Camry to dump V6 for you know what.

[12,000 RPM]

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140714/OEM01/307149926/toyotas-massive-engine-overhaul

Turbo Camry

The next Camry will be the first vehicle getting Toyota's full TNGA treatment, complete with a new platform and an engine built on a TNGA-tailored line. Other TNGA cars arriving before then, including the Prius, will get TNGA engines made on existing lines.

One possible "hair accessory" for the Camry: Toyota is considering a downsized inline-four turbo as an alternative to the V-6, Saga said.

"It might be able to replace a six-cylinder with a four-cylinder plus turbo plus direct injection," he said. "Compared to a V-6, we think this solution will be less costly."

But marketers are evaluating whether Americans will accept the idea.

"Eventually we think this is where the technology is going, but right now we don't know what the reaction of U.S. customers will be," he said. "So probably right up until the last moment, we will have to be ready with both and watch customer feedback."

Toyota's caution comes as rivals plunge into downsized turbocharging, especially Ford Motor Co. with its EcoBoost line of small, fuel-efficient turbocharged engines.

Makes sense, and if anyone can actually make good on the promises of turbocharging it's Toyota. V6 take rate is so low (take rate over the last 10 years is about 10% by my analysis) I don't think their customer base will care. I bet most of the V6s out there were holdovers people essentially bought by accident. Plus now the backwards cap contingent can chip their mommy's cars without mommy's knowledge and torque steer themseves out of the gene pool 

[ifcar]

There's a difference between "will" and "might."

And 10 percent of Camrys is still a *lot* of cars -- it would be more than 40,000 last year, the equivalent of *total* Mazda6 sales.

[2o6]

I can't actually see them doing this, the 2.0T in the NX seems like a token effort to appeal to Europe rather than a legit effort.

[Byteme]

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140714/OEM01/307149926/toyotas-massive-engine-overhaul

Makes sense, and if anyone can actually make good on the promises of turbocharging it's Toyota. V6 take rate is so low (take rate over the last 10 years is about 10% by my analysis) I don't think their customer base will care. I bet most of the V6s out there were holdovers people essentially bought by accident. Plus now the backwards cap contingent can chip their mommy's cars without mommy's knowledge and torque steer themseves out of the gene pool 

I can't imagine most Camry buyers really worrying about  what's under the hood as long as the car has a certain amount of pep and doesn't require a lot of care.

[Northlands]

I can't imagine most Camry buyers really worrying about  what's under the hood as long as the car has a certain amount of pep and doesn't require a lot of care.

Me too. I think the average Camry buyer wouldn't notice if it had a 83hp 3cyl in the thing so long as it rode smooth.

[Madman]

Keep in mind there are still people out there who once test drove a four cylinder Chevette back in 1976 so therefore they still believe all four cylinder engines are slow pieces of crap.  But if they really want a V6 that badly, there's always the geezermobile Avalon which is ideally suited to the tastes of the typical Geritol addict, anyway.

Personally, I've driven both I4 and V6 Honda Accords and I preferred the way the four-pot drove.  The V6 felt too nose-heavy and understeered through fast corners.  I value good handling over outright power and found the four cylinder car to be much nicer to drive and not lacking for oomph, either.  Still hopelessly boring, mind you.

Fusion, Optima, Sonata and Mazda 6 all prove you don't need a V6 in 2014.

[Onslaught]

I'll always take a V6 over any 4 banger ever made. But I'm not like most people so I can see this happeneing.

[12,000 RPM]

Fusion, Optima, Sonata and Mazda 6 all prove you don't need a V6 in 2014.

Mazda6 is debatable. I want to drive one. But the Fusion and Sonata/Optima are a good second or so slower to 60 and through the 1/4, despite weighing the same, having the same number of gears, and making "more horsepower" than the Camry and Accord V6. So there is clearly something missing with the 2.0Ts. They don't get much better gas mileage, if any at all, either.

My beef with the V6 mainstreamers is that they don't beef up the rest of the car to deal with the power. My brother has an Altima V6, and it would be OK if the brakes and suspension didn't totally suck. My friends I grew up with all had Altima V6s and Maximas, and they updated the brakes  and suspensions.... those cars were flat out fun and fast without being dangerous. I remember my buddy's Altima blowing my mind in a panic stop like it was yesterday. But there's next to no market for beefed up Camrys.

[GoCougs]

Nah, the Camry V6 ain't going nowhere. Its V6 take rate is big - like ~25%. It's integral to the line, esp. the vastly improved NVH vs. a 4 banger, and this is independent of the fact that pretty much all recent mainstream turbo implementations have been mediocre to poor; in the class and otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised to see turbo engines disappear once again (as they did after the experiment of the '80s).

[SVT32V]

Mazda6 is debatable. I want to drive one. But the Fusion and Sonata/Optima are a good second or so slower to 60 and through the 1/4, despite weighing the same, having the same number of gears, and making "more horsepower" than the Camry and Accord V6. So there is clearly something missing with the 2.0Ts. They don't get much better gas mileage, if any at all, either.

The fusion/sonata are down 30 hp to the camcord v6s, that is why they are slower.

They do get better EPA mileage, that is all they are after, fooling the govt., real world doesn't matter.

[SVT32V]

Nah, the Camry V6 ain't going nowhere. Its V6 take rate is big - like ~25%. It's integral to the line, esp. the vastly improved NVH vs. a 4 banger, and this is independent of the fact that pretty much all recent mainstream turbo implementations have been mediocre to poor; in the class and otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised to see turbo engines disappear once again (as they did after the experiment of the '80s).

With cafe mandates going through the roof the small turbo engines are here to stay as long as they have an advantage in EPA testing.

Govt. incentives are a hard thing to get around.

VW and Ford are ahead of the curve with high comp turbo engines for the mainstream, the rest will play catchup.

[GoCougs]

With cafe mandates going through the roof the small turbo engines are here to stay as long as they have an advantage in EPA testing.

Govt. incentives are a hard thing to get around.

VW and Ford are ahead of the curve with high comp turbo engines for the mainstream, the rest will play catchup.

True, but the EPA/government doesn't like getting gamed unless it's benefitting, and be sure that they're watching the recent class action suits regarding turbo MPG falling short.

Ford Ecoboost has gone poorly - the 2.0T in the Edge, Explorer and Taurus is    and not only has Ford had issues with EB V6 reliability and class action suits, the new (more reliable/durable) GM 6.2L performs as good or better in all regards, including EPA MPG ratings (both rated 17 mpg combined). The 2.0T in the Fusion isn't a disaster but it falls notably short of the Camcord V6s.

VW turbo charging is only playing catch up with the rest of the N/A class (GTI, GLI, Tiguan) or only available in very expensive performance cars (S6, S7, A8 etc.) that have little relevance to mainstream cars.

N/A mills are the future for cheap, reliable and high mpg vehicles. Turbocharging simply has too many compromises. Without the broken EPA rating system they'd likely never would have seen the light of day in a mainstream family sedan.

[Soup DeVille]

Cougs, for a relatively young guy with a lot of technical knowledge, you sure are perpetually anti-change.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you in this particular case, but I kinda knew what you were going to say before you said it, you know?

[12,000 RPM]

VW turbo charging is only playing catch up with the rest of the N/A class (GTI, GLI, Tiguan)

No way, the VWAG 2.0Ts have been and always will be world class. They had some teething issues with DI at the beginning, but even then, there's nothing in the N/A class that comes close as far as torque and fuel economy.

N/A mills are the future for cheap, reliable and high mpg vehicles. Turbocharging simply has too many compromises. Without the broken EPA rating system they'd likely never would have seen the light of day in a mainstream family sedan.

Again, bzzzt, wrong. You can deny the validity of EPA testing, but these figures are right in line with real world data... if not better looking for NA



There's two things that make turbo engines work well... they need enough base displacement to not need to be in boost all the time to get the car moving (which is why Ford's 1.6 is a fail in the Fusion but a gem in the Fiesta ST), and the company making them has to have a strong engineering dept (which is why Hyundai's turbo engines are so terrible). Toyota knows what it's doing- this is why it's waited so long to jump into the mix.

Lololololol @ this though:

Without the broken EPA rating system they'd likely never would have seen the light of day in a mainstream family sedan.

There have been turbo mainstreamers for quite some time Cougs. 626, Galant VR-4, Passat, etc. etc. And even without the EPA, manufacturers are looking for ways to get a competitive edge, which includes fuel economy, which a well configured/designed turbo engine will always have over an N/A engine. Stop cherrypicking the worst (Ford and Hyundai) when there are so many examples that work (BMW, Mercedes, VWAG, and I'm sure Toyota/Lexus with the NX and in time the Camry). Like Soup said it's weird that a mechanical engineer would be such an automotive luddite

[GoCougs]

Cougs, for a relatively young guy with a lot of technical knowledge, you sure are perpetually anti-change.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you in this particular case, but I kinda knew what you were going to say before you said it, you know?

I'm perpetually "proof is in the puddin" type. Change is good if it matters, and a lot of times; in virtually all aspects of life not just automotive tech; the answer is to do nothing/or nothing different.

[SVT32V]

True, but the EPA/government doesn't like getting gamed unless it's benefitting, and be sure that they're watching the recent class action suits regarding turbo MPG falling short.

Ford Ecoboost has gone poorly - the 2.0T in the Edge, Explorer and Taurus is    and not only has Ford had issues with EB V6 reliability and class action suits, the new (more reliable/durable) GM 6.2L performs as good or better in all regards, including EPA MPG ratings (both rated 17 mpg combined). The 2.0T in the Fusion isn't a disaster but it falls notably short of the Camcord V6s.

VW turbo charging is only playing catch up with the rest of the N/A class (GTI, GLI, Tiguan) or only available in very expensive performance cars (S6, S7, A8 etc.) that have little relevance to mainstream cars.

N/A mills are the future for cheap, reliable and high mpg vehicles. Turbocharging simply has too many compromises. Without the broken EPA rating system they'd likely never would have seen the light of day in a mainstream family sedan.

The govt. doesn't care about the real world (see housing crisis among many others), you of all people must have a hard time arguing against the unintended consequences of govt incentives.

The EB F-150 is a big success with a large % of uptake, in the next generation of F-150 it will best all other trucks in mpg, just like it did previously. The EB v6 does not have reliability issues anymore than the 6.2.

The EB V6 in cars and SUVs has worked quite well, as does the EB 4 in fiesta, focus, etc. No doubt the EB 2.0 in large cars was not a great.

No matter how you feel about it, most major manufacturers are going in this direction (smaller high comp turbo engines) including GM, BMW, Mercedes, Audi/VW always was in this camp.

Honda, toyota and nissan are following. You are an intelligent man, strange it is hard for you to see this. I don't think it is a step in the right direction but it is the trend for many reasons.

[GoCougs]

No way, the VWAG 2.0Ts have been and always will be world class. They had some teething issues with DI at the beginning, but even then, there's nothing in the N/A class that comes close as far as torque and fuel economy.
Again, bzzzt, wrong. You can deny the validity of EPA testing, but these figures are right in line with real world data... if not better looking for NA



There's two things that make turbo engines work well... they need enough base displacement to not need to be in boost all the time to get the car moving (which is why Ford's 1.6 is a fail in the Fusion but a gem in the Fiesta ST), and the company making them has to have a strong engineering dept (which is why Hyundai's turbo engines are so terrible). Toyota knows what it's doing- this is why it's waited so long to jump into the mix.

Lololololol @ this though:
There have been turbo mainstreamers for quite some time Cougs. 626, Galant VR-4, Passat, etc. etc. And even without the EPA, manufacturers are looking for ways to get a competitive edge, which includes fuel economy, which a well configured/designed turbo engine will always have over an N/A engine. Stop cherrypicking the worst (Ford and Hyundai) when there are so many examples that work (BMW, Mercedes, VWAG, and I'm sure Toyota/Lexus with the NX and in time the Camry). Like Soup said it's weird that a mechanical engineer would be such an automotive luddite

"World class" yet the VWAG 2.0T is easily outdone an every level by the 10-year-old Camcord V6.

Your OP was gossip that said Toyota is investigating is as a possibility. Still not one turbo in their stable that matters. Looking at stats they'd be nuts to swap out a V6 for a turbo-4 in the Camry (remember, the Camry V6 is ~10 years old and still outdoes the new crop of turbos in the class).

And where are those "turbo mainstreamers" today?

Turbos only count when automakers get cheap (BMW 2.0T lol) or want to put a lot of power in a dainty package (STi) or want huge levels of power but can't afford the development of an N/A mill (GT-R, RS7, M5, etc.) or for a diesel (and that's being generous) or to game the EPA test system. Other than that, turbos simply can't deliver as well as a good N/A mill.

[GoCougs]

The govt. doesn't care about the real world (see housing crisis among many others), you of all people must have a hard time arguing against the unintended consequences of govt incentives.

The EB F-150 is a big success with a large % of uptake, in the next generation of F-150 it will best all other trucks in mpg, just like it did previously. The EB v6 does not have reliability issues anymore than the 6.2.

The EB V6 in cars and SUVs has worked quite well, as does the EB 4 in fiesta, focus, etc. No doubt the EB 2.0 in large cars was not a great.

No matter how you feel about it, most major manufacturers are going in this direction (smaller high comp turbo engines) including GM, BMW, Mercedes, Audi/VW always was in this camp.

Honda, toyota and nissan are following. You are an intelligent man, strange it is hard for you to see this. I don't think it is a step in the right direction but it is the trend for many reasons.

The EPA revised its testing procedure ~10 years ago after it found automakers were able to game the test. It is most certainly liable to do it again now that there is still plenty of gaming going on.

Lots of people buy the EB V6 F-150 but it's not gone entirely well - class action suits and now it is outdone by GM's ancient pooprod 6.2L V8 in power and performance, and is equal in EPA mpg rating.

I'll get on the turbo train once they're proven to be better than a good N/A mill in mainstream applications. They never have been and they are currently not.

[12,000 RPM]

"World class" yet the VWAG 2.0T is easily outdone an every level by the 10-year-old Camcord V6.

Besides low end torque and real world fuel economy. But those are minor considerations for the average driver

Your OP was gossip that said Toyota is investigating is as a possibility. Still not one turbo in their stable that matters. Looking at stats they'd be nuts to swap out a V6 for a turbo-4 in the Camry (remember, the Camry V6 is ~10 years old and still outdoes the new crop of turbos in the class).

And who gets to decide what "matters"? Not you I hope, lol!

And why would they be nuts? They will be the first to make an Atkinson cycle turbo, which will supposedly boost fuel economy above and beyond the run of the mill 2.0Ts from other companies.

And where are those "turbo mainstreamers" today?

Umm, VWAG & Ford's lineups.

Turbos only count when automakers get cheap (BMW 2.0T lol) or want to put a lot of power in a dainty package (STi) or want huge levels of power but can't afford the development of an N/A mill (GT-R, RS7, M5, etc.) or for a diesel (and that's being generous) or to game the EPA test system. Other than that, turbos simply can't deliver as well as a good N/A mill.

Lol, lol, and lol. BMW 2.0T is way more complicated and most likely more expensive than the N52 NA 6 it replaced. Direct injection + a twin scrool turbocharger + intercooler on top of the double VANOS and Valvetronic systems. Yea, BMW def cheaped out on that one. We are in agreement that turbocharging can net a high output out of a small engine size. And lol @ a turbo engine being cheaper to develop than an N/A one. Maybe something like the V10 out of the old M5, but on average, no. When the GR V6 came out in ~05, it brought no new tech to the table over the engine it replaced. Are you really going to sit here and say such an engine was more expensive/harder to develop than a manufacturer's first foray back into turbocharging? Lmao.

[cawimmer430]

I'm going to say something which every CarSpinner wants to hear:

The Camry should be offered with a transverse V8!!! 

[FoMoJo]

Makes sense, and if anyone can actually make good on the promises of turbocharging it's Toyota. V6 take rate is so low (take rate over the last 10 years is about 10% by my analysis) I don't think their customer base will care. I bet most of the V6s out there were holdovers people essentially bought by accident. Plus now the backwards cap contingent can chip their mommy's cars without mommy's knowledge and torque steer themseves out of the gene pool 

Hopefully, they can sort out all their spaghetti code before they try and build a T4.  I suspect the coding a bit more complicated than in the run-of-the-mill V6 .

[hotrodalex]

Wait I thought Sporty hated turbos.

Or is that the hatred for Cougs is so strong that it overcomes the turbo hate?

[280Z Turbo]

I like to go fast. Turbo make you go fast. I like turbo.

[12,000 RPM]

Wait I thought Sporty hated turbos.

Or is that the hatred for Cougs is so strong that it overcomes the turbo hate?

I still prefer NA if I can have it. But it's hard to deny the advantages of turbos, when they are well applied/designed. A 335i is like 1 second faster through the 1/4 than a G37 but it gets the same gas mileage. And that's not even getting into mods. Hard to argue.

[GoCougs]

Wait I thought Sporty hated turbos.

Or is that the hatred for Cougs is so strong that it overcomes the turbo hate?

Sporty ain't a hater he just gets unhinged and makes stuff up, which includes putting stock into bogus EPA mpg rating.s

The G37 has always had launch issues, and isn't as quick 0-60 but traps the same in 1/4 mile yet being down 0.3 sec and catches the 335i by 150 mph.

Turbos have proven to be sucky - I am awaiting cogent argument to the contrary (that is, other than gaming non-real world EPA mpg testing).

[hotrodalex]

F40 > F50

[GoCougs]

The F50 is such a better car there is almost no comparison.

[hotrodalex]

The piss-your-pants-o-meter disagrees.

[68_427]

I honestly prefer the F50






Former Autocar homie/current /drive homie Chris Harris.    Who is this Chris Harris guy?

Ferrari F40 v Ferrari F50. Like You've Never Seen Them Before /CHRIS HARRIS ON CARS

[thewizard16]

"World class" yet the VWAG 2.0T is easily outdone an every level by the 10-year-old Camcord V6.

I disagree. Having owned both an older 2.0T and the same engine as the 10 year old Camry V6, I'll say the 10 year old Camry V6 is a fine engine, and actually does get very similar gas mileage to the 2.0T, but is not "easily outdone" by any means. A couple examples:

-Overall gas mileage ratings are similar, but from experience the highway on the 2.0T is better. They seem to do about the same in city driving, maybe a mile or so advantage to the Passat but not much.
-The 2.0T Passat was faster than the 10 year old Camry V6 by about half a second. Motor Trend tested both, 05 Camry was 7.2 seconds, 08 Passat (same engine as 06) was 6.7 seconds. Will most people notice? No. But the V6 was not faster and I do notice it because sometimes I'm in a "bat out of hell" mood.
-Both had little issues if you don't take care of them. Camry- oil sludge. 2.0T- carbon build up. Both issues were primarily fixed later on.

Downsides to the 2.0T over the V6:
-It takes premium to achieve those numbers. That eliminates the minor gas mileage advantage cost wise.
-More expensive/irritating to work on, but that probably doesn't matter much to the average person.

They're totally different personalities and I could agree the V6 is the more sensible choice of the 2 in the midsizer application (at the time), but it's not as clear cut as you're saying. I'll refrain on commenting on the current Passat vs. 10 year old Camry engine because the more I interact with them the more annoyed I am by what VW has done to it on pretty much every level, and the newer Camry V6 engine is ridiculous (and pretty impressive, honestly) but for the comparable cars at the time my comments stand.

TL,DR: I disagree that the 2.0T at the time compared to the 10 year old Camry V6 was an inferior engine, just a different approach for similar overall results. Current 2.0T vs. current Camry V6... Yeah, I'd definitely have to side with Cougs that right now the NA option is better, but disagree overall on the validity of turbos.