[llmslave]

This makes me think of the new toyotas, the rav4s, 4runner, and land cruiser. Through government regulations, they were forced to create smaller more fuel efficient engines. To get the same power, they overstrain them, and put huge turbos on the engines. The outcome is a strictly worse engine, that essentially uses the same fuel as older engines.

The demand for older vehicles in certain segments is actually increasing

[svnt]

This seems almost completely untrue?

The new models have engines that are smaller turbos, that part is true — but they get >30% better fuel economy, and they output more power.

The reliability might become an issue down the road especially in hybrid engines but the data so far don’t seem to support your assertions. The one exception is maybe the Tundra 3.4L but that seems to still be ambiguous as to the root cause, and may just be mfg process error.

[cout]

I wonder if this notion comes from the 80s, when engines with turbos had lower compression ratios for reliability. Today's turbocharged motors have higher compression ratios than in the malaise era, and the turbos have a lot less lag. Turbos no longer mean you have to sacrifice fuel economy for performance (unless you have a lead foot).

[salawat]

>Turbos no longer mean you have to sacrifice fuel economy for performance (unless you have a lead foot).

That's incorrect. Virtually every turbo'd gas car runs slightly richer than stoich to use the unburnt fuel to manage temp/knock. Diesels, you actually get more efficiency out of with a turbo for free. With gas you're practically guaranteed to be throwing fuel out the pipe.

[Toutouxc]

That isn't some turbo specialty, the effect is the same in both NA and turbo engines. And AFAIK it isn't really feasible anymore. I don't know about other manufacturers, but for example Volkswagen Group's EA211 EVO2 engines run pinned at lambda 1 no matter what.

[salawat]

All I know is my last turbo'd vehicle was always running at 13.8, and that was a 2013 Nissan with a turbo'd L4, and it annoyed the piss out of me. Pretty much guaranteed only getting 26 MPG at highway speeds. This was despite claims in the manual saying the AFR was fuel octane dependent & would automatically vary (which I found out through experimentation was full of shit). It just stayed pinned to 13.8 whether you ran 87 or 91.

[PunchyHamster]

Nope, just engineering to do not much more for warranty. Turbo engines arent inherently unreliable (tho you might need to replace the turbo itself every 100-200k so still more expensive to maintain), just need to build extra strong block and components if you want it to run for a long time.

And why would company do that if that would put it far over warranty period?

[llmslave]

This is what toyota marketing says

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Toyota marketing says that they're selling you a worse engine?

[jcgrillo]

I've got a 1995 FZJ80 and I am counting the fucking minutes until I can rip that goddamn forklift motor out and replace it with the 1HZ + HX30 + 1HD-T rods mashup I have in store for it :P

[asa400]

tl;dr engines today are not the same as an early 2000s Subaru EJ25 with a massive turbo bolted on.

> they overstrain them

Debatable. Materials science and engine construction science have advanced significantly since the V6 and V8s of the 1980s and 1990s Toyotas. Almost every auto manufacturer on earth is capable of getting >100hp/L out of a gas engine reliably. Toyota is certainly not the only OEM doing this reliably at scale. This stuff is no longer exotic. Gas engines today are designed from the ground up to be turbocharged and direct injected (and in Toyota's case, both direct and port injected), and built with the cooling systems to match.

> The outcome is a strictly worse engine

No one makes or has made a perfect engine but there's a lot of romanticizing engines from the past. These newer engines make more peak torque, their torque curves start much lower in the RPM band and remain more useful through whole rev range, they burn significantly less fuel when not under load, and the hybrid electric drivetrain mean the gas engine spends less of its life idling or lugging at low speeds and high loads. Whether some of these tradeoffs are worth it is debatable, but in no way are these engines "strictly worse".

[rrr_oh_man]

> No one makes or has made a perfect engine

1.9 TDI

[Toutouxc]

> overstrain them, and put huge turbos on the engines

This doesn't really mean anything. You can build an engine at any point of the spectrum from naturally aspirated to turbocharged, to turbo-compound, to actually not having any pistons at all (e.g. the "turbofans" that we put on airliners). What you want is to match the engine to the machine and build it out of the right materials.

Most people don't know shit about engineering and have weak intuition about materials, stress and physics in general. What the common person thinks about a random engineering topic literally does not matter, because they are 90% wrong about everything. Regarding cars, it's more like 99%. People still recite torque figures like they mean anything, ffs. That bad boy with 200 Nm at the crank? Cool, I make 150 Nm pedalling a bike.

My previous car before an EV had a 1-litre 3-cylinder engine, a 1.0 TSI. Pure gas, not a hybrid. That's an engine that's rated for 81kW (it actually delivers a bit more than that) and that can do 60 mpg on country roads (regularly). When it came out in 2015, "car enthusiasts" were laughing hysterically at the idiots who'd buy the car and have to replace the engine every 2-3 years. 11 years later, the cars are driving around just fine. The 1.0 TSI, just like the entire EA211 family, is a good engine with no major reliability issues.

[Daz912]

what Toyota has a 'huge turbo'