Are V6-Engined Midsize Sedans Way Over The Top?

[cuts_off_prius]

270+ hp V6 Accords, Camrys, Altimas, Passats, etc. Probably will be replaced by DI turbo fours within the next few generations. A lot of people never put all those horses to use. My dad went from a V6 AWD crossover to a DI I-4 AWD crossover and he says the newer one feels like it has more pick up.

I personally drive a straight 6 with 230 hp and 200 lb-ft of torque. The power delivery is just how I like it, with a decent wave of torque down low I can ride out when pulling out as it makes peak torque at only 2750 rpm. I love buttery smooth straight sixes. Good to hear MB is bringing them back.

QOTD: Are V6-Engined Midsize Sedans Way Over The Top?

[SteveMak]

So what do you think of Porsche? Genuine sports cars, or mere poseurs?

The famous and popular Porsche Boxster used to have a flat 6. Now it has a flat 4. Some folks complain that it sounds worse. Some reviewers say that base 718 (Porsche's new name for the Boxster) is more capable and well behaved than the enhanced "S" model from not too long ago.

For folks who are obsessed with horsepower numbers, or peak RPM, or the number of cylinders, or other bragging rights, are in for some hard times coming soon. For those who just love exhilaration and don't care how the manufacturer delivers it, things are shaping up :-)

I'm a big fan of "feels great." I won't get into a p*ssing match with respect to whose numbers are "better." Audi Quattro? Feels brilliant! Subaru's AWD? Feels equally brilliant, arguably better in some ways or conditions, and yet it can be had for a fraction of the price. Damned fine on you, Subaru! :-)

[Draigflag]

I don't like waste and excessiveness. To me, big engines are pointless if/when a smaller engine can do the same job, save weight, save fuel and perform better. I don't think any passenger vehicle needs an engine larger than 1.6 litre these days. Most manufactures are switching back to 3 cylinder setups around 1.0 litre in capacity.

My GTi for example, 270 HP and 243 lbs/ft torque, 224 BHP per ton, it's only a 1.6 litre. That works out more BHP per litre than a Ferrari 458 Italia, and a better power/weight ratio than it's rivals like the VW Golf R, Civic Type R etc. And I've personally had a best of 51.3 UK MPG, would you get that in a big V6? Doubt it. There are very few compromises in high performance smaller engines.

[luv2spd]

I think around 150hp is enough for a mid-size sedan, that's probably all that most people need. But having said that, I'm glad that most people buy the cars that they want rather than what they need; that way people become more creative designing cars.

For a motorcycle, it's around 80hp that you can use on the roads and still have fun. Sure you can get a 300cc 45hp bike, but then you sometimes struggle keeping up with traffic on the highway. Also, at higher speed the engine is close to redline and it can get annoying very quick.

Would I buy a Porsche even though they are over-priced? You bet I would...if I had the money. I don't care about the badge, if a car manufacturer builds a fun car and I can afford it, they have my money. I read somewhere that Porsche has the highest profit on their cars around 15%, Mercedes is around 10% and FCA (Dodge, Fiat) is around 6%. If I remember correctly, the industry average is around 8%.

ps.: I lied, if I had money for a Porsche then I would buy a 2016 Dodge Viper ACR.

[SteveMak]

I drive a 240hp SUV. It does 0-60 mph in about 6.4 sec. It's not the HP that does that.

Stated hp and torque numbers can be deceiving. People quote things like (peak) horsepower and (peak) torque without considering the ramifications of other, more pertinent factors, such as that coveted (peak) horsepower might be available only at 7,000 RPM, or the (peak) torque might be at the crest of a narrow inverted V across the RPM range, which is not desirable.

It's just a number, and those who are enchanted by The Number (like feeling good 'cuz your motorcycle has a higher red-line than the other guy)... well, have fun with that.

As a data point, today's Porsche 911 Carrera is turbocharged, and has a impressive torque curve: Rather than building gradually across the revs, it comes on sharp and early (very desirable, hitting peak as early as 1700 RPM), and then it stays at the max (very desirable) across most of the rev range). In real terms, that means the engine delivers its best thrust (best acceleration) across most of usable rev range.

Torque equates to acceleration. Horsepower equates to maximum speed (Torque x RPM). Unless you spend a lot of time around your car's top speed, horsepower is little more than a marketing ploy, and lots of consumers buy into it. The Number sells, to those who believe in The Number.

[luv2spd]

"Horsepower sells cars but torque wins races" Jay Leno

I agree that torque is way more usable than horsepower, even though they are relative to each other. The Porsche Turbos have variable turbine geometry so that the vanes are varied so that the car is maximizing the boost across the rev range. The cost of that technology is very expensive, but some people are willing to pay for it.

For V-8 engines, if you use 2 valves per cylinder you get more torque at lower revs but less horsepower on top. For 4 valves per cylinder, you get little torque at low revs but higher horsepower at redline. That's why I like the LS Chevy engine because it has a lot of torque at low revs where people spend most of their time driving. The LS V-8 also has a lot less moving parts and it's very cheap to maintain. My car has 3 valves per cylinder which helps spread out the torque and horsepower evenly across the rev range.

I did some maths the other day because I was bored. My average speed is 30mph because I mainly drive in the city. Also, I only use my car 6% of the time; which means it sits 94% of the time doing nothing. The ideal car for me would be the new Toyota Prius, I would save a lot of money on gas and maintenance costs. The problem that I have is that life is too short to drive boring cars, plus who knows how long I can drive fun cars before they mandate that everybody has to drive autonomous vehicles because it serves the greater good.

[R.I.D.E.]

^^^^^^^^^^^
THAT sounds like a car share scenario!!!!!!!!

[rfruth]

My stock Ford Escape has lots of get-up-and-go (nick named silver bullet for good reason) has a 2.0-liter EcoBoost direct fuel injection four banger with a BorgWarner K03 twin scroll turbo (gathers exhaust from pairs of cylinders in alternating sequence) full boost by 2000rpm - with 87 octane gas this equates to 270 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm and 237 HP @ 5,500 rpm. ‘eco’ efficiency with great ’boost’ (oh yea, auto start-stop technology like a hybrid but its not a hybrid)

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by Draigflag

I don't like waste and excessiveness. To me, big engines are pointless if/when a smaller engine can do the same job, save weight, save fuel and perform better. I don't think any passenger vehicle needs an engine larger than 1.6 litre these days. Most manufactures are switching back to 3 cylinder setups around 1.0 litre in capacity.

My GTi for example, 270 HP and 243 lbs/ft torque, 224 BHP per ton, it's only a 1.6 litre. That works out more BHP per litre than a Ferrari 458 Italia, and a better power/weight ratio than it's rivals like the VW Golf R, Civic Type R etc. And I've personally had a best of 51.3 UK MPG, would you get that in a big V6? Doubt it. There are very few compromises in high performance smaller engines.

I enjoy the response of the V6 in our 2001 Sable. A smaller, turbocharged engine just isn't going to respond the same way.

It will get good fuel economy ratings, because the tests rarely get into boost. Most people here will drive them into boost, and that sucks down fuel. The few 2.0L turbo Taurus here aren't doing much better than the various V6 models.

[SteveMak]

Originally Posted by trollbait

I enjoy the response of the V6 in our 2001 Sable. A smaller, turbocharged engine just isn't going to respond the same way...

Porsche's 718 base has a 2.0L turbo flat four, delivers 300 hp and 280 ft-lbs of torque that comes on early and stays pretty flat. Reviewer rave about how good it is... without needing to qualify it, as in "this is a GREAT engine... for a 2-liter, I mean."