2016 Tacoma Dyno Torque HP Crve

Incredible how many people are so concerned about revving a few hundreds more.
Don't forget that the transmission is also a bit more aggressive too and takes advantage of the extra rpms.

 

Oh thanks here I am reviewing your "dyno"......then I see it. LOL

 

That I did not know.
I think we are at a time when it doesn't matter what the engine was designed for. The management system of the engine can change many factors depending on the vehicle it's put into. I don't doubt that when Toyota goes to an enhanced smaller displacement for a truck engine, everyone will say.."I would rather have that burly Lexus 3.5 in the Taco...that was a " real truck" engine."

In this day and age, it's about perception not displacement.

 

Yup. I can't wait for the shit fit when the Ranger gets an Ecoboost engine in the sub 3.0 L that stomps all over anything else in the class and posts similar fuel efficiency numbers.

 

Found the Chevy one..
Looks like that transmission takes a shit.
I have higher hopes for the new Taco Tranny.

 

Yeah, the GM 3.6 L makes shit all for power until 4000 rpm, and you can really tell when you drive it.

 

That and the rediculous shift lag when you step on the gas. After test driving a canyon for 30 minutes, I couldn't wait to get back to my taco with its old tech. I think my taco has less rattles on a rough road too.

 

Bump.

Still no dyno #'s??

 

No Dyno?

 

My 02 Tacoma feels like it has gobs of low end torque compared to the 2016 I test drove. The 3.5 liter is even more displacement than my 3.4 liter, so I wonder if that is just how it is mapped or what. I need to test the manual soon too.

 

No ECT engaged?

 

Might be gearing?

 

People do seem to forget that new vehicles essentially default to "eco mode" to meet CAFE standards and you have to actually disable it to fairly compare to older models without any type of eco mode. It's basically become traction control for fuel economy.

 

Wonder if this what the torque curve looks like? (From the 2GR-FKS engine document.) Where did they come up with that upper curve?

 

Not that this is the actual power curve but....looks like the torque available is depending upon the two variables, the engine load and engine speed. The upper and lower limits are represented by the two curves where the maximum and minimum values occur. The direct injection operates exclusively during highest engine loads and both direct and port can operate at lower. At a particular engine speed though, the port shuts down and only direct operates regardless of the load. How's that for bull shit. It looks like a goose !

That would definitely indicate that under light load, the engine does not feel responsive and only inducing a heavier load, during max acceleration or hill climbing for example, would the most torque even be available. These engineers have way too much free time on their hands. I would also guess that the Atkinson cycle works mostly at lower loads and lower engine speeds which would reduce torque available while reducing fuel consumption. I hope all this engineering was worth that 2 mpg gain.

 

Why do you think that's a torque curve?
It doesn't look like a torque curve

It looks more like a question I would ask my calculus class in February...

 

I disagree, it kinda does look like a torque curve similiar to many engines (the top line)

And the axes of the of the chart seem very similar to a torque diagram:
"Engine Speed" = RPM
"Engine Load" = Power...or torque.

Here's a random engineering forum chatting about engine load meaning power: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=381272 (not a great source, but I didn't find a solid one at first glance)

 

Can you please post a link to this engine document?

Edit: disregard, think I found the thread.

 

http://www.toyotareference.com/guts/tacoma16_engine.pdf

Or google 2GR-FKS engine pdf

I am not one to say that a new feature is just something else to go wrong; but, if you actually read all this you may feel that way if you don't already.