vvt-i with a six speed auto or manual and im guessing the highest MPG it would get would be around 28-30. above 30 MPG is pretty hard to do, esp in a truck which is heavier and less aerodynamic than a car, and has a platform with a longitudinal mount engine.


Quote:

Originally Posted by 08WhiteTaco (Post 3401101)
Without looking it up or researching it I can tell ya with 100% certainty that 1AR-FE is made of aluminum. most modern engines are made of aluminum.

I absolutely hate aluminum, its weak and bolt holes strip way too easy on aluminum block. The car manufacturers love aluminum... It's light & cheap!

yup aluminum FTL.

the one upside is weight tho. and weight is oh so important esp now cuz of the need for those all important MPGs haha

BigRedToy 07-07-2011 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hedlesbrmstkbass (Post 3402745)
the thing is though, the 4 cyl can get good mileage on a regular basis no matter what. the V6 can get good mileage, but doesn't come that close to the 2.7

why do you think they came out with MORE 4 cyl models? specifically the double cabs (6 and 5 lug) powered by the 2TR? Toyota knows what theyre doing (for the most part) They wouldn't invest in new configurations of the truck if they knew it wasn't worth it.

you also need to take into account the uncanny reliability of a simple, 4 cyl toyota engine. do not tell me your V6 is just as bulletproof as a 4 cyl toyota truck motor. you will not hear the end of it lol.

stick updated 2TR w dual vvt-i with a six speed auto or manual and im guessing the highest MPG it would get would be around 28-30. above 30 MPG is pretty hard to do, esp in a truck which is heavier and less aerodynamic than a car, and has a platform with a longitudinal mount engine.

Offering the 2TR in other "new" configurations has more to do with marketing and the bottom line, than "giving the people what they want." With gas prices $3.50+ and staying there, it is smart move for Toyota to offer a 4clyd in more trucks.

As far as I know the 4.0L is not blowing its self up...? The transmissions are horrible, the motor mounts were failing, but the engine seems to be doing fine. It is also offered with a supercharger from the factory.

The problem is: the current 2TR is old technology. It is out of place in a world where half ton, V8 trucks, get 20+MPG (HWY.) I am for Toyota improving the 2TR, improving the transmission, etc, but the Tacoma is getting too big for such a small engine.

Also, I own a 2TR. I live in Colorado. I drive in 3rd gear, at 65MPH, at 4000RPM, going through the mountains. I did this yesterday.

TacomaBuzz 07-07-2011 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prdltakid (Post 3400986)
What they need to do is get rid of the 4cyl 2.7l and keep the 4.0 V6 and add a diesel engine to replace the 4silly. But, that is only my opion. Trcuks dont deserve little engines. My only regret in buying my Taco is that i didnt by the 4.0L.

the only " silly" is your statement. not everyone wants or needs a big engine. the Tacoma's heritage was built on the coveted 22R 4 cyl, one of the most bulletproof engines ever made.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:11 PM.