Test rode a '16 TRD Sport tonight... loved it... but...

On paper maybe, but not real world scenarios. Look at the Davis dam hill climb tests, small turbo ecoboost does great first run then losses out to n/a 5.3 Chevy. Bigger engines just don't have to work as hard, this 3.5 on paper has near the same stats as the old 4.0 but it will have to work harder to do the same amount of work.

 

That statement is outdated, look at what Ford is doing with ecoboost. 2017 Raptor will have a 3.5L ecoboost that produces more hp and torque than the 6.2L V8. Toyota's D4D went from 3.0L Diesel to 2.8L and produces more hp and torque etc etc.

In 1992 Jeep/Dodge/Chrysler introduced 5.2L V8 Magnum that created 230 hp (170 kW) @ 4,100rpm and 295 lb-ft of torque (410 N-M) @ 3,000rpm <--- Basically turned gasoline into noise not power.

 

Funny car. 500 cubic inches and 8000 horsepower.
You will never get 8000hp out of 3.5 liters.
Case closed

 

How is it then that a 454cid (approx. 7.5 liter) chevy engine from the 60s can develop half the horsepower of newer 5 liter engines in Camaros and Mustangs? How about the tremendous airplane engines of the 1920s that developed under 100 horsepower that had far larger displacements than car engines? Surely volume is not the only factor versus technology.

 

but the 454 will produce a lot of torque, thats what gets you going. Most 427/454 in the late 60' early 70's produced the same amount of HP power as the new 5 liter, but more torque, and they did it with a very crude ignition system, and a small window of timing adjust. These new engines produce more horsepower because the computer can very accurately meter fuel and the spark is precisely controlled. However, if you look at torque values, they don't change as much, especially at low RPM's. Also have you ever seen one of these old school big block modified? A bigger intake, decent valves, and a set of header will net you an easy 500HP.

Someone had mentioned the ecoboost and I don't think thats a fair comparison because its turbocharged. So its not apples to apples comparison. If anything an ecoboost "fools" the engine into thinking its bigger as you cram more air into the cylinders. Same with a supercharger so an ecoboost adds displacement. So there really is no replacement for displacement. Its a very complicated argument.

 

Take today's technology, keep the old school displacement and the motors would be making much more power but at the end of the day it's irrelevant. It's about emissions and mpg standards. There isn't anything the manufacturers can do, they HAVE to make more efficient engines, end of story. Dropping displacement helps across the board with emissions/mpg.

Forced induction WILL replace displacement as unfortunate as it is.

I personally think the Tacoma will offer a turbo 4 as its top motor a generation or two from now so I'm happy it's a healthy NA V6 for now.

 

This man speaks the truth.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-automakers-will-meet-2016-cafe-standards

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/29/545-miles-per-gallon-for-all-cars-by-2025-not-exactly

 

Not really, the FIA forced that on them. Without the FIA they'd be running NA V12's like they were in the golden era.

 

The FIA is the deciding force, they instated the rules so they most certainly forced it. I've always read and heard that their reasoning was to keep the power figures reasonable and safe. That's also why they limited revs. Back in 2006 the high cylinder motors were going to start breaking into 1000bhp. They limited it to a V8 to avoid that. A handful of the teams lobby'd hard against this restriction so I'm not sure about lack of V10 availability.

 

The sport has been lack luster without the sound and power, but a very apropos approach to the future as the V8 + cylinders are relegated to the museums as far as road car relevancy... so this is on topic right?

 

Yeah it sucks. KERS is cool though. Hope that makes its way into production vehicles eventually.

 

I believe I saw a post recently talking about the "R" designating a regenerative braking feature on the shifter I do love the concept of efficiency and that is probably why I am such a Tacoma fan.

 

This is true: if you combined the two, it would be killer. I'm just saying that it is impressive how they have managed to squeeze power out of the incredible constraints that they have to deal with. I also agree with you: if you could combine today's tech with yesterday's "regulations", the result would be incredible.

 

That's kind of what I was thinking ... how bad is the stock system if the premium is underwhelming? If I wasn't set on a moonroof, I'd just as soon go after-market. Except last time I tried that (with my '07 Camry Hybrid) all the Nav, etc., made after-market audio stuff a PITA.

 

^^^
Agree..

 

I know but I mean in terms of being able to redirect that energy back into the system in bulk for instant boost in power. Obviously this would only be appropriate on a sports car, we departed from discussing the Tacoma awhile back.

If this was in anyway directed at me refer to my post on the last page.. I said nearly the same thing concerning large displacement engines in production vehicles.

 

I looked at an off-road and thought the interior was complete crap.. Looked cool but felt cheap as hell.. Went back for a second test drive and have determined it's under powered as well as having a cheap interior feel.. I think I'm going to cancel my order and look for something else.. Really pissed.. Wtf Toyota!!!

 

My wife's Prius is a beast for the first 10 to 15 feet before the engine kicks in. Fantastic Gs. Those electric motors have "oomph." When the computer kicks it over to hybrid/gas mode, however, it is bogged down by its desire to be economical.

Can you imagine stronger electric motors in crawl mode on a Taco? Give it suction cup tires and it would climb a vertical glass building (if you could keep shit from falling out of the bed).

 

Good luck.. Bye..

 

I was about to write that there is no connection between Ford miscalculating extreme duty cooling needs on the F150 somehow meaning all turbo engines are suspect "in the real world". But then I decided to look up your claim and the only article I found that compared all three and said the Ford was fastest on the first and slowed on the second was an article about TURBODIESELS!! When I track my M235i I can run all day while Mustangs and 370Z are going into limp mode. The coolant and oil actually run the coolest on the track! (the technologeez bro). This forum is filled with more luddites than the Canyon/Colorado forum.