Quote:
Originally Posted by supafamous
To Mazda's credit the inline 6 (more correctly the whole powertrain) beats their competition in fuel economy - 25mpg combined versus 23mpg for the base Grand Highlander, and 21mpg for the Palisade and Pilot (base trim). I do find it pretty odd that they landed on a 3.3L displacement - it's not even a carryover combustion chamber. At the very least take that cylinder and release a 2.2L four cylinder version for their smaller cars and make it the basis of their next gen engines.
|
That's great, they beat a severely underpowered Grand Highlander. The Grand Highlander was never going to get great fuel economy as you need to size the engine to the car. It's laughable what Toyota is doing to their lineup as everything is either 2.5 NA or 2.4t. They can't even game the fuel economy tests when the 2.4t is so undersized and stressed to haul a 4500lb car around. What is adequately slow on a Rav5 becomes hideously slow on a Highlander and up vehicle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDMDreams
Yea that's why I say they are 20 year old cuz they never advanced since 2000, the Honda, Toyota, Nissan V6 were great then, but they never improved it. Toyota added turbos and made it even worse and more unreliable.
Perfect example is Acura tlx 2025 V6 turbo. How does a 3l turbo v6 make 355 HP, when turbo 4 was making that 10 years ago. Gtr 3.8 V6 making 480 HP 15 years ago. Even na 3.7 was like 330 HP already from 10+ years ago.
|
20 year old and never advanced as a broad brush doesn't quite work.
I'm not a fan of Nissan, but their VR35DET does make good power, 400hp in the RedSport, it's just poor quality control and engineering requirements that condemned that engine. They've done some gimmicky shit with the VC 4 cylinder which hasn't worked but they tried.
I don't know what Toyota was thinking with the 2GR, most likely the same thinking that had them not doing so well in the 2010s where bean counters took over. Toyota hasn't really made any good 4 cylinder engines since the 3S, though notably the 2ZZ was niche and interesting.
Honda has always ran their engines long, the B and D series engines ran from the 80s to the late 2000s. The K ran for 20 years as well. The J has been around even longer as well as they let Acura languish. Their 10 spd sucks, but there's nothing really out there except develop their own, same problem with Mazda.
Mazda always tried to do their own thing. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't. Their L series engines were fairly reliable and made decent power (better known as MZR), going into millions of Fords and Mazdas alike. The L series turbo which went into the Mazdaspeed 3 and 6 were basically a POC for the current Ecoboost 4 cylinders. The Skyactiv 4 cylinders and trannies were great, handily beating their fuel economy ratings, though objectively they don't fair well in power against the older L series. The Skyactiv D engines were a disaster.
If you understand how Skyactiv NA engines work and the philosophies behind them, then you know that Skyactiv turbo engines don't make a whole lot of sense. The Skyactiv 4cyl turbos were a bandaid solution to keep up with near luxury manufacturer HP.
This is Mazda's first 6 cylinder engine since the V6 in the 90's 929, which would probably trace it's roots back to the 80's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstulzerRZD
J series turbo was a budget conscious engineering/unit to hit a spec sheet target because it's low volume.
Toyota also doesn't sell enough Tundra/LS500 to spend a ton on V35A.
Compared to JWhatever which sells like 10k a year, B58 sells like 100k+ and adds...
$$$$ Fueling: Port injection, per-cylinder knock sensor, wideband O2 sensor and ECU/programming to handle it > much more precise fueling under boost
$$$ Transmission: ZF8 stronger than the Honda 10 speed
$$ Cooling: water to air intercooler, oil jets
$$ Internals: forged, not cast
Compared to V35A, Ecoboost is way better developed and specced but they sell a bajillion of them.
The 2.7 is actually more overbuilt than the 3.5.
Fueling: Port injection, wideband O2, modern Bosch ECUs, no PCV issues
Cooling: Outboard turbos (not hot-V), oil squirters, diesel style graphite iron block (2.7)
Internals: Forged pistons and rods, wider bearing surface.
Manufacturing: Ford spent a ton of manufacturing, unlike Toyota NA which had peanuts
|
BMW struck gold with the B58, but that took a lot of lessons from the N54/55 and S55 engines. Like you said, they've gone through and paid their dues. Same with Ford with lots of issues with early Ecoboosts, cooling was a particular sore spot with the Mustangs 2.3t.
It's a weird place to be with the Japanese manufacturers, as I don't know if the govt's of the world has enough runway for them to develop these engines further. These might be it. At least Toyota has a pretty strong FWD hybrid/PHEV tech stack (RWD stuff seems weak). Some consolidation is probably due.