bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

I am not surprised at this at all...

https://www.motor1.com/news/414444/t...es-v8-engines/

The company will slowly switch its plants from making the V8 into producing this twin-turbo V6.

Toyota will allegedly replace its UR-family of V8s engines with a new twin-turbo V6, according to a source with knowledge of U.S. manufacturing operations speaking to The Drive. The powerplant with forced induction will gradually replace the eight-cylinder mill in vehicles like the Tundra, Sequoia, and Land Cruiser.

The anonymous insider claims to The Drive that Toyota's engine plant in Alabama is pre-producing around 30,000 V8 engines to have a stockpile for the existing models using the powerplant. As the components are ready, the various sections of the plant would switchover to be able to produce the V6. A factory in Japan would continue producing the V8 the few vehicles still requiring them, which should be around two to three years, but would eventually change to build the V6, too.

This insider's allegations match up closely with other leaks and rumors coming out of Toyota. The next-gen Tundra will reportedly debut in December 2021 using the new TNGA-F platform and will possibly have a hybrid-assisted twin-turbo V6 for its range-topping grade. The less rugged successor to the Lexus LX will also likely use the twin-turbo V6. According to various reports, the next Land Cruiser will have the hybrid and standard variants of this powerplant, too.
Lexus won't completely abandon V8s, though. In December 2019, the company announced that it was using a new twin-turbo V8 in its LC race car competing in the Nürburgring 24 Hours Race. The company said this powerplant was "destined for use on future road cars such as sports cars." A recent rumor suggested the LX-successor would have a version of the mill making around 600 horsepower (447 kilowatts).

Motorola

Does this mean that we'll be seeing that 10-speed in the LS500 being more commonplace across the brand?

pman6

fine by me.

I always thought turbos were unreliable, but I guess not? Ż\_(ツ)_/Ż

Didn't toyota hold out for a long time against having turbo engines ?

Fizzboy7

That's too bad. Nothing beats the throaty roar and instant thrust of a V8. But today, the name of the game is fuel efficiency. I can't say I blame Toyota for the move.

Carmaker1

I was right, just like GS cancellation. Tacoma of 2024 might go turbo I4 too and maybe 4R.

Benoit

Turbos are unreliable only when peoples don't know how to use them. And they are a boatload of peoples that don't know how to run and maintain the life expectency of a turbo engine. But they are making, for sure, maintenance, more tricky and more regular. Sometimes you need to counter-act some economies that the builders are making by design (hashtag : catchcans).

The problem today, is that peoples ask what the other peoples are asking, in a form of horde behavior. When all the neighbours are having turbo cars and it "bangs so good", then, Karen from accountance will also take the turbo car that "bangs so good".

I would have appreciated the idea of progressively ramping down the V8's in having the displacement of them reduced. But it looks like things are going to go faster than that.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

turbos arent there for fuel efficiency. If they were, they wouldve been on every engine long ago. Turbos are being used nowadays to game the govt emissions standards

mmarshall

Turbos are there because people want the same (or more) power from smaller powerplants that they had from yesterday's larger ones. When that power is actually being used, there isn't necessarily any fuel-savings, because the turbos compress the air-fuel mixture and inject more fuel into the engine. The advantage is, of course, that when you don't need (or don't want the power, simply accelerate or cruise with a light foot, and you will save most of what the turbo comprises and injects.

A secondary benefit of turbos is that they can maintain more power at higher altitudes when N/A engines start to run out of spunk...that is especially noticeable during over the Rockies. That's one reason why turbocharged piston-engined aircraft are popular out West.

gengar

Yep. People just don't get this. The move to turbos was primarily - if not in some cases solely - about satisfying emissions regulations (especially EU). For example the M4 / F80 M3 got basically the same EPA mpg as the RC-F despite the Lexus making far more power. I think it was literally 16/24 for the RC-F vs 17/23 for the M4. But where the M4 really beat the RC-F is in emissions, offering IIRC a 25% reduction. Hence, turbos.

A secondary reason is that many countries assess taxes or fees based on engine literage. This is one of the reasons VW Group was willing to bastardize the Cayman to go turbo 4cyl in the 718, because they thought they could market it better to the China market.

That's the theory, but the pragmatic reality varies heavily. Additionally, much of the same savings can be achieved by cylinder deactivation; there are even examples where manufacturers changed from turbos to non-turbos, e.g., 2nd gen Acura RDX using an NA V6 with cylinder deactivation that had both more power and better fuel efficiency than the 1st gen turbocharged 4cyl.

IS350jet

Why not? Most other manufacturers have gone from 6's to 4's.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

i wonder what turbo engines emissions are while on boost, but the govt emission tests primarly test cruising, not much on load. Thats how these turbo engines game govt emission testing. Drive the car less than perfect and the turbos fuel economy and emissions get worse quick

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Why would they want this? It matters in countries where they tax on engine size, but that (fortunately) isn't the U.S. (yet).

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

even funnier comparison is the Vipers 8.4 liter OHV V10 with a 6MT making 12/19 (12/21 on 2015+) mpg but then a 3.5 liter V6TT "Ecoboost" in the Ford GT with a DCT making 12/18 mpg. When you compare emissions Viper is 1.35 pounds/mile, and FordGT is 404g/km = 646.4g/mi = 1.43 pound/mile.

reading here RCF is 289g/km and M4 is 194 to 204g/km for emissions

Stroock639

i still don't know why cylinder deactivation isn't more prevalent, it really seems like the perfect solution... i guess the problem is a 4 liter engine with or without cylinder deactivation is still classed and taxed as a 4 liter engine

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

there are balance and NVH issues when running half the cylinders, not all engine configs can do it well.