Engine Size, I Don't Get It.

[bob007]

Why does the RAV4 Petrol which is 1660kg in weight have the same size Engine 2.0L as the Corolla that's 1340kg, a difference of 320kg.  

The Camry Petrol which is 1490kg has a 2.5L Engine and that's 170kg lighter than the RAV4, why doesn't the RAV4 Petrol have a 2.5L Engine ?

The RAV4 Petrol has to pull an extra 320kgs without people or luggage with the same size Engine as the Corolla,will this Engine last as long as the Corolla Engine ?

The strange thing is...the RAV4 Hybrid has a 2.5L Engine with the same weight...I just don't get it. 

[Noodle Boy]

Very good point Michael. 

The 2.0 is certainly fine in the Corolla and CH-R for their small stature. It's no weak engine with 127kw. 

I remember the previous gen RAV4 came with the 2.5 shared with the Camry, yet only the current gen Camry carried the 2.5 forward, albeit now producing a heap more power than before. All I can think of is potentially the newer emissions regulations pressuring Toyota that the current gen RAV4 come with the 2.0 because it was released after the current gen Camry did.

It could even be a subtle marketing ploy to encourage potential buyers to consider the Hybrid models over the N/a offering, given the investment Toyota had to shell out on the new Hybrid platform. 

 

[bob007]

Of cause there's the price...Corolla SX Petrol sedan 2.0L...$32,473   The RAV4 GLX Petrol 2.0L...$41,520...a difference of $9,047. 

I'm no expert but it seems to me the $9,047 must be for the extra 320kgs + the RAV4 has to pull.

Speaking of 2.0L engines, the new Corolla Cross (a cross between a Corolla and who knows what else) is another SUV we may see here in Australia...has Toyota gone SUV mad. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEYcmhWa6pc&ab_channel=RedlineReviewsRedlineReviews

 

[Hiro]

5 hours ago, bob007 said:

Why does the RAV4 Petrol which is 1660kg in weight have the same size Engine 2.0L as the Corolla that's 1340kg, a difference of 320kg.  

The Camry Petrol which is 1490kg has a 2.5L Engine and that's 170kg lighter than the RAV4, why doesn't the RAV4 Petrol have a 2.5L Engine ?

The RAV4 Petrol has to pull an extra 320kgs without people or luggage with the same size Engine as the Corolla,will this Engine last as long as the Corolla Engine ?

The strange thing is...the RAV4 Hybrid has a 2.5L Engine with the same weight...I just don't get it. 

It does have the Camry 2.5L, in the Edge model.  And the 2.0L Dynamic Force engine has as much power as the old 2.5L 2AR did in the previous Rav4 (which was the same size/weight), so I really don't see the issue here?  The previous model also had a 2.0L in the base model, with only a paltry 107kw (the old 3ZRFE that the Corolla Ultima sedan used to have), so nothing out of the ordinary here.

[bob007]

15 hours ago, Hiro said:

It does have the Camry 2.5L, in the Edge model.  And the 2.0L Dynamic Force engine has as much power as the old 2.5L 2AR did in the previous Rav4 (which was the same size/weight), so I really don't see the issue here?  The previous model also had a 2.0L in the base model, with only a paltry 107kw (the old 3ZRFE that the Corolla Ultima sedan used to have), so nothing out of the ordinary here.

I wasn't talking about the top of the range $54,188 Edge, I'm talking mid range the average person would look at.  Anyway there's a huge price difference between a Corolla 2.0L and a GLX RAV4 2.0L for that extra 320kg. 

[campbeam]

Vehicle manufacturers are heavily influenced by government legislation to comply with stricter emmision standards.

Not exactly knowledgable about the drivers for fuel efficient vehicles whether it is consumer market driven but more about those carbon credits being applied across the manufacturer's vehicle sales. 

End result is smaller displacement engines with higher compression ratios and turbocharging to meet government requirements. 

 

[Hiro]

3 hours ago, bob007 said:

I wasn't talking about the top of the range $54,188 Edge, I'm talking mid range the average person would look at.  Anyway there's a huge price difference between a Corolla 2.0L and a GLX RAV4 2.0L for that extra 320kg. 

It is still in the range though.  Also, the M20A is by far and away the most sporty engine that any standard Corolla has ever had, so it isn't underpowered even when you slot it in to the bigger Rav4 (it also goes in to the Camry overseas too), and is more than sufficient for the soccer-moms and commuters who make up the majority of Rav4 owners.

 

Plenty of countries/markets around the world get by just fine with engine sizes and power levels that most of us would cringe at.

[campbeam]

5 hours ago, Hiro said:

Plenty of countries/markets around the world get by just fine with engine sizes and power levels that most of us would cringe at.

I am more into the power to weight ratio than fuel economy. I have spoilt myself so anything less than 100KW in a 4 cylinder small size vehicle does not really interest me. After upgrading from a 4 cylinder 1998 Camry to having my 2006 Aurion with a 200KW V6, I am staying with my highway cruiser even though it is only used as such for 2 weeks of the year. If I was in the new car market now, then I would be mainly looking a hybrid model.

After I retire and give up interstate driving, then I might have to consider an economical urban runabout.  

[bob007]

The 2021 petrol Corolla 2.0L puts out 125kw...the RAV4 GLX 2.0L Petrol 127kw, so not much difference but the RAV4 has to pull an extra 320kg +...but the Petrol Camry 2.5L puts out 131kw and 170kg lighter than the RAV4...so it's something to think about when we think about engine longevity.  

The V6 Camry which Toyota Australia dropped like a hot potato put out 301kw, oh what a feeling...not anymore because we don't get a choice...very sad. 

[campbeam]

22 minutes ago, bob007 said:

The 2021 petrol Corolla 2.0L puts out 125kw...the RAV4 GLX 2.0L Petrol 127kw, so not much difference but the RAV4 has to pull an extra 320kg +...but the Petrol Camry 2.5L puts out 131kw and 170kg lighter than the RAV4...so it's something to think about when we think about engine longevity.  

The V6 Camry which Toyota Australia dropped like a hot potato put out 301kw, oh what a feeling...not anymore because we don't get a choice...very sad. 

I am just thinking that the less stressed the engine design, then better potential for being over-engineered to achieve engine longevity. As an example I have already noticed a few YouTube videos about GR Yaris engines being pulled apart for repair. Underlying cause may very well be customer abuse but yet to take time to view those videos.

As for the V6 Camry, not enough sales to justify its continuation compared to the Toyota Kluger. Also there are supply chain issues e.g. semi-conductor chips so production is being constrained and scarce resources directed towards models in demand.

Behind the scenes, Toyota is fighting a battle for survival.

 

[Novicebutnice]

On 6/8/2021 at 4:06 PM, bob007 said:

The 2021 petrol Corolla 2.0L puts out 125kw...the RAV4 GLX 2.0L Petrol 127kw, so not much difference but the RAV4 has to pull an extra 320kg +...but the Petrol Camry 2.5L puts out 131kw and 170kg lighter than the RAV4...so it's something to think about when we think about engine longevity.  

The V6 Camry which Toyota Australia dropped like a hot potato put out 301kw, oh what a feeling...not anymore because we don't get a choice...very sad. 

The current Petrol only Camry (base model only) 2.5 has had a few tweeks and now puts out 152 KW (comp ratio 13:1, and now min 95 Octane fuel)

[bob007]

18 hours ago, Novicebutnice said:

The current Petrol only Camry (base model only) 2.5 has had a few tweeks and now puts out 152 KW (comp ratio 13:1, and now min 95 Octane fuel)

Yes I just saw this...

https://www.caradvice.com.au/932735/2021-toyota-camry-price-rises-new-specs-v6-axing-confirmed/

Toyota also increased the price by a whooping $3300 for the Ascent Petrol that's  for an extra 21kw and you'll find 95 Octane or higher is for the Hybrid...Oh what a feeling.

P.S. Still doesn't explain why the RAV4 Petrol GLX has a 2.0L 127kw engine and is 320kg + heavier than the Camry, now 152kw...not to mention the huge price difference. 

Edited June 11, 2021 by bob007

[bob007]

On 6/8/2021 at 6:48 AM, campbeam said:

I am just thinking that the less stressed the engine design, then better potential for being over-engineered to achieve engine longevity. As an example I have already noticed a few YouTube videos about GR Yaris engines being pulled apart for repair. Underlying cause may very well be customer abuse but yet to take time to view those videos.

 

 

Speaking of the Yaris GR, some people seem to think with it's little 3 cylinder engine...the Yaris GR is a racing car and treat it like a racing car and blow the engine, of cause they also blow the warranty too.  

The other day I saw a Yaris cross, it looked like a small RAV4 but with a 1.5L engine.  We now have a Yaris cross and soon a Corolla cross but when you think of it both are just fancy station wagons with a fancy price...I wonder when we're going to get a Camry cross ? 

[Novicebutnice]

On 6/11/2021 at 10:23 AM, bob007 said:

Yes I just saw this...

https://www.caradvice.com.au/932735/2021-toyota-camry-price-rises-new-specs-v6-axing-confirmed/

Toyota also increased the price by a whooping $3300 for the Ascent Petrol that's  for an extra 21kw and you'll find 95 Octane or higher is for the Hybrid...Oh what a feeling.

P.S. Still doesn't explain why the RAV4 Petrol GLX has a 2.0L 127kw engine and is 320kg + heavier than the Camry, now 152kw...not to mention the huge price difference. 

Sorry this is a bit late, but better late than never 😉

All new Camry's now are a minimum of 95 octane fuel, which to me is neither here nor there since that is what I use.

The major issue that I have is that they finally give it some power, and an 8 speed, but have it (non-hybrid) available on the base model.....

For the Rav 4 it may have the smaller engine because of an age old "flaw" in philosophy.

Yes different gearing helps, but in general a smaller engine will use more fuel than a larger engine (all things being equal).

Last year I was in the lovely town of Parkes, and in the information centre is a couple museums.

One of which has a cut down Magna, which tells the story of how when the 2.4L was available and was advertised as using less fuel than the 3.0 or 3.5 at the time, the vast majority of the 2.4L users found that they used MORE fuel than the 3.0/3.5 L Magna's.

The reason is simple, the small engine only uses less fuel if you don't require it to do more than extremely sedate driving....

[Hiro]

12 hours ago, Novicebutnice said:

One of which has a cut down Magna, which tells the story of how when the 2.4L was available and was advertised as using less fuel than the 3.0 or 3.5 at the time, the vast majority of the 2.4L users found that they used MORE fuel than the 3.0/3.5 L Magna's.

The reason is simple, the small engine only uses less fuel if you don't require it to do more than extremely sedate driving....

 

Was the same adage with the old 253ci Holden V8 - the power of the 202ci straight-six but the fuel-consumption of the 308ci V8.

[Novicebutnice]

5 hours ago, Hiro said:

 

Was the same adage with the old 253ci Holden V8 - the power of the 202ci straight-six but the fuel-consumption of the 308ci V8.

Or the Holden with the Starfire engine 

Peak power output for the Starfire was 58 kW (78 hp), with a 17.5 second acceleration time from 0–100 kilometres (0–62 mi) in the VC Commodore. This variant's performance meant the need to push the engine hard leading to fuel consumption similar to the straight-sixes. Due to this, it was often nicknamed as Misfire or Backfire.

[Tony Prodigy]

5 hours ago, Hiro said:

Was the same adage with the old 253ci Holden V8 - the power of the 202ci straight-six but the fuel-consumption of the 308ci V8.

Hahaha yeah, I remember the 253 very well. What a tragic engine that was. It would better serve as a boat anchor 

[Tony Prodigy]

18 hours ago, Novicebutnice said:

One of which has a cut down Magna, which tells the story of how when the 2.4L was available and was advertised as using less fuel than the 3.0 or 3.5 at the time, the vast majority of the 2.4L users found that they used MORE fuel than the 3.0/3.5 L Magna's.

The down side of any naturally aspirated 4cyl is that you have to rev the titts off it to get it to speed faster, for overtaking and for going up hills. They work too hard and use plenty fuel doing this hard work. To the uninitiated, the sound of the words V6 or V8 has them running for the hills and always go for the "safest" option. That being the 4cyl. If you putt putt around town on flat roads, then they're ok, but for the serious driver, not so.

The beauty of the V6 or V8 is the glorious torque. Torque is your best friend and will make driving a more pleasurable experience, more smoothly and yes more economical because it doesn't require very much right foot pressure to propel it forwards.

Four cylinders are harsh and lack any excitement for me. As long as there is a V6 option, I'll keep buying one.

[Tony Prodigy]

43 minutes ago, Novicebutnice said:

Or the Holden with the Starfire engine 

Peak power output for the Starfire was 58 kW (78 hp), with a 17.5 second acceleration time from 0–100 kilometres (0–62 mi) in the VC Commodore. This variant's performance meant the need to push the engine hard leading to fuel consumption similar to the straight-sixes. Due to this, it was often nicknamed as Misfire or Backfire.

OMG. You have brought back a memory in my life I thought was repressed deep in the recesses of my brain. When Holden brought out the Starfire engine option in the VC Commodore I was in shock. There wasn't anything more tragic, besides a 253 V8, than the 1.9 lt Starfire. It was a pitiful thing. I remember the backfiring, the gutless acceleration and the noise it made. Yuk. It was rubbish. 

Instead of the "Starfire", they should've called it the "Backfire" ! 

[Novicebutnice]

1 hour ago, Tony Prodigy said:

The down side of any naturally aspirated 4cyl is that you have to rev the titts off it to get it to speed faster, for overtaking and for going up hills. They work too hard and use plenty fuel doing this hard work. To the uninitiated, the sound of the words V6 or V8 has them running for the hills and always go for the "safest" option. That being the 4cyl. If you putt putt around town on flat roads, then they're ok, but for the serious driver, not so.

The beauty of the V6 or V8 is the glorious torque. Torque is your best friend and will make driving a more pleasurable experience, more smoothly and yes more economical because it doesn't require very much right foot pressure to propel it forwards.

Four cylinders are harsh and lack any excitement for me. As long as there is a V6 option, I'll keep buying one.

Depending on if there will be any longevity issues, I was happy that Toyota "worked" their current 2.5 on the Camry (non-hybrid) to the point that it puts out 152 KW (at 6600 rpm) and mated it to the 8 speed auto, especially since they dropped the V6 option.

To me this is a healthy power to weight ration (compared to my 2017 RZ which has 135 kw, and a 6 speed), 

But that this is only available on the base model is disappointing from my point of view.

It should also have been made available on the SX especially since they killed the V6 option (though I understand their reasoning from an economic and long term planning point of view).

Edited September 9, 2021 by Novicebutnice

[Novicebutnice]

58 minutes ago, Tony Prodigy said:

OMG. You have brought back a memory in my life I thought was repressed deep in the recesses of my brain. When Holden brought out the Starfire engine option in the VC Commodore I was in shock. There wasn't anything more tragic, besides a 253 V8, than the 1.9 lt Starfire. It was a pitiful thing. I remember the backfiring, the gutless acceleration and the noise it made. Yuk. It was rubbish. 

Instead of the "Starfire", they should've called it the "Backfire" ! 

LOL It's like the smell that every Datsun Sunny had coming out of the exhaust, once you have smelt it.... you never forget it,

A mixture of a mechanics garage and burning oil.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Novicebutnice

[Tony Prodigy]

25 minutes ago, Novicebutnice said:

Depending on if there will be any longevity issues, I was happy that Toyota "worked" their current 2.5 on the Camry (non-hybrid) to the point that it puts out 152 KW (at 6600 rpm) and mated it to the 8 speed auto, especially since they dropped the V6 option.

To me this is a healthy power to weight ration (compared to my 2017 RZ which has 135 kw, and a 6 speed), 

I must clarify. I was talking mainly about the older gen 4 cyl cars. These latest models have pretty impressive power figures, but they do lack the torque of the V6. Nevertheless, I would be happy with the 152 KW 2.5, but the older ones were pretty ordinary.

[Novicebutnice]

5 hours ago, Tony Prodigy said:

I must clarify. I was talking mainly about the older gen 4 cyl cars. These latest models have pretty impressive power figures, but they do lack the torque of the V6. Nevertheless, I would be happy with the 152 KW 2.5, but the older ones were pretty ordinary.

100% especially when you need to use the Aircon, and then try to overtake/ go up a steep hill without turning the aircon off......