Featured Daimler Battery Plans

You have it backwards.
Going just by the articles datelines, the 1.5L is almost two years newer than the turbo; making it the newer, more advanced model. While the VVT-iW of the turbo is the newer variable valve system, it used older hydraulic actuators for controlling the timing. The VVT-iE uses an electric motor for this, which allows a faster response and changing of timing independent of engine speed. Low speeds may not generate the oil pressure required for operating a hydraulic actuator. The VVT-iE is also a wide range system, and it might actually have a wider range of valve positions than the VVT-iW.

The main reason for 1.5's better thermal efficiency is likely because of its higher compression ratio. At 13.5:1, I suspect it is direct injection, but perhaps the cooled EGR could control knock alone. This engine isn't available yet in the US, and European regular gas generally has a slightly higher octane rating. Higher compression ratio means a longer expansion/power stroke to extract more of the fuel's energy. The engine newness also means Toyota could have used other things learned from the gen4 Prius's engine development in it.

The turbo engine is only has a 10:1 compression ratio. Chargers increase the pressure and heat in the cylinder beyond what the compression can achieve alone. So engineers use a lower CR in a turbo as a defense against knocking.

Be wary of using the listed prices for comparisons. They do not have to reflect the manufacturer's cost. Turbos produce more torque at a much lower rpm, and over a wide rpm band than a naturally aspirated engine. This means they can be marketed for performance with a larger margin.

A turbocharger is a precisely engineering device requiring materials that can with stand high heat. The cost will reflect this, but the turbo in that 1.2L is not a high performance model. A replacement turbo for the 1.4L in the Sonic/Aveo retails for around $600 here. The cooled EGR and better VVT of the !.5L will reduce the cost difference of the 1.2L's turbo.

This includes the projected costs of various fuel saving technologies for NA engines.
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_NAengines_techbrief_201606.pdf

PS: Is ESTEC Toyota's implementation of Mazda SkyActiv technology?

 

Read the links, 1.5 is not DI, and there is also an older article about 1.3 NA PFI having 38% efficiency, search for it on greencarcongress.com.

It's normal that turbo engine has lower CR, because boost adds extra pressure.

 

As I understand, "ESTEC" doesn't refer to a specific technology suite, but rather the application of any of Toyota's array of techniques and technologies for improving thermal efficiency over their early-2010s engines.

And, most of the ESTEC engines to date seem to have focused on cylinder head intake port design to improve swirl of intake charge, and accelerated warm-up, more than the piston and exhaust manifold designs to enable higher compression that SkyActiv-G emphasized (although, Toyota's certainly getting higher compression - 2NR-FKE is at 13:1, for instance). And, Toyota isn't using the SkyActiv-G volcano pistons anywhere, IIRC.

 

Naturally aspirated just means a turbo or super charger isn't used. It does not define the fuel injection method. The press releases and articles for that 1.5L don't specify the what injection method is used.

An Otto cycle with 13.5:1 compression is very unlikely to be port injected without requiring higher octane fuel, and Toyota already makes use of direct injection.

The mention of different cylinder head shape, and the 4-2-1 exhaust manifold got me thinking of the Mazda connection. I don't expect either company to be forthcoming on which tech is whose on products resulting from the partnerships.

 

So, the engine family that we're talking about here is the NR family.

It includes the following:

1NR-FE: 1.33 liter motor with port injection and conventional VVT, this is what the European Yaris used to use as its mainstream 4-cylinder, and replaced the 2NZ-FE
1NR-FKE: 1NR-FE variant with port injection, VVT-iE, and high compression - this has been around for a while in Asian markets, but Europe isn't getting it
2NR-FE: 1.5 liter version of 1NR-FE, replaced the 1NZ-FE in some markets
2NR-FKE: 1.5 liter version of 1NR-FKE, this is replacing the 1NR-FE in Europe for performance and real-world emissions/fuel consumption reasons, but it's been around for a while in Asian markets
3NR-FE: 1.2 liter version of 1NR-FE, in some markets, doesn't even have VVT
8NR-FTS: Turbocharged, direct injection, VVT-iW version of 3NR-FE, used in European Auris and C-HR

So, yes, the 2NR-FKE is port injection, despite being 13.5:1 (I forgot it was that, not 13.0:1) compression. And, more impressively, it does that on 91 RON fuel - roughly equivalent to 87 AKI octane. (95 RON/91ish AKI is regular in Europe.)

A 2NR-FXE is an engine I'd really like to see, especially seeing as the 2NR-FKE is already more efficient than the 1NZ-FXE despite making more power than the Otto-cycle 1NZ-FE, and I suspect that a 2NR-FXE could be as high as 15:1 expansion if it's targeting 1NZ-FXE power levels.

 

Current 1.8 Prius engine has not increased CR, which is a bit surprising...

 

I'd guess that it's been determined that it simply isn't necessary for the power levels and efficiency targets they're running. Also, engines tend to need (and be able to use) higher compression as their per-cylinder displacement becomes smaller, as surface to volume ratios get worse, meaning more heat is lost to the cylinder walls.

 

It sounded like the cooled ERG, water cooled exhaust manifold, and other improvements could have allowed the higher compression ratio. There is a chance that the effective ratio of the compression stroke isn't the full 13.5:1, even at the engine's full Otto valve timing. The miracle of knock sensors might have a role when running US level regular.

Anyway, it still isn't a 'cheap' engine, and neither are the ones in full hybrids.The technology needed to get the most, whether performance or efficiency, out of a engine isn't free. Grabbing a cheap, off the shelf engine for a hybrid results in what we saw in the gen1 Volt. In contrast, the engine for the gen Prius was designed for it and was the first in the NZ engine family.

Back to mild hybrids. If GM's price for eAssist on the trucks is reflective of the cost, then it is competitive to other 'add on' engine technologies for improving efficiency.

 

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if it's lower-cost than small turbo motors (like the 8NR-FTS, which has most of the same stuff (except for lower-tech VVT-iW instead of VVT-iE), plus the turbo, and direct injection).

 

I'm sure it is lower cost, just not cheap. We had a 2000 Ranger and 1996 Taurus that both had the 3L Vulcan. That was a cheap engine in those cars. Even when new in '86, it was still an inexpensive engine. One of the most advanced things about it was not having a carburetor. Sticking to established technology kept the cost down, and meant it was a pretty reliable engine. it was outclassed in performance and efficiency for much of its production life though. If I could hook up HSD up to the Vulcan in that old Taurus, I'd call getting over 30mpg a success.

Going back to the Toyota engines, I think the cost is closer than some would think. I posted a link to an ICCT pamphlet on fuel saving tech for NA engines. It included cost estimates. The cooled EGR might cost the same as DI on a 4 cylinders. The turbo cost is an unknown to me, but it is just a single scroll one, and likely lower in the range of boost. Then the use of a smaller block will have a little savings.

 

You are mixing R&D cost and production cost. I was talking of pure production costs, because at Toyota scale of production this is more or less the only cost.

 

Um, you were the one that used car prices as evidence for engine costs. I'm the one saying that those engine costs are closer to each other than what the price reflects.

Let's go back to the concept of Toyota using a cheap engine with an expensive hybrid system. We can look to the Auris to see that this isn't so. The 1NZ-FE is the cheap engine in the line up. While a technical marvel compared to the iron of the Vulcan, the advanced technology it uses is no longer new. The R&D costs for it have been paid off a while ago, and these technologies have become the minimum level available in engines today.

That is not the engine used in the Auris hybrid though. It uses the the 2ZR-FXE that is used in the gen3 Prius. Larger engine block aside, the 1.8L has more advanced valve timing and cooled EGR in addition to the Atkinsonization. Those all raise the cost of the engine. Using the 1NZ-FXE from the gen1 and 2 Prius would not have resulted in using a cheap engine either, with it getting upgrades for the Prius c/Yaris. Keeping the cheap engine leads to results seen in the first Camry and Altima hybrids.

In the case of the cheap mild hybrid system, the engine only gets more costly with the addition of a turbo and intercooler. All the other technologies(cooled EGR, DI, advanced valve timing, etc.) can be used for benefit regardless of there being a hybrid system involved or not. Then for a fair comparison, the cost of a cost should be compared to the cost of a NA engine of equivalent power and torque.

I expected better of you, Bob.

Keeping it civil, this is the duty cycles of our two cars. I drive a 60 mile round trip commute during the week, with occasional trips of about 80 miles to visit friends; 12k to 13k miles a year. The wife drives only a few miles for errands in town. A visit to a doctor could be 30 miles. We'll use the car of other local trips, and to travel down to North Carolina. The car might see over 3000 miles in a year.

With the arrival of the Ioniq Electric, I no longer need an ICE in my car, and can hold out for a BEV. The wife's Sable is 16 years old with nearly all that time in the rust belt. It has seen far better days aesthetically, but has under 75k miles on it, and I have been able to fix any issues up this point on my own. Anything using an ICE is going to get poor fuel economy for its ratings under her use. A PHEV would seem ideal, but it needs to have the space to haul a large dog, two cats, and attending luggage when go south to visit my parents.

Convincing the wife that the Sonic with hitch mounted cargo rack would work for such trips would be the big win for our household fuel use and financials. Most likely we'll be getting my parents Accord Crosstour to replace the sable.

So we could use a hybrid of any type for one of our cars, but like most Americans, we likely won't get one because of cost.

 

I opted to pay extra for the 1.4L turbo in the Sonic, but not for the turbo alone. I knew getting the best efficiency out of it meant staying out of boost. The automatic mated to it also included better gear ratios for efficiency, and I consider a chain an upgrade over a timing belt.

If the purchase had been a Fusion, I would have paid extra for the start/stop just to see how it works out in the real world. What GM is asking for their truck eAssist is less than $200 more than what Ford was asking for the start/stop when it was still just an option. It is now standard on the small Ecoboost engine of the Fiesta, Fusion, Edge, and all those engines in the F150. It might become standard on the NA engines of the F150.

I would opt for a mild hybrid if it was priced like GM's latest eAssist. I would have thought most American car buyers would skip on it, but the Rav4h is doing really well. So a mild hybrid for less on a popular model that was historically inefficient might work out. If higher CAFE targets maintained, I do see mild hybrids become standard on some models and trims. The line between ICE car and hybrid is just going to get more blurrier as time moves on.

The 80% performance of a hybrid statement likely is using a 'cheap' engine as the baseline. Other improvements in engines and transmissions are also coming into play. The eAssist Silverado also has an 8 speed auto, and not the 6 speed one on the bare bones trim. Many of those that except the statement at face value, and then hold it up as mild hybrids being a failure when the system alone doesn't improve the fuel economy that much, will use similar logic to not even look at a full hybrid.

These systems use a DCC transformer for the 12 volt side. Car electric accessories won't be moving to 48volt. There are safety reasons alone to stick with 12volt ones. But many car systems are sifting to electrical ones in the pursuit of better engine efficiency. A single 12volt starter battery and typical alternator will become overworked in time.

 

Cooled EGR is found in almost all new Toyota engines
Atkinsonization is found in almost all new Toyota engines

Again you are mixing "old" engine with cheap engine, I don't know why you think that cheap engine must be old engine and any new engine can't be a cheap engine. I also don't understand why would you use old cheap engine if you invested milions of R&D money in new engine that has almost the same production costs.

I will again point out what Toyota is doing, they spend billions in R&D just like any other manufacturer, but the key diference that I see is that even the cheapest models get new "cheap to produce" engine tech. Others spend all their money on turbo DI or diesel engine, for their top of the line products, but are forgetting about cheap engine options and just use some "of the shelf" old engine. Am I into something here or just wrong?

So you bought a Sonic turbo manual, sedan presumably? Why wasn't Prius C an option? What is it? $2.000 more?

 

I don't know why you think the use of a technology over multiple engine models makes it cheap. Yes, higher production numbers can decrease the cost of using the technology, but that doesn't make it free, and the engine/car company has the choice of cutting costs by not using the technology. They likely do for some car models and trims; Toyota is.

See the engines Toyota is still using without cooled EGR, advance cylinder heads, 4-2-1 exhaust manifolds, cooled exhaust manifolds, and/or Atkinsonation do not cost them the same to make as engines with them. At the very least they have to pay for the extra materials used in the parts for the advanced technology.

The new 1.5L you linked too sounds like an impressive piece of engineering, but Toyota has not stopped production of its older, less advanced sibling. In time the old engine will stop being made, but that could be years down the road. Ford produced the Vulcan with little changes over 22 years. A few years, the US Corolla still had a 4 speed automatic in the base trim, and the 1.8L with valvematic is only available in the Eco trim. The US Yaris still has a 4 speed auto, 5 speed manual, and the Otto cycle version of the1.5L that first appeared in 1997 Prius.

All the car companies still make and use such older technology parts, because they are cheaper to make, and that might be more important for the market. So Toyota still makes inexpensive engines that are low cost to build because the R&D and factory tooling costs have been paid off years ago. These are Toyota's 'cheap' engines, and they are what you imply they are using for hybrids with "cheap engine with an expensive hybrid system".

You might be seeing these more advanced engines in Europe because you are more willing to pay more for more efficient engines. Toyota sells in markets where low car price is more important than having the most efficient engine possible though. The US generally gets the "cheap to produce" tech after Europe and/or Asia has had it, possibly with years in between.

Just like Toyota is also spending on direct injection, turbo, and even diesel, those other companies are likely investing in those "cheap to produce" technologies too.

Hatchback, automatic.
I loved the gen2 Prius, but it had the most uncomfortable seating of any car I've owned. Same of our Matrix. Never had an issue in the Fords, GMs, and Hondas I have sat in for extended periods of time. From reviews, I did not expect any improvement in the Prius c, with worse being possible.

The price difference might have been around a $1000 for the Sonic, but my father has a GM credit card. Between that and the incentive for trading in a Chevy, there was an additional $5000 in the difference.

 

I'm already spoiled. Test drove a Volvo once.

The gen2 might have been better with a rider range of adjustment to the seat and steering wheel. The issues I had actually took a week of commuting to appear; it seem fine on test drives. The Prius is reported to get better with each generation, but the Prius c is in a different segment.

 

Therein lies the huge irony .... concentrating on (at best) mid sized cars, or smaller ...
as austingreen pointed out years ago, if you increase a small car's epa from 60mpg all the way to 65mpg ... on a 600 mile trip - a 10 gallon tank (600-mile range) you saved 8/10ths of a gallon getting 600 miles. Congratulations.
600 miles in a 5,000Lbs SUV (17mpg) will require you to burn 35 gallons.
Hybridized? (even if only 22mpg) you'll burn 27 gallons ... saving 8 gallons over the same 5mpg improvement as a smaller hybrid. IE; an 8 fold improvement by hybrid'izing the land barge. let's face it. we in the United States love our land barges .... & manufacturers love to push them on us.
But for REAL clean air & greater fuel savings - that 600 miles in a 5,000Lb suv all electric, will only burn the equivalent of ~ 6 gallons of liquid fuel (98MGe)
So - its fuel savings over the ICE only land barge is ~ 29 gallons over a 600 mile drive. "fuel" for thought
ymmv
.