THIS is the Hybrid Direction 6-7th Gen 4Runners Might Have

[1engineer]

I alluded to this in an earlier thread. Many of you clamor for diesel power and for the life of me I cannot understand that. If you want to tow there are many better options in 3/4 ton pickup trucks and you get the benefit of longer wheelbase , which is preferable in a tow vehicle. If you want an SUV that has capability and efficient, read on.
A conventional hybrid (mechanical over electric) is more efficient than what we have currently yet on larger vehicles like our 4Runners the weight increase plus the cost would be prohibitive for the actual output power.

With that in mind, what if you could have 80-100 extra horsepower to help you accelerate from a stop light or pulling onto the highway? You would only have it for several seconds but it would be enough to knock a second or so off the 0-60 time. How about a little extra oomph to go over that rock or out of that ditch? A hybrid system that did not need the excessive weight of batteries nor the excessive cost of electric motors? And could give us 80-100 additional horsepower for a short time? And increase mpg in the city by 25% up to about 20 mpg city for the 5th gen 4Runner? Sound too good to be true?
Maybe not. Volvo has been testing this for a long time on passenger vehicles and OTR truck OEM's have too, just with a different configuration. Here is a short article about Volvo's tests and, IMO would be a logical step forward for our vehicles. Volvo's Flywheel KERS Hybrid Increases Power and Efficiency - WOT on Motor Trend

 

[DannyLlama]

Interesting.

 

[Jayhawk5G]

I would love to hear more about practical application. KERS works great in racing because you are constantly hard braking. However I wonder how well it would work in my daily commute...

1. How long can the system store the kinetic energy it generates from braking?

2. Does the enery only get built up from transferring the kinetic energy of the vehicle while braking, or does it charge as you accelerate as well?

3. If it only stores the energy while braking, then what happens when the charge is used and you aren't in a position to brake hard such as slow wheeling?

I'm not opposed to any sort of new technology if it's reliable and adds benefit. While I'm not "clamoring" for diesel, it provides a constant boost in torque that doesn't go away after "several seconds" and improves the overall mpg about the same. KERS if reliable, while not offering consistant power for your average vehicle shouldn't equally add too much cost.

 

[BlackWorksInc]

That's interesting stuff, I thought you were gonna link Volvo's motor wheels!

I doubt they'd use it in the 4Runner application, it seems more like a 4Cyl option and Toyota learned their lesson on trying to fit a 5k vehicle with a 4 banger. I also don't think a CVT will be as robust in the 4Runner application vs. say a Rav4 or Highlander. I am still intrigued.

 

[Eagle]

Wait, your T4R did not come with that?

 

[1engineer]

I would love to hear more about practical application. KERS works great in racing because you are constantly hard braking. However I wonder how well it would work in my daily commute...

1. How long can the system store the kinetic energy it generates from braking?

2. Does the enery only get built up from transferring the kinetic energy of the vehicle while braking, or does it charge as you accelerate as well?

3. If it only stores the energy while braking, then what happens when the charge is used and you aren't in a position to brake hard such as slow wheeling?

I'm not opposed to any sort of new technology if it's reliable and adds benefit. While I'm not "clamoring" for diesel, it provides a constant boost in torque that doesn't go away after "several seconds" and improves the overall mpg about the same. KERS if reliable, while not offering consistant power for your average vehicle shouldn't equally add too much cost.

This tech would work great for city stoplight, accelerate to 40 mph then brake for stoplight, etc. The kenetic energy would last for awhile if not used. It would degrade over time as the flywheel spools down though. It's energy that right now is being wasted as heat from the brakes. So essentially it would be "free" in a sense that you won't pay anything for it except the up front additional cost.
You have to remember that the KERS on F1 cars is deriving it's energy from a 1,200 lb car slowing down from 180 mph. Think about the energy required to slow down a 4,600 lb car from 60 mph. Which develops more potential energy?

That's interesting stuff, I thought you were gonna link Volvo's motor wheels!

I doubt they'd use it in the 4Runner application, it seems more like a 4Cyl option and Toyota learned their lesson on trying to fit a 5k vehicle with a 4 banger. I also don't think a CVT will be as robust in the 4Runner application vs. say a Rav4 or Highlander. I am still intrigued.

The CVT transmission is only used to bring in the extra horsepower from the KERS. It would be in a separate unit close to the rear differential, while your normal transmission is off the engine.

The key tech here is the 60,000 rpm 13 lb carbon fiber flywheel. Flywheels have been around since the first wheel and now the tech is here to actually do something with it for automobiles.

 

[GrantK]

I'm still waiting for the fission engine we were told to expect back in the '50s

 

[Jayhawk5G]

You have to remember that the KERS on F1 cars is deriving it's energy from a 1,200 lb car slowing down from 180 mph. Think about the energy required to slow down a 4,600 lb car from 60 mph. Which develops more potential energy?fferential, while your normal transmission is off the engine.

My guess is that the F1 car takes more energy to slow due to the high speeds, which is why they use carbon brakes and pads. The heat from the stops literally makes the brakes glow under hard braking.

Here's an idea... turbo diesel engine with KERS, best of both worlds????

 

[Colorado11]

We have hybrid buses made by international at work with similar technology. The oldest is almost 4 years old they work great.

 

[terminus]

KERS is pretty cool. It's funny how all the new ideas are actually old ideas. Turbo-compounding is another good example.

From a technical point of view I think the hybrids and energy storage systems are fascinating. The reality of driving them is usually disappointing after the novelty wears off. To me, anyway.

And speaking of old ideas, google "opoc" engines. It's an old idea, and a few start-ups have re-imagined them using new technology to fix their Achilles heels. I've seen them first hand and their potential is huge. Personally, I'd say they have a 50/50 shot of replacing the conventional engine in many markets. And I don't make statements like that lightly.

 

[Blacksunshyne]

I honestly think you will see Toyota go with a CNG or LNG setup for the 4runner/tundra/land cruiser (larger off road type vehicles) etc. for the future.

 

[Stifler]

Price Point $60k base for an SR5..... I will stick to good ole 87 octane

 

[phillyd2]

This is the only thing I trust from Sweden. Hell, I don't even trust their so called meatballs! :spy:

 

[WIT4R]

Interesting tech, but I'm not sure how it will play out with an SUV. As for diesel power, I think it's a more efficient way to move such a large vehicle.

I might get some flame for this, but I recently traded my 5th gen 4runner for a 2012 TDI Touareg, and I must say I'm a firm believer in diesel now. I went from getting 16 mpg in town and barely 19 on the highway with the 4runner to 25 in the city and 34.5 on the highway (with 4 adults and baggage). Not to mention its full time AWD and I can tow more then the 4runner.

Now imagine if you could get all of that in a Trail Edition 4runner? I'd be back tomorrow.

And it's not like Toyota would have to reinvent the wheel to make this happen. In South Africa and in other parts of the world you can get a Land Cruiser, Hilux, and Hilux Surf with diesel engines. And now Jeep has diesel offering for the Grand Cherokee.

A great idea is a diesel hybrid. VW is playing around with this and their Crossblue SUV concept, a 7 passenger suv with a diesel hybrid, is supposedly getting 70+ mpg.

 

[Stifler]

Hope it is better than their furniture!

 

[Whiplash Willy]

Interesting tech, but I'm not sure how it will play out with an SUV. As for diesel power, I think it's a more efficient way to move such a large vehicle.

I might get some flame for this, but I recently traded my 5th gen 4runner for a 2012 TDI Touareg, and I must say I'm a firm believer in diesel now. I went from getting 16 mpg in town and barely 19 on the highway with the 4runner to 25 in the city and 34.5 on the highway (with 4 adults and baggage). Not to mention its full time AWD and I can tow more then the 4runner.

Now imagine if you could get all of that in a Trail Edition 4runner? I'd be back tomorrow.

And it's not like Toyota would have to reinvent the wheel to make this happen. In South Africa and in other parts of the world you can get a Land Cruiser, Hilux, and Hilux Surf with diesel engines. And now Jeep has diesel offering for the Grand Cherokee.

A great idea is a diesel hybrid. VW is playing around with this and their Crossblue SUV concept, a 7 passenger suv with a diesel hybrid, is supposedly getting 70+ mpg.

VW's TDIs are an amazing feat of engineering and are great when they are working. However, they are also very complex, and very expensive to fix when things start going wrong, and they do. Sure the Iron Block will last forever, but the engines over complex systems will not. For example, just replacing the battery on a toureg is $300+..... Then there is the $2000 Borg Warner Turbo that you will be lucky to get 1000k miles out of, and the $8000 fuel system... VW's techs still don't know how to fix their diesel engines, and are more likely to break something then to fix something. It sucks having your $60K Toureg sitting at the dealer for weeks at a time, while you are stuck in a $16k Jetta 2.5L SE (Which gets about the same mileage as a 4runner!)

It is pretty cool how you can check your oil level from the NAV screen though.

Also, what is people's obsession with towing stuff with their Unibody Vehicles. Just because you have a diesel, and have a ton of torque, doesn't mean you should be towing stuff using a trailer hitch attached to sheet metal...

 

[WIT4R]

Whiplash, you sound like you've had some bad experience with VW.

But I share all the same cautions you do when I made the trade. Especially this being my first German vehicle and especially since they tend to over engineer things.

It seems that VW is trying to simplify the cars somewhat. The T3 is not as nuts as the T2's where and seem to be holding up better. Those T2's with the V10 TDI were cool but complete mechanical nightmares. Besides thats why I have a warranty.

The electric dipstick I don't trust, so I installed the old fashion one. And yes, it seems that TDI's tend to sit in the shop for a while for repairs, but it seems that a lot of the wait time is due to parts availability. For some reason they don't house a lot of parts for TDI's stateside, so you spend a lot of time waiting for stuff to be shipped from Germany.

Knock on wood I haven't had any problems with mine (I made it well past 1000k miles and my turbo still works). It just fit my lifestyle better.

As for towing, I'm not obsessed with towing with unibody maybe others are. If anything I'm cautious and still leary of it. But I don't need to tow anything crazy like a boat or camper, but I need to move a utility trailer and equipment from time to time which won't come close to the tow rating. And for that I will say the Touareg handles it a lot better then my 4runner did.

But I don't want to start a VW vs Toyota war. I just was pointing out that I wish Toyota would bring us the diesel goodness that they offer to the rest of the world.

When in South Africa I fell in love with the diesel Land Cruisers all tricked out with lifts and ARB bumpers. And someday I hope to get a Land Cruiser (even a gaser).

 

[terminus]

I honestly think you will see Toyota go with a CNG or LNG setup for the 4runner/tundra/land cruiser (larger off road type vehicles) etc. for the future.

Three things will prevent that from happening anytime soon:

1. Limited range. There's less energy density than gasoline, so you need to carry more fuel and you still won't be able to drive as far. CNG is even worse than LNG in this regard.

2. The price of the fuel tanks. Because of #1, you need to to have fuel tanks as big as possible. Of course, fuel tanks isn't really the appropriate term. These are pressure vessels, usually filament wound carbon fiber vessels. Those require some crazy expensive quality control measures, and rightfully so. Right now, checking the option box that says "natural gas" on a Class 6-8 truck adds about $80,000 to the price. And most of that is the fuel tanks.

3. Lack of infrastructure (ie fueling stations). This is improving every month, but only in very specific areas of the country or along cross country freeways (trucking routes).

Plus there are some weird nuances associated with refueling that I won't get into. And pressure issues. I was testing a natural gas powered vehicle this week and I ran out of fuel, sort of. I had 1/4 tank of fuel left, but the pressure had dropped so low the fuel system couldn't function.

CNG & LNG have the potential to make sense for trucking companies at some point, but I don't see them infiltrating the auto market on a large scale anytime soon. It just don't add up.

 

[Blacksunshyne]

Three things will prevent that from happening anytime soon:

1. Limited range. There's less energy density than gasoline, so you need to carry more fuel and you still won't be able to drive as far. CNG is even worse than LNG in this regard.

2. The price of the fuel tanks. Because of #1, you need to to have fuel tanks as big as possible. Of course, fuel tanks isn't really the appropriate term. These are pressure vessels, usually filament wound carbon fiber vessels. Those require some crazy expensive quality control measures, and rightfully so. Right now, checking the option box that says "natural gas" on a Class 6-8 truck adds about $80,000 to the price. And most of that is the fuel tanks.

3. Lack of infrastructure (ie fueling stations). This is improving every month, but only in very specific areas of the country or along cross country freeways (trucking routes).

Plus there are some weird nuances associated with refueling that I won't get into. And pressure issues. I was testing a natural gas powered vehicle this week and I ran out of fuel, sort of. I had 1/4 tank of fuel left, but the pressure had dropped so low the fuel system couldn't function.

CNG & LNG have the potential to make sense for trucking companies at some point, but I don't see them infiltrating the auto market on a large scale anytime soon. It just don't add up.

1.Range is not that big of a problem, especially with LNG, you would need approx. a 70% larger tank size, for the same range you have now

2. Cost will come down as it is a more widely used technology, look at what a home computer cost was in the late 70s or early 80s as compared to what you can pick up now for $300 or less.

3.Impleminting LNG or CNG at current stations would not be a problem at all, I own a few and am familiar with the costs, as this is something that many are looking at with serious potential for the future. Also, for CNG, which I do not think is as long term viable as LNG, Chesapeake Energy is already working with Toyota and GM on a $500 +/- home filling station.

I don't want to hijack this thread any further...as it was started for a different purpose :tape:

 

[terminus]

2. Cost will come down as it is a more widely used technology, look at what a home computer cost was in the late 70s or early 80s as compared to what you can pick up now for $300 or less.

So by your logic it should be financially viable solution in 30 years...

Like I said, you won't see it anytime soon.