Camry in Europe features new 2.0L engine with VVT-iW for both Atkinson and Otto cycles; 13% lower fuel consumption
05 September 2014
The 2014 Camry in Europe is benefitting from a new, Euro V-compliant, 4-cylinder, 1,998 cc, 16v, DOHC petrol engine mated to a 6-speed Multi-mode automatic transmission which replaces the existing 2.0-liter unit and its 4-speed automatic transmission.
With a high 12.8:1 compression ratio, the new engine generates maximum power of 150 DIN hp/110 kW at 5,600 - 6,500 rpm, and maximum torque of 199 N·m (147 lb-ft) at 4,600 rpm. This accelerates the Camry from 0-100 km/h in 10.4 seconds, and on to a top speed of 210 km/h (130 mph). At 7.2 l/100 km (32.7 mpg US), fuel consumption is a substantial 13% less than that of the outgoing engine.
Several advanced technologies have been adopted to achieve these values, including a new Variable Valve Timing-intelligent Wide (VVT-iW) system. VVT-iW was first introduced in 2013 on the Lexus NX 200t with the direct-injected 2.0L turbo 8AR-FTS engine. (Earlier post.) The Lexus RC F also features an Atkinson-Otto combination. (Earlier post.)
VVT-iW features standard VVT-i on the exhaust valves and VVT-iW on the intake side. The latter features a mid-position camshaft lock mechanism which retards the continuously variable valve timing.
This allows the engine to run in the Atkinson cycle at low revs for improved fuel economy and lower emissions, and in the Otto cycle at higher engine speeds for enhanced power delivery and performance, while delivering high torque output throughout the rev band.
The concept of combining the Atkinson cycle at part loads with the Otto cycle at full loads stretches back more than 30 years to a 1982 paper by a team of researchers from Tel-Aviv University and the Israel Institute of Technology. (Earlier post.)
With its expansion stroke longer than its compression stroke, the Atkinson cycle can achieve a higher thermal efficiency than its Otto counterpart. The Atkinson cycle with the high compression ratio is a common approach that hybrid vehicle engines—with unconventional valve timing to produce the effect of a shorter compression/longer expansion stroke—use to enhance thermal efficiency. However, the drawback is a reduction of engine torque; in a hybrid, the motor torque compensates for this reduction in engine torque. The availability of the Otto cycle in the combined-cycle engine also addresses this.
(Toyota engineers have also developed an approach to applying the Atkinson cycle for engines in conventional, non-hybrid vehicles. They presented their work—embodied in the new 1.3-liter ESTEC (Economy with Superior Thermal Efficient Combustion) engine—in papers this spring at the SAE 2014 World Congress, the Vienna Motor Symposium, and the JSAE Annual Congress. Earlier post.)
The new 2.0 liter unit in the Camry also benefits from Toyota’s D-4S fuel injection system. With separate twin injectors for both direct and port injection, D-4S performs both high-pressure direct injection into the cylinder and conventional intake port injection, or direct cylinder injection only, in accordance with engine speed. Hence, intake air and fuel are mixed evenly at all engine speed ranges, increasing throttle response, power and torque over a wide range of engine speeds without sacrificing fuel efficiency and environmental performance.
In addition, the unit is equipped with a water-cooled Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system. This system combines a highly-efficient EGR cooler with a highly-responsive, electronically-controlled EGR valve to give optimum control of the EGR gas flow volume for equal distribution to each cylinder, enhancing fuel economy.
Numerous additional measures have been adopted to further improve both engine performance and fuel economy.
The shapes of the cylinder head intake port and piston have been optimized, creating tumble flow inside the cylinder for enhanced combustion. Improved cylinder block and head cooling, piston oil jet cooling and an optimized taper squish shape improve anti-knock performance, realizing a high compression ratio of 12.8:1.
An offset crankshaft reduces the piston thrust load to lower friction losses. Allied to enhanced cylinder bore roundness, a resin coating to the piston skirts and lower tension piston rings reduce friction losses from the rotating parts. And the adoption of roller rocker arms and a low friction timing chain further reduce valvetrain friction losses.
The new 6-speed intelligent Electronically Controlled Transmissions (ECT) feature Flex Lock-up Control, Artificial Intelligence (AI)-SHIFT Control, an Automatic Transmission Fluid (ATF), and an Eco Driving indicator. In combination, these features offer smooth shifting and low noise with excellent performance and fuel economy.
Other engine offerings on the Camry in Europe are:
2.5L 4-cylinder gasoline engine. The 4-cylinder, 2,494 cc, 16 valve DOHC petrol engine generates 133 kW/181 DIN hp at 6,000 rpm and a maximum 231 N·m (170 lb-ft) of torque at 4,100 rpm. It will accelerate the Camry from 0-100 km/h in 9.0 seconds, and on to a top speed of 210 km/h (130 mph). The 2.5-liter unit offers fuel consumption of 7.8 l/100 km (30 mpg US).
Numerous features boost engine performance, maximize fuel efficiency and lower emissions. These include a highly-efficient intake port; an improved, variable intake manifold Acoustic Control Induction System (ACIS); a Tumble Control Valves (TCV) system; Dual VVT-i for both intake and exhaust camshafts; the adoption of roller rocker arms; low tension piston rings; multi-point oil jets and a variable output oil pump.
3.5L V6 gasoline engine. Also benefiting from performance and fuel efficiency enhancing features such as ACIS and Dual VVT-i, the Euro V-compliant, 3,456 cc V6 petrol engine generates 204 kW/ 250 DIN hp at 6,200 rpm and a maximum 346 N·m (255 lb-ft) of torque at 4,700 rpm. The unit produces a 0-100 km/h acceleration time of 7.1 seconds, and maximum speed is 230 km/h. Conversely, fuel consumption is just 9.3 l/100 km (25.3 mpg US).
Would the same 13% fuel consumption reduction be achievable on the Camry Hybrid version with this engine?
If so, it could reduce fuel consumption from 40 mpg to 45 mpg.
Posted by: HarveyD | 05 September 2014 at 05:17 PM
Potentially much better, Harvey. This is one possible scenario:
At 150 hp peak power with 4 cylinders, the Camry Hybrid might need only 3 cylinders for 111 hp output. This will free up some space under the hood for half of the battery pack. The other half of the battery pack can ride under the rear seat with the fuel tank downsized from 16 gallons to 8 gallons or even less. This will free up space for a full trunk to be competitive with the ICEV version.
At 20 C peak discharge, a 1.8 kWh NiMh battery pack can provide 36 kW or 48 hp of power, and adding to the engine's 111 hp, can make almost 160 hp combined. Pretty good, because the new Camry Hybrid will be lighter with much smaller engine, fuel tank, and battery if the new solid state battery will be used, and much lighter and more compact inverter if SiC is used.
The new solid state battery pack with 40 C discharge will pump out 96 electric hp to add to the 111 hp engine power for a total of 207 hp in a much lighter vehicle (high-strength steel and more aluminum parts) ...WOW...sport-car material.
Imagine the fuel economy of a 3-cylinder 1.5 liter engine coupled with super-efficient SiC inverter and solid-state battery...I would predict 55-60 EPA-mpg potential in a mid-size vehicle.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 05 September 2014 at 07:05 PM
>>>>"The new 2.0 liter unit in the Camry also benefits from Toyota’s D-4S fuel injection system. With separate twin injectors for both direct and port injection, D-4S performs both high-pressure direct injection into the cylinder and conventional intake port injection, or direct cylinder injection only, in accordance with engine speed."
How about using this for a dual-fuel vehicle, FFV using both straight 100% hydrous methanol or hydrous ethanol and straight 100% gasoline, in separate tanks? No need for gasoline blending with ethanol anymore.
The advantage of this is that methanol can be produced very cheaply from waste biomass in comparison to ethanol, yet, due to corrosiveness of methanol, has not been popular. However, with gasoline on board that can be used to run the engine on the last mile home to flush out the corrosive methanol, then corrosiveness of methanol will no longer be an issue.
With methanol direct injection, compression ratio can be raised to as high as 16, and will bring diesel-equivalent level of efficiency on a low-cost engine with very low exhaust emission. Full power can be run with high methanol content like Indy Car Racing with a lot of power and very low emission. Low load can run on straight gasoline with very high efficiency due to the high expansion ratio, while the Atkinson cycle will keep the effective compression not too high to avoid NOx emission.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 05 September 2014 at 07:25 PM
60 EPA MPG is still well below the 72-80 MPG that the PNGV vehicles were achieving in 1999-2000. Those were full-size, 4-5 passenger cars too.
Not that this makes a great deal of difference; the fuel consumption delta between 60 MPG and 80 MPG is trivial compared to 30 MPG vs. 60 MPG. Providing plug-in capability for even a conventional hybrid (always starting with a full charge) might make that difference with no other techno-tweaks.
Bio-feedstocks [(CH2O)n] are stoichiometrically a lot closer to methanol than most other products. If that means we go methanol for the liquids and electric for the rest, so be it; I'm for it, and proud to be a part of it.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 05 September 2014 at 09:25 PM
While it may be a technical marvel, I cannot see it selling well in Europe. People seem to want diesel cars once they get above 1.6L. The resale values demonstrate this.
It is a shame, because diesel is really only worth it if you are doing large mileages, but once people get an idea in their heads, it is very hard to shift it.
Posted by: mahonj | 06 September 2014 at 03:36 AM
There is maybe a 13% increase in efficiency but there is no miracle and the drawback might be harhness, uneven power delivery, costly maintenance and repair and mated to an automatic transmission added cost and poor gas pedal response , uneven engine compression when releasing the throttle, etc. I won't buy that and the more the mieleage increase then the more the troubles might be.
I have an obd II engine dating from 2005 and just that give a dubious unpleasant drivability for doing 1 more mpg, so imagine this one ??
Posted by: gorr | 06 September 2014 at 07:44 AM
RP;
Unless we go with PHEVs or BEVs, increased fuel efficiency will probably come in small !0% slices every 4 years or so.
It may take another 8 or 12 years before a Camry Hybrid does 55 to 60 mpg?
Posted by: HarveyD | 06 September 2014 at 08:00 AM
Howsabout an Atkinson/Miller range extender with electric supercharger, exhaust-gas-driven generator and turbosteamer? Call it 1l 3cyl, with 30kW Atkinson cam profile normally-aspirated with reclamation of exhaust heat via the generator under typical <=70mph operation, with a demand mode that brings it up to 100kW.
Posted by: Otis | 06 September 2014 at 10:06 AM
Gor, please rest assured that Toyota's engine will always be silky smooth and ultra reliable, and very responsive to the gas pedal. Made with Swiss-watch precision, Toyota's engines do not consume oil even past 100000 miles. Just to be sure to use synthetic oil, now with oil change interval at 10000 miles. Very few repairs needed. Just ask anyone who has owned one, or two...etc.
@Harvey,
The HEV's are to replace the ICEV's. Still very few PHEV are sold even years after the Volt came out, so, if the HEV's can make big market gain, it will be a major accomplishment.
Why did you say 8-12 years? How about 4-6 years? The technology is already here.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 06 September 2014 at 03:14 PM
You could get 5-10% by going stop-start or mild hybrid, especially if you upped the voltage to 48V as Audi is doing.
As Roger says, better to have many HEVs, even mild HEVs than a few PHEVs ( in terms of global fuel consumption).
The trick is to get the most improvement in fuel consumption with the least cost and complexity.
(But I still think they need a diesel for Europe).
Posted by: mahonj | 07 September 2014 at 01:07 AM
RP:
Yes, Toyotas have excellent engines. My wife has been a Toyota user for 30+ years and convinced me to make the switch some 15 years ago. We both drive Toyotas HEVs (Prius & Camry) and are very satisfied.
We cannot use PHEVs or BEVs because our high-rise condo building (140 internal garages and 52 external parking places) are not yet equipped with charging facilities. Latest estimated cost run from $4,200 to $5,800 per space and less than 3% are interested to invest that much. The required majority may no be reached till 2025.
The other solutions are BEVs and future FCEVs.
Posted by: HarveyD | 07 September 2014 at 05:09 AM
HarveyD:
I agree.
I like Toyota engines; put 200,000 miles on an '85 P.U. We replaced it with a 2000 Toyota Tacoma that we can't kill. I like their philosophy of keeping what works year after year. The '85 is the old 22RE engine and the 2000 uses basically the same motor with a better head.
I drive a Leaf; but, I recommend folks wait until a better battery is available before buying a BEV. My experience tells me most U.S. drivers expect a car that will go about 150 miles at a steady freeway speed at a minimum.
Posted by: Lad | 07 September 2014 at 04:24 PM
Lad:
I cannot disagree with you regarding Toyotas ICEs quality and longetivity.
However, I strongly believe that post-2020 BEVs will have 350+ miles (500+ Km) extended range and will not cost much more than equivalent ICEVs.
Foxconn-BYD are working on a new lower cost battery mega-factory and a $15,000 extended range small BEV for the local and export market.
Others will probably do the same in the next 5 to 10 years.
Posted by: HarveyD | 09 September 2014 at 09:21 AM
@Harvey,
350-range BEV will need over 100 kWh battery pack. A HEV with the same range needs only 2 kWh pack, or 50-fold different.
One Tesla Gigafactory can produce 50 GWh of battery yearly, or enough for about 500,000 BEV's, or 25 millions HEV's capable of 60 mpg vs ICEV at 30 mpg.
Which will conserve more gasoline?
The combination of 500,000 BEV's plus 24.5 millions ICEV's at 30 mpg?
Or 25 millions HEV's at 60 mpg?
Posted by: Roger Pham | 09 September 2014 at 06:22 PM
@RP,at
I agree with you the HEVs and PHEVs are good worthy interim technologies, until such time as 600 to 1000 WH/Kg batteries are being developed and mass produced at much lower cost. It may come by 2020 or shortly thereafter.
Battery (Mega or Giga-factories) will multiply in China, Japan, South-Korea, India, EU and in many other large countries in the next 10 years or so.
Future EV manufacturers will not face battery shortages for very long if any.
Posted by: HarveyD | 10 September 2014 at 01:44 PM
@Harvey,
If BEV, PHEV, and FCEV will do such a good job at conserving petrol, not as many GigaBattery Factory will be built, and you won't see as many BEV's as you would like to see.
As you can see, building such a factory representing huge investment cost and risk that they won't be over built. BEV will likely remain a niche market for enthusiasts due to the huge resource consumption.
For example, with Tesla's battery capable of 5000 cycles to reach 80% of capacity, it will last for 13 years if charged daily. If you only drive 60 miles a day, why do you want to have a battery pack capable of over 300-mile range? It is better off to have a PHEV-60 to best utilize the battery pack without waste.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 10 September 2014 at 02:29 PM
BEVs with 300+ miles e-range are required for the same reasons used to sell 1 billion, 300+ miles range, ICEVs.
My wife regularly fills up as soon as the tank is half empty, not to run out of gas. Can you imagine what she would do with a short range BEV?
Posted by: HarveyD | 11 September 2014 at 09:23 AM
No short range BEV implied. I meant instead a PHEV of 60-mile electric range and 350-mile of gasoline range. At 50 mpg on gasoline, only 7 gallons of fuel needed for 350-mi range on gasoline.
A PHEV can have a much smaller engine than an ICEV, for example, a 2-3 cylinder 1-liter engine instead of a 4-6-cylinder 2-3-liter engine, so less material required,lower weight and cost. Having an engine will reduce the size of the e-motor and inverter required.
For example, for 200-hp total power, only a 100 hp engine and 100 hp motor required, instead of a 200-hp motor and inverter required like in a BEV, so savings in cost and weight. The battery pack can be downsized from 100 kWh to 20 kWh with associated reduction in weight and cost, while allowing 4 more PHEV's to be made from just one long-range BEV.
A 1-liter 3-cylinder engine can be produced for $1,500 USD, yet resulted in removal of 80 kWh of battery capacity. At $100/kWh, this will cost $8,000 and the saving will be $6,500...and more, since the motor and inverter size can be halved...another $1000-1,500 or a total of $8,000 savings in cost. Lower cost means higher profit margin...great for investors like Tesla's investors! If you are a BEV invester (Tesla), Harvey, it would benefit you to communicate this to the manufacturer.
Thus, 1 long range BEV + 4 ICEV's with big engines will save gasoline equivalent to only 1 ICEV out of 5.
However, 5 PHEV-60 will cut gasoline consumption to 10% of before, equivalent to removing 4.5 ICEV's out of the picture. So, 5 PHEV's save petrol 4.5 times as much as one BEV-300 + 4 ICEV's.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 11 September 2014 at 03:19 PM
Buyers may have a difficult choice to make between:
1. PHEVs with batteries for 100 Km + 1000cc ICE
2. PHEVs with batteries + FC range extender (FCEVs?)
3. Extended range (500+ Km) BEVs
1) and 2) may be better interim solutions for cold weather areas and larger vehicles.
3) may become the leading choice for clean low noise private cars, specially in the post 2020 time frame when improved batteries will be available at much lower cost.
HEVs and short range BEVs will be progressively phased out starting in 2020-2025+.
Posted by: HarveyD | 16 September 2014 at 08:34 AM
You forgot about FCEV, which uses clean and renewable energy and requires no plugging in daily. This is not an interim solution but a long term solution to replace fossil fuels.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 16 September 2014 at 06:44 PM
Meanwhile in the real world, China generates hydrogen from gasified coal. The CO2 is dumped (China does not have any sequestration projects of significant size).
Hydrogen from NG or coal will be far cheaper than electrolytic H2 for at least the next half-century, which is far too long. The FCEV is the fossil industry's bid to stay on top and damn the climate.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 17 September 2014 at 07:33 AM
The H2 economy is only of value if H2 is made from non-fossil sources. China is rapidly weaning off coal and is building RE at record-setting pace. The following link will show that H2 from electrolysis will be much more practical than before.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/09/20140915-glasgow.html#comments
There's no limit as to how low the cost of RE will go. Solar PV panels may last for 50-60 years instead of 25 years used in the cost calculation, and no fuel cost, so, we will see solar energy costing as low as a penny per kWh, while the cost of extracting fossil fuels won't get any lower, and will likely get higher. Eventually, fossil fuels will not be cost competitive.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 17 September 2014 at 12:27 PM