Tacoma may get a 4cyl Turbo

In reality most Car Company R&D budget, in the last 25 years, has been spent on safety and economy improvements, many of which are directed by governmental departments with a biased agenda. I don't think it would be far off to guess that 70-80% of the total R&D expenditures is toward these two objectives.

First on Safety, redesigned vehicles alerts for everything that remotely strays from the driver being responsible and accountable for safe driving. I'm convinced that lane departure, adaptive cruise, and blind side features do not really address the root cause of the problem, which is correcting the use of detractive devices. I believe the primary duty of the vehicle operator is to focus on the skill of driving. Car radios, snacking while driving, and cell phones are all forms distractions. A strong case can be made for billboards and flashing store signs falling in this category of distraction, too.

Fuel economy measurement is based on city and highway (55 mph), which was the highway speed limit law briefly under former President Nixon, following an oil crisis. No one drives 55 mph on the highway, and some states post speeds up to 25 mph faster. Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, etc. all have speed limits of 80 mph. Therefore, car manufacturers are designing cars to meet fuel economy requirements for 55 mph, but still needing to make the vehicle go 80 mph (or above in passing scenarios). Everyone gets excited whenever talking about horsepower, but maximum HP comes at engine rpm redline. So it is sort of an imaginary number, because redline is a limit based on maximum engine output for factory testing, and not designed for driving. So torque is a better measure of vehicle power, although torque curves are almost never available. If you've noticed most later generation vehicles have their maximum published torque occurs at higher and higher rpm. Higher rpm means poorer fuel economy. A turbo boost is one way to improve torque at lower rpm.

Car companies are moving from V8's to V6's to 4 cylinders (either 'I' or 'V' configuration) with some form of turbo boost, and pairing each with proper matching transmissions. V8's generally have ready available power, but at the cost of wasted fuel consumption to have power in reserve. V6's have less power, but operate closer to basic power reserve needs, in order to achieve better fuel economy. However, when extra power is called upon, the V6's typically rev to higher rpm than required of V8's (also typically constrained to a lower gear for automatic transmissions). CAFE standards are being more stringently enforced by the US government, and automotive manufacturers are reducing engine size to 4 cylinder achieve better mileage at 55 mph. Manufacturers know consumers will be unhappy without a comfortable solution to drive on highways with higher speed limits or during demand for reserve power. This is where the turbo boost comes in. I wonder whether a Tacoma weighing 4300 pounds (curb weight) will achieve better mileage at 80 mph with the 4 cylinder in turbo mode or the V6 currently offered. As a vehicle increases beyond 55 mph, does the efficiency of the 4 cylinder decline more than the V6 to achieve the same increased speed. Yes, the car manufacturers can improve mileage to meet the archaic 55 mph test, but is it really a matter of better design, or just enough to pass the test?

Vehicles engines with the flattest torque curves are electric. These vehicles are still being developed, and are out of reach (pricewise) for the average consumer. Battery technology is still improving, which is necessary for future vehicle cost and driving range on a single charge. Does anyone know the real cost benefit of current electric vehicles versus gasoline powered (need an apples and apples comparison). Cost of electric generation (power plant data), cost of charging stations as the number of vehicles start to become become mainstream, cost of amortized battery life, and cost of vehicle must be compared to full cost of gasoline vehicle of like design.

Note that current Tesla owners program their home charging stations to charge during non-peak electrical demand periods. The cost of a home charging station not typically recognized in vehicle cost. It is important to note to completely recharge a Tesla on a 15 amp circuit would take more than 24 hours, which is why electric utilities want electric vehicle owners to have an off peak charge contract for their home charging stations, which operate at must higher amperage.

Sorry for the long story.

 

I’m curious, do you have a mustache? The only person I’ve ever know with an SVO had a mustache, and it has always matched the car in my mind.

 

Nope

 

I would guess that 90% of the folks welcoming a 4 cyl turbo with open arms have never owned a forced induction engine. They last about half as long as naturally aspirated engines. It creates so many additional risks that must be mitigated (air/ oil separators anyone) and still cause issues. This is destroy the best thing Toyota has going for them.

 

Turbos don't shorten the life of a engine, it's when people up boost and tune beyond the MFG tune is when stuff can go wrong.

 

My MR2 turbo says that you must have never owned a turbo, at least not one built by Toyota or Subaru or Volvo or even Ford or a turbo diesel from any manufacturer.

 

yep and sure....a fmco turbo will last to infinity and beyond. Maybe 'Over the Rainbow' too. Sure, keep selling that shit and buy a bed full too.

 

Oh that’s funny, I’ve owned, worked on and re-built more than a few WRXs and STIs.

 

Agreed - they are great when they're new and a headache when they age from my experiences.

 

FIFY

 

You seem confused.
The value of torque in a working engine isn't about PEAK torque, its about CONSTANT torque. As in the torque it makes at 1000 rpm is the same as the torque it makes at 3000 rpm, which is the same as the torque it makes at 5000 rpm. Once you have that, then the equation is all about power and gearing, because at the end of the driveline, the ONLY thing that matters is how much FORCE is applied at the point where the rubber is in contact with the asphalt.

 

All Toyota powertrains are going to progressively migrate to EV in the next 10 years. If we think about it objectively, the natural first step to reduce emissions is to get better fuel economy. (lighter materials helps, smaller engines that are TC and SC are required which is by and large already happening across the auto industry)... big picture within ToMoCo it all starts with the land cruiser and will trickle down from there (at least to the 4Runner and maybe Tacoma)... or be imported from the already extensive hybrid lexus lineup powertrain options... I believe what we'll see is the next gen Yota 4x4's will all be smaller TC powertrains in their next gen intro followed in year 2 or 3 with a hybrid variant, then eventually they'll go all EV post 2025 in order to compete with all the other competitors in the segment, like Rivian, Ford, VW, GM etc... the good part of this is EV's will become mainstream and affordable with competition right about when the charging infrastructure will exist to support such a high volume of vehicles... the bad news is conventional ICE engines are going away totally, I would say by 2035 when they're phase dour completely due to becoming prohibitively expensive (The market is going to inflect upon itself from a pricing standpoint...)... If the Rivian R1T was even somewhat affordable, sub 50K, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.... it's an amazing machine that is going to change the landscape of the Tacoma segment, midsize pickup adventure vehicles.

The other good news is a solely ICE powered Yota 4x4 will become true collector's items post 2035... the bad news is by then you'll likely be limited by how many miles you are permitted to drive it each year due to emissions. haha

 

It may be sooner than 2035. Supercapacitor technology is, while not super sexy since its not quite there yet for the application, plodding ahead quite surely. Once its matured a bit more, it will solve all of the current EV limitations (as compared to internal combustion).
- Cheap to manufacture (cheap carbon rather than lithium and exotic metals),
- Environmentally BENEFICIAL manufacturing process (i.e., carbon can be sourced from industrial exhaust),
- Light weight,
- Fast charging (in less time than it takes to fill a gas tank),
- Unlimited life,
- Easily formed.

The last point is an interesting one, because the stuff can be produced in sheets and rolls, and stuffed anywhere. One day it may even become possible to paint your car with supercapacitor paint.

This paper claims to have achieved an energy density of 206 Wh/kg from graphene based supercapacitors, which is on par with Lithium ion batteries: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6409971/
(note that I don't vouch for the article, but it should be enough to give an impression about the current state of the technology in general).

The one thing it won't do, of course, is help keep your electric bill from going through the roof. I'm sure that once you no longer have the choice between electric and gas, they'll tax you to death on electric and you will end up worse off than if nothing changed.

 

so true.. utility companies are the new gas companies, unless of course the major petroleum companies invest and begin to add chargers to conventional gas station locations around the country... seems like the most logical infrastructure transition but alas probably won't happen... I've often thought HFCEV is the long term sustainable solution but then I read a paper about how if just 25% of the vehicles in operation around the world transitioned to Hydrogen FCEV powertrains the climate would change in 5 years due to all the added water vapor in the air and we'd create a whole different and more immediate climate crisis... so as you say... change is good in some ways, but sometimes the devil you know is better than the alternative of the one that is unforeseen or unplanned for...

 

Its going to easily take 20 years for people on the bottom of the economic spectrum to be in EVs. Think about all those sub $5k used cars rolling around. 15 to 20 year old cars are still all over the place. You have to figure once EVs are mainstream, which is not now, you will need another 10 to 20 years to get them in the lower/lower middle class hands. I'd venture a guess at 2045 to 2050, maybe even longer. There are a host of issues to solve as well. Such as people who drive all day for work (charging times likely get solved though), cold weather areas (maybe solvable), apartments (every parking space needs a charger), street side parking (no clue, some houses do not have driveways, odd but true). Its the same as thinking we will have a large majority of self driving cars soon. Lots of people can't afford those new either. Going to take a while to trickle down.

I like the concept, been looking at electric motorcycles myself. They aren't priced how I want yet though.

 

I am a little behind on my reading on this subject, but I believe the real future of transportation is autonomous electric vehicles.

Vehicle "ownership" will go away for a large portion of urban/ suburban populations.

From an economic standpoint, the value of real estate being used for parking lots/ garages is huge.

The people who have a vested interest in real estate are salivating over the prospect of being able to build on this land.

I read something along those lines a few years back from a reputable source, and the concept really struck me- makes sense, imo.

 

1. Longevity...

 

That’s too much for what they offer. I’ll not click their useless stuff again after this Tacobella shitpost experience. I watched for a minute and then immediately regretted giving them the revenue. At least the discussion in here turned out to be marginally interesting.

 

I don't doubt that an engine designed from the ground up to run a turbo could hold up fine (maybe). I don't think it is realistic to expect a light small displacement engine to produce 3, 4 or even 500 hp and do it for very long. I also don't feel that a high rpm engine has a place in a production truck. Trucks should be by design made to work, not race. But most of JohnQ public wants a truck that can keep up with a vet stop light to stop light and couldn't care less about hauling anything more than a 2x4 in the back on the weekend.
I use my truck like a truck. I haul and tow things and I know it's limitations.
I expect in my lifetime I will see the end of the internal combustion engine for all practical purposes (and I am on the downhill side by a lot).

 

I've read that before as well. I would suspect a cultural shock where you no longer own a car, however urban areas are likely used to taking public transportation anyway. American culture has been around cars and freedom for a long time although its shifting. I'd feel weird without being able to hop in a car and drive.