That's why one of the posters said it offers the best ratio of cost, complexity, durability, low weight, etc. it's still going to cost less to make a 4-cylinder block than a V6 engine block. From what I've read the 2.5 was based on the same block as the 3.5 so therefore it weighed about the same if not more due to more metal(that is de-bored)

Also as the technology and design processes become more advanced so will the reliability, cost and complexity. Auto manufactures already have 10 year warranties on their turbo 4s.

 

Mazda did similar things with the Ford Duratec 3.0V6 in their 2003 Mazda6 so much so that it was singing so much better than the Duratec in the Jaguar.

 

I'm a fan of smaller V6s vs I4s. More cylinders is the way to go for me.

 

I agree I'm with you, I doubt that it costs more to produce the 4 with a turbo compared to the current 2.5.

Where it likely costs Toyota less is that they have made a higher HP more fuel efficient car for the same cost as the outgoing 2.5. Sure there will be less spark plugs and parts, but I doubt that made much of a difference if any.

 

well, Lexus has said that from efficiency standpoint, larger makes more sense... so 1.5l V6 is not going to be more efficient... just like 2.5l GR isnt a lot more efficient than 3.5l, while missing 100hp.

 

You are 100% correct, more cylinders add refinement

The reason why they don't do it? Cost and weight mainly, packaging reason too. Less cylinders = less hardwares = less cost and weight and smaller engine for easier packaing into the engine bay. The reality is 98% of the population who buy normal car won't notice the refinement benefit of extra cylinders.

BTW, small displacement with high cylinder count = sounds heaven.........3.0L V12 baby!!

 

The main reason (or at least an important one) to go for more cylinders is piston weight. For argument sake, you can have an engine with a single cylinder and 2 liter capacity with wonderful torque characteristics, but the inertia of the heavy piston will make high revolutions impossible.
The difference in piston weight between a four cylinder 2 liter and a six cylinder of the very same capacity, is of course not that big, but the six, will still pick up refs better. Now you can go for crank lay-out like a boxer six or a V6, that gives a smooth spread of power impulses (a straight six as well). Cost is however, a factor and it is a good question if most drivers even know these intricacies. Will a 3 litre four cylinder outgun a 2.5 V6 (for argument sake all other things equal)?
Can't say, but it is interesting that Porsche tried that route with the 3 liter four in the 944, but despite all the balance shafts and the fact that it was fast, never pursued it further.

 

And to think BMW went with a TT I6 in the name of fuel economy and Lexus says here's a more powerful V8 with more fuel economy

This should be framed truth, few appreciate Cars and the spirit of automobiling

 

^ they do notice the refinement. They do not understand what and why.

 

personally i dont like V-10's or V12's. if a diesel truck can haul 20 tons of stuff with 6 cylinders, you shouldnt need twice that, unless you really have that much money burning a hole in your pocket.

you may call it "refinement" but murphys law still applies. anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. and more moving parts means more chances of kaboom.

 

The ultimate small displacement/high cylinder count engine was the BRM Formula 1 engine from the early 1950's. A supercharged V-16 that displaced 1.5 liters or about 90 cu. in. It was reported to make 550 horsepower! One obvious downside of so many parts is poor reliability which plagued BRM.
Steve

 

they won't if they don't drive the alternatives back to back. when i was in england not long ago and drove a 3 cylinder econobox, it was noisy and gutless, but europeans have been used to noisy gutless cars forever, so it's fine there. we're headed in the same direction except here people still like to cart around more stuff typically, and want more power to merge onto highways for example, so we're likely to still get more average power even if it's through turbos.

i think in the 80s the ridiculously successful honda f1 engine was 1.5L, 6 cylinder and about 900HP!

 

..........and not to mention the fact that it was British. In those days, almost anything British outside of Rolls Royce/Bentley was unreliable.

 

3.5L V6 are the best compromise of refinement, performance MPG & durability
Above 4.0L and V6 tend to sound harsh and unrefined
The thing is that the IS350 has an extra 100hp yet it consumes about the same amount of gas as the IS250

 

Are you comparing the 350 to a regular 250 or a 250AWD?. The AWD will obviously use more fuel.