1. Welcome to Tacoma World!

    You are currently viewing as a guest! To get full-access, you need to register for a FREE account.

    As a registered member, you’ll be able to:
    • Participate in all Tacoma discussion topics
    • Communicate privately with other Tacoma owners from around the world
    • Post your own photos in our Members Gallery
    • Access all special features of the site

2016 Tacoma Dyno Torque HP Crve

Discussion in '3rd Gen. Tacomas (2016+)' started by James_Bond, Sep 15, 2015.

  1. Nov 14, 2015 at 5:11 PM
    #101
    TacoJonn

    TacoJonn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2013
    Member:
    #118681
    Messages:
    3,754
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Jon
    Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Vehicle:
    '13 DCLB Sport 4x4, '78 FJ40
    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.
     
  2. Nov 14, 2015 at 5:33 PM
    #102
    Daytona Coupe

    Daytona Coupe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Member:
    #167500
    Messages:
    262
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    John
    Visalia CA
    Vehicle:
    16 TRD Sport DCSB
    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.
     
  3. Nov 14, 2015 at 7:50 PM
    #103
    tubesock

    tubesock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Member:
    #33528
    Messages:
    451
    Gender:
    Male
    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 :cookiemonster:.

    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.
    upload_2015-11-15_16-24-19.jpg

    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.
    upload_2015-11-15_16-7-16.jpg

    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.
    upload_2015-11-15_16-8-28.jpg
     
  4. Nov 14, 2015 at 7:51 PM
    #104
    monkeyface

    monkeyface Douchebag, or just douche if we're friends

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Member:
    #78740
    Messages:
    3,133
    Gender:
    Male
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    '90,'97,'12,'05 Tundra 4.7,'07 T4R 4.7,'08 T4R 4.7
    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.
     
  5. Nov 14, 2015 at 7:53 PM
    #105
    Z50king

    Z50king DCLBOR4X4FTW

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Member:
    #157056
    Messages:
    8,446
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Eric
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    2016 DCLB Off Road 4x4 Super White
    Stock and loving it
    i dont get it im so confused what am i looking at
     
  6. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:13 PM
    #106
    Sep1911

    Sep1911 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Member:
    #165670
    Messages:
    1,046
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2016 Taco
    I test drove a v6 manual and it didnt feel very slugish. its probably the transmission.
     
    Tharris242 likes this.
  7. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:15 PM
    #107
    Sep1911

    Sep1911 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Member:
    #165670
    Messages:
    1,046
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2016 Taco
    Fuck you mother fucker!* You want to take this outside?! How dare you speak like?! Long live the 2.7L!


    *a joke.
     
    Doggman and James_Bond [OP] like this.
  8. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:20 PM
    #108
    monkeyface

    monkeyface Douchebag, or just douche if we're friends

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Member:
    #78740
    Messages:
    3,133
    Gender:
    Male
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    '90,'97,'12,'05 Tundra 4.7,'07 T4R 4.7,'08 T4R 4.7
    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.
     
  9. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:26 PM
    #109
    Sep1911

    Sep1911 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Member:
    #165670
    Messages:
    1,046
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2016 Taco
    Not if you're trying to enter some sort of Tokyo drift competition.
     
  10. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM
    #110
    Z50king

    Z50king DCLBOR4X4FTW

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Member:
    #157056
    Messages:
    8,446
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Eric
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    2016 DCLB Off Road 4x4 Super White
    Stock and loving it
    I was talking about this
    i dont get it im so confused what am i looking at
     
  11. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:34 PM
    #111
    monkeyface

    monkeyface Douchebag, or just douche if we're friends

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Member:
    #78740
    Messages:
    3,133
    Gender:
    Male
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    '90,'97,'12,'05 Tundra 4.7,'07 T4R 4.7,'08 T4R 4.7
    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.
     
    shr133 likes this.
  12. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:36 PM
    #112
    Sep1911

    Sep1911 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Member:
    #165670
    Messages:
    1,046
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2016 Taco
    What the last map?
     
  13. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:38 PM
    #113
    Sep1911

    Sep1911 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Member:
    #165670
    Messages:
    1,046
    Gender:
    Male
    Vehicle:
    2016 Taco
    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.
     
  14. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:40 PM
    #114
    Z50king

    Z50king DCLBOR4X4FTW

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Member:
    #157056
    Messages:
    8,446
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Eric
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    2016 DCLB Off Road 4x4 Super White
    Stock and loving it
    yes
     
  15. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:47 PM
    #115
    Tharris242

    Tharris242 Technically

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Member:
    #160687
    Messages:
    492
    Gender:
    Male
    Houston, TX
    Vehicle:
    2017 TRDOR DCSB 4X4 A/T FP TO BL
    Solid Fold 2.0, Air Dam
    Howzabout google "BSFC"?
     
  16. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:52 PM
    #116
    monkeyface

    monkeyface Douchebag, or just douche if we're friends

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Member:
    #78740
    Messages:
    3,133
    Gender:
    Male
    Colorado
    Vehicle:
    '90,'97,'12,'05 Tundra 4.7,'07 T4R 4.7,'08 T4R 4.7
    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.
     
  17. Nov 14, 2015 at 8:53 PM
    #117
    Tharris242

    Tharris242 Technically

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Member:
    #160687
    Messages:
    492
    Gender:
    Male
    Houston, TX
    Vehicle:
    2017 TRDOR DCSB 4X4 A/T FP TO BL
    Solid Fold 2.0, Air Dam
    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?
     
  18. Nov 14, 2015 at 9:01 PM
    #118
    Z50king

    Z50king DCLBOR4X4FTW

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Member:
    #157056
    Messages:
    8,446
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Eric
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    2016 DCLB Off Road 4x4 Super White
    Stock and loving it
    they are interested in torque and horsepower specs for towing, climbing grades at 70+, and trying to drag cop cars
     
  19. Nov 14, 2015 at 9:14 PM
    #119
    tubesock

    tubesock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Member:
    #33528
    Messages:
    451
    Gender:
    Male
    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
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2015
    ecoterragaia and jonnyozero3 like this.
  20. Nov 14, 2015 at 9:30 PM
    #120
    tubesock

    tubesock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Member:
    #33528
    Messages:
    451
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     

Products Discussed in

To Top