2016 Tacoma Dyno Torque HP Crve

Ironically enough I felt the first gen 3.4l had way more torque available at low RPM than the 2016. Different story at high speeds/RPM's but the 3.5 liter is a dog in city traffic.

 

Watch the tach. I'm convinced it's because they are up shifting early to keep the revs down for economy. Manually shift it - even casually - and if feels a lot better.

 

Here are some more charts for 2GR-FKS, but not the one in the Tacoma. You can find these at SAE. You need a subscription to access the paper. http://papers.sae.org/2015-01-1972/ I'm not posting the whole paper but here's what matters.

There are 3 versions of the 2gr-fks. FF, FR, and FR-commercial. FF is front engine, front wheel drive. FR is front engine, rear wheel drive. and FR commercial is what's in the Tacoma, and there's no chart for that one .

This is the front engine, FWD config. 216kW@ 6300 RPM. 355Nm@4700 RPM. This is probably what's going to be in all of toyotas FWD SUVs.


This is the FR. 234kW@6600, 380Nm@4800. This would be 2GR that ends up in a Lexus. I don't think that Toyota has a RWD sedan in the lineup.


And, as I mentioned, of course the FR-Commercial is not shown in the paper. They list the power specs for that version as 201kW@6000, 354Nm@4600, so that's the version that's in the Tacoma. The Prado graph from a couple posts up should be very similar to the Tacoma.

bonus BSFC map for the 2gr-fks. This chart is a god damned mess because they took the chart for the 2gr-fe and superimposed the 2gr-fks on top of it to show how they expanded the zone of high efficiency with the Atkinson cycle. In the text they claim a minimum of 224g/kWh but I can't tell where that is happening.

 

They should slap the 4.6L V8 in as an option, that would cure all the angst about torque. 3.5L the base engine, 4.6L the top engine, buh-bye 2.7L

4.6L is 327 torque @ 3400 rpm, 310 HP @ 5600 rpm.

4.6L is EPA rated at 15/19 mpg in the 5200lb Tundra. Probably would be around 17/21 in a 4500lb Tacoma.

 

i dont get it im so confused what am i looking at

 

I test drove a v6 manual and it didnt feel very slugish. its probably the transmission.

 

Fuck you mother fucker!* You want to take this outside?! How dare you speak like?! Long live the 2.7L!


*a joke.

 

Basically, a small dual VVT-i DOHC V8 in a lightweight truck is better than a buzzy, hightech, high RPM V6 in a lightweight truck.

 

Not if you're trying to enter some sort of Tokyo drift competition.

 

I was talking about this

i dont get it im so confused what am i looking at

 

LOL.

I bought a 2012 2.7L because I had a '98 2.7L and loved that engine.

Returned the 2012 2.7L two days later and got the 4.0L. That 2.7 doesn't have the beans to power the truck at GVWR.

IMO if Toyota wants to stay at the top they have to retire the 2.7L, make the 3.5 the base engine, put the beautiful 4.6L V8 in as the top engine.

 

What the last map?

 

I suppose but I like older proven technology. Although if they added direct injection and increased the compression that would be interesting. A diesel would be nice, I know they said they won't do it but i can dream.

 

yes

 

Howzabout google "BSFC"?

 

I like older proven technology also, if it works. The 2.7 was great in a 3500 lb truck. Sucked in a 4300 lb truck.

 

Thanks, this is interesting. Wonder what's going from 2300-2500 rpm on the 240 g/kWh line? And how do they decide what NM to cap these? I want to see what's happening at higher NM.

Any chance you can find BSFC of the GM 3.6 LFX?

 

they are interested in torque and horsepower specs for towing, climbing grades at 70+, and trying to drag cop cars

 

The third picture is the brake specific fuel consumption map for two engines (2GR-FE and 2GR-FKS) overlayed on top each other, making them both pretty much unreadable. It's also not stated which version of the 2GR-FKS they are mapping, although they're probably all very similar.

the BSFC map tells you how much fuel an engine consumes per unit of power produced. its a way of graphing fuel efficiency across a range of operating conditions. It's a complicated way of expressing something that I think is intuitive to your driving experience, moderately low RPM with low load is more efficient than high RPM with low load (over revving), or high load at low RPM (lugging).

That graph in particular is meant to show how they increased the efficiency window from the 2gr-fe to the 2gr-fks. The inner most upper dotted line curve is for the 2gr-fe and inside of that curve is where that engine consumes 250g/kWh or less. The arrows pointing outward from that inner most dotted line to the first solid thick line show that in the 2GR-FKS they expanded that 250g/kWh contour to a much larger area. The point of that chart is to show that the FKS engine has the same efficiency across a wider range of operating conditions than the old FE engine. One would also assume that also means the FKS is more efficient than the FE, but it's hard to actually read those values off the chart.

it is complicated to use this chart for anything practical. In principle if you know how much power you needed, you could use this chart to figure out the most fuel efficient combination of RPM and torque to generate that power.

edit: spelling

 

They superimposed two different BSFC charts so it's a mess to make sense of. The contours aren't even color coded or anything so it's hard to tell what contour is for which engine.

A thought just occurred to me. That max torque line could be for the 2gr-fks under Atkinson cycle. That makes sense since this is about fuel economy. But nothing is labelled so only the authors of the paper know for sure. The FKS is two engines in one so a simple BSFC map doesn't even apply. You could theoretically produce the same power with a different BSFC under each cycle.

edit: i just noticed there are actually two different max lines on there. now i have no idea what I am saying.