Toyota Nation Forum banner

Would You Want a 2.0 Turbo 4 Cyl Camry??

11K views 103 replies 28 participants last post by  molson.david 
#1 ·
....with ~250hp?? What about if they removed it further from the rest of the Camry lineup in terms of equipment and options?? Kinda like the new VW Passat Performance Concept at CIAS. Maybe a 6-sp manual option, better rolling stock, brakes, suspension??

The upcoming 2.0T is for sure going into Lexus products, but it'd be nice to see it used in some other applications.

What do you think??
 
#3 ·
How much better mpg would it get than the v6? If better mpgs and similar performance possibly. Do turbos have more to worry about for maintenance/long term reliability? But like someone posted in the "love the v6 power" thread, the v6 is doing better in real world mpgs than alot of the 2.0 turbo competitors... So my answer is, I prefer a v6 that gets good mpgs over a turbo 4 banger...

Frisky, you have a v6 right? Would you like a turbo 4?
 
#7 ·
Well, the 4 cyl is 25/35, the V6 21/31, so let's split the difference and say 23/33.

Regarding the reliability and maintenance, Toyota has proven themselves capable of making outstanding forced induction engines, and maintenance wouldn't too much more intensive.

My car is a V6, yes. But I think it'd be nice to have an option that was maybe geared towards the sport spectrum some, especially if it had some aftermarket support.

Before I purchased my Camry, I looked at both the Kia Optima SXL (2.0T) and the Ford Fusion Titanium (2.0T). I wasn't overly impressed with either engine. The SE V6 is smoother, faster, and probably gets better mileage (despite what Kia and Ford claim). My answer would have to be NO.
While this is true for the cars you mentioned, keep in mind Toyota has built what are some of the greatest turbo charged engines ever produced. The 3S-GTE and 2JZ-GTE are both outstanding examples of incredible engineering. This is territory Toyota is familiar with and could definitely get right.

Ford and Kia, on the other hand, have little to know experience in turboed engines.

I'm not convinced that the turbo makes any sense as an addition to the Camry line. If you take the 1/4 mile speed and gas mileage of the Camry I4, Camry Hybrid, Camry V6, and throw in the Ford Fusion 2.0 I4 Turbo for comparison you get the following:

Vehicle - 1/4mph - mpg
Cam I4 - 87 - 27
Cam Hyb - 92 - 38
Cam V6 - 99 - 26
Fusion 2.0T - 92 - 22

The Fusion turbo only equals the mid acceleration Camry Hybrid at 92 mph, and gets blown away by the Hybrid mileage. The Camry V6 gets better acceleration and better mileage.

So what is the argument for a turbo? For that level of performance one may as well buy a hybrid and have a car that performs just as well and does not suck your wallet dry at the gas pump. Or, if you want better performance go for the V6 and still get better mileage than the turbo.

Like my response above, those aren't very good examples of what can really be done with turbocharged engines. They're from a maker with little experience in the field, and they're underpowered. Toyota is capable of doing a much better job.

The engine could either be slotted between the 2.5 and V6, offered exclusively as part of a more sport-geared model, or replace one of the two engines currently offered.

While there is some merit to what you guys are saying, I think brands like Ford and Kia/Hyundai are really hurting the credibility of turbocharged engines, and worsening peoples' perception of them.

There are numerous other vehicles in Toyota's lineup that could massively benefit from such an engine.
 
#4 ·
Before I purchased my Camry, I looked at both the Kia Optima SXL (2.0T) and the Ford Fusion Titanium (2.0T). I wasn't overly impressed with either engine. The SE V6 is smoother, faster, and probably gets better mileage (despite what Kia and Ford claim). My answer would have to be NO.
 
#6 · (Edited)
I'm not convinced that the turbo makes any sense as an addition to the Camry line. If you take the 1/4 mile speed and gas mileage of the Camry I4, Camry Hybrid, Camry V6, and throw in the Ford Fusion 2.0 I4 Turbo for comparison you get the following:

Vehicle - 1/4mph - mpg
Cam I4 - 87 - 27
Cam Hyb - 92 - 38
Cam V6 - 99 - 26
Fusion 2.0T - 92 - 22

The Fusion turbo only equals the mid acceleration Camry Hybrid at 92 mph, and gets blown away by the Hybrid mileage. The Camry V6 gets better acceleration and better mileage.

So what is the argument for a turbo? For that level of performance one may as well buy a hybrid and have a car that performs just as well and does not suck your wallet dry at the gas pump. Or, if you want better performance go for the V6 and still get better mileage than the turbo.
 
#8 ·
Give it a good first and second gear (not like Ford and Hyundai/Kia), and it would be awesome.

The other models seem to be geared for highway passing power, and they do excel at that. That's the way my Volvo was set up too, and it was an absolute pig off the line until 30 mph (and got terrible around-town gas mileage because of it), but it was a beast on the highway. Turbo engines take a brief second before there's any torque there, and the damn 1st gear ran out to 50 MPH with a 2.3L engine. Even most V8's dont have a first gear that tall.

Saab had some very good, very drivable turbocharged 4-cylinder cars throughout the past 20 years. If you've never driven a turbo Saab, it will put a smile on the face of just about anyone.

GM learned from Saab after they killed it off, and they got it right with their 6-speed transmissions in the 1.4T. The Cruze is spunkier than just about anything in the small-car class to 40 mph. After that, it just needs more top-end power. Unfortunately, the 2.0T in the Verano and other models seems to suffer from the same off-the-line lag.
 
#9 · (Edited)
There are variable displacement turbos and the like out there that need to be brought into newer engine technologies though. By having a turbo that can replicate the effects of both a small, low-pressure turbo for off-the-line grunt, as well as a big, high-pressure, high-CFM turbo, you can get the best of both worlds in the power department with a smaller engine. Otherwise, turbocharging is usually a compromise at one end of the power spectrum.

While you might not see huge city MPG gains - maybe 1-2 MPG (the engine still has to move the heavy weight of the same car), smaller displacement does result in significantly better gas mileage than a big V6 on the highway.

Then again...cylinder deactivation achieves the same kind of thing. Honda's V6 promises some impressive highway MPG numbers, and I'm curious to see what GM's V6 and V8 motors with VCM technology and VVT will do for MPG in the new Silverados and how it will compare to the 3.5 V6 Ecoboost in the F-150.
 
#16 ·
There is NO aftermarket support for a the Hybrid in the way of performance.

FRS for sure.. Not sure what they were thinking with only 200hp in that.

I would def trust a Toyota turbo engine over most of the competitors. Or all of them for that matter. And they def could get the mpgs right too.. Some of those numbers on the other turbo 4's are not impressive..
The FR-S's handling dynamics would be adversely affected by an I4. It needs to stay a flat setup.

That's what I'm getting at, these other makers are giving turbocharging a bad name, because they're botching it.

...Ford and Kia, on the other hand, have little to know experience in turboed engines...QUOTE]

Ford's 1.8T in the RS200 back in the mid 80's was a stout engine. It produced 250HP for the street version and 350-400HP in the rally version. I wouldn't say that they have no experience, but I understand what you're saying.

I think a 2.0T would be a better fit for say a Corolla "Sport" or something. Maybe resurrect the MR2 or Celica.

Personally, I'd like to see the 5.7L iForce V8 in the Camry :rockon:
As a whole, though, Ford has little experience with turbocharged engines. Especially in anything that's not a sporting application.

The 2.0T would be great in the Venza, Rav, Highlander, an MPV like the Verso, some kind of sporty hatchback, the tC, and a sporty Corolla, as well.

I'm with you on wanting to see the 5.7 make it's way into something else, though. Especially the FJ/4Runner.

In the real world, they just don't work.

http://jalopnik.com/5981829/consumer-reports-slams-small-turbo-engines

I drove a relative's Optima turbo. Great looking car ...... but my gosh ...... the power curve is soooooooooooooo uneven it was just no fun to drive. It feels very underpowered until the damn thing kicks in. Nowehere near as good as my 09 Camry V6. And here they are braggin that they got 30 mpg on a highway trip ...... LOL my Camry and even my '97 Avalon would do that easy !!!!!!!!!

Also, think of reliability. You are going to push an engine half as big to get the same result ?????? talk about engine stress on the bearings, cylinder walls and other components. Your won't see those things going 250,000 trouble free miles like my 3.0L V6Avalon sold to a friend who has over 250,000 miles on it with zero repairs and only 2 sets of spark plugs.

Both Honda and Toyota V6's outperform Ford and Hyundai/Kia Turbos in both performance and fuel economy.

Unless you can afford a BMW ...... stick with a naturally aspirated engine.
OTHER makers' just don't work. The reason being is because they've been compromised, and/or the maker doesn't have the experience.

Unless you are familiar with turbocharged engines in some other vehicles, like the new BMW 328i, Audi/VW's 2.0T, Subaru's turbo H4, I wouldn't base your opinion and impression of them on a car built by a maker known for cheaping out on stuff.

The Korean 2.0T twins are a joke. The cars are geared poorly, the turbos are inefficient, and the power ratings are very suspect.

Regarding the maintenance and longevity, you have a point to an extent, but forced induction engines can still be very reliable. Turbos aren't some magical evil force that cause to your engine to blow up at 75,000 miles.

Advancements in other areas, such as electronics and safety systems, are going to pose a greater threat to long term reliability anyways.

Toyota is more than capable of making such an engine reliable, efficient, and affordable.

hell NO.
I owned turbo passat, got few friends who went through "turbo craziness" and based on what I know, heard and read about turbo I want no turbo in my car.
it been proven many times that v-6 cheaper to own, more reliable, last longer and in real life more economical and very often quicker than small turbo engines.
toyota building 2.0T turbo for european market. since they paying enormous taxes there for them it might make sense to go with turbo, but I don't see any reason to own turbo car in US.
I covered just about all of what you said in the response above.

And you're kidding yourself if you think that 2.0T won't see use in anything sold in the US.
 
#14 · (Edited)
Turbos only look good on paper

In the real world, they just don't work.

http://jalopnik.com/5981829/consumer-reports-slams-small-turbo-engines

I drove a relative's Optima turbo. Great looking car ...... but my gosh ...... the power curve is soooooooooooooo uneven it was just no fun to drive. It feels very underpowered until the damn thing kicks in. Nowehere near as good as my 09 Camry V6. And here they are braggin that they got 30 mpg on a highway trip ...... LOL my Camry and even my '97 Avalon would do that easy !!!!!!!!!

Also, think of reliability. You are going to push an engine half as big to get the same result ?????? talk about engine stress on the bearings, cylinder walls and other components. Your won't see those things going 250,000 trouble free miles like my 3.0L V6Avalon sold to a friend who has over 250,000 miles on it with zero repairs and only 2 sets of spark plugs.

Both Honda and Toyota V6's outperform Ford and Hyundai/Kia Turbos in both performance and fuel economy.

Unless you can afford a BMW ...... stick with a naturally aspirated engine.
 
#15 ·
hell NO.
I owned turbo passat, got few friends who went through "turbo craziness" and based on what I know, heard and read about turbo I want no turbo in my car.
it been proven many times that v-6 cheaper to own, more reliable, last longer and in real life more economical and very often quicker than small turbo engines.
toyota building 2.0T turbo for european market. since they paying enormous taxes there for them it might make sense to go with turbo, but I don't see any reason to own turbo car in US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul3637
#17 ·
NO.

But don't base your turbo impressions on the Korean newcomers. Look at an established turbo producer, if you prefer Asian cars, then it would currently be Subaru. The Legacy GT would be closest in concept to a proposed Camry turbo. A Legacy GT spec B would be a superb benchmark car! Their turbo 4 is a lighter, better handling car than the 6, the fuel usage depends mostly on your use of boost. The initial power is much less than most bigger 6's, but it comes around fairly quickly. You can get around the turbo lag by keeping the revs up when you launch, but that would require a talented operator of a third pedal on the floor, or horrors, a tragmatic with a high stall torque converter.

For a family sedan, which is what the Camry is, I don't think there would be much of a market for a turbo 4. The people who would appreciate a turbo would gravitate towards a car that packages the turbo with a clutch pedal transmission & sport sedan calibration of suspension and steering, which a family sedan buyer could call bouncy and rough. Look at the winy posts about the only slightly stiff SE suspension from buyers who want only the look of a sporty car, not any substance. Most appropriate thing for those customers would be to stick "turbo" chromed emblems on their standard car.
If you really want a bit more guts with your Camry 4, set it up with nitrous oxygen injection. Cheap and easy compared to a turbo, and has as much potential to melt pistons, for the ultimate bragging rights. Better yet, put that cash towards a turbo MR2, in addition to your Camry. More smiles per mile.

I am not entirely unknowledgeable about stick shift, factory designed turbo car packages, having driven them continuously since 1992 with absolutely no drive train reliability problems. However, I have destroyed numerous motorcycle pistons, running the motors beyond designed limits. Fun, but a lot of getting off and pushing blown up bikes afterwards.
 
#18 ·
Look at an established turbo producer, if you prefer Asian cars, then it would currently be Subaru. The Legacy GT would be closest in concept to a proposed Camry turbo.
I looked up Consumer Reports last test of a Subaru Legacy GT with a 2.5L Turbo. It has a claimed HP rating of 250, which matches the OP's request for power. I then updated the 1/4 mile MPH and MPG figures I posted earlier to include the Subaru GT:

Vehicle - 1/4mph - mpg
Cam I4 - 87 - 27
Subaru GT - 90 - 18
Fusion 2.0T - 92 - 22
Cam Hyb - 92 - 38
Cam V6 - 99 - 26

The Legacy GT barely outperforms the Camry I4 while using 1/3 more fuel. It falls short in performance compared to the Fusion 2.0T and the Camry Hybrid. Worse still this vehicle shows a very poor frequency of repair history for the engine.

It strikes me that a turbo provides a lot more sizzle than steak. The claimed HP does not produce road performance, only reduced gas mileage.
 
#21 · (Edited)
Unless you are familiar with turbocharged engines in some other vehicles, like the new BMW 328i, Audi/VW's 2.0T, Subaru's turbo H4, I wouldn't base your opinion and impression of them on a car built by a maker known for cheaping out on stuff.
besides Subaru rest of the turbo engines are laughable even in europe.
get familiar with bmw and especially audi turbo and you'll why.

And you're kidding yourself if you think that 2.0T won't see use in anything sold in the US.
I never said it won't. eventually it will as optional engine and it not gonna be very popular in US unless obama gonna force pretty hefty tax on engine size then we all will be driving little bitty boxes with turbo engines.
:)
 
#22 · (Edited)
Volvo and Saab have been making good turbo engines for years.

My Saab had 320,000 miles on it. Original engine. My Volvo has the original engine with 220,000 miles and the original turbo.

My uncle has a Beetle 1.8T with 200,000 on it. Original of both. Burns a bit of oil but runs great.

This is pretty normal for both of them. I call BS on longevity.


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
 
#24 ·
Volvo and Saab have been making good turbo engines for years.

My Saab had 320,000 miles on it. Original engine. My Volvo has the original engine with 220,000 miles and the original turbo.

My uncle has a Beetle 1.8T with 200,000 on it. Original of both. Burns a bit of oil but runs great.

This is pretty normal for both of them. I call BS on longevity.


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
newer turbos are all high pressure and they don't use same standards as before.
check any euro turbo forum. newer cars got much more problems then older once.
but I guess if you would go easy on them they might last 200+K.
 
#25 · (Edited)
jb & fd

jb & fd ..... hey nothing personal ...... if you want a turbo ..... go buy one. The rest of us are just saying no good turbo in the camry price range makes sense.

Here you go ...... car and driver tests a 2012 2.0L beetle turbo .......

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-volkswagen-beetle-turbo-road-test-review

WOW ........ for MSRP of a mere $29,865, you get a car that goes zero to 60 in 6.3 seconds .............

hmmmmmmmmmm but a V6 Camry SE did it in 5.9 seconds for motor trend !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And let's not even talk about gas mileage or expected reliability.

Hey ......... if you want a 30K sportsy car .... or a pricey volvo ......... go for the turbo. They just have no place in the world of Camry at this point in time.

And as for all those toyotas and hondas that blow engines in 10K miles ..... they are covered under factory warranty !!!!!!!!!!!
 
#33 ·
jb & fd ..... hey nothing personal ...... if you want a turbo ..... go buy one. The rest of us are just saying no good turbo in the camry price range makes sense.

Here you go ...... car and driver tests a 2012 2.0L beetle turbo .......

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-volkswagen-beetle-turbo-road-test-review

WOW ........ for MSRP of a mere $29,865, you get a car that goes zero to 60 in 6.3 seconds .............

hmmmmmmmmmm but a V6 Camry SE did it in 5.9 seconds for motor trend !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And let's not even talk about gas mileage or expected reliability.

Hey ......... if you want a 30K sportsy car .... or a pricey volvo ......... go for the turbo. They just have no place in the world of Camry at this point in time.

And as for all those toyotas and hondas that blow engines in 10K miles ..... they are covered under factory warranty !!!!!!!!!!!
Those links have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

My statement about failed engines was just to show that can happen to any engine, regardless of forced induction or not, and regardless of maintenance.

Exactly, shows that a turbo is not a good choice in a family sedan for the average driver, when even one of the most capable turbo family sedans compared poorly in several prominent categories to a common FWD Camry. My wife's Camry is a great family sedan, not tons slower, much cheaper to buy and insure, and gets 32 mpg compared to my smaller, louder, stiffer riding 25 mpg WRX. Glad we have both though, different pleasure centers stimulated.
The current gen Legacy GT sucked in the performance department. The old car, especially the Spec B, was much better.

The WRX is an altogether different class of vehicle.
 
#31 ·
I have found both of my turbocharged engines easier to maintain than my supercharged one.

If you register your car in an emission checked state, you may have problems with a modification like that. You'd be better off buying something that offered what you want original equipment from the factory.
 
#36 ·
I'm sure if they could make a small turbo engine that performed as well as the V6 for less money, and the same reliability they would do it. The issue is that they can't.
+1.
well said.

first they can't.
second there is no demand for turbo in segments where toyota sell cars.
 
#38 ·
not to keep droning on ...... but i will.

If you're reading this thread ..... you should be reading "love the SE V6 power" thread as well;

http://www.toyotanation.com/forum/310-7th-generation-2012/427873-love-se-v6-power-8.html

post 120
Totally unexpected how quick V6 Camry is.

About 6-6.5seconds to 60mph is outstanding. I had a sports car which would do it in 5 flat seconds, but that was a rear wheel drive beast with fat tires and v8. This is a family sedan, fwd.

With these numbers, you can expect to be quicker than 95% of cars out there.

edit. i too get excellent gas mileage, 26-28mpg, mixed driving.


post 121

I believe Car & Driver achieved 0-60 in 5.8 seconds. The Camry was recognized for breaking the 6's thanks to the diet for 2012.

post 123

DI has a long ways to go. Had a car with it. Annoying ticking sound. Engine raced at 1800 to 2K RPM when the temperature was under 40 degrees (emissions) until it warmed up. Not particularly fun when the roads were icy, or going down hills. Eventually figured it out to just throw the car in neutral when coming up on stop signs.

Engine always needed to go on long drives to burn the carbon out. TWO fuel injectors per cylinder. 6 port injectors, and 6 direct injectors. 12 injectors to possibly go bad instead of six.

I'm perfectly happy with regular fuel injection. What is really scary is Hyundai and KIA are selling cars with DI. That's like asking the 12 year old newspaper delivery boy for stock tips..

Toyota has spent lots of warranty money on their DI engines.
 
#44 · (Edited)
I think you guys are onto something big there. Some vehicle now have dynamic noise reduction systems (Honda for one, but it does not work that well). They use a microphone to bring in a background noise signal, then invert this signal in phase, and feed it back through the sound system (even when it is turned off). In theory this cancels the noise, making it quieter in the car.

It should be very easy to add some selectable options to this system at very minimal cost:

1. Turbocharger effects using throttle position and rpm to get it in sync
2. Supercharger effect
3. Dual exhaust modest effect
4. Dual exhaust V6 sporty
5. Dual exhaust V8 loud! The subwoofer should do better than an actual engine dreamed of doing...

The upside would be that only the people inside the vehicle would hear it. This will make the neighbours and other drivers really happy. And for guys like me that drive a hybrid we have a fix for that annoying habit that hybrids have -- shutting off the engine. The hybrid control would ignore the zero rpm and just base the added effect on throttle position. We won't even notice that the ICE is dead! My wife won't get confused as to whether the car is running or not. And best of all, typical modifications to the exhaust and intake systems reduce the performance of the engine. This one won't affect it a bit.

I think I will have to patent this one...
 
#49 ·
I am intrigued by the new 2.0 T which they are putting in the new Lexus NX. Seems like Toyota has spent a lot of $$ / time & tech to get it right. I suspect the Toyota 2.0 T may end being more efficient but matching the V6 in acceleration, grunt & reliability is going to be tough :)
 
#54 ·
Comparable Youtube videos please .. right on molon.david

Edit: Oops; sorry david ...... cannot edit the title




....
Only if it's going to be a worthy engine. Unlike Honda or VW fans (for example) Toyota crowd is very realistic and mature and will not glorify something that does not delivers real world benefits.
The Turbo Video is a bunch of photoshop. When you can do this real world test (which molson.david posted last year) with a 4 cyl lexus turbo ....... I will really be impressed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZqFI2wtUVU

Note ..... the video shows it twice .... once with new LS460 .... then a 1990 LS400. I had a 1991 LS400 and can assure you the engine really is that smooth.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top