New Lexus LS will have a twin turbo 3.5 litre V6

Buy earplugs then? There's nothing wrong with utilizing the higher RPM range.

 

The Ecoboost motors have almost no lag. They are rewriting full-size truck power train practice. Everything is going to be turbo soon enough.

 

I mean there's obviously more to be desired here or the topic wouldn't be so widely and enthusiastically entertained among us 3rd gen drivers.

 

My (c)ankles have limited articulation and it pains me to have to floor the pedal

 

Take an Uber then?

 

No. I want my $40K truck to perform like it's worth its own salt and has a pair of hairy ones hanging!

 

yes but they do work together at times as well. Its not all or nothing anymore. Even at 70 mph both the engine and battery were powering the car. then once the battery started to deplete, the engine charged the battery.

All I am saying really is that its not just braking that charges the batteries anymore. Braking still does charge it faster and more efficient though.

 

Ford really is doing a great job in the drivetrain department. I'd love to see a Tacoma-sized pickup with a turbocharged motor and an 8-speed or 10-speed transmission. Hopefully they have a mini-Raptor trim level of the upcoming Ranger.

If anyone hasn't already seen it, the 2018 F-150 is getting some new powertrain options: http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2018-ford-f-150-gets-an-all-new-diesel-and-upgraded-1790943040

The outgoing 3.5L V6 is being replaced with a 3.3L V-6 that they claim will produce similar power numbers as the 3.5L. That likely means it will be a faster-spinning engine, similar to how Toyota downsized from 4.0L to 3.5L. This trend isn't going away.

 

For sure. Lots of tech though out there that companies are exploring to get every ounce of power out from whatever fuel we use.

 

Late to the party, but thanks for coming.

 

8-10 speed transmission, and people are complaining about the 6-speed in the Tacoma...

 

We're kind of debating semantics here, because when we say that braking recharges the battery that energy came from the gasoline engine in the first place. It was just temporarily stored in the vehicle's kinetic energy before being put back in to the batteries. No matter how you slice it, the energy still has to come from the gasoline engine at some point (unless you're a plug-in).

If the batteries were powering the car at 70MPH steady-state, then they would be depleted over the course of the trip. It wouldn't make sense for the car to be charge the batteries and also drain the batteries at the same time.

 

Ironically, more gears would make the shifting less noticeable, which would result in fewer complaints. Older transmissions with fewer gears just compromised the overdrive with a ratio that reduced shifting at the expense of gas mileage, so people got used to the sound of a truck not shifting. Once you give it enough gears to optimize fuel efficiency, it doesn't sound like people expect it to, so you get complaints. Put 10 gears in the transmission and suddenly the shifts won't be noticeable, and people will stop noticing that the shifts are happening in the first place.

 

Not arguing with you, just poking fun at the aforementioned people who complain about the transmission shifting non-stop. Carry on

 

agreed.

toyota has perfected the cycle though. The prius is impressive. Battery never depletes on long trips.

 

If you like getting good gas mileage there is. And if it had good low end torque you wouldn't have to drive it like a car and rev it up.

 

No, this is where your intuition is wrong. Operating at higher RPMs can be more efficient than lugging it at lower RPMs in many circumstances.

Another member (Tharris242) made this great overlay of the only publicly-available BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) map we have for the 2GR-FKS:

Bottom axis is RPM, left axis is torque, and the two parallel asymptotic lines are lines of constant horsepower. The numbers all over the middle are BSFC numbers. Lower numbers = better gas mileage. Ideally you want to be operating in the islands of the lowest numbers. The chart is unfortunately chopped at the top line (measuring machine limitations, most likely) but you can see that high torque demands at low RPMs don't actually produce the best BSFC numbers. So while there are many scenarios where you could lug the engine at lower RPMs and accelerate, it might be more fuel efficient to drop down a gear and let the engine/transmission move the operating point closer to that island of efficiency on the map.

Keep in mind that 200 lb/ft of torque at 1000RPM is equivalent to 100 lb/ft of torque at 2000RPM with a 2:1 gear reduction. Your transmission's job is to deliver torque at the wheels while optimizing the BSFC. Some times that means spinning at 3000RPM instead of lugging it at 2000RPM, even though the power output and torque at the wheels is the same due to different gears.

 

Toyota is going to have to sort out their engine/transmissions before the new ranger comes out, or they will be dead. Ford will likely 4 cyl turbo diesel, 2.7l twin turbo, and 8 or so speed slushboxes that are properly programmed to match the powerplants, instead of the ham fisted, test it out on the customer approach Toyota took with the 3.5l in the G3.

 

Yeah, except Ford is still offering more powerful turbo motors to appease the people who wouldn't like the high spinning 3.3 L engine. If Toyota offered a 2.0 L turbo and the 3.5 L V6 I don't think you'd see this level of complaining.