AMIRZA786

That's the question I've been asking. Hey if someone knows how to overcome physical limitations of a smaller NA engine and keep it efficient and liveable, please share your secret!

Striker223

Oh well then that's obviously not worth comparing. You can't compare a turbo to non-turbo engine unless it's 40% larger at minimum or the average power output just won't be in the same universe......HP is just force over time and a turbo has a hell of a lot more force at nearly all RPM other than near redline vs an NA engine that on paper makes the same HP.

Once you go and do all the math that's why the ISF/GSF/5.0s whatever get killed by a 328i with a tune or a 340i stock.

AMIRZA786

Haha third times a charm! We are still in agreement

Striker223

Oh we agree on a lot lol!

I just for better or worse started driving with far more powerful/large engine than most people have ever owned or driven so I'm used to certain things as "normal". You had a hard time rationalizing 14 HP for your IS but where I'm from a cam swap and headers is 80-140hp at the wheels on some engines with no drawbacks.

As much as I love Lexus in terms of quality and design it got old fast how hard it is to make more power. There is just no support vs the Germans who have reliable pathways to 6/7/800hp like the American cars do but you still get the refinement and quality for the most part.

Then there is Mercedes......they just have it all if you pay enough. The interior and quality is so temping but the transmissions hold me back.

AMIRZA786

You know the saying, "There is no Replacement for Displacement", the only way around that is forced induction, Hybridization, or a combo of the two when going to smaller displacement engines. As far as the IS350, you can get it to 455 at the wheels, but then it's $8K out your pocket with the RR Racing Supercharger kit, PPE headers, exhaust and tune. Then reliability is affected, already poor MPG's become worse, and the car is now loud. To add insult to injury, an M5 will still eat your lunch...

sm1ke

iTrader: (5)

After reading the original post, I think OP was speaking more to the refinement of the engine, and how the 1.8L V6 gave the MX-3 a smoothness that wasn't found in Honda and Toyota's 4cyl engines of that time. Everyone loves to complain about how unrefined and buzzy the modern 3cyl or 4cyl turbo engines are. A modern, small displacement V6 engine could be the solution to that "unrefinedness", especially in smaller luxury crossovers and sedans where a refined powerplant would be appreciated (like the Encore GX, for example).

There's such an obsession with HP/TQ figures that it seems to always become the center of the discussion, as it has in this thread, when it's never been about HP/TQ. Not to say that it isn't important. Reliability, power, fuel economy, packaging etc. are all important to consider, but I don't think that it was really the focus of the OP. It's about the refinement that a V6 engine could bring as an alternative to a coarser 3-cyl turbo.

Also just because I got curious when it was brought up, the 92 MX-3 with the 1.8 V6 did 0-60 in 8.2s.

SW17LS

Exactly my point.

SW17LS

Except that in reality, they're not that buzzy and unrefined.

Put it in a CX-5 though, or even a CX-30. Its going to be 10+, just like the Rogue. As a matter of fact the CX-5 is a great example, drive the car with the base 4 and then the turbo 4. That's the difference we're talking about here...its profound.

AMIRZA786

The cost of using that engine would not make sense when a 4 cylinder turbo would do a better job at a lower cost. From my perspective, none of those engines matter to me because EV motors are as smooth or smoother than any V6 or V8, turbocharged or not

Toys4RJill

You cherry-picked a high HP I4 turbo engine making 300hp and made up 170hp NA 1.5 V6. I am sure car makers could make a 200-225HP 1.8 V6 today. It would not be worth it. The only way a small V6 like this would work is if there were a turbo component

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

over 50 posts in a day about a topic that's already been decided in several ways.
4 cylinder NA, turbo, hybrid, plug-in, some combo, or electric... oh yeah, except for the lawnmower 3 cylinder in mmarshall's buick. j/k

that 30 year old tiny mazda v6? dead and buried and never coming back.

AMIRZA786

Please forgive me, but I'm confused. You were previously saying (and defending that position) that with todays engine technology, a 1.8L NA V6 or I6 could make over 200hp. Now you are saying "If there were a turbo component"? So what is it?

AMIRZA786

I've even put flowers on it's grave

tex2670

Exactly. And that IS250 wasn't nearly as quick as today's 2.0T engines.

peteharvey

I owned the Mazda 626 with the 2.5 V6.
It was so smooth and quiet.
0-60 in 8.0 seconds, and that was very quick back in 1992.

I did test drive the Mazda 323 Astina Hardtop with frameless windows powered by the 1.8 V6.
It was so smooth and quiet - not just due to the V6 configuration, but also due to its small capacity - whereas my 3.5 V6 is a bit rough idling, and can be rough to the redline on rolling starts if caught out in the wrong gear.

I think the number 1 reason Mazda discontinued the small capacity V6's was costs; to much to manufacture and produce.
Nowadays, like Jill says - fuel consumption issues on top.
These days, the German 2.0 Turbos so smooth and quiet, yet so powerful and reasonably economical - hence difficult for small capacity V6's to make a comeback.