V-6 engines begin long fade into history

[Raduque]

Turbo 4cyl....:thumbsdown:
You'll either get a tiny turbo that doesn't build crap for boost, or a bigger turbo that lags till 4000rpm.

Do. Not. Want.


Edit: of course, a tiny 4-cyl has to rev to 6500 rpm to make any sort of power anyway.

 

[HannibalX]

Yea I can imagine that too, however the Ecoboosted 2.0 I-4 as a base passenger car engine sounds nice...just starting to build this for cars in Europe....200 hp (149 kW) @5500 rpm, 221 lb·ft (300 N·m) @1750-4500 rpm

Yup, that sounds nice to me as well.

I look at Honda for an example of a premium 4 banger. The TSX has a 2.4L I4 with 200HP - no turbo required. Put that in an economy car and I'd buy one. I'd almost avoid the forced induction if I didn't need it.

 

[TraumaRN]

Yup, that sounds nice to me as well.

I look at Honda for an example of a premium 4 banger. The TSX has a 2.4L I4 with 200HP - no turbo required. Put that in an economy car and I'd buy one. I'd almost avoid the forced induction if I didn't need it.

Yea that is nice. BUt I think alot of this focus on turbos is for increasing FE, so these turbos are producing limited boost...should help with longevity. And even Ford admitted they were holding the power back...they took at 3.5L ecoboost dropped it in a 34 Ford Hotrod it was making something like 400HP and 400+ pounds of torque and all they did was tweak the ECU and turbo a bit. Personally I like the idea of buying a car with a I-4 turbo and then being able to very simply increase HP and torque by just playing with the turbo. Honestly could be a hot rodders dream

 

[AMCRambler]

Engine design wise, we're about where Europe was 5 years ago. All driven by fuel prices too. Big oil is digging their own grave. I'd love to seethe day we get to the point where foreign oil just doesn't matter that much anymore and we can just check the hell out of the Middle East. I'm sure most of the people there feel the same way.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Perhaps it is more the rise of direct injection/forced induction more so than the death of any configuration (V6/8)

 

[PricklyPete]

Yup, that sounds nice to me as well.

I look at Honda for an example of a premium 4 banger. The TSX has a 2.4L I4 with 200HP - no turbo required. Put that in an economy car and I'd buy one. I'd almost avoid the forced induction if I didn't need it.

The engine in the TSX is great...when mated to a manual. Pair it with an automatic and the lack of torque really kills the engine. Since America is sold on their automatics, A FI engine with a lot more torque is more appealing.

 

[Zap]

What about smaller cylinder sizes? My previous car was a Contour SVT and it had a 2.5L V6.

 

[DivideBYZero]

It's also not a terribly reliable engine either.

Bullshit. They are very reliable.

 

[PricklyPete]

Engine design wise, we're about where Europe was 5 years ago. All driven by fuel prices too. Big oil is digging their own grave. I'd love to seethe day we get to the point where foreign oil just doesn't matter that much anymore and we can just check the hell out of the Middle East. I'm sure most of the people there feel the same way.

I would agree with you in every way...except with regard to Hybrid...the Japanese and American manufacturers seem to be ahead of the Europeans... although the Europeans are trying to catch up (with products like the eTron).

 

[JulesMaximus]

When, before 1950? Ford ran their 4.9L straight six forever, into the 90s but it's not like it's a small displacement engine, and most straight sixes of that period were about equal in displacement size. So, the cylinder configuration isn't that big of a deal, it's the displacement that matters. If you have a big I6, big V6 or small V8 that all make the same power, fuel economy, etc the configuration isn't really that important.

From the 50s into the 60s most Ford pickups came with the Y block V8 and later Windsor small blocks and FE big blocks. Before that many Ford trucks had the flathead V8.

Most of the big rig truck engines today are straight sixes, and they displace 10, 11 or 12 liters, sometimes more.

Did you not read my post? I said V6 or straight 6.

I used to work for a company that delivered rental cars in the early 90s and we used to tow vehicles as big as a Chrysler minivan with a Ford F-150 single cab short bed truck with a straight 6. Those trucks were great.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Smaller engines allow cars to have lighter suspensions, lighter bodies, lighter brakes and an overall lighter curb weight. Less weight leads to better fuel economy and also creates a vehicle that might get an even smaller engine in the future.

Sorry, but no. The weight differential between a well-designed V6 and a four-cylinder just isn't big enough to allow a meaningful decrease in overall weight. Hell, the "light" 4-cylinder Chevy Malibu tips the scales at about 3,500 pounds. Shaving 50 or even 100 pounds off the engine is simply not going to provide a meaningful reduction in the amount of power necessary to accelerate the vehicle.

I'm all for weight reduction, but the fact is that the amount of weight saved by using a 4-cylinder over a V6 is just plain not enough to matter when the "lighter" car is still closing in on two tons.

Whoever wrote this article needs to brush up on his fact-checking.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

So, the cylinder configuration isn't that big of a deal, it's the displacement that matters. If you have a big I6, big V6 or small V8 that all make the same power, fuel economy, etc the configuration isn't really that important.

If you want to get deeper into it; if displacement is equal, an engine with more cylinders will have greater internal friction which may cause a slight reduction in power. That said, there are also issues with large engines that have fewer cylinders because the larger combustion chambers can be difficult to optimize for proper flame propagation and a complete burn, not to mention the inherent vibration issues that come into play for the I4 and V4 and the packaging issues that come into play for the flat-4.

In the end, I think you're right that for practical purposes the configuration doesn't matter, but it's fun to look more into just why that is.

For large displacement engines, a cross-plane V8 or an I6 are generally preferred due to their inherent balance characteristics and their ability to keep the individual combustion chambers a manageable size. The main reason the I6 is so prevalent in OTR (Over The Road) trucking is its inherent balance, which is a huge advantage when you're dealing with the amount of reciprocating mass in an OTR diesel.

ZV

 

[GTaudiophile]

I can't believe Audi no longer offers their V6 in the A4! That is crazy.

But I think hell will freeze over before we see the end of BMW's I6. We will see some nice 4-bangers from them though.

 

[Vetterin]

What about smaller cylinder sizes? My previous car was a Contour SVT and it had a 2.5L V6.

Right, but we only had 200hp and 169 ft lbs (and that's what really hurt us) torque.

 

[PricklyPete]

I can't believe Audi no longer offers their V6 in the A4! That is crazy.

But I think hell will freeze over before we see the end of BMW's I6. We will see some nice 4-bangers from them though.

Drive the A4 with the 3.2l and then drive a car with the 2.0T and you will immediately realize why. The 3.2l has less torque and only gains on the 2.0T when you are at highway speeds where the 2.0T is more than adequate. For day to day driving, the 2.0T is simply a better match.

Oh yeah...and if you want to spank the 3.2l with the 2.0T...go get it chipped from APR for $600 and you'll cruise right past any 3.2l at any speed. Audi knew what they were doing. The S4 is now their V6 option...and that is where you will see a real performance boost over the 2.0T...the 3.2L was dying.

Did I mention the 2.0T gets great gas mileage...

 

[alfa147x]

For a daily driver I like my 4 'banger'

 

[Stefan Payne]

What I seem to see is German V12 and V10's going away for supercharged V8's and in turn traditional V8's are being replaced by FI/DI V6's.

There's just the BMW V12, Mercedes doesnt have one and Volkswagen either (but not sure on that, maybe they've got some W12 Crap)

Turbo 4cyl....:thumbsdown:
You'll either get a tiny turbo that doesn't build crap for boost, or a bigger turbo that lags till 4000rpm.

Or you do both.
Or, instead of a smaller turbocharger you'll use a supercharger.

Edit: of course, a tiny 4-cyl has to rev to 6500 rpm to make any sort of power anyway.

Not neccissarily, when its 'pumped up', like the newer turbocharged are.

But I don't know what's wrong with reving a gasoline engine to 6500, I quite like that, though my actual one isn't able to reach that...

What about smaller cylinder sizes? My previous car was a Contour SVT and it had a 2.5L V6.

Driven a 2l Mazda V6 Engine?
Or an old 2liter BMW (or Toyota) straight 6?

At least the BMW 2liter engine consumes not that much less fuel than the bigger ones do.

Sorry, but no. The weight differential between a well-designed V6 and a four-cylinder just isn't big enough to allow a meaningful decrease in overall weight.

Actually, it depends.
You can't say, that a V8 is heavier than a straight 4.

For example, you have a V8, that's intended to be light, ie: aluminium block and head, so that could be lighter than the 1.4 VW TSI engine, wich is made out of grey cast iron.
And don't forget the chargers...

 

[Pulsar]

Really, because Ford dropped the V6 altogether with the latest F150 redesign (the best selling truck of all time). The base engine in the F150 is the 2V 4.6L V8, optional engines are the 3V 4.6 (Mustang engine) and the 3V 5.4L V8. Ford even introduced an even larger 6.1L (could be wrong on displacement) V8 which is in limited runs for 2009 and full runs for 2010+.

You should be more careful who you argue with. I'm 100 yards away from 2V 4.6L V8 production line, I launched the 3V 4.6L Mustang (same line btw), and the Shelby (different line), and I'm launching the 6.2 right now - in the same building.

But, hey.... what do I know about what's happening in the future.

When you so gleefully pointed out what's currently in the truck, you failed to miss the point where we were talking about what's happening in the future. Also, I'll point out that the current engine offering is driven as much by open plant space, plant closings, and new engine line capacities as it is by what Ford actually wants in the vehicles.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I can still get 30mpg easily on my 3.8L V6 on the highway (my best is 32). But it is also nearly 12 years old and isn't carrying around a crapload of weight like modern cars are required to.

 

[PricklyPete]

You should be more careful who you argue with. I'm 100 yards away from 2V 4.6L V8 production line, I launched the 3V 4.6L Mustang (same line btw), and the Shelby (different line), and I'm launching the 6.2 right now - in the same building.

But, hey.... what do I know about what's happening in the future.

When you so gleefully pointed out what's currently in the truck, you failed to miss the point where we were talking about what's happening in the future. Also, I'll point out that the current engine offering is driven as much by open plant space, plant closings, and new engine line capacities as it is by what Ford actually wants in the vehicles.

Is there any way you could "accidentally" misplace one of those 6.2L in the back of your truck and drop it off at my doorstep for a tidy finders fee?

 

[ElFenix]

What about smaller cylinder sizes? My previous car was a Contour SVT and it had a 2.5L V6.

they'd probably need a different block from the new 3.5, but they may be able to fit the old block with whatever new plumbing has been added to the existing 3 liter to get it to 240 hp. heck, maybe a head job is all that's needed for EB (DI, central exhaust so the turbo can sit in the V, etc.). 2.5 EB V6 could be good for 280 hp?

so replace smaller V8s with 3.5 EB, larger V6s with 2.5 EB, mid-size V6s with a 2.0 EB, and the larger 4 bangers with a 1.6 EB

hmmmm

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Yup, that sounds nice to me as well.

I look at Honda for an example of a premium 4 banger. The TSX has a 2.4L I4 with 200HP - no turbo required. Put that in an economy car and I'd buy one. I'd almost avoid the forced induction if I didn't need it.

The TSX I4 is 50 lb.ft down on the Ecoboost, which should make the Ecoboost easier to drive.

 

[The-Noid]

The TSX I4 is 50 lb.ft down on the Ecoboost, which should make the Ecoboost easier to drive.

Plus the fact the TSX is trash, that has to count for something.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Is there any way you could "accidentally" misplace one of those 6.2L in the back of your truck and drop it off at my doorstep for a tidy finders fee?

Can you make that 2 please?

 

[PricklyPete]

Plus the fact the TSX is trash, that has to count for something.

Other than questionable looks...I disagree with you.