Toyota has been promising direct injection in some of it’s motors. If it filters down to this motor, you could see well over 200 hp perhaps. Then, the motor at least starts to become competive with an old Suzuki Sidekick. It’s actually a good motor and if it goes into the regular Camry, it would be a very potent 4cylinder. I have this motor in a smaller Venza which weights hundreds of lbs less. It’s adaquate but only adaquate by today’s standards with performance similar to a RAV, unloaded. I can’t imagine living with a Highlander with it and then only having barely adaquate performance when filling it up with what; empty boxes or styrofoam insulation.
I would venture to say that about 80% . . . or more . . . of the Camrys in the Los Angeles area are 4 bangers
Undoubtedly, the dealers stock mostly 4 bangers
I suspect it’s got enough power for most of the customers
My mom and stepdad have 2010 Highlander AWD with the V6. It’s not lacking for power, the only thing I don’t like about it is that steering is way overboosted for my tastes. You can drive the car with just a pinky on the wheel. However the 2.7L has about 80 less HP and 75 less lb/ft of torque. I imagine the vehicle would be pretty lethargic with that engine, especially the newer larger 2014 Highlander.
Has anyone seen the YouTube video in which a Honda fit with a little 4 banger leading an NSX on a road course turn after turn? With a 4 banger, it’s about preserving momentum everywhere you go. Getting on the freeway is not that demanding provided that you don’t go 20 mph on the ramp than squeeze the life out of the little engine when you go straight.
A few years ago, I was at the LA auto show where I test drove a V8 mustang and a fiesta. The mustang’s engine was interesting for about 30 seconds. It didn’t entice me to drive it as much as the fiesta.
I’m not entirely against a bigger engine, but I have no appetite for a growling Japanese V6. If we are talking about a BMW straight 6 or the Toyota supra straight 6, that would be different.
Every morning on the way to work, there are always lots of 4 banger cars flying past me, as if I’m standing still. The speed limit on the streets is 35mph, and I drive between 35 and 42
Anyways, I know they are pushing their cars very hard every morning, versus my V6 family sedan
Maybe if they got up on time for once, they wouldn’t have to put the pedal to the metal . . .
@dagosa Which is why pretty much all the Highlanders in stock in my area are the V6, The 4cyl Highlander might work in town or as a slightly larger alternative to the Rav4 but the supply leans toward the V6 version. The closest 4cyl Highlander to me was on auto trader 600 miles away in the Napa Valley area.
Yeah . . . a 4 banger might be sufficient for a family sedan, but not for an SUV hauling the family and their stuff on a trip to see grandma
@db4690
You mean then, grandma in a 4cylinder sedan to see the rest of the family. That’s our plan next week end.
@chunkyazian
What do you disagree with?
People passing you with four bangers need not push their engine hard. They may very well be accelerating normally, going faster than you’re to begin with, and avoid slowing down.
Moving weight requires low-end torque. 4-cylinders don’t usually have low-end torque. They achieve HP through higher RPMs.
We had no problem hauling around the 5 of us in my Wifes 4-cylinder Accord. But a 4 cylinder in my new Highlander…the added weight…and increased air-resistance…I could do it…but the V6 is a lot better.
Ask all the people who owned the early Caravans with 4-cylinders.
The farm tractors I used to run had 4 cylinder engines and these engines had plenty of low-end torque. I think that the camshaft design probably has a lot to do with the torque peak of an engine more than the number of cylinders. The old John Deere tractors had just 2 cylinders and these tractors could really pull. Most farm tractors sold today are diesel, but I miss the sound of those old John Deere 2 cylinder engines.
Valve count (size) influences torque more than cylinder count. A two-valve-per-cylinder Harley-Davidson v-twin has lots of low end torque, but it only has two cylinders. My three-valve-per-cylinder Honda v-twin has more mid range torque. Four-valve-per-cylinder engines are designed to rev fast and have more high end torque, whether they have two cylinders or eight.
Sometimes it’s about the air (intake and exhaust) you can push through an engine as far as generating torque in four cylinders. I expect that turbo charging will gradually become the norm as a replcement for six cylinders. You can’t say a WrX doesn’t have plenty of grunt. The cost is complexity and perhaps durability of it isn’t done right.
The WRX turbo four has about the same torque as the 3.5 L v6 in the Highlander. I expect that in a car that big, they might have similar performance. But the four perhaps not quite for so many miles as the six.
Yep, seems like the turbo 4 is the ‘new normal’ for cars that had a V6 before, with a turbo 3 coming to replace regular 4s. I’m skeptical that the real-world fuel economy improvement is there, though.
@Triedaq
"the farm tractors…had plenty of low end torque" I bet the old Deere tractors with two cylinders good displacement for their time, very low gearing and lots of weight an traction.
Tractor motors are notorious for having having that reputation. . But, surprisingly at least in today’s world, most tractor motors are measured by horsepower with no mention of torque. It seems that the biggest torque multiplier is the transmission and spinning a motor at 2500 rpm and getting the job done depends more on selecting the right gear. Obviously Torque and horsepower are equally important in all motors but the speed you can crank a pump is what is ultimately responsible for the pressure you can build up in the hydraulics and hydrostatic transmision. That is directly related to horsepower. Now, the tractor with more torque can be geared more appropriately and potentially run more economically and last longer. That’s one reason I chose the orange tractor over the green ones in the models I was looking at. I would rather have a 1.8 L motor with 35 hp then a 1.3 L one with the same hp operating at a much higher rpm.
The idea of the deisel is less for torque then it is for safety, longevity and efficiency. You can have less expensive and smaller gas motors with more torque, but replacing them would drive their reputation down. The idea that a tractor motor will last as long as the tractor itself is the domain of the diesel. Too many moving parts and potential problems with ignition make the gas motor a poor, inefficient choice in tractor motors. You may like the sound of the old gas motors but we like the sight of black soot being spewed in the air and sucked into our lungs. ;=)
When you have an infinite number of gears spread over three ranges and your top speed requirement is only 12 miles an hour, you really don’t need copious torque to pull some pretty heavy weight, provided you have the traction…
4 cylinder engines can generate torque over a wider RPM band by using the PCM. Older 4-cyl engines, like the Chrysler minivan products mentioned earlier, didn’t have this feature. Or if later model years had it, the variable timing was not executed as well as it is today.
Well I agree with Dag(no replacement for displacement if you like longetivity) but the old John deere 2 cylinders had something like 100 cid per cylinder so each pulse had pretty good grunt- one of the farmers I used to help had a Masssey Harris with a 260 cid 4cylinder-Kevin
As an afterthought I was reading up on the Ford(international IDI 7.3)engine it really didnt have a lot of power for its displacement(444 cid) but it had its torque at 1400 rpm,so that low end torque made up for a lot in a truck pulling a load-Kevin
I remember Ray joking about the 4cyl caravan’s, he said the reason they could seat 7 is that you needed that many people to push it up the hill. The Grand version that my dad bought with the 3.0 v6 wasn’t bad but his 07 Honda CRV with the 2.4 4cyl accord makes close to the same HP but with less torque.