When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The pollution was specifically caused by exhaust emissions which has been fully documented. Making a car more fuel efficient equals less emissions, which equals less pollution. The bigger the engine, the more fuel it burns. No way around that equation. If you want a more powerful engine that burns less fuel, you have to downsize it's displacement, reduce the number of cylinders and use forced induction, hybridization, or a combination of both. No way around it. NA V8's and V6's just don't cut it anymore with the price of gasoline today, especially here in California where is hitting nearly $6 a gallon
There is no free lunch. Tap into the boost liberally and you’ll barely beat a V8, if at all. Like the 4cylinder turbo Silverado that got a whopping 3MPG worse than the “big” 5.3 V8 highway mpg? That 4 banger turbo truck is giving off significantly more emissions than the V8 at highway speeds at least.
Also, not directed to you but you guys are underselling NA engines. Having immediate torque off-idle from a large displacement engine is plenty satisfying and torquey.
and i think you're overselling the NA 'immediate torque'.
my large displacement lexus 5.0L v8 does not have a lot of immediate torque.
in fact, max torque comes at 5000rpm!
Originally Posted by AJT123
Remember the old days where NA engines “make 90% of torque at 2000RPM” (or whatever, it was never a high RPM)?
There is no free lunch. Tap into the boost liberally and you’ll barely beat a V8, if at all. Like the 4cylinder turbo Silverado that got a whopping 3MPG worse than the “big” 5.3 V8 highway mpg? That 4 banger turbo truck is giving off significantly more emissions than the V8 at highway speeds at least.
Like you, I'm not a fan either, I've owned one and sold it after a year. Let's remove trucks because towing and hauling applications are different from regular use. In regular driving scenerios which is 80 to 90 percent of the times, the smaller turbo charged engines are more fuel efficient than the bigger engines they are replacing while generation the same or more HP. The mpg difference may be small in some cases, but every additional mile adds up. It's true that they lose a lot of this efficiency when going hard throttle, but most people the majority of the time drive normal
Last edited by AMIRZA786; Mar 6, 2022 at 09:15 PM.
and i think you're overselling the NA 'immediate torque'.
my large displacement lexus 5.0L v8 does not have a lot of immediate torque.
in fact, max torque comes at 5000rpm!
that's because redline was only 4000rpm.
I agree with you. My IS350 doesn't start hitting it's sweet spot until after 4k, so basically I floor it to compete with the turbo guys. I still love NA but have accepted that forced induction can deliver power and torque sooner and more efficient than the NA engines they are replacing. That said, I like the feel of an NA 3.5L V6 over a 2.0 or 2.5L Turbo 4.
As a last note, I really hate autocorrect...
Last edited by AMIRZA786; Mar 6, 2022 at 10:51 PM.
That's where forced induction is absolutely on another level. Generally speaking, you're seeing max torque at under 2000 rpm, and those max torque numbers can be significant. The big Lexus V8 didn't deliver maximum torque until close to 4000 RPM, and the maximum torque delivered was well under 400 lb/ft. So you had lower HP (late 300's), and lower torque (late 300's) with the torque delivered much higher in the rev range. Both engine designs have their advantages, but I know which configuration appeals most to me.
Like you, I'm not a fan either, I've owned one and sold it after a year. Let's remove trucks because towing and hauling applications are different from regular use. In regular driving scenerios which is 80 to 90 percent of the times, the smaller turbo charged engines are more fuel efficient than the bigger engines they are replacing while generation the same or more HP. The mpg difference may be small in some cases, but every additional mile adds up. It's true that they lose a lot of this efficiency when going hard throttle, but most people the majority of the time drive normal
Not really, the older slower non-turbo engines will always win in BSFC vs a turbo engine in real world use when you accelerate the same way. It's a case of trying to meet regs and still give people as much power as the older configuration in normal use and leveraging the boost to provide the wow under full power.
Interstate is the clearest example of the new tech underperforming since it's biased toward EPA testing. That's why a corvette LT4 in cleaner emissions wise than a hell of a lot of engine and still fantastic in mpg and power, it has an absurdly good BSFC and FPM figure. Turbo engines of the same output and fuel use have much more pollution and ones with similar pollution have less power or mpg.
Though relative to a bare exhaust modern cars haven't changed much at all pollution wise since cats were frost introduced.....the improvments we have had for the last 20 years have been increasingly fractional benefits since a 20% improvement on something that is over 99% clean is not much on an absolute scale.
These also reduce power output, which is why a lot of modders remove CATs and go catless as their first mods (catless downpipes, ppe headers etc)
Modern cats don't interfere too much actually, you can see maybe a 10hp loss in a 700hp engine and turbo engines care even less since you can set them up to have a huge cat and and downpipe so after the turbine pressure drop flow is basically the same as a bare pipe. That's why you see nearly no change from de-catting on newer stuff and normally headers or something are required for any real gain. Unless you are boosted, that just allows an instant 30% gain from increased PSI limit
and i think you're overselling the NA 'immediate torque'.
my large displacement lexus 5.0L
that's because redline was only 4000rpm.
Lexus 5.0 is a peaky engine to be fair. The other V8s have plenty of torque. You can drive the LS430 around and still beat traffic without even topping 2100RPM. It slow by today’s standards but it definitely wafts around on a wave of torque like a proper luxury sedan should.
Lexus 5.0 is a peaky engine to be fair. The other V8s have plenty of torque. You can drive the LS430 around and still beat traffic without even topping 2100RPM. It slow by today’s standards but it definitely wafts around on a wave of torque like a proper luxury sedan should.
That's just not a good example since a 460 with a "peaky" engine beats the hell out of a 430 even at 2k RPM and the 2UR would be even better at lower speeds, the 460 has almost 100 more TQ at that RPM than a 430.
That's just not a good example since a 460 with a "peaky" engine beats the hell out of a 430 even at 2k RPM and the 2UR would be even better at lower speeds, the 460 has almost 100 more TQ at that RPM than a 430.
Oh I disagree, 4.3 feels stronger down low than 4.6. Winding them both out the 4.6 would win but I find the 4.3 more satisfying for cruising around. Thought about a 460 but I really didn’t care for it compared to my gen for that a a few other reason.
Oh I disagree, 4.3 feels stronger down low than 4.6. Winding them both out the 4.6 would win but I find the 4.3 more satisfying for cruising around. Thought about a 460 but I really didn’t care for it compared to my gen for that a a few other reason.
No it literally doesn't. I own both and can side to side them and at no point does the 4.3 feel stronger at all, RPM for RPM the 460 is way better and can move the same way with about 3-400 less. The 4.6 just flat out wins in any situation except smoothness
Last edited by Striker223; Mar 7, 2022 at 09:12 AM.