Exactly, UncleDave. Some mfgrs have virtually no carbon issues with DI. Some still seem to.
Milestone achieved - dual injection
- Thread starter nap
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Right, they don't have the skill to pull it off. Even their new high compression Skyactiv clone engine was recalled weeks after launch for major, critical manufacturing defects (take the hint people). It's all entirely 100% their fault too, and not even for a noble cause. Toyota has brutally stretched themselves in the manforce department (starting 15-20yrs ago), all in the name of greed and grandiose schemes to dominate the market. Like a guy at the bar, totally wasted and zooted up on a couple schlings, the corporate entity felt 'like the greatest, most invincible motehrbuddy to ever walk the earth!! I CAN DO ANYTHING AND THEY'LL STILL BEG TO KISS MY BUTT!! REEEEEEEE!' Yep that brand of wasted arrogance.
Characterizations aside, and with their condition of tumorous corporate growth, Toyota has for decades now been contracting major engineering to various external sources. This is the real reason for getting around more than most, with "joint venturing" with Yamaha, Subaru, BMW, GM, Tesla, Mazda and the rest of them- to fill their own engineering holes and acquire IP from them. The marketing perspective maintains the inverse fairy tale that those companies need Toyota, when Toyota really needs them.
Example, any decent engine they've ever made was essentially a Yamaha- from JZ to GR, 2ZZ to 3S-GE, it's all Yamaha. Basically, all of the GE series and some of the FE series. This also speaks to why Toyota is such a technological laggard, they don't have much of an in-house engineering team (Full-time, inhouse engineering team is a drag on the payroll apparently), and the risks they take with accelerated design cycles and half-baked work from sub-contractors are real threats to the masquerade of 'superiority' that they've been dumping several Billions into maintaining for over 2 decades, and so they tread very lightly with new engineering. It's not that turbos are less reliable, other than in theory, it's just that Toyota feels/knows that they can't do them reliably, or do DI without reverting back to PFI with their clear lack of adeptitude combined with their greed for fat profit margins. The Toyota luddites never seem to remember that there are reliable examples of all of the technologies that they're still scared of.
Nonsense!
Toyota has the largest engineering R&D department with the largest budget of any auto manufacturer in the world.
All of the auto manufacturers spend a lot of money reverse engineering their competitor's products and technologies. A BIG part of the engineering process is to find out if someone else has already patented something that they are trying to develop. When Toyota's engineers find that another company's PATENTED technology is better than anything that they can develop themselves, they get in bed with that company so they can use the technology in their own vehicles. This is what they did with Mazda to obtain their patented Skyactiv technology (which is what this "milestone" dual injection technology actually is). There is nothing wrong with this approach, it is a smart (and economical) business practice, and Toyota is a VERY smart company! Other auto companies work hard to develop different (sometimes revolutionary, but often inferior) technologies to circumvent patents and the paying of licensing royalties.
Toyota has used turbocharging and supercharging in the past, and they are using it now in the Lexus NX (and other vehicles not sold in this country). The reason that they are not using it all across their product line is because... the long-term reliability and durability is not up to their standards, and, in the long run they feel that there are better ways to achieve the goals they are after. Toyota's engineering is HIGHLY focused on LONG-TERM solutions (for example, they were already developing hybrid technologies back in the late 80's, and they are the first auto manufacturer to manufacture and sell fuel-cell powered EVs), not cheap-and-dirty short-term "band-aids" like turbocharging smaller displacement engines. It may turn out that some form of turbocharging is ultimately a PART of the solution and you can be sure that they are working on it, but it is a good bet that if Toyota adds it to their bag of tricks, it will be more reliable and durable than the current turbocharger technology.
Right, they don't have the skill to pull it off. Even their new high compression Skyactiv clone engine was recalled weeks after launch for major, critical manufacturing defects (take the hint people). It's all entirely 100% their fault too, and not even for a noble cause. Toyota has brutally stretched themselves in the manforce department (starting 15-20yrs ago), all in the name of greed and grandiose schemes to dominate the market. Like a guy at the bar, totally wasted and zooted up on a couple schlings, the corporate entity felt 'like the greatest, most invincible motehrbuddy to ever walk the earth!! I CAN DO ANYTHING AND THEY'LL STILL BEG TO KISS MY BUTT!! REEEEEEEE!' Yep that brand of wasted arrogance.
Characterizations aside, and with their condition of tumorous corporate growth, Toyota has for decades now been contracting major engineering to various external sources. This is the real reason for getting around more than most, with "joint venturing" with Yamaha, Subaru, BMW, GM, Tesla, Mazda and the rest of them- to fill their own engineering holes and acquire IP from them. The marketing perspective maintains the inverse fairy tale that those companies need Toyota, when Toyota really needs them.
Example, any decent engine they've ever made was essentially a Yamaha- from JZ to GR, 2ZZ to 3S-GE, it's all Yamaha. Basically, all of the GE series and some of the FE series. This also speaks to why Toyota is such a technological laggard, they don't have much of an in-house engineering team (Full-time, inhouse engineering team is a drag on the payroll apparently), and the risks they take with accelerated design cycles and half-baked work from sub-contractors are real threats to the masquerade of 'superiority' that they've been dumping several Billions into maintaining for over 2 decades, and so they tread very lightly with new engineering. It's not that turbos are less reliable, other than in theory, it's just that Toyota feels/knows that they can't do them reliably, or do DI without reverting back to PFI with their clear lack of adeptitude combined with their greed for fat profit margins. The Toyota luddites never seem to remember that there are reliable examples of all of the technologies that they're still scared of.
Nonsense!
Toyota has the largest engineering R&D department with the largest budget of any auto manufacturer in the world.
All of the auto manufacturers spend a lot of money reverse engineering their competitor's products and technologies. A BIG part of the engineering process is to find out if someone else has already patented something that they are trying to develop. When Toyota's engineers find that another company's PATENTED technology is better than anything that they can develop themselves, they get in bed with that company so they can use the technology in their own vehicles. This is what they did with Mazda to obtain their patented Skyactiv technology (which is what this "milestone" dual injection technology actually is). There is nothing wrong with this approach, it is a smart (and economical) business practice, and Toyota is a VERY smart company! Other auto companies work hard to develop different (sometimes revolutionary, but often inferior) technologies to circumvent patents and the paying of licensing royalties.
Toyota has used turbocharging and supercharging in the past, and they are using it now in the Lexus NX (and other vehicles not sold in this country). The reason that they are not using it all across their product line is because... the long-term reliability and durability is not up to their standards, and, in the long run they feel that there are better ways to achieve the goals they are after. Toyota's engineering is HIGHLY focused on LONG-TERM solutions (for example, they were already developing hybrid technologies back in the late 80's, and they are the first auto manufacturer to manufacture and sell fuel-cell powered EVs), not cheap-and-dirty short-term "band-aids" like turbocharging smaller displacement engines. It may turn out that some form of turbocharging is ultimately a PART of the solution and you can be sure that they are working on it, but it is a good bet that if Toyota adds it to their bag of tricks, it will be more reliable and durable than the current turbocharger technology.
Last edited:
Hot take, bro!
Originally Posted By: wag123
The reason that they are not using it all across their product line is because... the long-term reliability and durability is not up to their standards, and, in the long run they feel that there are better ways to achieve the goals they are after. Toyota's engineering is HIGHLY focused on LONG-TERM solutions (for example, they were already developing hybrid technologies back in the late 80's, and they are the first auto manufacturer to manufacture and sell fuel-cell powered EVs), not cheap-and-dirty short-term "band-aids" like turbocharging smaller displacement engines. It may turn out that some form of turbocharging is ultimately a PART of the solution and you can be sure that they are working on it, but it is a good bet that if Toyota adds it to their bag of tricks, it will be more reliable and durable than the current turbocharger technology.
I can speculate reasons they're not using "it" (DI+Turbo) too; they can't do it right with their target profit margin. To do it right and reliable, which is precedent long set, would mean more costly components, and that eat's right into the net profitability and we don't want to take anything away from that $30B (Toyota is a VERY billion company!) annual net profit!!
Hybrids? Toyota did for hybrids what companies are doing now with electric vehicles; jumping in the game too soon because they don't want to spring for any further development of the ICE.
So, how what percentage of the vehicles on the road, even in this day in 2018 are Hybrids??
You can thank one Alex J. Severinsky for "Hybrid Synergy Drive", because Toyota had to get sued twice for them to thank him....
Originally Posted By: wag123
The reason that they are not using it all across their product line is because... the long-term reliability and durability is not up to their standards, and, in the long run they feel that there are better ways to achieve the goals they are after. Toyota's engineering is HIGHLY focused on LONG-TERM solutions (for example, they were already developing hybrid technologies back in the late 80's, and they are the first auto manufacturer to manufacture and sell fuel-cell powered EVs), not cheap-and-dirty short-term "band-aids" like turbocharging smaller displacement engines. It may turn out that some form of turbocharging is ultimately a PART of the solution and you can be sure that they are working on it, but it is a good bet that if Toyota adds it to their bag of tricks, it will be more reliable and durable than the current turbocharger technology.
I can speculate reasons they're not using "it" (DI+Turbo) too; they can't do it right with their target profit margin. To do it right and reliable, which is precedent long set, would mean more costly components, and that eat's right into the net profitability and we don't want to take anything away from that $30B (Toyota is a VERY billion company!) annual net profit!!
Hybrids? Toyota did for hybrids what companies are doing now with electric vehicles; jumping in the game too soon because they don't want to spring for any further development of the ICE.
So, how what percentage of the vehicles on the road, even in this day in 2018 are Hybrids??
You can thank one Alex J. Severinsky for "Hybrid Synergy Drive", because Toyota had to get sued twice for them to thank him....
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
I can speculate reasons they're not using "it" (DI+Turbo) too; they can't do it right with their target profit margin. To do it right and reliable, which is precedent long set, would mean more costly components, and that eat's right into the net profitability and we don't want to take anything away from that $30B (Toyota is a VERY billion company!) annual net profit!!
So, PeterPolyol, where did you come up with $30B profit for Toyota? From what I see they made $22B (worldwide, before taxes). Do you think this amount is insane? Apple made $48B in 2017 (mostly from selling Chinese manufactured iPhones), and Facebook made $16B (and they produce NOTHING)! What is it about someone making a profit that makes you so angry? Profits are what make businesses DO business, and STAY in business! You should know that Toyota is into MANY things other than just manufacturing vehicles (such as... real estate, banking, metals, textiles, industrial equipment, materials handling, electronics, logistics, automotive parts, other auto manufacturers like Subaru, etc, etc) and their corporate profits are derived from ALL of the things they are doing. I agree with you that Toyota DOES cut corners to make profits, ALL OF THE AUTO MANUFACTURERS DO! Remember the ages-old adage... a penny saved is a penny earned.
Also, the point I made about Toyota's obsession with the long-term reliability and durability of it's vehicles (and reputation) is REAL, not speculation.
I can speculate reasons they're not using "it" (DI+Turbo) too; they can't do it right with their target profit margin. To do it right and reliable, which is precedent long set, would mean more costly components, and that eat's right into the net profitability and we don't want to take anything away from that $30B (Toyota is a VERY billion company!) annual net profit!!
So, PeterPolyol, where did you come up with $30B profit for Toyota? From what I see they made $22B (worldwide, before taxes). Do you think this amount is insane? Apple made $48B in 2017 (mostly from selling Chinese manufactured iPhones), and Facebook made $16B (and they produce NOTHING)! What is it about someone making a profit that makes you so angry? Profits are what make businesses DO business, and STAY in business! You should know that Toyota is into MANY things other than just manufacturing vehicles (such as... real estate, banking, metals, textiles, industrial equipment, materials handling, electronics, logistics, automotive parts, other auto manufacturers like Subaru, etc, etc) and their corporate profits are derived from ALL of the things they are doing. I agree with you that Toyota DOES cut corners to make profits, ALL OF THE AUTO MANUFACTURERS DO! Remember the ages-old adage... a penny saved is a penny earned.
Also, the point I made about Toyota's obsession with the long-term reliability and durability of it's vehicles (and reputation) is REAL, not speculation.
Last edited:
One, all mfgrs have a duty to deliver for their shareholders and the long term health of the company. No shame in that. As stated, they all do that.
Second, I note a direct contradiction in the info about Toyota using turbos in Lexii but not in their regular cars due to reliability issues and or long term goals. Lexii are known for lasting and their owners will leave in droves if they were to suddenly become unreliable.
Second, I note a direct contradiction in the info about Toyota using turbos in Lexii but not in their regular cars due to reliability issues and or long term goals. Lexii are known for lasting and their owners will leave in droves if they were to suddenly become unreliable.
one issue I have with the shareholders argument.
The market is supposed to be the most efficient means of delivering resources to the consumer by the manufacturing process.
Stock trading, and shareholder trust are trading on vapours, not the definition of the market in delivering goods and services.
If I create a company to untwist tailshafts and paint them blue, and convince a group of shareholders to back me...that's one thing.
To trade/swap GM shares, that's got nothing to do with creating efficiencies, just delivering short term profit.
The market is supposed to be the most efficient means of delivering resources to the consumer by the manufacturing process.
Stock trading, and shareholder trust are trading on vapours, not the definition of the market in delivering goods and services.
If I create a company to untwist tailshafts and paint them blue, and convince a group of shareholders to back me...that's one thing.
To trade/swap GM shares, that's got nothing to do with creating efficiencies, just delivering short term profit.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I note a direct contradiction in the info about Toyota using turbos in Lexii but not in their regular cars due to reliability issues and or long term goals. Lexii are known for lasting and their owners will leave in droves if they were to suddenly become unreliable.
Yes, but, it is a fact that the average Lexus owner takes better care of their vehicle than the average Toyota owner and is older. Also, Toyota doesn't allow the direct sale of Lexus NXs to rental car companies. Lack of abuse and careful regular maintenance are primary keys to the long-term reliability and durability of today's turbocharged vehicles.
I note a direct contradiction in the info about Toyota using turbos in Lexii but not in their regular cars due to reliability issues and or long term goals. Lexii are known for lasting and their owners will leave in droves if they were to suddenly become unreliable.
Yes, but, it is a fact that the average Lexus owner takes better care of their vehicle than the average Toyota owner and is older. Also, Toyota doesn't allow the direct sale of Lexus NXs to rental car companies. Lack of abuse and careful regular maintenance are primary keys to the long-term reliability and durability of today's turbocharged vehicles.
Last edited:
Toyota, like any other company cares about profits and their image. If one is so delusional to think that they care about their costumers, outside of getting money out of them, then only proffecional help might change this twisted view.
I understand being happy with a particular brand and giving positive opinion about the experience, but when almost every opportunity is taken to praise it and criticize other brands, that is not a normal behavior.
Unfortunately, I see a lot of it with Toyota fans. Their interiors must be treated with some perception altering chemicals
I understand being happy with a particular brand and giving positive opinion about the experience, but when almost every opportunity is taken to praise it and criticize other brands, that is not a normal behavior.
Unfortunately, I see a lot of it with Toyota fans. Their interiors must be treated with some perception altering chemicals
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Stock trading, and shareholder trust are trading on vapours, not the definition of the market in delivering goods and services.
You are completely correct. Stocks and futures markets, etc., are purely speculative and reflective of attitudes and perceptions as much as business reality.
Stock trading, and shareholder trust are trading on vapours, not the definition of the market in delivering goods and services.
You are completely correct. Stocks and futures markets, etc., are purely speculative and reflective of attitudes and perceptions as much as business reality.
Originally Posted By: wag123
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I note a direct contradiction in the info about Toyota using turbos in Lexii but not in their regular cars due to reliability issues and or long term goals. Lexii are known for lasting and their owners will leave in droves if they were to suddenly become unreliable.
Yes, but, it is a fact that the average Lexus owner takes better care of their vehicle than the average Toyota owner and is older. Also, Toyota doesn't allow the direct sale of Lexus NXs to rental car companies. Lack of abuse and careful regular maintenance are primary keys to the long-term reliability and durability of today's turbocharged vehicles.
I would have to agree that the demographic for a Lexus is most likely quite different from a Corolla buyer!
But of course a Lexus is likely to be better maintained as well, IMO. Turbos seem to be nearly trouble free if carefully tended.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I note a direct contradiction in the info about Toyota using turbos in Lexii but not in their regular cars due to reliability issues and or long term goals. Lexii are known for lasting and their owners will leave in droves if they were to suddenly become unreliable.
Yes, but, it is a fact that the average Lexus owner takes better care of their vehicle than the average Toyota owner and is older. Also, Toyota doesn't allow the direct sale of Lexus NXs to rental car companies. Lack of abuse and careful regular maintenance are primary keys to the long-term reliability and durability of today's turbocharged vehicles.
I would have to agree that the demographic for a Lexus is most likely quite different from a Corolla buyer!
But of course a Lexus is likely to be better maintained as well, IMO. Turbos seem to be nearly trouble free if carefully tended.
PeterPolyol has a seething hate for Toyota, the likes of which I have never seen in anyone for a car company.
I have no loyalty to any car company. I would buy a Lada if it meant that I could get a reliable vehicle decent power and fuel economy to last me 10 years 250,000 miles with basic maintenance required. I look research and watch what others go through with their cars and get the one that fits my need for the desired price point and buy them. I don't care how much R&D money they have spent, I don't care who shares tech with who.
I'd like to know what holy grail vehicle(s) PeterPolyol owns so we can all go purchase them.
I have no loyalty to any car company. I would buy a Lada if it meant that I could get a reliable vehicle decent power and fuel economy to last me 10 years 250,000 miles with basic maintenance required. I look research and watch what others go through with their cars and get the one that fits my need for the desired price point and buy them. I don't care how much R&D money they have spent, I don't care who shares tech with who.
I'd like to know what holy grail vehicle(s) PeterPolyol owns so we can all go purchase them.
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
PeterPolyol has a seething hate for Toyota, the likes of which I have never seen in anyone for a car company.
I have no loyalty to any car company. I would buy a Lada if it meant that I could get a reliable vehicle decent power and fuel economy to last me 10 years 250,000 miles with basic maintenance required. I look research and watch what others go through with their cars and get the one that fits my need for the desired price point and buy them. I don't care how much R&D money they have spent, I don't care who shares tech with who.
I'd like to know what holy grail vehicle(s) PeterPolyol owns so we can all go purchase them.
He hates CR also. I think that he owns a GM product. Maybe he even works for GM (who somehow managed to loose money again last year during a boom in the auto sales market). Toyota and CR have been serious thorns in GM's side for many years. IMO, during the next economic downturn GM will go bankrupt again, only next time the fed may not be able to afford to bail them out. Maybe he thinks that Toyota should share the wealth with other less fortunate/successful auto manufacturers, corporate socialism if you will
PeterPolyol has a seething hate for Toyota, the likes of which I have never seen in anyone for a car company.
I have no loyalty to any car company. I would buy a Lada if it meant that I could get a reliable vehicle decent power and fuel economy to last me 10 years 250,000 miles with basic maintenance required. I look research and watch what others go through with their cars and get the one that fits my need for the desired price point and buy them. I don't care how much R&D money they have spent, I don't care who shares tech with who.
I'd like to know what holy grail vehicle(s) PeterPolyol owns so we can all go purchase them.
He hates CR also. I think that he owns a GM product. Maybe he even works for GM (who somehow managed to loose money again last year during a boom in the auto sales market). Toyota and CR have been serious thorns in GM's side for many years. IMO, during the next economic downturn GM will go bankrupt again, only next time the fed may not be able to afford to bail them out. Maybe he thinks that Toyota should share the wealth with other less fortunate/successful auto manufacturers, corporate socialism if you will
Last edited:
CR ?
Also Skyactiv isn't dual port and direct injection...it is just DI
Also Skyactiv isn't dual port and direct injection...it is just DI
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
Also Skyactiv isn't dual port and direct injection...it is just DI
Right you are! My mistake.
Dual fuel injection is a Toyota engineering refinement of Mazda's Skyactiv technology, and Mazda is using it in their new Skyactiv-X engine, which is basically a gasoline powered diesel engine. It uses very lean port injection (too lean to pre-ignite) and DI to richen the mixture just enough so it will burn. The engine uses a very high diesel-like compression ratio but it still ignites with a spark, so it isn't really a 100% compression ignition diesel engine.
Also Skyactiv isn't dual port and direct injection...it is just DI
Right you are! My mistake.
Dual fuel injection is a Toyota engineering refinement of Mazda's Skyactiv technology, and Mazda is using it in their new Skyactiv-X engine, which is basically a gasoline powered diesel engine. It uses very lean port injection (too lean to pre-ignite) and DI to richen the mixture just enough so it will burn. The engine uses a very high diesel-like compression ratio but it still ignites with a spark, so it isn't really a 100% compression ignition diesel engine.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Stock trading, and shareholder trust are trading on vapours, not the definition of the market in delivering goods and services.
You are completely correct. Stocks and futures markets, etc., are purely speculative and reflective of attitudes and perceptions as much as business reality.
Not really.
Common stock is market priced by the NPV of the stream of expected future earnings of a company plus expected growth. Near term earnings expectations have a more significant impact than those in the out years simply as a function of applying any given discount rate over more years.
Futures contracts serve a legitimate economic function in that they give certainty to buyers and sellers of commodities at future dates and the same is true of listed options to buy or sell common stock.
That these contracts can also be very powerful speculative vehicles given the huge leverage involved doesn't negate their economic validity any more than one's expectation of not having to make a claim makes insurance economically invalid or a speculative vehicle.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Stock trading, and shareholder trust are trading on vapours, not the definition of the market in delivering goods and services.
You are completely correct. Stocks and futures markets, etc., are purely speculative and reflective of attitudes and perceptions as much as business reality.
Not really.
Common stock is market priced by the NPV of the stream of expected future earnings of a company plus expected growth. Near term earnings expectations have a more significant impact than those in the out years simply as a function of applying any given discount rate over more years.
Futures contracts serve a legitimate economic function in that they give certainty to buyers and sellers of commodities at future dates and the same is true of listed options to buy or sell common stock.
That these contracts can also be very powerful speculative vehicles given the huge leverage involved doesn't negate their economic validity any more than one's expectation of not having to make a claim makes insurance economically invalid or a speculative vehicle.
- Status
Similar threads
