NJshadow93
New member
Here's a question: why does the non VVT-I V8 have more torque than the VVT-I V8? 320 ft/lb vs 306 ft/lb
Horsepower vs. torque and engine size
- Thread starter Runner27
- Start date
JB.
New member
It doesn't.
The bigger number was produced before an official change in measurement method was implemented. The old number for the vvti was 330 ft/lb.
Last edited:
Yeah my guess is that they don't see the 4Runner as a towing vehicle. They're pushing people who want to tow to a Tundra. Plus I'm sure there was something in the sales numbers of the V8's when gas got real high last time to indicate that V8 4Runners don't sell as well as V6. It's probably not worth it to them to support both power trains when the majority of the public want the V6 for better fuel economy.
aha2988
New member
all the V6 lets you do is get to the very next gas station down the road theres not enough mpg difference to even matter or make an argument for toyota to not market both drive trains. I would assume TRD can't do much else with there 4.7 because of the valve timing interference issues as well as problems with forced induction. perhaps they didnt want to take the bigger tundra V8's and put them in the 4runners maybe weight and size was an issue. I def. see the 4runner as a tow vehicle its perfect for mid size boats and utility trailors. Even has enough ass to pull small skidsteers around.
superman3043
Senior Member
I think you guys have over-complicated this answer. Is the smaller engine more efficient? Simply put... YES! It is.
Horse Power is a function of torque and rotational speed:
So given the variables, when we talk efficiency, I assume we just mean peak output (HP) over displacement (CI). Mathematically the smaller engine is more efficient, plain and simple. Greater efficiency is achieved by many methods (forced induction in this case). Now keep in mind these number variables can be manipulated by changing things like gear ratios and such. That's why vehicles are purpose built and purpose geared for torque vs. hp. Somebody brought up the Ford EcoBoost engines earlier... Perfect example! Now when you talk efficiency vs. cost of technology, yada yada yada, that's a new equation all together.
What's also a new equation is the second part of the OP's inquiry about tug-of-war. Now we're introducing Force calculations (Mass X Acceleration), where the mass of the 4Runner has a huge influence as well as torque numbers which again can be a function of the gearing.
Hope I was able to clear things up and not confuse even further. I love you guys on the forums but sometimes we all tend to over think everything.
Casper421
New member
People are talking about the new 4.6, not the discontinued 4.7. The 5.7 would never fit in a 4runners engine bay. The 6 speed would be nice though.
aha2988
New member
my bad lol didnt know there was a new 4.6. still rockin my 03 technology!! lol
HP is a function of Torque.
HP = torque * RPM / 5252
To achieve higher HP you either increase the Torque or the RPM.
Torque is what really gets you moving. If a vehicle has higher HP at higher RPM then it won't be able to move a vehicle as well at lower RPM's. The more torque you have the faster acceleration you'll have until it gets to the higher RPM's. For towing you want higherTORQUE...
HP = torque * RPM / 5252
To achieve higher HP you either increase the Torque or the RPM.
Torque is what really gets you moving. If a vehicle has higher HP at higher RPM then it won't be able to move a vehicle as well at lower RPM's. The more torque you have the faster acceleration you'll have until it gets to the higher RPM's. For towing you want higherTORQUE...
galactic_04
New member
And I'm telling you right now if they had more torque they would be faster off the line and I'd rather have one with a higher torque figure and lower in the RPM band given the same horsepower and I'd stick to that any day. RPM and how many revvs the engine will do total has NOTHING TO DO with torque. If you have no torque down low you damn well better have an engine that revvs high cause it's the only area where you'll have any power!
Why do all dyno graphs cross at 5252RPM when done properly? HP=TORQUE X RPM / 5252
If you want to get into details the cummins turbo diesel is a totally different animal than the gas engine functionally. Try comparing equal displacement engines like the IS 250 with 185 ft-lbs with the Nissan Altima 175 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm. The difference? The IS250 has 90% of the torque available from 2000RPM to redline... which an N/A 4-cylinder won't do. Same thing with the torque curve of a V6 vs. V8 - hence why you want more cylinders if you're towing all the time. The engine doesn't have to downshift to be in the torque-band all the time.
As far as turbos, well there's a balance you have to have with large vs. small, yes. but we're not talking turbos.
Last edited:
I really don't want to get into it but check out these dyno graphs:
IS250 dyno results - Club Lexus Forums
I dunno about you. But that is a horrible torque curve. It isn't flat at all. Check out this one
http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/69-7061_dyno.pdf
Using your examples which there is a lot that comes into play here direct injection, cam overlap etc. but smaller displacement high cylinder engines are for revving pure and simple, not for low end torque. An example are the beemer M3 4.0 V8. That thing revs to like 8500 rpm and again no torque.
Torque: 295 ft-lbs. @ 3900 rpm
Horsepower: 414 hp @ 8300 rpm
Same with the m5 v10...revs to 8k...no torque.
Torque: 383 ft-lbs. @ 6100 rpm
Horsepower: 500 hp @ 7750 rpm
Look at the torque peak rpms on that one!!!?!
On the other hand my old blazer 4.3v6 (large displacement low cylinder count) 250 ft/lbs at an awesome peak 2700rpms. Which is awesome low end torque. Now the thing only has like 190 hp because redline is like 5500rpms.
However forced induction can cheat on the peak torque numbers check out the f150 ecoboost
horsepower: 365 @ 5000 rpms
Torque: 420 @ 2500 rpms
That's an awesome torque "plateau" which i wouldn't mind driving. Turbo's make everything better
Again sorry to high jack the thread just having a friendly discussion
IS250 dyno results - Club Lexus Forums
I dunno about you. But that is a horrible torque curve. It isn't flat at all. Check out this one
http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/69-7061_dyno.pdf
Using your examples which there is a lot that comes into play here direct injection, cam overlap etc. but smaller displacement high cylinder engines are for revving pure and simple, not for low end torque. An example are the beemer M3 4.0 V8. That thing revs to like 8500 rpm and again no torque.
Torque: 295 ft-lbs. @ 3900 rpm
Horsepower: 414 hp @ 8300 rpm
Same with the m5 v10...revs to 8k...no torque.
Torque: 383 ft-lbs. @ 6100 rpm
Horsepower: 500 hp @ 7750 rpm
Look at the torque peak rpms on that one!!!?!
On the other hand my old blazer 4.3v6 (large displacement low cylinder count) 250 ft/lbs at an awesome peak 2700rpms. Which is awesome low end torque. Now the thing only has like 190 hp because redline is like 5500rpms.
However forced induction can cheat on the peak torque numbers check out the f150 ecoboost
horsepower: 365 @ 5000 rpms
Torque: 420 @ 2500 rpms
That's an awesome torque "plateau" which i wouldn't mind driving. Turbo's make everything better
Again sorry to high jack the thread just having a friendly discussion
Last edited:
rebelbowtie
New member
if the 4.0 v8's peak torque is at 8300rpm then thats just an inherently high reving engine by design. it probably has more to do with intake length and head designs among other things. Audi's anemic by industry standards 4.2 TFSI peaks around 4800rpm and is similar displacement.
