The perfect engine for today’s small sedans and crossovers?
11-28-22, 11:59 AM
#61
Lexus Champion
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...
Meanwhile in German land since the cars come with forced induction you can get 40% over without hardware changes.
11-28-22, 12:01 PM
#62
Lexus Fanatic
The bottom line is carmakers are putting turbo 4s making 250-300HP in family vehicles now, and those engines are way better than a 1.8L V6 even if it did make 200-225 hp. If you drive both of them you're going to prefer the turbo 4. This kind of engine just doesn't make any sense, which is why carmakers have never really made them.
I prefer a V6 to a 4 cyl too, but we can't pretend ANY V6 is better than ANY I4.
11-28-22, 12:03 PM
#63
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.
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.
I don't know why you would put a 30 year old 1.8L V6 engine in a CX-5 or CX-30. That isn't what was being suggested at all. I couldn't care less if it was true anyway, I only looked up the actual 0-60 to confirm after you threw out some ridiculous numbers.
11-28-22, 12:13 PM
#64
Lexus Champion
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.
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.
11-28-22, 12:17 PM
#65
Lexus Fanatic
I didn't cherry pick anything, its an example. And 300hp is not high hp for a I4 Turbo any longer. I didn't make up any engine, I repeated a slightly incorrect displacement on the engine that mmarshall posted about and estimated a power figure.
The bottom line is carmakers are putting turbo 4s making 250-300HP in family vehicles now, and those engines are way better than a 1.8L V6 even if it did make 200-225 hp. If you drive both of them you're going to prefer the turbo 4. This kind of engine just doesn't make any sense, which is why carmakers have never really made them.
I prefer a V6 to a 4 cyl too, but we can't pretend ANY V6 is better than ANY I4.
The bottom line is carmakers are putting turbo 4s making 250-300HP in family vehicles now, and those engines are way better than a 1.8L V6 even if it did make 200-225 hp. If you drive both of them you're going to prefer the turbo 4. This kind of engine just doesn't make any sense, which is why carmakers have never really made them.
I prefer a V6 to a 4 cyl too, but we can't pretend ANY V6 is better than ANY I4.
this Mercedes engine is what a small 1.8 NA V6 should be compared to.
11-28-22, 12:18 PM
#66
Lexus Fanatic
I seem to recall a lot of negative talk when the 4-cyl turbo was announced for the A45 (I think). In more mainstream cars like a CX-5 or RAV4 or a Kona, "engine refinement" just isn't on the radar. For a Buick, Mercedes, or some other luxury marque with a 3cyl or 4cyl turbo, it might be more important. That's what I'm referring to. A focus on engine refinement as I understood the thread topic to be.
The refinement is not so far off that the reduction in power is worth it.
I don't know why you would put a 30 year old 1.8L V6 engine in a CX-5 or CX-30. That isn't what was being suggested at all. I couldn't care less if it was true anyway, I only looked up the actual 0-60 to confirm after you threw out some ridiculous numbers.
11-28-22, 12:20 PM
#67
Lexus Fanatic
Unless you are talking big displacement, in a small engine you need turbocharging to deliver good acceleration feel.
11-28-22, 12:26 PM
#68
Lexus Champion
That Mercedes engine is tuned for 221 HP for efficiency, but a tune (or Mercedes) can easily unlock an additional 150 HP and Torque with stock motor and exhaust. And that's only because it has Forced induction, because the tune would change PSI and fuel mapping. 2.0L's have a lot of overhead built into them. This engine is still cheaper to use than a 1.8L V6
Last edited by AMIRZA786; 11-28-22 at 12:32 PM.
11-28-22, 12:45 PM
#69
Lexus Champion
1000% correct on that, cost trumps all since most buyer do not care about the refinement difference in the first place and if they do the power increase at the same price point of the 4cyl will convince them. For that last 1-3% it won't there is always a more expensive model.
11-28-22, 12:51 PM
#70
Lexus Champion
That Mercedes engine is tuned for 221 HP for efficiency, but a tune (or Mercedes) can easily unlock an additional 150 HP and Torque with stock motor and exhaust. And that's only because it has Forced induction, because the tune would change PSI and fuel mapping. 2.0L's have a lot of overhead built into them. This engine is still cheaper to use than a 1.8L V6
11-28-22, 01:02 PM
#71
Super Moderator
So now you want them to make a new NA V6 engine that is 40% smaller than that M272, still quiet and refined, yet makes the same horsepower and more torque? Um, ok.
11-28-22, 01:25 PM
#72
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
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.
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.
As for the number of posts, I apparently started a thread with a subject that interests some people, though I agree it likely will not happen.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-28-22 at 01:31 PM.
11-28-22, 01:28 PM
#73
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
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.
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.
You are correct, sm1ke. The OP (me) was more concerned with refinement than raw power.
Actually, though, at that time, Honda and Toyota DID produce refined fours….other companies generally did not.
11-28-22, 01:28 PM
#74
Lexus Champion
It's an interesting theoretical discussion, but there's a reason that the marketplace is where it is. While a small displacement V6 or I6 may be "better" for some aspect (say NVH), it's just not "better" overall for the vast majority of the driving public. A smaller, more powerful, more fuel efficient turbo 4 suits the needs of most buyers in the segment we are talking about.
11-28-22, 01:33 PM
#75
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
It's an interesting theoretical discussion, but there's a reason that the marketplace is where it is. While a small displacement V6 or I6 may be "better" for some aspect (say NVH), it's just not "better" overall for the vast majority of the driving public. A smaller, more powerful, more fuel efficient turbo 4 suits the needs of most buyers in the segment we are talking about.