Never is a big claim. Do you have a crystal ball to back this up?
Diesel engine for 200 series in USA
- Thread starter SWUtah
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Never is a big claim. Do you have a crystal ball to back this up?
Pskhaat
Tourer
Well, how old is the LC now in the US? Hasn't happened yet. I'd be on the betting side of never.
Sure is a big claim. Luckily, I have a pretty good source for my claim.
I don't have a crystal ball...but I did check my magic 8ball and the response was "not likely".
It doesn't matter how good your source is, even if your source was toyota USA's current manager. Non-one can predict "never" as that includes past their current employment and even your lifetime.
If you said never in a LC200 or not in the next 2 years you could be perfectly correct. But a blanket "never" can not be anything but conjecture.
Pskhaat
Tourer
Did Toyota respond in the US with Diesels in the 70s/early 80s without a response of "GM gave diesel a bad rap then." Was the 2L the answer? Did Toyota respond several summers ago when gasoline pricing was reaching $5/gallon and literally kicking the US economy into a near depression (along with several other major factors)? Are Toyota USA execs biased against non-luxury markets?
Don't get me wrong, we would all be fools if we ran Toyota in the same direction things have gone over the recent years. I've heard the diesel discussion for two+ decades. Despite my current ownership of 3 LCs (1 bought from dealership) and countless others that have graced my garage, quite honestly I've just given up on Toyota, I will slowly thin the herd.
Exactly.
Where are the Tahoe diesels?
Expedition diesels?
Navigator diesel?
Suburban diesel?
Durango diesel?
Sequoia diesel?
Armada diesel?
How come ALL the top selling large SUV's in the US are not even offered with a diesel? Cause the US buyers don't want them. So a few owners buy a GL or a BMW with a diesel. Big deal, and they represent a VERY small segment of the US new SUV market.
IF the demand was for diesel motored luxury SUV's in the US, everyone would offer them. The demand is not there.
This post makes a lot of sense. Where are these diesels if there is such a demand for them?...there is no demand.
As for a Land Cruiser Diesel, pretty much no chance. The 5.7 is a far superior engine than the 4.5 diesel, this is why both engines are not sold in LC form side by side anywhere in the world. Wherever the 4.5 is sold, it is always compared to the 4.7 iForce....the 5.7 LC is perfect large SUV in the US IMO...the 4.5 is just too damn slow and underpowered for North America highways
Toyotoa would seriously need something like a Duramax or Powerstroke (are they still called PS) to be taken seriously
cruiser_guy
Out of Africa / North Africa
I guess I'll keep driving my BJ60 till it dies and by then I should have an HDJ105 which I can bring back. This is an SUV driver that WON'T drive a gasser!
Those who have not driven a modern diesel do not know what they are talking about.
Those who have not driven a modern diesel do not know what they are talking about.
Yeah it's pretty hard to consume resources at the usual rates with a diesel.
That'll never catch on.
Did I mention that under 3500rpm the diesel produces more power, more torque and is faster than the 5.7?
You've gotta wring out that petrol to make it any quicker.
Overlaid power/torque graphs here.
Pskhaat
Tourer
Dougal adding the canonical off-highway driving point. Off-highway one desires to be driving in the RPM range above the torque peak to take advantage of torque rise, >1750 vs. 3300. This isn't necessarily a gas vs. diesel debate (ref. 2F torque curve) but succinctly illustrates the design differences.
Actually it does underscore the problems with peak torque on a petrol.
The only way to give a petrol engine peak torque at a lower rpm is artificually by cutting the torque at higher rpms. This hurts power which was the only advantage the petrol had over the diesel.
This is where older engines (2F etc) ran, they had torque curves that dropped rapidly with rpm so you get an earlier peak. With variable valve timing (as in the 5.7) the torque at higher rpm's improves so the peak torque moves up the rpm band.
This thread's about US buyers and diesel engines. Nobody shopping for a big SUV in America cares what the torque curves look like.
And with all respect, you are blinded if you think the diesel is faster than the 5.7 even in the lower end. 0-60? That's off the line measurements where torque is a factor. With the 4.5 running upper 8's to lower 9's, the 5.7 runs upper 6's to low 7's. The diesel can only dream of those results.
Yes this is correct. There is nothing the 5.7 (except MPG) cannot do that the 4.5 can...however, there are certain performance achievments that the 5.7 can do that the 4.5 just simply can't.
And this is why, for the North American market, the 5.7 is the best possible engine for the Land Cruiser
Pskhaat
Tourer
The Ford Excursion buyers did.
I'm not reading where there is a claim about speed, just rather both the torque rise and values.
The diesel buyers don't give a damn about how fast they can do 0-60, they do care about losing torque as the RPMs drop under load/hill/obstacle scenarios.
pagemaster said:
Reach power band close off-idle?
hmmm ????
The peak torque stayed in the same spot with the 4.7 when Toyota added VVTi. Although it did increase, the peak torque did not move at which RPM it was making it at.
Last edited:
Pskhaat
Tourer
Please explain? A diesel has RPM limitations as well. A gasser can achieve roughly (there will always be an inherent difference) similar characteristics with elongated intake/breathing and overstroked chamber designs.
Yeah the more stroke vs. bore (greater amount of time required from bottom to top per chamber volume) will physically limit the RPMs which is our multiplier yielding power.
All of this said, the 3UR-FE is still overstroked
but clearly is able to breath freely.1. Re-read his post. He said it was faster.
2. We're not talking about diesel buyers. We're talking about USA SUV buyers.
One test drive in a 4.5 (should it exist here in the US) and then a second test drive in the 5.7 and the diesel Cruisers would be left alone sitting on US sales lots.
A petrol can't acheive a similar torque curve to a boosted diesel, it's never going to happen.
You can play with bore/stroke ratios and intake tuning as much as you like, it's extremely difficult to get more than 100Nm/litre from a petrol engine. The 5.7 doesn't quite make 100Nm/litre at it's peak.
Everything you do to shift that max torque lower on a petrol hurts cylinder fill, torque and consequently power at the top end.
Eventually you end up with a petrol that's trying to be as good as a diesel, but still doesn't have the low end torque, has lost it's top end power and drinks twice the fuel in off-road and towing situations.
Toyota know this too, which is why several markets only get the diesels.
Shotts, can you not see that the diesel produces more power and torque below 3,500rpm than the petrol does?
Sure...but who cares?
I don't care.
99.5% of all USA Large SUV buyers do not care either.
And comparing the 100 and 200-series Cruiser engine options...magazines have given the overal nod in the past to the 4.7 in the 100-series comparison over the TD. In this thread the comparison is to the 5.7L. It doesn't matter what you are doing, pulling, where the torque and/or HP curve is...the 5.7L blasts the crap out of the TD in every way except mileage. Over here diesel costs more which wipes that one postive right out. Then the kicker...it doesn't stink when it's running.
