That would give me nightmares if I was a Toyota tech.  


So just thinking out loud here if it wasn't for Cafe would Toyota of even bothered replacing the v8?  

I always thought a better transmission for the tundras/sequoias was a place to start but I never thought it screamed more power is needed.  

WT rather than LT? Or specific configurations? Or wideout the add ons? Or all or some combination I get it tho

if the total full cost (engine plus required add) was half you may have doubled the early 10% take rate. I'm not sure much besides price would have pushed it that far. @ $2800 over and above the V6 cost plus the other equipment, tough pill. Many wouldn't take diesel at no cost. Hard to tell what might have been.

Little Ol’ me? I don’t usually position myself to be of particular influence on very much.

My criteria?

I believe in the age old truism of “Nothing Lasts Forever”, so the more unnecessary somethings you have in a system the more things you have that will eventually fail.

Sometimes here things can be gleaned out by common sense, others it takes a bit more life experience.

Over complexity bears its own burdens, just as much as under building something.

At the same time there is always growing pains as new technologies come to market. Again, another rule of “Don’t buy a new car/engine/technology the first year it comes out” is good to live by. Main reason I didn’t buy one of the new Tundras. Dodged that bullet… so right in that instance again.

I know I’m speaking in general terms, & for good reason, as so many things can be generalized to conformable realities.

In the case of forced induction applications, I’ve learned the hard way what works & breaks stuff. Over the decades I’ve developed an uncanny knack for keeping stuff alive that a whole lot of other people couldn’t. Not to mention those times that someone said I would break stuff, & never did. I just have to prove a person wrong there.

As far as automobile manufacturers are concerned, I remember a conversation I had with an engineer from Garret back then the Navistar/Ford 6.0L was being developed. That conversation evolved around the differential pressure ratios between the compressor & turbine sides. I was told Ford/Navistar went back to Garret and asked, “Hey, we are having a problem with the EGR systems. They won’t function with these pressure differentials. Can you make them so it’s not a problem?” So the engineer tells me he responded, “You mean make my turbos less efficient & crappy? Yeah, no, I’m not doing that. You will have to figure it out.”

So case in point, complexity added problems & given the opportunity manufacturers will seek to find an easy way out.

As far as the variable waste gates, yeah, anyone who knows anything about turbos knows you are introducing a failure point. Not if, but when. So far I’ve had 5 variable gate turbos replaced over the years. I understand why they are there, but I don’t like it. Someone can do all their fancy testing of durability, metallurgy & any other stuff people get paid to do & come up with all kinds of fancy ways of saying things have a probability of failure in x & x amount of time, but it still doesn’t change the fact it’s eventually going to fail.

In that same conversation with that engineer we discussed that very thing. He was like “Yep, they will eventually fail. Some sooner than others.”

Of course you can say the turbo as a whole can fail. Sure can, and I’ve had that happen. You can also say it’s added complexity. Which yep, it is. It simply boils down to if the complexity added is worth the outcomes. Is that juice worth the squeeze.

In all honesty I look at modern engines with a duality of appreciation & loathing.

Insightful. Not the QE/VE perspective I was expecting, but I mistook your comments indicative of a mfg role.

Still appreciated, tho I was hoping for some explanations based on/ regarding data analytics.

I think mfgs would very much like very long product replacement cycles since the capital demands of new dev are costly.

In Toyotas case I think the GR series is a good indication of their preference, where external factors allowed a long run. I'm sure TMNA and TMC would have preferred longer.

There's also some hints in in foreign markets. THE 2KD is still in use in many developing markets in the HiAce. That's about a 25 year run.

But you also see updates related to efficiency as a market demand, especially in A and B segment models in high fuel cost markets. In Japan you often see technological updates as sales features to create excitement, spur demand (previous model exchange), and create parity with competitors. Tho this was more an aspect of previous decades, it still is a part of model production consideration.

The V8s really didn't need more gears - but GHG and MPG regs are certainly primary motivators in down sizing.

In some vehicles I wouldn't want a diesel and have basically gotten to the point where I might not even own another but the little duramax seemed like a good match with the Colorado/Canyon. Using one to fill in as a commuter occasionally is a lot easier to swallow when they get decent mileage. Some of the half ton duramax numbers don't seem possible yet many are able to get them. 25-30mpg in a brick is nice.

Is the Mexican S10 smaller than the Brazilian one? Is it completely made in China?

I'm a little surprised a Mitsubishi engine "won't die", though I guess they perfected it over time. I also guess it wouldn't pass US emissions.

This is interesting stuff.

@gtfoxy
@Alacrity

Are you gentlemen engineers?

QE/VE perspectives huh…

Not to disappoint, but I’ve known a few in that line of work. Smart, analytical types. Some also had not much in the way of common sense or real world applications outside of their perspective bubbles. Often times the lenses they looked through weren’t broadly enough focused.

I’ve done my share of trial & error design, engineering & manufacturing. Part of my living is fixing other people’s (manufacturers) stuff. I’m constantly gathering data, analyzing it, extrapolating it & finding solutions. Nothing fancy. A ton of other people do the same thing, so I’m nothing special.

I may have a little more of a broader experience base than most, but not near as much as some.

It just happened that the gear head side of my life put me into contact with some people I was able to learn a fair amount from. I still try to learn from anyone willing to share. Heck, I’ve learned a lot from what you have to say.

You seem pretty focused on some pretty interesting stuff. Appreciate you sharing.


The 4G6 family were relatively decent engines.

Directly to your initial question the 4G63 & 4G63T are good examples of manufacturing for the intended application, but sometimes cost effectiveness of manufacturing bleeds over.

The T version, or Turbo version, had Nitrided steel cranks, forged rods & pistons on free float pins. The blocks were pretty beefy as well.

I’d heard rumors both ways as to the differences between the standard & T engines. Well, around 02 or 03 I picked up a Galant GSX that had a timing belt let go. I had a spare motor that I had just finished so I just did a swap & basically made it a poor man’s VR4.

I had the old motor laying at the shop for months & one day decided to tear it down for the heck of it. That engine had much the same internals except the pistons.

There are, however, other differences.


Me?

Not from a formal educational standpoint. As it pertains to the discussion you have going, I started messing with engines & forced induction pretty young. Then designing & building turbo systems in the late 90’s & early 00’s as well as engine tuning. I had a lot of fun doing it & I still get to build engines & systems every now & then, life just took me in a different direction using the skills I’ve developed over the decades.

I, like many here, have watched the technology of this segment of the various industries evolve over the decades. Some really big advances have been made in this market segment. Some I just don’t care for, for my own reasons, but most have been very beneficial to the end user.

As many can tell you, it’s been a wild ride coming from the early days of fuel injection with rudimentary management systems to now having AI neural mapping & tuning.

I am always reminded, however, of a computer 101 class axiom, & its very real world implications, “Garbage in, Garbage out.” Keep that in mind when dealing with such things.

It's a Maxus T70 with a Chevy badge. Maxus is a SAIC brand, tho it's also badged as an MG in some markets (SAIC picked up the brand through the acquisition of another Chinese mfg who had purchased the MG IP from the failed MG Rover Group.) It's an export brand for SAIC which is closely related to the CCP, being a state enterprise. But GM is already a JV partner with SAIC - in bed with ChiComs - and MG is being crafted as a sporty, passenger car, electric facing brand in MX. This and the likely trade for GM powertrain assets led to Chevy's access to the Maxus T70 model in MX and a few other markets, so far.

Attached File


SGMW (Another SAIC-GM partnership) mfgs GDs fav Chinese truck, the Wuling Journey (well it was until the Toyota Champ/IMV showed)

My engineering background is entirely unrelated to automotive mfg.

Mitsu's JV SAME (China Aero-Auto, MMC, Brilliance Automotive primarily) is still developing and mfg petrol engines in Sheyang. Much of what they produced for CDM has roots in designs that were developed in the 80s. As with gtfoxy I'm a fan of some of Mitsu's products, for some of the reasons he mentioned.

@gtfoxy

Unexpected doesn't necessitate disappointment. Tho I'd hoped to gain some insight on how some of the new analytical applications are used in decision making and guidance.

The whole diesel demise kinda sucks. But the constraints conspired and this is where we are.

I guess those Chinese vehicles exported into Mexico wouldn't pass US emissions.

They wouldn't be cert'd, and unsure the could meet current, especially useful life (120k durability for the class I think now).  The other issue is FMVSS.

Yes, they design the engine around the added boost, EGT's, and exhaust pressure.  The tune, cam timing, ignition timing, head ports, compression, etc....all designed to be optimized for boost.

As far as long a boosted motor will last vs. a N/A motor....too many variables to say.

Unless you are running it on a race track you are not constantly running boost.

My little shitbox CT4 V with the 2.7, 10.0:1 and 22 psi. A bit lower than what a NA LS or LT has, but not the 8.5:1 or whatever people were doing in the 1900’s.


ETA it doesn’t rev really high either. LS2, LS3, and LS7 based engines I’ve had all revved higher even stock. The little engine makes power in the midrange.

More importantly, you know…

Absolutely nothing has changed since the 1960s.  Metallurgy, oil technology, cooling designs, aero, physical engine designs.

None of that is the same. It’s just small engines with turbos that are just shit boxes compared to the engines of yesterday.



/sarcasm.

Me and my 2.0T Accord are in this thread, and I can't even drift

The new turbos are pretty impressive I hope they all end up lasting forever

Interesting stuff. I thought vehicles just had to meet emissions, crash safety, and things like mirrors, lights, airbags, etc. I didn't know there was anything about durability or longevity.

I'm still intrigued with the Chinese brands/built cars. Elsewhere online I noticed a person can get a bare bones new car for about $3300 US currency in China.

Longevity can't be too long on a new $3300 car, though. I wonder how the reliability and longevity is for Chinese cars driven in China that go for $20,000 or so US currency.

@imq707s

Thanks.

FUL (Full Useful Life)  applies here to emissions, evap and refuel. Also applies to AirCon efficiency and leakage credits, etc towards GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions (CO² here). Generally 120k anymore (maximum allowable under CAA for some classes' and 10 or 11 years. Others 150k). I havnt looked at actual CFR (Regs) for a long time tho. There's also immediate life - 5/50k - which has a different set of provisions.

There's specified requirements for durability demonstration through mileage accumulation using SRC testing. There were issues with both Mazda's Skyactiv-d which delayed and Honda's 2.2 i-CTDi which canceled, but there were other factors like fuel pricing, materials costs, NOx regs, which all drove cost (acquisition and operations) - which impacts market acceptance. I think Honda forecast correctly and made good decisions here. Mazda, as a smaller volume mfg, is alway looking for ways to differentiate, so committed more resources. Tho -d was much the same as -x. Lots of effort, little direct sales benefit.

I didn't think it was likely, but there was a very outside chance Honda's new DTEC would be clean enough and efficient enough to give it impetus. Cost with diesel is always a constraint. Then VAG and to an extent FCA killed what was already a marginally performing engine (2.2 CTDi actually had some low end chops), tho it also killed the category. When engineers and more so execs are an actually incarcerated, it dissuades participation.

Super cheap Chinese vehicles might be better than walking, but exist in China due to low standards: necessity, liability, consumer expedition. Safety is much improved tho. Are you thinking of the Hong Guang Mini EV? It's a Wuling product like the 'Journey' pickup I posted prior.

$20-25k tier products are better than most people imagine. Great, no. But serviceable and Chinese mfg have made huge inroads in safety. light years ahead of the shit Chery first showed up with at NAIAS (Detroit Auto Show)

@Alacrity

Thanks!

No, I'm not considering any of those cars. I'm just curious of them. I wonder if they'll eventually be imported to the US.

I'd like to drive one of those $3300 Chinese cars for the experience. I wonder what it is like. I was always curious of the Soviet era Ladas. I'm even a little curious of the East German Trabant, though not as much. IIRC, the Trabant is a 2 cylinder, 2-stroke powered car.

The experience is about what you you'd expect on the Lada and Trabi

Attached File




Add a clapped out 2CV, any @ 50 PS VW NA diesel (in my case a Saviero), or the ASEAN F10 Toyota trucks (early didnt even have door windows, just side screens).

I'm not really claiming comparables here (they are all shit in their own unique way, but peeps miss the fact they were intended to be).  The Wuling Hongguang Mini EV is demonstrably better, tho I'm not sure thats the Chinese model your thinking. Even stuff like Haima (F Star or "One") or Shuanghuan's stuff wasnt abhorrent (they werent safe or good tho).

Keep in mind at the turn of this century lawn-motored agricultural trikes (Wu Jheng still makes but some EV now) and transferable engine platforms were very common transportation rural. Even recently you had stuff like the Chang Li micro RV truck. So it pretty remarkable the change in China. Hard to keep up.

Turbos got a bad reputation in the 80s.

That said, all else being equal, I think it's fair to say that a non turbo engine will last longer than a turbo one.  An example is the Mazda 2.5 liter.  The engine was designed to be turbo charged, it runs a high compression ratio.  I have no doubt the turbo should be reliable.  But I also bought the non turbo for 4 reasons: 1. Fuel economy 2. Cost. 3. Longevity. 4. It's the wife's car anyway.


Some engines are turbo charged for efficiency, so not all turbos are equal.

My 80's turbo car is only on it's 5th rebuild.

IIRC "low grade" fuel in europe is 95 octane, while 98 is "high" octane. good luck finding 95 octane regularly here in the states, much less 98 (outside maybe an airfield or race track). The corresponding increase in compression gets quite a bit more power per stroke.

I read somewhere(cannot remember) the 1JZ and 2JZ were overbuilt deliberately to allow tuning, one of the VP's of Toyota at the time was also really into street racing/tuning back then. He massaged cost numbers and engineering specs to make engineers happy(thicker cylinders, more cooling, better decking), and make accountants UNHAPPY (cost overruns lowering profits)

Given early 80s Hashiriya, and to an extent Kaido, there was a view towards performance improvements and some catch up with Nissan's RB (dev commenced just slightly before the RB (20ET and 20DET especially put Toyota on notice) debuted. Tho both the top RB26DETT  and 2JZ-GTE arrived later. Nissan in product a bit before. Those engines came out of the experiences with the L and M, respectively, but Toyota was paying attention to Nissan as well - both public channels and others.

But the design wasn't intended towards performance overhead to be specifically available for after market advantage per se. Anymore than Yamaha or others were involved. It was intended to be a HALO effort, techno-cultish top of the food chain position, as much JDM market sales hung their hat on. You saw similar development with the T (performance hierarchy and rally tie in through turbo-ing) and G (Black/Red to the Silver or Blacktops 20V -5 VPC and eventual supercharging). Lot of performance was driven by market one-upmanship supported by flush companies. Serving the tuners but not solely targeted at them. I've heard the story, but never a specifics, so I'm interested if you have names or details.

There was no concern with cost overruns at the time - these were pretty much blank check programs and unplanned expenditures for basic design goals certainly not the way Toyota works, then or ever.  JZ not as much as Circle-F (Lexus and UZ) but it was free wheeling due to the abundant resources the bubble provided. Then the crash killed it all. Well mostly.

Hold onto that Accord ... the 2.0T motors didn't have the issues of the 1.5T and you get lot more power to boot.  Plus the 2.0T Accords didn't saddle you with the CVT in the non-manual models.  My parents upgraded from a 1998 Accord V6 to the 2018 Accord 2.0T (w/ the 10 speed auto) and it's been great for them.  

However, based on this thread I'm questioning my plan to put a TRD supercharger on dad's 2000 Tacoma 2.7L I-4 ... it's slow but I don't want to compromise the reliability in a major way.  :(

What country was the pic of the Lada taken in?

No, I wasn't thinking of an Chinese EV. Just internal combustion models, or maybe hybrids. I think the one I asked someone about was a non-hybrid.

I didn't know that about European gas. I guess the engines of many cars there are small and high compression.

@stockshift

Did they have to pay above MSRP for the '18 Accord?

I guess Honda makes the 10 speed auto transmission work well. Scotty Kilmer mentioned the 10 speed in a truck he drove felt like it was always hunting for a different gear.

I don't know a huge amount about this stuff but a 2000 Tacoma is too good to risk forced induction on it. Is low end power enough for dirt, sand, reasonable amounts of mud, and snow?

That's because they measure it differently. 98 RON in Europe is the same as 93 AKI in the US.

93 RON is equivalent to 91 AKI.

Dbl

That's hilarious. If you are ever bored and haven't seen the full original music video that's from it's also hilarious.

We had that in Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina - I'm pretty sure that was Uruguay.

Not my first experience with Niva's but hopefully my last

@peacematu

I will ask them but they bought it new in 2018 so it was years before the Covid craziness.  My recollection is that they would not have paid above MSRP as there are several Honda dealers within reasonable driving distance and they've also purchased cars from that Honda dealer in the past (Martin Honda in Newark, DE).  The 1998 Accord was still running in good condition when they upgraded ... quite an impressive feat for a car to go 20 years, especially here in PA where salted roads are common.

You raise a good point about risking the Tacoma -- I guess it just feels slow for highway use here in the greater Philadelphia area.  

Thanks for the replies, all. Very interesting info here.

No it didn't.

Lol. Modern engineering doesn't negate the fact that smaller engines working harder don't last as long as bigger engines built for the job.

Cool - can expand on a simple declarative statement to refute some of the examples and data present here?

what if I told you they are working smarter not harder.

@Alacrity

Please clarify. I am assuming you are saying they individual systems have to last so as to not put 'Greenhouse' gasses into the open and the Emissions equipment also has to last a certain amount of time/miles.

What about the vehicle itself:  What if the systems last but the car itself is so cheaply made it barely lasts 100k, so in essence a 'disposable car', much like the original Hyundai's that were lucky to go much past 60k miles.  So in other words, the car could fall apart around the 'systems' and the FMVSS wouldn't care/matter/come into play.

Or one could go the opposite direction ala' Miata.  In the original NA Mazda took the FWD motor out of a Protege (that was set up to run turbo), turned it 90 degrees and not you have a 1.6 Miata.  With oil squinters on the bottom of the pistons, that's one reason these motors are pretty much bulletproof.  I have no idea if the 1.8 is of the same heritage, probably is though.

Fun Fact.  Cyl #4 in the 1.8 has a tendency to run hot due to the fact this was an originally a transverse motor that was made to go into a RWD chassis.  To do that Mazda has the coolant both enter and exit the front of the motor and the rear cylinder(s) get less cooling, drawing some through the rear for the heat exchanger.  A lot of owners do a coolant re-route making the exit from the rear (I did).

Fun Fact #2. In doing my re-route I used a Kia (Hyundia?) thermostat housing as they licensed the motor from Mazda.  I also used some Home Depot plumbing pipe as I did mine before there were commercial kits available.

Disclaimer- It's been a few years so some facts may be a bit fuzzy.

Attended recent LS Fest.  Turbocharged V8 is where it’s at.  Doesn’t need crazy boost....just some boost.

Those superchargers were designed in collaboration with Toyota, installed at the dealers, and generally well supported. I doubt you'd find many techs who had seen issues with them that weren't caused by abuse from the owner.

That being said, the 2.7 wasn't fast and the supercharger wasn't exactly a game changer. I don't think too many were ever sold, but I will always remember the Corolla supercharger we had on display in the parts department to show them off.

The ones making 'big' power with the 2.7 are the ones who went crazy with large turbos and they loved to break stuff all around the truck. Wouldn't recommend.

There's federal and CARB regulation of durability requirements for certain systems. Here evap or tailpipe regs related to CAA. They must perform to a certain thresholds at specified intervals. Why some  emissions equipment or electrified equipment have longer warranty periods than other non-regulated systems. Without getting too far in the weeds, engines need to meet emissions to certain mileages, then can have limited deviation at certain other higher mileages. Which mfgs are responsible for attaining data to prove, tho limitedly in fact on the road later.

As far as the overall durability of a vehicle, that's fair. Tho I was talking about CAA/EPA regs not FMVSS - where there are also exterior credits that help mfg meet various GHG or MPG reqs. As VVinci pointed out, CAFE has much operating beyond individual powertrain/model performance. This is a good run down in part on recent changes.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-extends-credits-for-automakers-further-relaxing-car-rule/

@bmarshall1

Most of the factory supercharged cars I know of have specific engine blocks, and nearly every component is beefed up. Even the transmissions have the internals beefed up.

Companies would be retarded to warranty an engine that they "just through a turbo on".