200 VS. 300 SUV Battle (1 Viewer)

[TheGrrrrr]

I will be interested to see how F150 Hybrid vs. regular F150 pulling a trailer over mountains.

The Youtube TFL guys have done some testing on this already and the results were not great.

 

[DCOVIEL]

My two cents: I'm sticking with my HIGHLY RELIABLE AND ROAD TESTED '14 LC200 with its AWESOME 5.7L V8 in SIX SPEED. Its the perfect Land Cruiser heritage config (to me).

**an Aussie twin turbo diesel would be the only topper**

But I'd be a liar if I said the new styling of the 300 wasn't sexxxxy

 

[Madtiger]

The Youtube TFL guys have done some testing on this already and the results were not great.

Wow…yeah, Hybrid and towing just don’t equate well…and then you add in altitude….

Well the GR-S is going to have an available TBD that will actually offer alot more torque at the expense of some HP.
The gas TTV6 is putting out an extra 75 ft-lbs. and like 20 HP so with the weight savings you should still definitely feel that but it wont really wake up until its tuned.

The turbo will probably be running very low boost, which again is just not optimal enough to justify it IMO.
Im not sure what the point of doing that was combined with losing two cylinders other than to save weight.
We still haven't been given fuel economy figures and Im very interested to see the real world benefit is.
If the leaks are true, (20+ MPG HW) we're still in SC V8 territory which would make sense in a low boost application.

If you asked me having a portable generator with on board power for lights etc that never needs to be plugged in is a huge advantage too.
I would take the hybrid any-day of the week as there are more advantages than just power delivery.

Its a shame that the hybrid market never got as big as what the full EV is now. Generating power with the ICE is really the best of both worlds.

The bigger issue is the 15% smaller fuel tank! That basically negate the fuel economy benefit in term of driving range.

 

[AnyMal]

Wow…yeah, Hybrid and towing just don’t equate well…and then you add in altitude….

The bigger issue is the 15% smaller fuel tank! That basically negate the fuel economy benefit in term of driving range.

Towing will be the real challenge for sure. In those videos the F150 didn't even use its electric assist.

Is it really? Where did you see the tank capacity?

 

[bloc]

I think there has been a logical fallacy in the automotive industry for a long time that increased complexity equates to decreased reliability. The reality is that all modern NA engines are vastly more complex than those of 15 or 30 years ago and contrary to popular belief, they are both more reliable and longer lasting. Turbos certainly change the stress dynamics, but again todays turbo'd engines are more reliable and longer lasting than many if not most NA engines of the past.

We see this in most other areas where technological innovation has changed the game. The laptop in your bag is near infinitely more complex than the 486 desktop you were running at home in 1997, so is the OS that runs on it and the applications you use every day. Yet a laptop of virtually any flavor today is more reliable, efficient and versatile than those that came before it.

Technology improves and things become more and more complex and harder and harder for the average person to repair, but that same technology and complexity is being used to reduce failures, avoid failure conditions and limit damage from failures. Conventional wisdom is just outdated conjecture when it comes to technology, and engines technology is not an exception.

Toyota already does some good things with this newer technology, like combining port injection with direct injection to avoid carbon deposits on intake valves and runners. So I see your point. They do tend to be less cutting edge and let a technology mature some before implementation.. but losing such a significant amount of displacement, adding direct injection, adding turbos.. to me it "feels" like too much at once.

Again, I hope I'm wrong. But complexity like this (and resulting poor reliability compared to the past) being necessary on diesels to get the emissions where they need to be is exactly why I'm far less a fan of diesels than I used to be.

The solutions we actually got for these problems in the LC were just completely off the mark and SEVERELY outdated and not suited for the platform. Perhaps they will be reliable sure, but it wasn't the right choice at all. I don't think anyone could argue that it is. I don't want to disparage the platform any more than I already have but its a real head scratcher. If Toyota wants to just print money off of the LC name they can just keep selling 79, 80, 100 and even a 200 series poverty pack till the end of time and the margins would probably be even better. But to release a the truly pointless "improved" 300 series is sad.

79/80/100 wouldn't pass the crash safety standards. Not to mention their overarching move toward TNGA. The 300 needing to share parts with a tacoma is a big part of the compromise we are seeing, IMO.

Well the GR-S is going to have an available TBD that will actually offer alot more torque at the expense of some HP.
The gas TTV6 is putting out an extra 75 ft-lbs. and like 20 HP so with the weight savings you should still definitely feel that but it wont really wake up until its tuned.

The turbo will probably be running very low boost, which again is just not optimal enough to justify it IMO.
Im not sure what the point of doing that was combined with losing two cylinders other than to save weight.
We still haven't been given fuel economy figures and Im very interested to see the real world benefit is.
If the leaks are true, (20+ MPG HW) we're still in SC V8 territory which would make sense in a low boost application.

If you asked me having a portable generator with on board power for lights etc that never needs to be plugged in is a huge advantage too.
I would take the hybrid any-day of the week as there are more advantages than just power delivery.

Its a shame that the hybrid market never got as big as what the full EV is now. Generating power with the ICE is really the best of both worlds.

I suspect part of the problem is a hybrid that depends on such a large chunk of its horsepower would eventually be left without that horsepower when towing a large trailer at interstate speeds, or pulling a large hill like a pass in colorado. The battery only has so much to give. For now a TTV6 can produce V8-beating performance numbers while saving some fuel and not sacrificing a third of its power when the battery is depleted.

Also I imagine part of the push from v8 to v6 was to shorten the engine and improve crash safety metrics. I was really surprised to hear the new diesel would be v6 as well, but if that packaging/safety goal applies there it makes sense.

 

[Madtiger]

Towing will be the real challenge for sure. In those videos the F150 didn't even use its electric assist.

Is it really? Where did you see the tank capacity?

Go to this thread: Another 300 series. Not speculation - https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/another-300-series-not-speculation.1261181/

See video in 1st post…go to mark 18:54. This is assuming that Lexus LX300 will have same fuel tank as LC300 overseas.

LC300 fuel tank is 20% smaller than LC200. Due to better fuel economy of LC300, that equals to a 15% DECREASE in range for the LC300.

If this holds true for Lexus LX300, then this is bad…real bad! I thought that my LC200 320 miles range was bad…the equivalent LC300 would have a range of just 272 miles! No wonder Lexus is going to bring hybrid powertrain…because 272 range is pretty bad.

 

[TeCKis300]

Yeah, certainly we are all very tuned into this as obviously weve been forced to be. I don't mind personally since I think the LX is better in every way.
Someone had mentioned 2023 as the target for the LX so we may be waiting a while to see how it goes.

Im more eager to see your reaction @TeCKis300 than anyone else as you have almost perfected your 200 with everything I think it needs other than a supercharger. None of the extras like having tons of heavy metal work front rear and bottom or trying to turn the car into a rock crawler which its already way too heavy for stock.
Ground clearance, gearing, track width, stability, traction even fuel capacity and range can be addressed as you have done beautifully. Its only efficiency, torque, and power at elevation that cant be easily rectified.

The problem is that all of these issues can be perfectly addressed by hybridization and can be done in a multitude of ways as Toyota is already doing just like you mentioned. That Includes driven hybrid transmissions that would be very innovative for towing overdrive and low speed engine disengagement for fuel economy. I dont really see any better way to solve these things. It even fits the branding and suits the enthusiasts. If you lose an electric motor or charge in the wilderness you will make it out as its an engineered redundancy and makes perfect sense for the type of places the LC is supposed to go. If the turbo fails, you are pretty much stranded.

The solutions we actually got for these problems in the LC were just completely off the mark and SEVERELY outdated and not suited for the platform. Perhaps they will be reliable sure, but it wasn't the right choice at all. I don't think anyone could argue that it is. I don't want to disparage the platform any more than I already have but its a real head scratcher. If Toyota wants to just print money off of the LC name they can just keep selling 79, 80, 100 and even a 200 series poverty pack till the end of time and the margins would probably be even better. But to release a the truly pointless "improved" 300 series is sad.

I'm hoping the real R&D effort will be revealed in the LX and I wouldn't be surprised if we see more in the Tundra than the LC based on the current rumors. Towing an airstream, family of 4-5 with all their gear might be a dream with the new LX unlike weve ever seen. But like I've said before the LC is now just a cash grab and is offering nothing innovative at all and is jeopardizing the heritage for seemingly no reason.

If your argument is that Toyota waits for reliability to be tested and proven then why are all of the other cars receiving these things? That doesn't make sense. As special as the LC is, the Camry is more important to Toyota, their image and their bottom line. The Camry was available with a Hybrid in like 2006. Theres no excuse other than stubbornness, fear and greed. I will say however that the greater problem is corporate Japanese business mentality as a whole. Toyota is reminding me a lot of Sony right now. Sony has lost EVERY single market advantage and lead that it has ever had and even pioneered. Purely from BS like what we are seeing with the LC.

People need to stop defending the 300. Its a tragedy.


Sorry to ramble but theres a lot to hash out and I did my best to cull my run on sentences.

If you disagree with any of this, please give everyone your thoughts and dont try to explain that Toyota is infallible or knows much more than we do etc.
If you have any sort of professional corporate experience, you would know companies are not run ANYTHING like they would want you to believe. Trust me, behind the scenes most are a complete mess. Leave those type of notions to the marketing teams. Thanks.

Not defending Toyota as they have been dragging their feet. They're unfortunately fat, dumb, and happy all the way to the bank at the moment. We all know they're hugely capable of turning out some of the best drivetrains, and that's what frustrates us as enthusiasts. But bleeding edge is not their bread and butter. Still unfortunate they're all too willing to drag their feet. Way too long.

The 300-series is going to be an awesome ride no doubt by classic measures. I'm not as confident that it'll continue to be the right ride for me. The drivetrain will be exceptional in output and efficiency compared to today's engine. If I know anything about turbo powerplants - they make low and mid-range torque galore, then add in the torque fill and efficiency that hybridization brings, it's going to make diesels and V8s of yore blush.

I would be pretty excited for the 300 powertrain if it weren't for what @TheGrrrrr alludes to. It is transitional technology with so much complexity overlaid to compensate for the limitations of ICE powertrains. The real new generational powertrains are EVs, some with performance and efficiencies that hyperbolizes can't even describe. Like what we see in the Tesla Model S Plaid. Simple clean sheet solutions makes hybrids look archaic by comparison. No transmission, no convoluted intake or exhaust and all the complexity of emissions equipment, perhaps even no transfer case. Specs that look like 1000hp, 1000tq, 500mile range, 59mpge, 3500lb payload. No chance at hydrolocking, on-board batteries for gadgets galore, Autopilot/FSD, internet connectedness. Legendary Land Cruiser robustness and durability shines a bit less against those exemplary qualities.

I'll still test drive that new LX750h when it comes out. It'll be awesome for towing but I suspect it won't have the range or off-road performance that my current modified LX has. Going to miss that split hatch tailgate even if I think they might have done the right thing for weight savings.

 

[borfoo3]

Towing will be the real challenge for sure. In those videos the F150 didn't even use its electric assist.

Is it really? Where did you see the tank capacity?

In our GCC (gasoline) spec:
The LC200 had a 137 liter fuel tank
The LC300 has a 110 liter fuel tank

So that equates to ~20% decrease in fuel capacity

 

[bloc]

Not defending Toyota as they have been dragging their feet. They're unfortunately fat, dumb, and happy all the way to the bank at the moment. We all know they're hugely capable of turning out some of the best drivetrains, and that's what frustrates us as enthusiasts. But bleeding edge is not their bread and butter. Still unfortunate they're all too willing to drag their feet. Way too long.

The 300-series is going to be an awesome ride no doubt by classic measures. I'm not as confident that it'll continue to be the right ride for me. The drivetrain will be exceptional in output and efficiency compared to today's engine. If I know anything about turbo powerplants - they make low and mid-range torque galore, then add in the torque fill and efficiency that hybridization brings, it's going to make diesels and V8s of yore blush.

I would be pretty excited for the 300 powertrain if it weren't for what @TheGrrrrr alludes to. It is transitional technology with so much complexity overlaid to compensate for the limitations of ICE powertrains. The real new generational powertrains are EVs, some with performance and efficiencies that hyperbolizes can't even describe. Like what we see in the Tesla Model S Plaid. Simple clean sheet solutions makes hybrids look archaic by comparison. No transmission, no convoluted intake or exhaust and all the complexity of emissions equipment, perhaps even no transfer case. Specs that look like 1000hp, 1000tq, 500mile range, 59mpge, 3500lb payload. No chance at hydrolocking, on-board batteries for gadgets galore, Autopilot/FSD, internet connectedness. Legendary Land Cruiser robustness and durability shines a bit less against those exemplary qualities.

I'll still test drive that new LX750h when it comes out. It'll be awesome for towing but I suspect it won't have the range or off-road performance that my current modified LX has. Going to miss that split hatch tailgate even if I think they might have done the right thing for weight savings.

Some good points here.

I admit I haven’t been paying a ton of attention, but I’m confident you have. What do serious looks at EV towing range conclude? When towing a trailer like you do? Someone has to have done the math for battery capacity against work output given current and even future EV efficiency numbers..

Not picking on EVs, but the point I made about hybrids above applies to them as well. Making a sleek model S or 3 have great range seems simple with the battery and motor technology we have currently. But a truck pulling a giant wind sail behind it? Or an 8000lb load up vail pass? Yeah a truck can fit larger batteries but there must be some balance of curb weight vs range..

Also I went down a YouTube rabbit hole watching Plaid videos the other day. That is a seriously impressive car.

 

[AnyMal]

Toyota already does some good things with this newer technology, like combining port injection with direct injection to avoid carbon deposits on intake valves and runners. So I see your point. They do tend to be less cutting edge and let a technology mature some before implementation.. but losing such a significant amount of displacement, adding direct injection, adding turbos.. to me it "feels" like too much at once.

Again, I hope I'm wrong. But complexity like this (and resulting poor reliability compared to the past) being necessary on diesels to get the emissions where they need to be is exactly why I'm far less a fan of diesels than I used to be.



79/80/100 wouldn't pass the crash safety standards. Not to mention their overarching move toward TNGA. The 300 needing to share parts with a tacoma is a big part of the compromise we are seeing, IMO.



I suspect part of the problem is a hybrid that depends on such a large chunk of its horsepower would eventually be left without that horsepower when towing a large trailer at interstate speeds, or pulling a large hill like a pass in colorado. The battery only has so much to give. For now a TTV6 can produce V8-beating performance numbers while saving some fuel and not sacrificing a third of its power when the battery is depleted.

Also I imagine part of the push from v8 to v6 was to shorten the engine and improve crash safety metrics. I was really surprised to hear the new diesel would be v6 as well, but if that packaging/safety goal applies there it makes sense.

Gotta agree here with you. In my critique I feel like the direction is wrong just as much as the quantity and places changes were made.
Would the 100 really not pass todays crash standards? That seems crazy, its practically a tank.

Go to this thread: Another 300 series. Not speculation - https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/another-300-series-not-speculation.1261181/

See video in 1st post…go to mark 18:54. This is assuming that Lexus LX300 will have same fuel tank as LC300 overseas.

LC300 fuel tank is 20% smaller than LC200. Due to better fuel economy of LC300, that equals to a 15% DECREASE in range for the LC300.

If this holds true for Lexus LX300, then this is bad…real bad! I thought that my LC200 320 miles range was bad…the equivalent LC300 would have a range of just 272 miles! No wonder Lexus is going to bring hybrid powertrain…because 272 range is pretty bad.

Wow, we had discussed the reduction elsewhere in speculation but I had no idea it was that bad. Disappointing to say the least.
I get no more than 225-250 a tank for all the city driving I do. Thats gonna be a pass for a lot of people when a simple cheap full EV can beat the range thats wild.
We will be buying my wife an all EV soon and as a second vehicle with her working from home its a no brainer.

Not defending Toyota as they have been dragging their feet. They're unfortunately fat, dumb, and happy all the way to the bank at the moment. We all know they're hugely capable of turning out some of the best drivetrains, and that's what frustrates us as enthusiasts. But bleeding edge is not their bread and butter. Still unfortunate they're all too willing to drag their feet. Way too long.

The 300-series is going to be an awesome ride no doubt by classic measures. I'm not as confident that it'll continue to be the right ride for me. The drivetrain will be exceptional in output and efficiency compared to today's engine. If I know anything about turbo powerplants - they make low and mid-range torque galore, then add in the torque fill and efficiency that hybridization brings, it's going to make diesels and V8s of yore blush.

I would be pretty excited for the 300 powertrain if it weren't for what @TheGrrrrr alludes to. It is transitional technology with so much complexity overlaid to compensate for the limitations of ICE powertrains. The real new generational powertrains are EVs, some with performance and efficiencies that hyperbolizes can't even describe. Like what we see in the Tesla Model S Plaid. Simple clean sheet solutions makes hybrids look archaic by comparison. No transmission, no convoluted intake or exhaust and all the complexity of emissions equipment, perhaps even no transfer case. Specs that look like 1000hp, 1000tq, 500mile range, 59mpge, 3500lb payload. No chance at hydrolocking, on-board batteries for gadgets galore, Autopilot/FSD, internet connectedness. Legendary Land Cruiser robustness and durability shines a bit less against those exemplary qualities.

I'll still test drive that new LX750h when it comes out. It'll be awesome for towing but I suspect it won't have the range or off-road performance that my current modified LX has. Going to miss that split hatch tailgate even if I think they might have done the right thing for weight savings.

Same, a new escalade has never looked better to me, but i would still be nervous pulling the trigger. As much as the drivetrain reliability has apparently been resolved, the build quality is still no where near the LC/ and specially the LX interior. You can get in a 20 year old LX and say wow, get in a 20 year old escalade and its more like woooooow. LOL. The only other car manuf i respect in that regard is Porsche. They are still building quality vehicles as far as i know.
Going from my E92 335is to my F32 M4 was a huge shock to me and i left the BMW brand right then and there once that lease was up. Everything, and I mean everything rattled. Went with my friend at the dealer to 3 other M4s on the lot and they were all identical while the E92 was ROCK solid.

If it were not for my doomsday prepper mentality, I would def have gone escalade or range rover because its really what im looking for aside from reliability, robustness, and longevity. I want an off road capable S-Class and technology is a big part of that. I can happily live without the bells and whistles but financially those vehicles are not good "investments" for a lack of a better word. Specially if SHTF I want to be able to crawl out of town using crap gasoline if needed.

With what toyota is doing and others Ive heard of some very creative ways of delivering hybrid power. Im still not sure what would be the best implementation but I have some armchair theories for sure. I would love the idea of an electric low boost supercharger with selective engagement or intelligent mapping for my current vehicle but theres a reason im sure why we dont have those. Im sure you all know more than I do on that. I definitely need to do more research but supercharging is still in my plans. Im happy with the 570 but I want some extra power on reserve. What Im really surprised by is why Toyota didn't go with cylinder deactivation or part time 2 WD on the 300 since those are fairly simple solutions to implement and they solve actual problems people care about along the way other than just efficiency. I also think that it would have been well received and is not a far leap for the 3UR.

Also your point in full EV is undoubtedly being proven over and over again. F150 Lightning reveal was incredible to say the least. My only concern with full EV is the redundancy aspect like being confined to charging alone, and climate. In both temperature extremes, these systems give up A TON of their capacity. Currently an ICE will deliver the nearly the same range in frigid or burning hot temperatures. This is just like the issue of altitude for ICE but we have boost for that. I don't see any solution for the EVs at this time and that bothers me.

 

[Madtiger]

Gotta agree here with you. In my critique I feel like the direction is wrong just as much as the quantity and places changes were made.
Would the 100 really not pass todays crash standards? That seems crazy, its practically a tank.




Wow, we had discussed the reduction elsewhere in speculation but I had no idea it was that bad. Disappointing to say the least.
I get no more than 225-250 a tank for all the city driving I do. Thats gonna be a pass for a lot of people when a simple cheap full EV can beat the range thats wild.
We will be buying my wife an all EV soon and as a second vehicle with her working from home its a no brainer.



Same, a new escalade has never looked better to me, but i would still be nervous pulling the trigger. As much as the drivetrain reliability has apparently been resolved, the build quality is still no where near the LC/ and specially the LX interior. You can get in a 20 year old LX and say wow, get in a 20 year old escalade and its more like woooooow. LOL. The only other car manuf i respect in that regard is Porsche. They are still building quality vehicles as far as i know.
Going from my E92 335is to my F32 M4 was a huge shock to me and i left the BMW brand right then and there once that lease was up. Everything, and I mean everything rattled. Went with my friend at the dealer to 3 other M4s on the lot and they were all identical while the E92 was ROCK solid.

If it were not for my doomsday prepper mentality, I would def have gone escalade or range rover because its really what im looking for aside from reliability, robustness, and longevity. I want an off road capable S-Class and technology is a big part of that. I can happily live without the bells and whistles but financially those vehicles are not good "investments" for a lack of a better word. Specially if SHTF I want to be able to crawl out of town using crap gasoline if needed.

With what toyota is doing and others Ive heard of some very creative ways of delivering hybrid power. Im still not sure what would be the best implementation but I have some armchair theories for sure. I would love the idea of an electric low boost supercharger with selective engagement or intelligent mapping for my current vehicle but theres a reason im sure why we dont have those. Im sure you all know more than I do on that. I definitely need to do more research but supercharging is still in my plans. Im happy with the 570 but I want some extra power on reserve. What Im really surprised by is why Toyota didn't go with cylinder deactivation or part time 2 WD on the 300 since those are fairly simple solutions to implement and they solve actual problems people care about along the way other than just efficiency. I also think that it would have been well received and is not a far leap for the 3UR.

Also your point in full EV is undoubtedly being proven over and over again. F150 Lightning reveal was incredible to say the least. My only concern with full EV is the redundancy aspect like being confined to charging alone, and climate. In both temperature extremes, these systems give up A TON of their capacity. Currently an ICE will deliver the nearly the same range in frigid or burning hot temperatures. This is just like the issue of altitude for ICE but we have boost for that. I don't see any solution for the EVs at this time and that bothers me.

Doomsday, I want a Prius. Period. Why would you want to be in a gas guzzler? Why would you want to be in EV?

You mention Escalade yet you care about off roading? Why you want an S class off-roader? It’s not the most reliable thing. Electronic issues. Complicated as hell to repair. Air suspension issue…oh wait, Well, I guess LX is like that after all.

 

[TeCKis300]

Leaving this here

 

[AnyMal]

Leaving this here

My wife is always making fun of the epic soundtracks to these. "Another lame car video" LOL.
This one is on another level.

 

[TeCKis300]

We don't know what a true test will show in regards to towing, but I suspect the 300-series in all forms is going to tow well. Even the hybrid versions as they still have the same core 3.5L V6, making in excess of 400 hp and almost 500 lb-ft torque. As it is turbo, it'll have less impact at elevation. One of the knocks on the Ford Ecoboost is its tepid engine braking. A parameter largely correlated to displacement. Our V8 5.7L engine brakes well. The Toyota 3.5TT is likely to have the same trade for the base engine, but with hybridization, should have strong engine braking with the bonus of regeneration. The other question is efficiency of the hybrid 3.5TT under heavy tow loads. I saw about 10-11 mpg from the 5.7L when closer to stock. Comparable but perhaps 1-2MPG under some more modern gas powerplants from other manufacturers towing similar loads. If the future LX is expected to see high 20MPG unladen, and can get 13-14MPG under load, that would be a big win. But then there's the smaller tank. If the anticipated efficiency holds up, when unladen, modified, and tow usage, could see ranges of 220-450 miles in various scenarios. Hope LRA is still around.

Some good points here.

I admit I haven’t been paying a ton of attention, but I’m confident you have. What do serious looks at EV towing range conclude? When towing a trailer like you do? Someone has to have done the math for battery capacity against work output given current and even future EV efficiency numbers..

Not picking on EVs, but the point I made about hybrids above applies to them as well. Making a sleek model S or 3 have great range seems simple with the battery and motor technology we have currently. But a truck pulling a giant wind sail behind it? Or an 8000lb load up vail pass? Yeah a truck can fit larger batteries but there must be some balance of curb weight vs range..

Also I went down a YouTube rabbit hole watching Plaid videos the other day. That is a seriously impressive car.

Been trying to pencil this out for the tri-motor Cybertruck. If current experiments with car based Teslas are any indication, towing range will be impacted by 40-50%. If the CT gets delivered with the anticipated 500 mile range, towing range should see 250-300 miles. That's not far off to gas motors today. Either the thought experiment above for the 300-series. Or my 200-series with with LRA aux tank with about 38 gallon total capacity. Unladen, I get about 500miles range. Towing 270-300. Comparable. And I'm pretty happy and comfortable with those ranges as it works great for trips.

Climbing mountain ranges, my LX will see as low as 5-6mpg. Swills gas. EVs will swill energy the same. Except it will have the benefit of regen on the other side. If my current experience with my wife's Model 3 is any indication, I think EVs will perform exceptionally well towing in the mountains. No transmission and managing gearing/torque, as power is always immediately underfoot. Noiseless climbing. Supreme downhill control with strong regen. The future CT with anticipated plaid like 3 motor drivetrain, should have performance that will wipe the floor, leaving even the strongest diesels today in their own cloud of soot.

 

[bloc]

What Im really surprised by is why Toyota didn't go with cylinder deactivation or part time 2 WD on the 300 since those are fairly simple solutions to implement and they solve actual problems people care about along the way other than just efficiency. I also think that it would have been well received and is not a far leap for the 3UR.

If I had to guess no deactivation because they couldn’t make it reliable. Also no part-time in large part because it isn’t bougie enough for the price point, but also having driven mine in RWD only while troubleshooting a driveline issue, frankly it is pretty sketchy in the rain with that much power and the high CoG, flexy suspension.

 

[bloc]

We don't know what a true test will show in regards to towing, but I suspect the 300-series in all forms is going to tow well. Even the hybrid versions as they still have the same core 3.5L V6, making in excess of 400 hp and almost 500 lb-ft torque. As it is turbo, it'll have less impact at elevation. One of the knocks on the Ford Ecoboost is its tepid engine braking. A parameter largely correlated to displacement. Our V8 5.7L engine brakes well. The Toyota 3.5TT is likely to have the same trade for the base engine, but with hybridization, should have strong engine braking with the bonus of regeneration. The other question is efficiency of the hybrid 3.5TT under heavy tow loads. I saw about 10-11 mpg from the 5.7L when closer to stock. Comparable but perhaps 1-2MPG under some more modern gas powerplants from other manufacturers towing similar loads. If the future LX is expected to see high 20MPG unladen, and can get 13-14MPG under load, that would be a big win. But then there's the smaller tank. If the anticipated efficiency holds up, when unladen, modified, and tow usage, could see ranges of 220-450 miles in various scenarios. Hope LRA is still around.



Been trying to pencil this out for the tri-motor Cybertruck. If current experiments with car based Teslas are any indication, towing range will be impacted by 40-50%. If the CT gets delivered with the anticipated 500 mile range, towing range should see 250-300 miles. That's not far off to gas motors today. Either the thought experiment above for the 300-series. Or my 200-series with with LRA aux tank with about 38 gallon total capacity. Unladen, I get about 500miles range. Towing 270-300. Comparable. And I'm pretty happy and comfortable with those ranges as it works great for trips.

Climbing mountain ranges, my LX will see as low as 5-6mpg. Swills gas. EVs will swill energy the same. Except it will have the benefit of regen on the other side. If my current experience with my wife's Model 3 is any indication, I think EVs will perform exceptionally well towing in the mountains. No transmission and managing gearing/torque, as power is always immediately underfoot. Noiseless climbing. Supreme downhill control with strong regen. The future CT with anticipated plaid like 3 motor drivetrain, should have performance that will wipe the floor, leaving even the strongest diesels today in their own cloud of soot.

This brings up a question I’ve had for some time but had trouble finding an answer online. What does the car do with the electricity generated by regenerative braking when the battery is full? Yes this is unlikely on an EV as you had to climb the hill in the first place.. but theoretically for a gas/electric hybrid I could see a scenario.

Also good point about TTV6 engine braking. I hadn’t thought about that at all.

 

[kcjaz]

This brings up a question I’ve had for some time but had trouble finding an answer online. What does the car do with the electricity generated by regenerative braking when the battery is full? Yes this is unlikely on an EV as you had to climb the hill in the first place.. but theoretically for a gas/electric hybrid I could see a scenario.

Also good point about TTV6 engine braking. I hadn’t thought about that at all.

I think (don't know, really just guessing here) that the regen breaking just won't activate if the battery is full and the car just uses the friction breaks instead. I assume a computer figures the split between real brakes and the regen and your foot never knows the difference.

I googled and found this insight from Elon himself. Maybe in a hybrid, the computer doesn't let the battery get to 100% charge.

Elon Musk Tells Us Why We Shouldn't Charge Our Tesla Battery to 100%

Mashable is a global, multi-platform media and entertainment company.

in.mashable.com

 

[doru]

I strongly believe Toyota made the right move and I also wondering why took them so long. That move IS turbo! Given the political, regulatory and sociological constraints turbo is the answer. I wondered for years why the 4Runner was still running that V6 no-power engine instead of getting a turbo on it. I'm glad the 2022 model got that fixed as it was way overdue.

The cars already embraced the solution a few years back when they downsized from V8 or V6 to turbocharged V6 or I4. It is now time for trucks to do the same. You should drive some of the new off road competitors to LC and experience the turbo coupled with lots of gears for yourself, and you will get a smile on your face at the fuel pump.

I don't get it why some people think hybrid is a mature tech but turbo isn't. It does not make any sense. You can say that you like more one than the other but turbo not being mature is ignorance.
Just because turbos are easy (and fun) to mess with versus EV (how many people you know that have tweaked their hybrid or EV power plants?) and thus you get more stories it does not mean they are not mature. Yes, they do require more maintenance and that is true also for your beloved V8 vs. electrical. But if maintenance is taken care off and no crazy/stupid tuning done then they just run hundred of thousand of miles w/o issues.

Yes, you can park them wet. The modern turbos (after 2000) have no issues with that in gas cars (I have no experience or knowledge with diesel). Gone are the turbo timers you had to install yourself on the old turbo cars. The materials and the electronics used in the modern turbos are far from your old man turbo. Add to that the precision and quality of manufacturing.

So absolutely turbos is the way to go for new trucks. One big advantage is that it solves the dreaded fuel economy of the 200 series. Using turbos and electronics you can dial how much power and thus how much gas your engine is producing/consuming at every single moment. Granted when you run full load (whatever that means) the economy will not be as much, but most of us, most of the time do not run full load. With a turbo you can save that gas. Couple that will lots of gears and smart transmissions to keep the engine and the turbo on the sweet spot and you have a winner.

The other big thing is that Toyota can design different turbo and tunes for different vehicles using basically the same motor or parts of it. That also means that we get a much easier and cost effective way to bump the power and torque. Toyota may not want to give us [input your number here] due to regulation but especially due to fuel consumption. But we will be able to do that. And as long as you use quality parts and software you will get just as a reliable engine for many miles.

Yes, it is more complex than your average V8 and more things could go wrong but IF properly engineered and manufactured it should be just as reliable. And let's not forget that we are talking about a solution given the constraints of today world not engineering or tree huggers wet dreams.

Electrical has yet to really be here for trucks and I for one won't spend my money to be a guinea pig.

 

[doru]

This brings up a question I’ve had for some time but had trouble finding an answer online. What does the car do with the electricity generated by regenerative braking when the battery is full? Yes this is unlikely on an EV as you had to climb the hill in the first place.. but theoretically for a gas/electric hybrid I could see a scenario.

Also good point about TTV6 engine braking. I hadn’t thought about that at all.

You cannot charge a battery if it is already charged without damaging it. So basically it cannot do anything with that energy. And if there is no consumer for the energy it actually cannot put significant resistance to the car movement - not much breaking. You will have to use your heat generating brakes to dissipate the car moving energy. Just physics nothing about technology limitations here.

 

[rscoleman]

My 2 pennies. I wish I had bought a 100 years ago and if I had I would still be driving that. I have a 200 and I love it. I not sure I like the look of 300. I not sure I would want the v6 turbo. I would like the newer frame based on improvements that I have read about. I do not really care about update in electronics. I will keep my 200 till it cost to much to fix what goes wrong (hopefully that not for 20+ years).