Most people would rather have the V6 if you ask them. Did you drive the new RX?

Thats the problem.

My Pacifica for instance is really lethargic at low RPM

 

No, but I've driven and had plenty of turbo 4's. Is it different somehow? I also did not want a first year model. And dislike the new door handles, shifter, and steering wheel controls that have to be used in conjunction with HUD. And it's a small thing, but I like the CD player LOL.

 

Well sure, all engines are different. Thats like saying all V6s are the same

 

How's the new RX 350 turbo 4 different than the NX? Please explain.

 

but you’re trying to say an in-line four is the same as a V6.

 

I haven't driven the new NX or anything else with that new engine. That is a new engine though from the previous NX which I have driven a bunch of times.

 

Not saying that at all, I said I am starting to feel like I would prefer a turbo 4 to a V6 in some of these types of vehicles because of better low end power.

Good example is the Atlas, at first glance the loss of the V6 is a shame, but the new turbo 4 feels better in the car, it feels lighter and quicker. What I would want is a turbo 6 but thats not going to happen

This is what I said:

 

So you can't say it's any different from the 4 cylinder turbo's I've had and driven before. I'm sure it's not bad, but I prefer the older proven V6. Maybe in 2-3 years I'll give it a try. But right now I definitely prefer NA engines...and I am not alone.

 

Its a different engine entirely. How is any one V6 different from another V6? I have driven both good turbo 4s and not good turbo 4s.

I'm just saying I would have to drive the RX with that new engine to see how I felt about it vs the old V6.

 

But a turbo 4 is not the same a V6 in many ways. That's the point. Sound, smoothness, maintenance, regular gas in this case. Different. You can't tell me the new RX is different from the Turbo 4's I've had.

 

The problem for me is there’s no equivalent V6 or in-line six turbo engine to replace the outgoing six cylinder for the RX. If there were, I’d be fully supportive of turbo, but the issue to me is having to downsize to a four-cylinder, which is something that I would not want to do

 

I think I’m getting to where I don’t really care, as long as the engine is good. I’ve rented a few turbo 4s and could easily live with one. The turbo 4 BMW rental I had wasn’t overly powerful but was plenty smooth. I had a rental MG HS and that turbo 4 combined with a manual 6 speed was a hoot! I love the 3.5 in my GS350, and the 5.7 V8 in my Tundra. The hybrid 3.5 V6 in my wife’s Highlander is smooth, strong, and efficient. So many good engine choices out there right now.

 

Our 718 GTS 4 cylinder turbo was a hoot also. It actually gave the car better balance, but it was discontinued for a reason. People wanted the NA 6 cylinder back.

 

Nobody here has said a Turbo 4 is the same as a V6. Certainly not me. I said I'm getting to where I might prefer a turbo 4 to a NA V6 in some types of vehicles, doesn't mean they are the same. The V6 may be smoother but the turbo 4 oftentimes is more responsive. Tradeoffs.

So is the V6 in my Pacifica the same as the V6 in your RX? I can tell you right now it absolutely is not because I have had several cars with that V6 you have and its much smoother than the Pentastar in my Pacifica. Thats my point, there are some very smooth turbo 4s out there that really impressed me and some really crappy ones, and they feel good in some applications and not others.

As an example, I really like the turbo 4 in the Mercedes GLC, it feels terrible in the GLE and E Class. I rented a Kia K5 which is a turbo 4 in Alabama last year and drove it for a week including at high speed on the highway and I was super impressed with it. Felt much better than the turbo 4 in an E Class application.

 

Then I think we can agree then they are a better fit in some vehicles than others.