View Poll Results: Should Lexus start offering 4 cylinder engines in their lineup?
Voters: 131. You may not vote on this poll
Should Lexus start offering 4 cylinders?
Lexus Champion
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
From: Stuttgart
That is the thing though, you don't have to keep revving the engine high to get it to move. The C230 Kompressor even if underpowered for my taste did the job just fine. In fact, my friend actually like that car more than his V6 Mercedes when he used to get them as a loaner. Not all luxury car buyers want 80/90s Cadillac isolated boats. That is why the Luxury Sports Sedan segment came about. Many of them do want a more sporty luxury car.
By the way, I think your friends loaner V6 C class was the infamous C240. A good car when driven in a relaxed manor, but a pig when driven in a sporty fashion. The fuel economy was also terrible I hear. My sister nearly bought one but I swayed her into checking out the Lexus showroom...
Good post and I agree completely. 
A 4-cylinder engine in the IS, 3er and C class niche is completely doable and acceptable. There won't be any fuel economy penalties with these engines under the hoods of several cars here. Hence I wish Lexus would make an IS200 and a proper diesel IS with a newly designed engine and not a Toyota Avensis diesel engine.
Starting with the GS, E class and 5er segment, a 4-cylinder might not be as well suited, especially a gasoline 4-cylinder motor. I am basing this on the comments of a colleague at work who had a Mercedes E200 Kompressor but now drives an E220 CDI. According to him the fuel economy difference between the two is mind boggling.
A 4-cylinder engine in the IS, 3er and C class niche is completely doable and acceptable. There won't be any fuel economy penalties with these engines under the hoods of several cars here. Hence I wish Lexus would make an IS200 and a proper diesel IS with a newly designed engine and not a Toyota Avensis diesel engine.
Starting with the GS, E class and 5er segment, a 4-cylinder might not be as well suited, especially a gasoline 4-cylinder motor. I am basing this on the comments of a colleague at work who had a Mercedes E200 Kompressor but now drives an E220 CDI. According to him the fuel economy difference between the two is mind boggling.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
From: Stuttgart
Lexus Champion
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
From: Stuttgart
Dustin, I dont know when was the last time you were in the US, but right now diesel fuel here in Brooklyn is around $5.00 per galon, compared to regular gasoline at 3.80 per galon. With that price differential, its game over for diesel in the US, nobody wants to tough diesel anything. Even a lot of small business owners who were considering a diesel pickup, including myself, are no longer considering it. Diesel engine option is like $5k premium, and with ridiculous diesel fuel pricing, it just doen't make sense.
So wait, a minute, you're saying there are people that are willing to buy diesel cars because they burn less fuel per mile, even if it doesnt make sense financially, and even puts you in a disadvantage financially? And then to sacrifice smoothness and emissions?
Consider something else when it comes to diesels. Below are two posts made by a member on a Honda forum. Ironically, he is also an American living in Europe. These posts are from 2006.
Originally Posted by Schneegz
It's humorous reading the debates that go on concerning Diesel engines on this and other boards. There is always one camp that dispises Diesels, and one camp that practically worships them, holding them as the Holy Grail of automotive technology that sophisticated Europeans have discovered, and, if only ignorant Americans would get on board, the world would be a better place.
I'm an American living in Europe. Bamberg, Germany, to be exact. I've driven a BMW 5-series Diesel. I rented it last year when I first moved here. It was brand new, with only a few miles on the odometer. I also drive among dozens, if not hundreds, of European Diesel engine cars every day, some new, some old.
Guess what?
1. The new ones still rattle.
2. The new ones still smoke.
3. The new ones still stink.
All these annoyances have been greatly reduced compared with Diesels of yesteryear. For example, I couldn't hear the BMW's engine when I drove it with the windows up. I could only hear it with the windows rolled down. I don't mind the Diesel rattle, but others do, and that BMW Diesel did NOT have the melifluous sound of a gasoline BMW I-6, not by a LONG shot. Other than that, it was smooth, comfortable, and sporty enough to be enjoyable to drive.
Driving behind many a brand new Audi, BMW, VW and Mercedes Diesel I've noticed that, when they start from a stop sign or stop light, and when they downshift on a slow corner, or going uphill, they belch out a puff of black smoke. Again, a huge improvement over the Diesels of the past, but still not as clean as a modern gasoline engine. This should come as no surprise.
Another issue I noticed driving behind European Diesels. They still stink. Even inside my car (now a Euro-spec, 1999 gasoline Ford Mondeo) with the windows rolled up, I can still detect the unmistakeable scent of Diesel fumes eminating from the tail pipes of even the newest European wunderDiesels.
Also, keep in mind that European governments keep Diesel prices artificially lower than gasoline prices by taxing gasoline at much higher percentages than Diesel, which makes Diesel cars more popular here. US Federal and State governments don't do that, so Diesel prices in the US are typically higher than gasoline prices due to supply and demand issues.
Will Mercedes' Bluetec eliminate the smoke and the smell? I don't know, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Will Diesels sell in the US? I think they will. I'd buy one. I'd love it if my Toyota 4Runner back home had a modern TurboDiesel.
And that's where manufacturers should start reintroducing Diesels, in bigger vehicles like SUVs. I think the people who drive SUVs, pickups and even minivans would be more receptive to a Diesel engine than, say, someone shopping for a compact sedan, or a luxury sedan.
I'm an American living in Europe. Bamberg, Germany, to be exact. I've driven a BMW 5-series Diesel. I rented it last year when I first moved here. It was brand new, with only a few miles on the odometer. I also drive among dozens, if not hundreds, of European Diesel engine cars every day, some new, some old.
Guess what?
1. The new ones still rattle.
2. The new ones still smoke.
3. The new ones still stink.
All these annoyances have been greatly reduced compared with Diesels of yesteryear. For example, I couldn't hear the BMW's engine when I drove it with the windows up. I could only hear it with the windows rolled down. I don't mind the Diesel rattle, but others do, and that BMW Diesel did NOT have the melifluous sound of a gasoline BMW I-6, not by a LONG shot. Other than that, it was smooth, comfortable, and sporty enough to be enjoyable to drive.
Driving behind many a brand new Audi, BMW, VW and Mercedes Diesel I've noticed that, when they start from a stop sign or stop light, and when they downshift on a slow corner, or going uphill, they belch out a puff of black smoke. Again, a huge improvement over the Diesels of the past, but still not as clean as a modern gasoline engine. This should come as no surprise.
Another issue I noticed driving behind European Diesels. They still stink. Even inside my car (now a Euro-spec, 1999 gasoline Ford Mondeo) with the windows rolled up, I can still detect the unmistakeable scent of Diesel fumes eminating from the tail pipes of even the newest European wunderDiesels.
Also, keep in mind that European governments keep Diesel prices artificially lower than gasoline prices by taxing gasoline at much higher percentages than Diesel, which makes Diesel cars more popular here. US Federal and State governments don't do that, so Diesel prices in the US are typically higher than gasoline prices due to supply and demand issues.
Will Mercedes' Bluetec eliminate the smoke and the smell? I don't know, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Will Diesels sell in the US? I think they will. I'd buy one. I'd love it if my Toyota 4Runner back home had a modern TurboDiesel.
And that's where manufacturers should start reintroducing Diesels, in bigger vehicles like SUVs. I think the people who drive SUVs, pickups and even minivans would be more receptive to a Diesel engine than, say, someone shopping for a compact sedan, or a luxury sedan.
Originally Posted by Schneegz
That's great, and I sincerely hope advancements in Diesel engine technology and biodiesel production make Diesel cars more popular in the US. When our family outgrows our current vehicles, my wife would like to buy a Honda Pilot. I'd love it if we could buy one with a non-stinky turbocharged Diesel V-6, instead of a gasoline engine, simply because of the fuel economy.
However, let's not get too carried away on the potential popularity of Diesels in the US. Take Germany for example. Roughly 50% of the cars sold here are Diesels. Gasoline costs about $5/US gallon. Diesel costs less.
Think about that for a minute.
That means that roughly 50% of Germans would rather pay $5/US gallon, AND get worse fuel economy, than drive a Diesel, which is cheaper to fill up, AND gets better fuel mileage.
Now, how do you propose to persuade Americans, who pay $2/US gallon, to pay more for a gallon of Diesel?
Here's my proposal. Put Diesel engines in the most popular SUVs and pickups. The Honda Pilot, Toyota 4Runner and FJ Cruiser, Nissan Pathfinder and Exterra, should all have a Diesel option. They'll never be as popular in the States as they are in Europe, because of all the artificial boosts European governments give Diesels, but they could very well take up 10-20% of total car sales, and maybe 40-50% of light truck sales.
However, let's not get too carried away on the potential popularity of Diesels in the US. Take Germany for example. Roughly 50% of the cars sold here are Diesels. Gasoline costs about $5/US gallon. Diesel costs less.
Think about that for a minute.
That means that roughly 50% of Germans would rather pay $5/US gallon, AND get worse fuel economy, than drive a Diesel, which is cheaper to fill up, AND gets better fuel mileage.
Now, how do you propose to persuade Americans, who pay $2/US gallon, to pay more for a gallon of Diesel?
Here's my proposal. Put Diesel engines in the most popular SUVs and pickups. The Honda Pilot, Toyota 4Runner and FJ Cruiser, Nissan Pathfinder and Exterra, should all have a Diesel option. They'll never be as popular in the States as they are in Europe, because of all the artificial boosts European governments give Diesels, but they could very well take up 10-20% of total car sales, and maybe 40-50% of light truck sales.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
From: Stuttgart
In regards to "sacrificing smoothness and emissions", what are you talking about? Modern diesel engines have made great improvements in terms of refinement and emissions. You should ride in a Mercedes S320 CDI taxi sometime. The engine, I couldn't hear or feel it.
What I meant was that these people generally tend to drive longer distances and thus need the fuel economy diesels offer. For them the price at the pump will pay out eventually. There are thousands of people like this in the US. Problem is that the only diesel cars currently sold in America are expensive Mercedes' and pricey VW's. Then again, there might be wackos out there that will buy a diesel car simply because of the fuel economy benefits as it means less trips to the pumps.
Lead Lap
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,534
Likes: 0
From: MD
Particulate health effects from Wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate#Health_effects )
Health effects
The effects of inhaling particulate matter has been widely studied in humans and animals and include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues, and premature death. The size of the particle is a main determinant of where in the respiratory tract the particle will come to rest when inhaled. Larger particles are generally filtered in the nose and throat and do not cause problems, but particulate matter smaller than about 10 micrometres, referred to as PM10, can settle in the bronchi and lungs and cause health problems. The 10 micrometer size does not represent a strict boundary between respirable and non-respirable particles, but has been agreed upon for monitoring of airborne particulate matter by most regulatory agencies. Similarly, particles smaller than 2.5 micrometres, PM2.5, tend to penetrate into the gas-exchange regions of the lung, and very small particles (< 100 nanometers) may pass through the lungs to affect other organs. In particular, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates that PM2.5 leads to high plaque deposits in arteries, causing vascular inflammation and atherosclerosis — a hardening of the arteries that reduces elasticity, which can lead to heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems [3]. Researchers suggest that even short-term exposure at elevated concentrations could significantly contribute to heart disease.
The smallest particles, less than 100 nanometers (nanoparticles), may be even more damaging to the cardiovascular system.[4] There is evidence that particles smaller than 100 nanometres can pass through cell membranes and migrate into other organs, including the brain. It has been suggested that particulate matter can cause similar brain damage as that found in Alzheimer patients. Particles emitted from modern diesel engines (commonly referred to as Diesel Particulate Matter, or DPM) are typically in the size range of 100 nanometres (0.1 micrometres). In addition, these soot particles also carry carcinogenic components like benzopyrenes adsorbed on their surface. It is becoming increasingly clear that the legislative limits for engines, which are in terms of emitted mass, are not a proper measure of the health hazard. One particle of 10 µm diameter has approximately the same mass as 1 million particles of 100 nm diameter, but it is clearly much less hazardous, as it probably never enters the human body - and if it does, it is quickly removed. Proposals for new regulations exist in some countries, with suggestions to limit the particle surface area or the particle number.
The large number of deaths and other health problems associated with particulate pollution was first demonstrated in the early 1970s [5] and has been reproduced many times since. PM pollution is estimated to cause 22,000-52,000 deaths per year in the United States (from 2000) [6] and 200,000 deaths per year in Europe.
Health effects
The effects of inhaling particulate matter has been widely studied in humans and animals and include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues, and premature death. The size of the particle is a main determinant of where in the respiratory tract the particle will come to rest when inhaled. Larger particles are generally filtered in the nose and throat and do not cause problems, but particulate matter smaller than about 10 micrometres, referred to as PM10, can settle in the bronchi and lungs and cause health problems. The 10 micrometer size does not represent a strict boundary between respirable and non-respirable particles, but has been agreed upon for monitoring of airborne particulate matter by most regulatory agencies. Similarly, particles smaller than 2.5 micrometres, PM2.5, tend to penetrate into the gas-exchange regions of the lung, and very small particles (< 100 nanometers) may pass through the lungs to affect other organs. In particular, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates that PM2.5 leads to high plaque deposits in arteries, causing vascular inflammation and atherosclerosis — a hardening of the arteries that reduces elasticity, which can lead to heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems [3]. Researchers suggest that even short-term exposure at elevated concentrations could significantly contribute to heart disease.
The smallest particles, less than 100 nanometers (nanoparticles), may be even more damaging to the cardiovascular system.[4] There is evidence that particles smaller than 100 nanometres can pass through cell membranes and migrate into other organs, including the brain. It has been suggested that particulate matter can cause similar brain damage as that found in Alzheimer patients. Particles emitted from modern diesel engines (commonly referred to as Diesel Particulate Matter, or DPM) are typically in the size range of 100 nanometres (0.1 micrometres). In addition, these soot particles also carry carcinogenic components like benzopyrenes adsorbed on their surface. It is becoming increasingly clear that the legislative limits for engines, which are in terms of emitted mass, are not a proper measure of the health hazard. One particle of 10 µm diameter has approximately the same mass as 1 million particles of 100 nm diameter, but it is clearly much less hazardous, as it probably never enters the human body - and if it does, it is quickly removed. Proposals for new regulations exist in some countries, with suggestions to limit the particle surface area or the particle number.
The large number of deaths and other health problems associated with particulate pollution was first demonstrated in the early 1970s [5] and has been reproduced many times since. PM pollution is estimated to cause 22,000-52,000 deaths per year in the United States (from 2000) [6] and 200,000 deaths per year in Europe.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,474
Likes: 2
From: Tennessee
Flat 4s are good in some ways... not in others.
On the plus side they're usually smoother than I4s and slightly lower the car's center of gravity.
On the negative side, they cost more to make than I4s, though less than V6s (less economical), they're more difficult to work on usually, they tend to weigh a bit more, and worst of all their economy is typically significantly worse than comparable I4s.
I guess I'd say they're good for performance oriented cars that are too small or too weight focused to have a 6-cylinder or larger motor.
On the plus side they're usually smoother than I4s and slightly lower the car's center of gravity.
On the negative side, they cost more to make than I4s, though less than V6s (less economical), they're more difficult to work on usually, they tend to weigh a bit more, and worst of all their economy is typically significantly worse than comparable I4s.
I guess I'd say they're good for performance oriented cars that are too small or too weight focused to have a 6-cylinder or larger motor.