Camry to Keep Its V6 Option
01-21-13, 08:09 PM
#46
We've seen the turbo four tuned low (base model) or high (top line model).
The point of my above information is to show what COULD be done. Higher brands have already proven the merits and success of the smaller, turbo engine. The technology is there but hasn't been tapped yet by lesser companies.
Speaking of VW, next year they will be dumping the base five cylinder for guess what... a turbo four.
The point of my above information is to show what COULD be done. Higher brands have already proven the merits and success of the smaller, turbo engine. The technology is there but hasn't been tapped yet by lesser companies.
Speaking of VW, next year they will be dumping the base five cylinder for guess what... a turbo four.
So far 1.6l Turbo from Fusion was almost the worst engine tested vs Camry and Honda's 4cly.
It would be mighty wrong for Toyota to add their turbo that would actually be slower and spend more gas in real life than 2GR that they use now. GR can also be improved with addition of 8 speed and D4S system to get both more power and fuel efficiency, but it probably wont be done since it would raise price of the vehicle.
I am not dissing on turbo's in general, just that these low cost implementations suck, just like low power 4cly non-turbo engines suck (for instance 1.8l in Corolla will always feel underpowered).
01-21-13, 08:21 PM
#47
Lexus Fanatic
Look at the Corolla's sales-numbers, though...without doubt one of the most popular cars in history. Many people buy a car for simple, reliable transportation, not drag-race acceleration. And, to boot, the Corolla adds a (relatively) smooth ride and powertrain, though somewhat hampered by the limitation of the dated four-speed automatic.
01-21-13, 09:09 PM
#48
Lexus Test Driver
The number of 4-cyl econoboxes out there is testament to the willingness of the average person to drive a slow, underpowered vehicle. I've grown to used to the smooth, readily available power in my v8 to switch to a 4 cyl. My next car will probably be a V6(thinking Mazda 6, due to the number out there with manual transmissions).
Nothing beats a big engine for passing on the freeway or driving through mountains.
Nothing beats a big engine for passing on the freeway or driving through mountains.
01-21-13, 09:47 PM
#49
Lead Lap
Join Date: May 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say the previous two generations of Camry and first two generations of Avalon have about the same steering responses and sharpness as a late 90's Buick Regal, LeSabre, or a Cadillac Seville or Deville. All of those cars were dull to drive, had numb, overboosted steering, tracked very straight down the interstate, and rode AWESOME. Just what old people wanted. They finally dialed in some sport with the newest Camry SE.
01-22-13, 06:39 AM
#50
Lexus Champion
The speed limits, though, in most parts of the U.S. generally limit the number of gears that a transmission actually needs for good highway-cruising efficiency. One cannot (legally) drive at Autobahn speeds here.....and, of course, in many places, traffic density itself prevents it.
01-22-13, 03:22 PM
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Problem is.....the roads in Germany (where many of the best-handling and stiffest-riding European-designed cars come from) are usually glass-smooth, where a stiff suspension doesn't necessarily hurt comfort that much. Contrast that with many of the torn-up and pockmarked roads we have here in the U.S..........particularly in the Great Lakes/Northeast states and cities. Michigan's are (arguably) the worst. In Germany, road-maintenance seems to be taken very seriously....here, for a variety of reasons, it simply isn't. Euro-suspension vehicles, despite the clamor in the auto-press for them, are often just not suited to the rougher American roads.....although in the American South and Southwest, where the climate is mild and there is little frost/freeze-induced damage to the pavement, the roads are much better.
Also some cities and states have much better roads than others.
Anywhoo.....I've always been a fan of extra cylinders than boost, especially for cars in this class. But it is clear consumers like both.
01-23-13, 06:23 AM
#52
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.edmunds.com/ford/fusion/2013/road-test1.html
That's what I noticed when I had a Ford Escape EcoBoost rental. Very smooth and refined engine with none of the thrashiness that you typically get with the bigger "super stroke" 2.4-2.5L class NA I-4 engines. All of the 2.0L or smaller turbocharged engines I've driven have been pretty refined and without the nastiness of the bigger 4-cylinders.
The Power of EcoBoost
It's worth noting that our 2013 Ford Fusion test car is an all-wheel-drive model, which likely contributed to its strong handling in our instrumented tests. As important, though, is that Ford succeeded in making a large car with a very long wheelbase drive like, well, a smaller car.
Part of the credit goes to the new 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine. It's now the most powerful engine in the lineup and it stomps out 237 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 270 pound-feet of torque at a low 3,000 rpm on 87 octane fuel. Compare this to the V6 in Honda's Accord — probably the best big engine in the segment — and the Ford's liveliness begins to make some sense. The 3.5-liter Honda mill needs 1,900 more revs to deliver 18 fewer lb-ft of torque. Advantage: turbo engine.
The new four-cylinder is smooth and quiet, too. There's virtually none of the unpleasant harmonics common to this layout and it gladly revs to its 6,500-rpm redline.
It's worth noting that our 2013 Ford Fusion test car is an all-wheel-drive model, which likely contributed to its strong handling in our instrumented tests. As important, though, is that Ford succeeded in making a large car with a very long wheelbase drive like, well, a smaller car.
Part of the credit goes to the new 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engine. It's now the most powerful engine in the lineup and it stomps out 237 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 270 pound-feet of torque at a low 3,000 rpm on 87 octane fuel. Compare this to the V6 in Honda's Accord — probably the best big engine in the segment — and the Ford's liveliness begins to make some sense. The 3.5-liter Honda mill needs 1,900 more revs to deliver 18 fewer lb-ft of torque. Advantage: turbo engine.
The new four-cylinder is smooth and quiet, too. There's virtually none of the unpleasant harmonics common to this layout and it gladly revs to its 6,500-rpm redline.
01-23-13, 06:54 AM
#53
http://www.edmunds.com/ford/fusion/2013/road-test1.html
That's what I noticed when I had a Ford Escape EcoBoost rental. Very smooth and refined engine with none of the thrashiness that you typically get with the bigger "super stroke" 2.4-2.5L class NA I-4 engines. All of the 2.0L or smaller turbocharged engines I've driven have been pretty refined and without the nastiness of the bigger 4-cylinders.
That's what I noticed when I had a Ford Escape EcoBoost rental. Very smooth and refined engine with none of the thrashiness that you typically get with the bigger "super stroke" 2.4-2.5L class NA I-4 engines. All of the 2.0L or smaller turbocharged engines I've driven have been pretty refined and without the nastiness of the bigger 4-cylinders.
Its great on paper though.
01-23-13, 08:02 AM
#54
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What isn't good? They're all refined engines and have excellent power delivery with all of the torque and are zingy and fun to wind up, so the only thing that's really left are the acoustics which obviously, yes, are different. A 4 will sound different than a 6 which will sound different than an 8 or a 12.
01-23-13, 08:24 AM
#55
What isn't good? They're all refined engines and have excellent power delivery with all of the torque and are zingy and fun to wind up, so the only thing that's really left are the acoustics which obviously, yes, are different. A 4 will sound different than a 6 which will sound different than an 8 or a 12.
Check specs on this C&D test:
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...ssat-25-se.pdf
there was another one but I cant find it with Camry as well and Fusion got the worst mpg out of the bunch, after Chevy, and it was also slower than 4cly.
So it is slower and gets worse mpg. Whats good about it? Compared to new 4cly in Accord, probably "Turbo" badge only and thats it?
01-23-13, 08:31 AM
#56
From Consumer Reports regarding Fusion Turbos
Ford's two EcoBoost, turbocharged four-cylinder engines fall short in acceleration and fuel economy compared with the rival Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, and Toyota Camry, the magazine said.
"The 1.6-liter turbocharged four provides decent performance overall but needs to work hard and sounds gruff when revved," the magazine said. "The larger 2.0-liter turbocharged four delivers ample power but lacks the creamy smoothness of competing V-6s while also being slower and less efficient."
Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/2013...#ixzz2IoiKHBq9
"The 1.6-liter turbocharged four provides decent performance overall but needs to work hard and sounds gruff when revved," the magazine said. "The larger 2.0-liter turbocharged four delivers ample power but lacks the creamy smoothness of competing V-6s while also being slower and less efficient."
Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/2013...#ixzz2IoiKHBq9
01-23-13, 08:34 AM
#57
01-23-13, 09:06 AM
#58
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right from those specs, part of the problem is that the Fusion is the heaviest car in the group at over 3500 lbs. It's in excess of 300lb heavier than some of them. Also when comparing a smaller turbo-4 to a larger NA-4, there's no longer a significant difference in friction profiles between the engines as there is with a turbo-4 vs a V-6. Part of the problem might be the lower compression they use for regular fuel friendliness also on the Ford engines specifically.
Compare a BMW 328i to an Accord V6 and the Bimmer is just as fast (dead heat, actually faster in passing) and gets better mileage. And you know BMW isn't holding back on that engine. Per CR's data, the 328i gets 2 mpg better in the city, 1 mpg on the highway, and 2 mpg better overall (CR data, not EPA). Less than a 100 lb difference in weight between the cars also.
Compare a BMW 328i to an Accord V6 and the Bimmer is just as fast (dead heat, actually faster in passing) and gets better mileage. And you know BMW isn't holding back on that engine. Per CR's data, the 328i gets 2 mpg better in the city, 1 mpg on the highway, and 2 mpg better overall (CR data, not EPA). Less than a 100 lb difference in weight between the cars also.
01-23-13, 10:33 AM
#59
Lexus Fanatic
Several auto-enthusiast magazines are either Headquartered in Michigan (primarily at Ann Arbor) or have office (s) there. They say the same thing in many of their tests...they like stiffly-sprung underinnings/tires on smooth surfaces, too, but the local roads in MI really do a number on them, not only sometimes causing tire/wheel/suspension damage but also causing premature squeaks/rattles in the cars from the pounding. That's why they like to take their cars south for an increasing number of their comparisons/tests (particularly to the Virginia International Raceway).
Anywhoo.....I've always been a fan of extra cylinders than boost, especially for cars in this class. But it is clear consumers like both.
Last edited by mmarshall; 01-23-13 at 10:40 AM.
01-23-13, 10:37 AM
#60
Lexus Fanatic
That's true to some extent, though a well-designed turbo can help quite a bit at higher altitudes by preserving more of the sea-level power as you climb. That's why turbos, both in cars and in General-Aviation piston aircraft, are generally popular out west in the Rockies.