New Lexus LS will have a twin turbo 3.5 litre V6

Oops. I guess I should proof read before I press send. LOL

 

Really because I see a lot of Dynos with huge torque fall off after low RPMS. The Ford 6.7 delivers MAX torque around 1500-2000 RPMS and completely falls off after 2500-3000 RPMS

One of many...

http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-te...-the-6-7-power-stroke-including-2015-updates/

I still have yet to really find a Dyno of a Turbo engine generating more HP and Torque at low RPMs than a regual gas engine. Heck according to one Dyno my 1987 AMC 258 generates more torque at 2000 RPMs than the Ford Ecoboost 3.5L

 

Diesels typically can only make good torque at low RPM's. because HP is just a mathematical formula or torque x RPM, gas engines have more HP because they make torque at a higher RPM.

A gas engine with turbos can easily be made to make lots of torque at lower RPM's, but you have to deal with pinging, knocking, etc. especially if you use low octane gasoline. The diesel combustion cycle prefers low RPM for power, where the gas cycle prefers high RPM.

 

Awesome, so show me. I don't want theory, lets see the Dynos.

This discussion was about improving low end torque in the Tacomas so how does a Turbo do this because I don't see it in any example. .

A supercharger would fit this bill, not a turbo.

 

The whole concept of a "Twin Scroll Turbo" is that it separates the exhaust pulses from one another, and works best with even number cylinders (4 and 8 cylinder engines). In a four cylinder engine, one scroll will have the exhaust from cylinders 1 and 3 and the other will have the exhaust from cylinders 2 and 4 (depending on firing order). http://fordaddict.com/ecoboost-twin-scroll/ - Ford has put them in a V6, which seems a little weird to me, but pulse separation is still possible I guess.

Also, if you think that a twin scroll turbocharged engine in a truck application is a good idea for low end torque, look up LSPI. It was the reason I got out of my 2015 WRX. They didn't account for this properly when they programmed the ECUs, and set high boost at low RPMs. This gave the WRX amazing low end torque and allowed high torque and HP to be reached before 2000 RPM. They actually recalled all 2015 WRX's to reprogram the ECUs to keep them from hitting peak power below 3000 RPM, as owners would floor it at low RPMs and bend and shatter rods and blocks.

For me, all Toyota needs to do to fix my issues with my truck (besides the howling rear diff) is get rid of the 2 second throttle delay when taking off in 1st gear. Other than that, this engine can do all of what it needs, even when loaded with an over 4000Lb boat and trailer, but I have the 6MT... lol

 

This conversation is getting far too nerdy and boring. Can we just throttle down a tad and get back to making blanket statements, spouting hyperbole and lobbing childish insults? The entertainment value is much higher that way.

 

This is curious, learn something new every day.

EDIT: I mean, how dare you try and contribute to this thread!

 

Here, look at the VW GTI http://www.autoevolution.com/news/s...es-vw-underrates-their-cars-video-91971.html#

Max torque from 2200 - 4500 RPM



Stock 335i dyno - max torque from 2750rpm to 5500rpm



Stock 328i dyno - max torque from 3100rpm to 5100rpm




Chevy sonic dyno - near max torque from nearly 2000 rpm to 5000 rpm



And now for comparison, a stock supra dyno, max torque from 4500-5500rpm



And for a great comparison, twin turbo 3.5 V6 - aka nissan GTR, near max torque from 2750 rpm to 6000


Gas engines (boosted) just cant reliably make torque below 2500rpm. Diesels cant reliably make torque over 3000 rpm

 

Awesome thank you, these are great. If only they could get under that 2500 mark.

 

So, the conclusion is that the Tacoma needs two engines, a Turbo Diesel Engine for low end torque, and a Turbo Gasoline Engine for after 2500 RPMS. What could we name this new combination?

 

generally speaking a smaller sized turbo on a gas engine makes more torque at lower rpm...as @CanadaToy showed there. I also think it'd simpler to work a turbo into the system rather than a supercharger

 

If you choose a small enough turbocharger, the turbo will spool as early as you want. It's a balancing act, though, because your turbocharger ultimately limits the amount of air you can flow through the engine. Airflow = horsepower, so if you fully spool the turbo at low RPMs then you can't feed the engine any more airflow as the RPMs increase. This setup results in a flat horsepower curve (remember, horsepower = airflow more or less) with an early torque peak that declines as the RPMs increase. This is the opposite of the current Tacoma's relatively flat torque curve, but it would keep the people who can't stand shifting.

A supercharger won't help you here. Superchargers' rotational speed is proportional to engine speed due to the belt drive. You can't have it spin fast enough down low to improve torque substantially without having it rotate too fast at high RPMs. Superchargers are typically known for faster throttle response because they're already spinning at some multiple of the engine's speed, whereas a turbo takes some time to spin up to speed. The downside of a supercharger is that you're pegged to that multiple of engine speed, whereas the turbo can still spin up independently of engine RPMs.

Regardless, the whole point of moving toward smaller, turbocharged engines isn't to improve low-end torque between idle and 2000RPM. It's to make the engines smaller, lighter weight, and believe it or not, slower spinning. A turbocharged engine will have a narrower powerband for reasons I described above, which would appease the people who can't stand the sound of a higher-RPM engine. That does mean that they're best paired with transmissions with a lot of gears, like the new 8-speed and 10-speeds we're seeing, which won't appease the people who don't like hearing the transmission shift.

If all you want is an engine that spins slowly all the time and you don't actually care about power output, a diesel is still the way to go. Diesel motors have other problems, but the early torque peak and low RPM powerband are a good fit for those who don't mind giving up speed & power as long as their truck doesn't shift frequently.

 

Hey if VW/Bugatti can fuse two twin turbo V-8s together and call it a Quad-Turbo W16, I'm sure we can definitely fuse these together. Hmmm, but what to call it.

I think we should give up and just put a multi-fuel turbine into it like the Abrams Tank, easy fix.

 

There's the problem right there. No problem with the system if Subaru had of accounted for this in the programming. Ford makes peak at 3500 rpm on the 2.0 L and it very well may be limited below that. I do know though that 80% torque is reached at 2000 rpms which is perfect on a vehicle that weighs only ~3700 lbs considering max torque is 275 ftlbs...

Hmm interesting on the twin scroll. Not what I saw on the diagramming I looked up for the 2.0 L refresh of the Ecoboost but totally possible. It wouldn't be the first lie from a manufacturer. In any case the Escape has tons of jam down low compared to the competition with larger NA engines and that's what I was mainly talking about .

 

Possible Names:

Smitty99 Special
Gallo 12
Gallo 24
The Turd Generator
....?

 

I'd pay 5 grand to get this truck a worthy set of testicles. It will cost me about that much to dump it and move to a 2017 Silverado Crew Cab 4x4 LTZ anyway....

 

Or figure out how to make the hybrid system work.

Ford and Toyota were working on it together to make a hybrid truck. But they couldnt get along. I assume they are now racing to figure it out before the other one does.

Sorry, I have just been so impressed with my prius. Just as much as my Taco.

 

Yeah, long term hybrids get sexy numbers for CAFE but for now Turbos can get close in the EPA testing frame work for much less money.

Plus there isn't enough Lithium right now to go around for hybrids. The more that hit the road the more they will cost. They are ramping up mining in South America but the economics are pretty sketchy for hybrids right now. Electric cars may be a better bet since aluminum air might only be a few years away from large scale production and then you can just swap the pack quickly at the gas station instead of charging it.