bloc
SILVER Star
Same here. Even if it is better than any previous turbo direct injected engine.. compared to a port injected NA engine, the added complexity will be significant.
200 VS. 300 SUV Battle (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter AnyMal
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
ATwoZ
SILVER Star
I don't disagree, I'm genuinely curious what reliability has been for the international turbo diesel option for the 200, I know not apples and apples, but might give some added indicators for Toyotas engineering with complexity.
I know it's easy to associate turbo's with hotter running, and presumed less reliable engines.
Why not associate turbo's with steadfast commercial diesels, which are worked hard daily and put away wet?
Almost 60 yrs of turbos so the technology is mature and robust. I trust Toyota do to it with more reliability than European brands or FoMoCo that have lately given them a bad rap. As this is Toyota, my hope is that their internal objective development goals are likely to be as robust or better than previous generation engines.
Why not associate turbo's with steadfast commercial diesels, which are worked hard daily and put away wet?
Almost 60 yrs of turbos so the technology is mature and robust. I trust Toyota do to it with more reliability than European brands or FoMoCo that have lately given them a bad rap. As this is Toyota, my hope is that their internal objective development goals are likely to be as robust or better than previous generation engines.
bloc
SILVER Star
We’ve covered this before. Turbos on diesels see very different operating conditions, from EGTs to transient boost (no throttle plate on older diesels), steady state conditions, iron blocks… tons of differences. As it is modern diesels are widely regarded as less reliable than in the past because the emissions equipment causes the turbo to run much hotter, similar to what gas engines will produce. Plus many, many other factors. Note the controversy surrounding rebuilding older truck chassis so they can have new or rebuilt pre-emissions Diesel engines fitted. There is a huge market for this in a commercial environment because the older stuff is more efficient, and more reliable.
Speaking of put away wet.. my fire department has had a rash of turbo failures specifically because drivers aren’t doing the 4+ minute exhaust cool-down idle before shutting the truck off. New diesel turbos get HOT.
I do believe toyota can produce the best TTv6 available. Don’t get me wrong. I just don’t see it being as simple and reliable as something like the 3UR let alone a 1UZ, and on a platform like the LandCruiser I personally value those attributes. But I also see why they had to go the direction they did.
I hope I’m wrong. But for now, I’m skeptical.
Speaking of put away wet.. my fire department has had a rash of turbo failures specifically because drivers aren’t doing the 4+ minute exhaust cool-down idle before shutting the truck off. New diesel turbos get HOT.
I do believe toyota can produce the best TTv6 available. Don’t get me wrong. I just don’t see it being as simple and reliable as something like the 3UR let alone a 1UZ, and on a platform like the LandCruiser I personally value those attributes. But I also see why they had to go the direction they did.
I hope I’m wrong. But for now, I’m skeptical.
I look at the turbo reliability and try not to get stuck into they world of my dad.. In the 60's multi valves were a pain and unreliable. He commented once about multi valves when I had the hood of my 80 open @ 250K. There are a lot of turbos in the world with a lot of miles. There are a lot of tuned turbos in the US with fart pipe that have gone bang.
With turbos - there going to be "chip tuning". This is where reliability will go down
Here. I build the front bumper with a friend... ugly af but he does his job
- Thread starter
- #28
Honestly everyone has good arguments here BUT...
Ive seen turbos fail and I've seen turbocharged engines last. Ive seen more or less good but also some bad NA v8s.
We haven't seen many 2UZ or 3URs fail, and there is the Toyota brand backing after all, but all this is not really my point.
I don't want to drive a turbo anything (unless its a 911 T-S). There are MAYBE a few cars that really have nailed the turbo power delivery. MAYBE.
Turbos drive like s*** and sound like s***. Why on earth there is not a hybrid power-plant in the 300 is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in recent automotive decision making by a LONG-SHOT.
Turbos are just fine for most needs but they definitely have their drawbacks. And thats exactly what the 300s overall theme is, major compromise.
When every other manufacturer is bringing out the best they can offer in 2020-21. Toyota is giving you a TRD sequoia and this.
To go 70 years with the LC and just when the hybrid technology and benefits are finally mature enough and completely on brand, AFTER having over a decade to develop the new offering then choosing to throw a turbo on a V6 with a 10 speed? So after all of that you came up with two decade agos solution? When you have the space and the weight savings already and need a torque heavy offering, and you can easily rectify the platforms biggest weakness (fuel economy) you ****ing put a turbo on a ****ing V6? What to get like 2 more miles per gallon? Are you out of your mind Toyota?
They took 20 steps back for every step forward on this truck. Thats really what has me upset.
From 2008-2020 a NA V8 with 14 MPG avg isnt hard to imagine as a serious offering considering the release date and the form factor and heritage at hand.
Its kind of always been that way with Lexus and Toyota. Im also happy it looks good (subjective) and the suspension is improved but honestly?
The LC has never been as outdated as it is now in the surrounding landscape. And thats a crazy fact to absorb given the above.
Ive seen turbos fail and I've seen turbocharged engines last. Ive seen more or less good but also some bad NA v8s.
We haven't seen many 2UZ or 3URs fail, and there is the Toyota brand backing after all, but all this is not really my point.
I don't want to drive a turbo anything (unless its a 911 T-S). There are MAYBE a few cars that really have nailed the turbo power delivery. MAYBE.
Turbos drive like s*** and sound like s***. Why on earth there is not a hybrid power-plant in the 300 is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in recent automotive decision making by a LONG-SHOT.
Turbos are just fine for most needs but they definitely have their drawbacks. And thats exactly what the 300s overall theme is, major compromise.
When every other manufacturer is bringing out the best they can offer in 2020-21. Toyota is giving you a TRD sequoia and this.
To go 70 years with the LC and just when the hybrid technology and benefits are finally mature enough and completely on brand, AFTER having over a decade to develop the new offering then choosing to throw a turbo on a V6 with a 10 speed? So after all of that you came up with two decade agos solution? When you have the space and the weight savings already and need a torque heavy offering, and you can easily rectify the platforms biggest weakness (fuel economy) you ****ing put a turbo on a ****ing V6? What to get like 2 more miles per gallon? Are you out of your mind Toyota?
They took 20 steps back for every step forward on this truck. Thats really what has me upset.
From 2008-2020 a NA V8 with 14 MPG avg isnt hard to imagine as a serious offering considering the release date and the form factor and heritage at hand.
Its kind of always been that way with Lexus and Toyota. Im also happy it looks good (subjective) and the suspension is improved but honestly?
The LC has never been as outdated as it is now in the surrounding landscape. And thats a crazy fact to absorb given the above.
I don't disagree. But boy is turning up the wick glorious. Easy 100++ HP
With as conservative as Toyota will be, their products usually have good margin for some more boost while retaining great reliability. I've tuning 2JZs for years, and even without my testimony, I think its legendary durability proceeds itself.
I've turned up the boost with 1k injectors on my 911 Turbo. No doubt a boost junkie and I'm biased, but I do believe the new engine will prove to be reliable as part of the Land Cruiser. Maybe even legendary in time.
Last edited:
That's coming in the form of the LX750h. Turbo and hybrid. Possibly in the high 20mpg, ~480 hp and ~642 lb-ft of torque.
Power delivery will be just fine me thinks.
Turbo is the new nor
I hope it does get in the upper 20s mpg. That would be awesome with the power n torque numbers. V8s are of the past. All manufacturers are moving to v6 or smaller engines with turbos n hybrids.
I am excited to see this. Is there an existing application with the combination of turbo and hybrid?
I hope it does get in the upper 20s mpg. That would be awesome with the power n torque numbers. V8s are of the past. All manufacturers are moving to v6 or smaller engines with turbos n hybrids.
Yes, Toyota has this combination in the LS500h. 3.4L V6TT hybrid, 416 horse and 442 lb-ft. The version slated to come in the LX is a newer derivative.
The Ford PowerBoost Hybrid would probably be the best indicator of a mass produced truck drivetrain using that formula. Rated at 24mpg, 430 horses and 570 lb-ft.
With how late Toyota is to the party, I hope they will bring it. Indications is that the numbers will be class leading. Something that the Tundra is likely to get too.
TheGrrrrr
GOLD Star
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #34
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.
- Thread starter
- #35
I agree with you though Its not a fallacy and its not particular to the automotive industry. Its a core engineering principle.
None of the reliability you described is due to the complexity though. Correlation is not causation here by any means.
Its the engineering advancement and manufacturing precision that has led us here.
Complexity doesn't hit reliability in that way, but it absolutely kills serviceability. Hence why you throw away everything these days.
As its only cost effective to manufacture at scale due to the complexity involved.
As someone who works professionally in building out technology systems and infrastructure I can tell you that what you are saying only works in specialized environments. An iPhone is an easy example to give, as it works without ANY need for interoperability and is completely walled.
The protocols that it does use externally are several decades old, (TCP/IP, 802.11, image formats, bluetooth etc).
I will also say that SW is as unreliable as its always been although im not particularly knowledgable in that area.
Theres a reason all cars are running the most basic CAN-BUS Linux based communication protocol.
Imagine if your car had as many bugs as your software experience at home while youre doing 80 on the freeway.
Were not there yet although Tesla is making a lot of headway into a fully integrated automotive OS.
But its also an example of being a completely closed loop system.
TheGrrrrr
GOLD Star
I think we are treating transitional technology as generational technology. Electrification will be ubiquitous and will eventually lead to all manufacturers sourcing their motors and battery systems from one or two producers with very little hardware differentiation, just like has happened with TVs (Glass and Panels) and most other consumer electronics. Software is where all of the differentiation will happen. Vehicle manufacturers will no longer compete on power plants and specs, but on styling, interface and driving experience ( or lack thereof) so R&D strategy that is still making investments in proprietary power and fuel systems is likely already bad money.
I suspect the Sony comparison is apt, because Sony competed primarily on quality and performance rooted in their hardware and manufacturing. As electronics manufacturing became more distributed and hardware differentiation faded (to some degree from intellectual property theft) largely due to software driven innovation (think MP3), differentiation shifted entirely to interface and styling. This led to, once differentiating, hardware becoming highly commoditized and ultimately disposable as a platform for better and better interfaces and experiences.
Thus far Apple is the only company that has been able to buck the trend and have its hardware be as much of a differentiator as its software, but that's largely because they were successful becoming a lifestyle brand through their software and interface innovation.
Automotive trends are shifting more slowly, but make no mistake, its the same exact path. The drivetrain innovation that we are seeing relative to fossil fuel based system is not a generational technology step, its transitional and therefore its just not where the R&D dollars have been going for many years now.
- Thread starter
- #37
Apple is so awesome in the fact that it not only builds better hardware than anyone in the space (as far as the product not the HW inside) but is also beating the pants of any other chip manufacturer AS WELL AS having a world class in house OS.
I completely agree though, the future of automotive success is based largely on branding and appeal rather than build quality, reliability or any type of specs.
Its just a continuation of the commoditization of everything. This is what a-lot of people Including Uber and Tesla are banking on.
As soon as the self driving nut is actually cracked, I am willing to bet that will be licensed out as an "OS".
I will also predict it will be sanctioned and certified by the fed gov. JUST like what we have in the aviation industry now.
(my sister has worked for one of the largest US defense contractors in the space at a high enough level to know things for years)
You will not own a car (nothing really) and you will be happy. LOL god help us all.
EDIT:
I could talk about apple all day. I wanted to add that dont reserve Apples early iPod rise to just style and marketing. It was largely the iTunes store that solidified its dominating position. Another BRILLIANT move by apple to secure rights to music distribution and not chase after library management. Yes, the iTunes platform was and still is trash, but the iTunes store was the only real and legal way to get and manage music. Never underestimate Apple they are A LOT smarter than even fans give them credit for.
I dont know if you read the news, but my very first investment was in Apple and im sad to see them doing some EXTRA STUPID s*** right now in the CSAM hash checking move. Threw away the best brand positioning in the world on tech privacy for what?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #39
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.
Don’t forget that the new LC300 is about 500 lbs lighter in weight. So, that adds up to quite a bit of an advantage. From Youtube, the LC300 easily destroys the LC200 in acceleration.
Just read the F150 Hybrid this morning…while its towing and capacity are good, it is not as good as a regular gasser i think. So, hybrid tech (and generator) is awesome, but you do sacrifice some pulling power. (Note: i am a HUGE fan of F150 Hybrid due to the generator potential.). I will be interested to see how F150 Hybrid vs. regular F150 pulling a trailer over mountains.
