Review Toyota Highlander - a kind mountain dweller. Technical parameters and characteristics

Octane number
General advice and recommendations of the manufacturer - "What kind of gasoline do we pour into Toyota?"

Engine oil
General tips for choosing engine oil - "What kind of oil do we pour into the engine?"

Spark plug
General notes and a catalog of recommended candles - "Spark plug"

Batteries
Some recommendations and catalog of standard batteries - "Batteries for Toyota"

Power
A little more about the characteristics - "Rated performance characteristics of Toyota engines"

Refueling tanks
Manufacturer's recommendation guide - "Filling volumes and liquids"

The most archaic OHV engines for the most part remained in the 1970s, but some of their representatives were modified and remained in service until the mid-2000s (K series). The lower camshaft was driven by a short chain or gears and moved the rods through the hydraulic pushers. Today OHV is used by Toyota only in the truck diesel segment.

From the second half of the 1960s, SOHC and DOHC engines of different series began to appear - initially with solid double-row chains, with hydraulic compensators or valve clearances adjustment with washers between the camshaft and the pusher (less often - screws).

The first series with a timing belt drive (A) was not born until the late 1970s, but by the mid-1980s, such engines - what we call "classics", had become absolute mainstream. First SOHC, then DOHC with the letter G in the index - "wide Twincam" with both camshaft drive from the belt, and then the massive DOHC with the letter F, where one of the shafts, connected by a gear transmission, was driven by a belt. The DOHC clearances were adjusted with washers above the push rod, but some Yamaha-designed motors retained the washers under the push rod.

In the event of a belt break, valves and pistons were not found on most mass-produced engines, with the exception of the forced 4A-GE, 3S-GE, some V6s, D-4 engines and, of course, diesels. For the latter, due to the design features, the consequences are especially severe - the valves bend, the guide bushings break, the camshaft often breaks. For gasoline engines, a certain role is played by chance - in a “non-bending” engine, the piston and valve covered with a thick layer of carbon sometimes collide, and in a “bending” engine, on the contrary, the valves can successfully hang in the neutral position.

In the second half of the 1990s, fundamentally new third wave engines appeared, on which the timing chain drive returned and the presence of mono-VVT (variable intake phases) became standard. As a rule, the chains drove both camshafts on in-line engines, on the V-shaped ones between the camshafts of one head there was a gear drive or a short additional chain. Unlike the old double-row chains, the new long single-row roller chains were no longer durable. Valve clearances now they were almost always asked about the selection of adjusting pushers of different heights, which made the procedure too laborious, time-consuming, costly, and therefore unpopular - the owners for the most part simply stopped monitoring the clearances.

For engines with a chain drive, cases of breakage are traditionally not considered, however, in practice, when the chain overshoots or is incorrectly installed, in the overwhelming majority of cases, valves and pistons meet each other.

A kind of derivation among the motors of this generation turned out to be the forced 2ZZ-GE with a variable valve lift (VVTL-i), but in this form the concept of distribution and development was not developed.

Already in the mid-2000s, the era of the next generation of engines began. In terms of timing, their main distinguishing features are Dual-VVT (variable intake and exhaust phases) and revived hydraulic lifters in the valve drive. Another experiment was the second option for changing the valve lift - Valvematic on the ZR series.

The practical advantages of a chain drive compared to a belt drive are simple: strength and durability - the chain, relatively speaking, does not break and requires less frequent planned replacements. The second gain, layout, is important only for the manufacturer: the drive of four valves per cylinder through two shafts (also with a phase change mechanism), the drive of the injection pump, pump, oil pump - require a sufficiently large belt width. Whereas the installation of a thin single-row chain instead allows you to save a couple of centimeters from the longitudinal dimension of the engine, and at the same time to reduce the transverse dimension and the distance between the camshafts, due to the traditionally smaller diameter of the sprockets compared to pulleys in belt drives. Another small plus - less radial load on the shafts due to less pre-tension.

But we must not forget about the standard disadvantages of chains.
- Due to the inevitable wear and the appearance of play in the joints of the links, the chain stretches during operation.
- To combat chain stretching, either a regular "tightening" procedure is required (as on some archaic motors), or the installation of an automatic tensioner (which is what most modern manufacturers do). The traditional hydraulic tensioner operates from common system engine lubrication, which negatively affects its durability (therefore, on chain engines of new generations, Toyota places it outside, making replacement as easy as possible). But sometimes the chain stretching exceeds the limit of the tensioner's adjusting capabilities, and then the consequences for the engine are very sad. And some third-rate car manufacturers manage to install hydraulic tensioners without a ratchet mechanism, which allows even an unworn chain to "play" with every start.
- The metal chain in the process of work inevitably "saws through" the shoes of tensioners and dampers, gradually wears out the sprockets of the shafts, and wear products get into engine oil... Even worse, many owners do not change sprockets and tensioners when replacing a chain, although they must understand how quickly an old sprocket can ruin a new chain.
- Even a serviceable timing chain drive always works noticeably louder than a belt drive. Among other things, the speed of the chain is uneven (especially with a small number of sprocket teeth), and there is always an impact when the link engages.
- The cost of the chain is always higher than the timing belt kit (and for some manufacturers it is simply inadequate).
- Changing the chain is more laborious (the old "Mercedes" method does not work on Toyota cars). And in the process, a fair amount of accuracy is required, since valves in Toyota chain motors meet pistons.
- Some engines originating from Daihatsu do not use roller chains, but gear chains. By definition, they are quieter in operation, more accurate and more durable, however, for inexplicable reasons, they can sometimes slip on the asterisks.

As a result, have the maintenance costs decreased with the transition to timing chains? A chain drive requires one or another intervention no less often than a belt drive - hydraulic tensioners are rented out, on average, the chain itself stretches for 150 tkm ... and the costs "per circle" turn out to be higher, especially if you do not cut out the details and replace all the necessary components at the same time drive.

The chain can be good - if it is two-row, the engine has 6-8 cylinders, and there is a three-pointed star on the cover. But on classic Toyota engines, the timing belt drive was so good that the transition to thin long chains was a clear step backward.

In the post-Soviet space carburetor system supplying locally made cars for maintainability and budget will never have competitors. All deep electronics - EPHH, all vacuum - UOZ machine and crankcase ventilation, all kinematics - throttle, manual suction and drive of the second chamber (Solex). Everything is relatively simple and straightforward. The penny cost allows you to literally carry a second set of power and ignition systems in the trunk, although spare parts and "equipment" could always be found somewhere nearby.

The Toyota carburetor is another matter entirely. It is enough to look at some 13T-U from the turn of the 70s-80s - a real monster with many tentacles of vacuum hoses ... Well, the late "electronic" carburetors generally represented the height of complexity - a catalyst, an oxygen sensor, air bypass, bypass exhaust gases (EGR), suction control electrics, two or three stages of idle speed control by load (power consumers and power steering), 5-6 pneumatic drives and two-stage dampers, tank and float chamber ventilation, 3-4 electro-pneumatic valves, thermo-pneumatic valves, EPHH, vacuum corrector , air heating system, a full set of sensors (coolant temperature, intake air, speed, detonation, DZ limit switch), catalyst, the electronic unit control ... It's amazing why such difficulties were needed at all in the presence of modifications with normal injection, but one way or another, such systems, tied to vacuum, electronics and drive kinematics, worked in a very delicate balance. The balance was broken simply - not a single carburetor is insured against old age and dirt. Sometimes everything was even more stupid and simpler - the excessively impulsive "master" disconnected all the hoses in a row, but, of course, did not remember where they were connected. You can somehow revive this miracle, but you can correct work (to maintain normal cold start, normal warm-up, normal idle, normal load correction, normal fuel consumption) is extremely difficult. As you might guess, the few carburetors with knowledge of Japanese specifics lived only within Primorye, but two decades later, even the locals would hardly remember them.

As a result, Toyota's distributed injection initially turned out to be simpler than the later Japanese carburetors - there were not much more electrics and electronics in it, but the vacuum was strongly degenerated and there were no mechanical drives with complex kinematics - which gave us such valuable reliability and maintainability.

The most unreasonable argument in favor of the D-4 is that "direct injection will soon replace traditional motors." Even if this were true, it in no way indicated that there is no alternative to engines with NV now... For a long time, D-4 meant, as a rule, one specific engine in general - 3S-FSE, which was installed on relatively affordable mass cars. But they were equipped with only three 1996-2001 Toyota models (for the domestic market), and in each case the direct alternative was at least the version with the classic 3S-FE. And then the choice between D-4 and normal injection usually remained. And since the second half of the 2000s, Toyota generally abandoned the use of direct injection on engines of the mass segment (see. "Toyota D4 - prospects?" ) and began to return to this idea only ten years later.

"The engine is excellent, we just have bad gasoline (nature, people ...)" - this is again from the field of scholasticism. Let this engine be good for the Japanese, but what is the use of this in Russia? - a country of not the best gasoline, a harsh climate and imperfect people. And where, instead of the mythical advantages of D-4, only its disadvantages come out.

It is extremely unfair to appeal to foreign experience - "but in Japan, but in Europe" ... The Japanese are deeply concerned about the contrived CO2 problem, the Europeans combine blinkeredness on reducing emissions and efficiency (it is not for nothing that diesel engines occupy more than half of the market there). For the most part, the population of the Russian Federation cannot compare with them in income, and the quality of local fuel is inferior even to states where direct injection has not been considered until a certain time - mainly because of unsuitable fuel (besides, a manufacturer of a frankly bad engine can be punished there with a dollar) ...

The stories that "the D-4 engine consumes three liters less" is just plain misinformation. Even according to the passport, the maximum economy of the new 3S-FSE in comparison with the new 3S-FE on one model was 1.7 l / 100 km - and this is in the Japanese test cycle with very quiet modes (therefore, the real economy was always less). With dynamic city driving, the D-4 operating in power mode does not reduce consumption in principle. The same happens when driving fast on the highway - the zone of tangible efficiency of the D-4 in terms of revs and speeds is small. And in general, it is incorrect to argue about the "regulated" consumption for a not new car - it depends much more on the technical condition of a particular car and driving style. Practice has shown that some of the 3S-FSE, on the contrary, spend significantly morethan 3S-FE.

You could often hear "yes, you will change the pump quickly and there is no problem." Say what you don’t say, but the obligation to regularly replace the main unit of the fuel system of the engine with a relatively fresh Japanese car (especially Toyota) is just nonsense. And even with a regularity of 30-50 t.km, even a "penny" $ 300 was not the most pleasant waste (and this price concerned only 3S-FSE). And little was said about the fact that the injectors, which also often required replacement, cost money comparable to the high-pressure fuel pump. Of course, the standard and, moreover, already fatal problems of 3S-FSE in the mechanical part were diligently hushed up.

Perhaps not everyone thought about the fact that if the engine has already "caught the second level in the oil pan", then most likely all rubbing parts of the engine have suffered from working on a gasoline-oil emulsion (you should not compare the grams of gasoline that sometimes get into the oil when cold starting and evaporating when the engine warms up, with liters of fuel constantly flowing into the crankcase).

Nobody warned that you shouldn't try to "clean the throttle" on this engine - that's all correct adjustments to the engine control system required the use of scanners. Not everyone knew about how eGR system poisons the engine and covers the intake elements with coke, requiring regular disassembly and cleaning (conventionally - every 30 t.km). Not everyone knew that trying to replace the timing belt with the "similarity method with 3S-FE" leads to the meeting of pistons and valves. Not everyone knew if there was at least one car service in their city that successfully solved D-4 problems.

Why is Toyota generally valued in Russia (if there are Japanese brands cheaper, faster, more sporty, more comfortable ..)? For "unpretentiousness", in the broadest sense of the word. Unpretentiousness in work, unpretentiousness to fuel, to consumables, to the choice of spare parts, to repair ... You can, of course, buy high-tech extracts at the price of a normal car. You can carefully choose gasoline and pour a variety of chemicals inside. You can count every cent you save on gasoline - whether the costs of the upcoming repairs will be covered or not (excluding nerve cells). You can train local servicemen in the basics of repairing direct injection systems. You can recall the classic "something has not broken for a long time, when will it finally fall down" ... There is only one question - "Why?"

In the end, buyers' choice is their own business. And the more people get in touch with NV and other dubious technologies, the more customers the services will have. But elementary decency still requires saying - buying a car with a D-4 engine when there are other alternatives is contrary to common sense.

Retrospective experience allows us to assert that the necessary and sufficient level of reduction of emissions of harmful substances was already provided by classic engines of the Japanese market in the 1990s or by the Euro II standard in the European market. All that was required was multipoint injection, one oxygen sensor and an under-floor catalyst. Such machines worked for many years in a standard configuration, despite the disgusting quality of gasoline at that time, their own considerable age and mileage (sometimes completely exhausted oxygenators needed to be replaced), and getting rid of the catalyst on them was as easy as shelling pears - but usually there was no such need.

The problems began with the Euro III stage and correlated norms for other markets, and then they only expanded - a second oxygen sensor, moving the catalyst closer to the outlet, switching to "collectors", switching to broadband mixture composition sensors, electronic throttle control (more precisely, algorithms, deliberately impairing the engine response to the accelerator), increasing temperature regimes, fragments of catalysts in the cylinders ...

Today, with normal gasoline quality and much fresher cars, the removal of catalysts with re-flashing of Euro V\u003e II type ECUs is massive. And if for older cars in the end it is possible to use an inexpensive universal catalyst instead of an obsolete one, then for the freshest and "smartest" cars there is simply no alternative to breaking through the collector and programmatically disabling emission control.

A few words on some purely "ecological" excesses (gasoline engines):
- The exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system is an absolute evil, it should be muffled as soon as possible (taking into account the specific design and availability feedback), stopping the poisoning and contamination of the engine by its own waste.
- Fuel vapor recovery system (EVAP) - works fine on Japanese and European cars, problems arise only on models of the North American market due to its extreme complexity and "sensitivity".
- Exhaust Air Intake (SAI) - unnecessary but relatively harmless system for North American models.

In fact, the recipe for an abstractly better engine is simple - gasoline, R6 or V8, aspirated, cast-iron block, maximum safety factor, maximum displacement, distributed injection, minimum boost ... but alas, in Japan this can only be found on cars that are clearly "anti-popular "class.

In the junior segments available to the mass consumer, it is no longer possible to do without compromises, so the engines here may not be the best, but at least "good". The next task is to evaluate motors taking into account their real application - whether they provide an acceptable thrust-to-weight ratio and in what configurations are they installed (an ideal engine for compact models will be clearly insufficient in the middle class, a structurally more successful engine may not be aggregated with all-wheel drive, etc.) ... And, finally, the time factor - all our regrets about the beautiful motors that were discontinued 15-20 years ago do not mean at all that even today we need to buy ancient worn-out cars with these motors. So it makes sense to talk only about the best engine in its class and in its time period.

1990s. It is easier to find a few unsuccessful engines among classic engines than to choose the best from a lot of good ones. However, two absolute leaders are well known - 4A-FE STD type "90 in the small class and 3S-FE type" 90 in the middle. In the large class, the 1JZ-GE and 1G-FE type "90 are equally approved.

2000s. As for the third wave engines, good words can be found only for the 1NZ-FE type "99 for a small class, while the rest of the series can only mixed success compete for the title of outsider, in the middle class even "good" engines are absent. In a large class, one should pay tribute to the 1MZ-FE, which turned out to be not bad at all against the background of young competitors.

2010-th. In general, the picture has changed a little - at least the 4th wave engines still look better than their predecessors. In the junior class, there is still 1NZ-FE (unfortunately, in most cases it is a "modernized" for the worse type "03). In the senior segment of the middle class, 2AR-FE performs well. As for the large class, then by a number of well-known economic and political reasons for the average consumer no longer exist.

However, it is better to look at examples to see how the new engine versions turned out to be worse than the old ones. About 1G-FE type "90 and type" 98 has already been said above, but what is the difference between the legendary 3S-FE type "90 and type" 96? All the deterioration is caused by the same "good intentions", such as reducing mechanical losses, reducing fuel consumption, and reducing CO2 emissions. The third point refers to the completely insane (but beneficial for some) idea of \u200b\u200ba mythical fight against mythical global warming, and the positive effect of the first two turned out to be disproportionately less than the resource drop ...

Deteriorations in the mechanical part refer to the cylinder-piston group. It would seem that the installation of new pistons with trimmed (T-shaped in projection) skirts to reduce friction losses could be welcomed? But in practice, it turned out that such pistons begin to knock when shifting to TDC at much lower runs than in the classic type "90. And this knock does not mean noise in itself, but increased wear. It is worth mentioning the phenomenal stupidity of replacing completely floating piston fingers pressed in.

Replacing the distributor ignition with DIS-2 in theory is characterized only positively - there are no rotating mechanical elements, longer service life of the coils, higher ignition stability ... But in practice? It is clear that it is impossible to manually adjust the base ignition timing. The resource of the new ignition coils, in comparison with the classic remote ones, has even dropped. The service life of high-voltage wires has expectedly decreased (now each candle sparks twice as often) - instead of 8-10 years they served 4-6 years. It's good that at least the candles have remained simple two-pin, and not platinum.

The catalyst has moved from under the bottom directly to the exhaust manifold in order to warm up faster and start working. The result is a general overheating of the engine compartment, a decrease in the efficiency of the cooling system. It is unnecessary to mention the notorious consequences of the possible ingress of crushed catalyst elements into the cylinders.

Fuel injection instead of pairwise or synchronous became purely sequential in many variants of the "96" type (in each cylinder, once per cycle) - more accurate dosage, reduced losses, "ecology" ... In fact, gasoline was now given before entering the cylinder much less time for evaporation, therefore starting characteristics at low temperatures automatically deteriorated.

More or less reliably, we can only talk about the "resource before the bulkhead", when the mass series engine required the first serious intervention in the mechanical part (not counting the replacement of the timing belt). For most classic engines, the bulkhead fell on the third hundred of the run (about 200-250 t.km). As a rule, the intervention consisted of replacing worn out or stuck piston rings and replacing the valve stem seals - that is, it was just a bulkhead, and not overhaul (the geometry of the cylinders and the hon on the walls were usually retained).

Engines of the next generation often require attention already at the second hundred thousand kilometers, and in the best case, the matter is to replace the piston group (in this case, it is advisable to change the parts for modified ones in accordance with the latest service bulletins). With a noticeable oil burnout and the noise of piston shifting on runs over 200 t / km, you should prepare for a major repair - strong liner wear leaves no other options. Toyota does not provide for the overhaul of aluminum cylinder blocks, but in practice, of course, the blocks are overheated and bored. Unfortunately, reputable companies that really perform the overhaul of modern "disposable" engines with high quality and at a high professional level in all countries can really be counted on one hand. But vigorous reports of successful reloading today come already from mobile collective farm workshops and garage cooperatives - what can be said about the quality of work and the resource of such engines is probably understandable.

This question is posed incorrectly, as in the case of "the absolute best engine". Yes, modern motors cannot be compared with classic ones in terms of reliability, durability and survivability (at least with the leaders of the past). They are much less maintainable mechanically, they become too advanced for an unqualified service ...

But the fact is that there is no alternative to them. The emergence of new generations of motors must be taken for granted and every time you learn to work with them again.

Of course, car owners should in every possible way avoid individual unsuccessful engines and particularly unsuccessful series. Avoid motors of the earliest releases, when the traditional "customer run-in" is still underway. If there are several modifications of a particular model, you should always choose a more reliable one - even if you compromise either finances or technical characteristics.

P.S. In conclusion, we cannot but thank Toyot "y for the fact that once she created engines" for people ", with simple and reliable solutions, without the frills inherent in many other Japanese and Europeans. And let the owners of cars from" advanced and advanced "manufacturers they scornfully called them kondovy - so much the better!