It's been discussed just a little bit on this forum here
2023 Highlander Refresh - no more V6

 

Personally I think it's ridiculous. A large SUV that can tow like the Highlander and a 4cylinder engine are well in my opinion stupid. I had a friend recently purchase a Suburu and I was looking at the Subaru Ascent also a large SUV with a dumb 4 cylinder. I will probably not be purchasing another Toyota because of this.

 

Personally I think it's ridiculous. I had a friend recently purchase a Suburu and I was looking at the Subaru Ascent also a large SUV with a dumb 4 cylinder...

I had an Ascent for 2 years before it got totalled by a PU that ran a stop sign and I replaced it with a new HL in March. The Ascent's engine was fine, more responsive and peppier than the HL Also plenty of power towing. Worked especially well at altitude (CO etc.) where the turbo can make up for the lower air pressure, unlike normally aspirated engines. If Toyota does a good job on the turbo 4, it can be better than the 3 liter V6.

 

I recently drove a NX350 with the new turbo powertrain. I wouldn't miss the V6 much. Maybe, I'll miss the V6 sound and smoothness, but really, how often am I driving the my HL past 3500 rpm? The torque band of the i-4 turbo is much wider so it actually pairs better with the 8 speed transmission. I've never liked the tuning of my 2GR-FKS + 8 speed powertrain, even after the visits to the dealership to get it reprogrammed to shift better. Too much shifting, gear hunting when driving in variable conditions and grades such that I often ended up using 'S' mode to hold gears. I always hated how the transmission would do the 1-2-3-2 shift when turning left from a red light. That premature shift into 3rd gear is annoying to this day.

The turbo four has more oomph at low revs such that the transmission shifts much less, resulting in a smoother experience overall. Overall, I'm a fan. If you don't like the sound and character of an inline 4, then sure, the V6 is for you. Regarding turbos, I've owned other turbo vehicles to 250K+ miles and don't have any qualms about the reliability of modern day turbo systems.

I wouldn't worry about the drop in hp. Specs are well, just specs. The 2GR-FKS makes peak power at 6,600 rpm and this powertrain makes it pretty difficult to access that power. I don't know anybody who drag races a highlander. Even peak torque is at a high 4,700 rpm. For practical purposes, the new engine will be more "powerful" in daily driving. If you're curious, I suggest test driving it rather than listening to the "i ain't going no turbo!" crowd. G'luck!

 

Again, LOTS of turbo discussion in that other thread mentioned above.

2023 Highlander Refresh - no more V6

Changes for 2023

www.toyotanation.com

 

Is that the same engine that the Tundra is having turbo issues with?

 

No, Tundra has V6 turbos.

 

Not good. It's all about the emissions rules that our government is cramming down automakers' throats. Look up the Car Care Nut (a Toyota Master Tech) on YouTube. He explains it all in a recent video.

 

I love my V6 . I know the industry is headed that way. I had trouble in lower gears but now I know to give a little more gas so the transmission doesn’t hunt for the right gearing. I use ECO mode . When I get aggravated with traffic I switch to normal mode. I have not driven the turbo yet but my wife had a high rpm Acura which I hated because it always felt like it was accelerating.

 

I'm not trying to ruin anyone's day but I would not refer to the 3.5 as venerable. They were always far less rekiable than the 4 cylinder. With a 3.5 you got more power which is awesome, but you also got an engine that would last probably 200K less.

The 2.4 was venerable.

The 3.5 was a very expensive luxury that screwed people into a premature multi thousand dollar repair bill.

I love power, but I hate replacing or rebuilding engines. A two day pain in the butt minimum. Or a several thousand dollar pain. Both suck.

 

I think that we are all ignoring the fact that 90% of Highlander owners probably have no clue about the engine that sits under the hood of their SUV.

To the vast majority of buyers- they won't be able to tell the difference between how the two engines drive. Enthusiasts and car reviewers will probably notice a difference... but in terms of actual buyers- only a small amount will be able to tell the difference- or even care that Toyota changed the engine.

Highlanders will continue to fly out of dealerships... and if there are issues with the new engine- hopefully Toyota will address it quickly and effectively.

 

I think that we are all ignoring the fact that 90% of Highlander owners probably have no clue about the engine that sits under the hood of their SUV.

To the vast majority of buyers- they won't be able to tell the difference between how the two engines drive. Enthusiasts and car reviewers will probably notice a difference... but in terms of actual buyers- only a small amount will be able to tell the difference- or even care that Toyota changed the engine.

Highlanders will continue to fly out of dealerships... and if there are issues with the new engine- hopefully Toyota will address it quickly and effectively.

Because of that reason, and you really nailed it, it will be more attractive.
2.4T will obliterate V6 where it matters: accelerating from 20-50 or 50-80. On altitude like here in CO it is not even fair comparison.
When Mazda was developing CX9 there was debate whether to go V6 or 2.5T. They literally fallowed people dropping kids to school to see their driving patterns. Biggest surprise was how hard they tend to accelerate when merging, and that is all about torque! That is where turbo obliterates anything naturally aspirated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Going from my 2.4 turbo Ascent to the HL, the HL performance is rather more sedate and stately, especially here at altitude in CO. The HL still has enough, but it's not as peppy and eager as the Ascent was, and the Ascent was considerably more capacious. In any case, it'll be interesting to see how the new 2.4 turbo HL turns out.

One downside of the turbo: In CO and a few other high altitude areas, they sell 85 octane as regular. This is fine for normally aspirated engines, but turbos still need 87 because the turbo compensates for the decreased atmospheric pressure. That means you're paying an upcharge for mid-grade gas.

 

Going from my 2.4 turbo Ascent to the HL, the HL performance is rather more sedate and stately, especially here at altitude in CO. The HL still has enough, but it's not as peppy and eager as the Ascent was, and the Ascent was considerably more capacious. In any case, it'll be interesting to see how the new 2.4 turbo HL turns out.

One downside of the turbo: In CO and a few other high altitude areas, they sell 85 octane as regular. This is fine for normally aspirated engines, but turbos still need 87 because the turbo compensates for the decreased atmospheric pressure. That means you're paying an upcharge for mid-grade gas.

Actually, vehicle rated for 87 in CO, at least Front Range and higher in altitude, can run 85. 87 is rated for performance at atmospheric pressure of 14.7psi, which is at sea level. Higher atmospheric pressure = higher possibility for knock. Pretty much going above 4000ft you can use 86, and above 5,000 85. I personally use 91 in all my cars, turbo or not as Costco 91 is usually priced between 85 and 87 at other stations.
So even if turbo engine is rated at 87, you can run at 85 here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I remember this same discussion when V8's were replaced with smaller displacement V6's.
The smaller engines were going to work harder and not last long, it's not right. Give us our V8's.

The sky is always falling....

 

Right. Smaller engines don't work harder. They do exactly the same amount of work in a smaller and more efficient package. Engine power is determined/limited by the amount of air that can be gotten through it. More displacement, more valves, better cams, intake porting and polishing, exhaust systems, more RPM are all about more air. A turbo can get the same amount of air through a smaller engine and produce the same power/torque with potentially better overall efficiency and fuel economy. That's why all the manufacturers are doing it.