Finally, hyundai is pushing the 3.3L turbo. share your comments!

anonymous1 · Feb 20, 2015

Found a link giving info about hyundais 3.3L turbo that will eventually make it into the genesis coupe, genesis sedan, and future equus.

http://thekoreancarblog.com/2015/02/19/exclusive-hyundai-3-3-turbo-gdi-v6-engine/

I'm curious of the performance with it being the same weight as the 3.8 while pushing 360+ horsepower but the 3.8 and 5.0 will always sound better than the turbo due to displacement.

CanukV6 · Feb 20, 2015

Nearly everybody is going to be using Turbocharged engines for reasons of Power/Fuel Economy/Noise/Weight in the near future. Mercedes-Benz have already changed most of their engines to turbos and even Porsche will be using forced induction for all their models by 2017. There are many advantages with few disadvantages. Turbos are very reliable these days and by using dual smaller turbines and electronic mapping the throttle lag of old is negligible.

As for the Sound, there will be no difference. Displacement has nothing to do with it, while exhaust system tuning and/or synthesised electronic engine sound through your speakers does. You can make a 3-Cylinder sound like a V12 if you want.

anonymous1 · Feb 20, 2015

All I'm saying is that hyundai can now finally compete against BMW 3.0L turbo V6, INFINITI/NISSIAN'S UPCOMING 3.0L TWIN TURBO v6, and AUDI'S supercharged V6. In terms of fuel economy,power,torque, and weight.

parpi · Feb 21, 2015

Finally a Hyundai engine with peak torque at the low rpm

DRS · Feb 21, 2015

Folks. I have seen this before. Few decades ago, the whacko Carter administration forced the car companies to use turbos in order to get any performance back then. How? They RIGGED the EPA tests so that mileage and pollution emitted was rigged in the test where a turbo in a certain test range produced better results. On the street it was a mess. Horrible gas mileage, expensive to produce, less reliable..

Reagan administration gutted the Carter lies and twists in the EPA. What happened? Total innovation with fuel injection, rebirth of a economical American muscle V8, real men cars. Not sputtering rice burners. Europe and Asia copied Americans and did the same thing.

By late 80s Mercedes licensed the then upcoming Ford modular overhead cam 4, 6, and V8 technology (Ford had a commercial promoting this in early 90s). We had the ZR1, all kinds of advancements..

This led to two more decades of Uber reliable engines with ever growing POWER!

Now we have feminine pinky finger Obama Gang (and Bush bots prior) at fracking this up again. They rig the rules of EPA testing to fake Better mileage with turbos. They live sputtering rice burning SMALL engines. They have a almost sexual fetish to force this in us. It is tyranny.

If you want small turbos. Good. Go for it. If you want to rig the EPA testing to create a forced market of sputtering motors, I say, you will be hung from tress one day.

Look, these turbos do NOT get better real world mileage, or emissions in the same power set up as a larger non turbo engine like a V8. Just the way it is.

Many millions of us are figuring out history is repeating itself again. And costing us and other massive money and crappy cars coming up. Because of .gov busy body terrorist tyrants.

Wake up folks. Choice is good.. Forced crap is tyranny and should be stopped.

Put the V8 in the coupe. Put a fraction of the expensive money being spent on the turbos, to improving the V8. Better mileage, more power, more reliable. Case closed.

Midnightsun · Feb 21, 2015

DRS said:
Folks. I have seen this before. Few decades ago, the whacko Carter administration forced the car companies to use turbos in order to get any performance back then. How? They RIGGED the EPA tests so that mileage and pollution emitted was rigged in the test where a turbo in a certain test range produced better results. On the street it was a mess. Horrible gas mileage, expensive to produce, less reliable..

Reagan administration gutted the Carter lies and twists in the EPA. What happened? Total innovation with fuel injection, rebirth of a economical American muscle V8, real men cars. Not sputtering rice burners. Europe and Asia copied Americans and did the same thing.

By late 80s Mercedes licensed the then upcoming Ford modular overhead cam 4, 6, and V8 technology (Ford had a commercial promoting this in early 90s). We had the ZR1, all kinds of advancements..

This led to two more decades of Uber reliable engines with ever growing POWER!

Now we have feminine pinky finger Obama Gang (and Bush bots prior) at fracking this up again. They rig the rules of EPA testing to fake Better mileage with turbos. They live sputtering rice burning SMALL engines. They have a almost sexual fetish to force this in us. It is tyranny.

If you want small turbos. Good. Go for it. If you want to rig the EPA testing to create a forced market of sputtering motors, I say, you will be hung from tress one day.

Look, these turbos do NOT get better real world mileage, or emissions in the same power set up as a larger non turbo engine like a V8. Just the way it is.

Many millions of us are figuring out history is repeating itself again. And costing us and other massive money and crappy cars coming up. Because of .gov busy body terrorist tyrants.

Wake up folks. Choice is good.. Forced crap is tyranny and should be stopped.

Put the V8 in the coupe. Put a fraction of the expensive money being spent on the turbos, to improving the V8. Better mileage, more power, more reliable. Case closed.

Agree with you 100%. Only reason others are doing turbo is they get away with great CAFE results which translates to more $ at the end of the day. Here our plates go by cylinders, talk about stupid. A normally aspirated V8 gets hit big time and as the Cu/In increases so does the price. This all has to do with gas consumption and the theory that bigger engines are more powerful and therefor more dangerous in the end. Basically BMW with their twin turbo at 400hp + is laughing as they get away with murder so to say while hiding under the veil when it comes to power to weight ratio. This is what it is all about if you can read through the lines. Even the insurance want to know either the cu in or the number of cylinders, they are too far behind to realize a 4 cylinder with dual turbos can be a monster. Take this little Subi 4 banger as a good example of a V8 vs a 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva-EHDP3V4

That being said, the turbo will never be as long lived as any normally aspirated engine. The turbo spins at 150,000 rpm which simply cannot hold up for 150,000 miles+. Yes there a re big improvements but they still are problematic. One of the most well know turboed engines must be the BMW straight 6. Do a search on this and you will see what a mess this has become. I change my cars at a max of 60,000 miles so for me it really does not matter however keep in mind that turbos requires premium fuel at a premium price so again they hide under the veil as the mpg is really 20% less if you compare fuel prices to a car running on regular. Just food for thought.

ksoze · Feb 21, 2015

I believe we have the tin foil hat winner of the month with that post. Also the prize for most people and groups insulted within a single post.

Aquineas · Feb 21, 2015

What a crock of utter crap. I'm sure there have been no advancements whatsoever in engine management, turbo cooling and lubrication, or engine efficiency in the last 40 years. This guy certainly seems to imply that there hasn't been.

CanukV6 · Feb 21, 2015

DRS said:
Folks. I have seen this before. Few decades ago, the whacko Carter administration forced the car companies to use turbos in order to get any performance back then. How? They RIGGED the EPA tests so that mileage and pollution emitted was rigged in the test where a turbo in a certain test range produced better results. On the street it was a mess. Horrible gas mileage, expensive to produce, less reliable..

Reagan administration gutted the Carter lies and twists in the EPA. What happened? Total innovation with fuel injection, rebirth of a economical American muscle V8, real men cars. Not sputtering rice burners. Europe and Asia copied Americans and did the same thing.

By late 80s Mercedes licensed the then upcoming Ford modular overhead cam 4, 6, and V8 technology (Ford had a commercial promoting this in early 90s). We had the ZR1, all kinds of advancements..

This led to two more decades of Uber reliable engines with ever growing POWER!

Now we have feminine pinky finger Obama Gang (and Bush bots prior) at fracking this up again. They rig the rules of EPA testing to fake Better mileage with turbos. They live sputtering rice burning SMALL engines. They have a almost sexual fetish to force this in us. It is tyranny.

If you want small turbos. Good. Go for it. If you want to rig the EPA testing to create a forced market of sputtering motors, I say, you will be hung from tress one day.

Look, these turbos do NOT get better real world mileage, or emissions in the same power set up as a larger non turbo engine like a V8. Just the way it is.

Many millions of us are figuring out history is repeating itself again. And costing us and other massive money and crappy cars coming up. Because of .gov busy body terrorist tyrants.

Wake up folks. Choice is good.. Forced crap is tyranny and should be stopped.

Put the V8 in the coupe. Put a fraction of the expensive money being spent on the turbos, to improving the V8. Better mileage, more power, more reliable. Case closed.

Well I guess whatever I say here will brand me as a Pinko, Left-wing, tree-hugging weenie, or something similar, but what the heck :grouphug:

.

No question that politics played a big part (too big) in lowering national speed limits and mandating CAFE numbers on car manufacturers ill prepared to meet the technical challenges required. It took North American car makers years to make cars that were economical, but still had reliability and good performance. In the meantime people went out and bought Hondas and Toyotas, etc.. As for Europe, the cost of gas there forced manufacturers to innovate and make cars with efficient engines while maintaining decent performance.

Mercedes-Benz had overhead camshaft engines back in the 1950's, so I'd be surprised if they could learn much from Ford with regard to V8 OHC engine technology. The 1972 6.3SEL had a big V8 with single overhead camshafts and was hailed as the fastest luxury sedan in the world. The Corvette ZR1 of the nineties had an all-aluminum double overhead camshaft V8 designed in England by Lotus.

Today most European countries tax their vehicles based on Carbon Emissions from the tailpipe - a real-world measurement of engine efficiency and pollution rather than some arbitrary EPA test that creates meaningless MPG figures for the sales brochures. The EPA test is much better now than it was, but still not an accurate indicator of true economy. Gas in Europe still costs 3 or 4 times what it does in the US so car manufacturers design engines to meet the severe European emission standards and still provide good performance and gas mileage. That is why they are all moving towards lower displacement engines with fewer cylinders and turbochargers.

Modern technology has made turbos ultra-reliable even though they spin at 150,000rpm and beyond. There are thousands of trucks out there with million-plus miles on their diesel engines and turbos. I'd be more concerned about the High-Pressure Fuel system components required for modern Direct-Injected engines than I am about my turbo failing. Don't get me wrong, I love the sound of a big V8 performance engine, but there is no denying that they suck gas like WC Fields downing a beer. A good friend had an AMG Mercedes with the 6.3 V8 (now there's a sound to relish) and he loved it, but the only thing it couldn't pass was a gas station. He recently changed it for a new version with a 4.4 Bi-Turbo V8 and while HP & Torque are higher, his gas mileage is better by about 20%. Gotta love this new technology

jimb100 · Feb 21, 2015

Modern physics has not yet provided the energy equivalent of a free lunch.

You want to accelerate a given weight, at a rate of acceleration it costs a certain amount of energy.

Whether that energy comes from a V8, a 4 cyl turbo, whatever, the laws of physics will apply and gas mileage will be equivalent.

How efficiently an engine produces the required power is another story. Look at Chevy's small block V8, been around forever. In its latest iteration it uses cylinder deactivation and sophisticated engine management systems to get good gas mileage while producing lots of power. And its an old push rod design.

Reliability and durability are determined more by material choices and engineering decisions than by engine type.

Still, what you can't easily get around is the fact that a large displacement V8 produces more low end torque than a V6 turbo of lesser displacement.

The seat of the pants feel accelerating from a stop is different and most people would say the V8 feels "better".

Be careful what you wish for.

ksoze · Feb 21, 2015

jimb100 said:
Still, what you can't easily get around is the fact that a large displacement V8 produces more low end torque than a V6 turbo of lesser displacement.

And a V12 even more low end torque, but what's the point?

The twin-turbo 3.0-liter inline-six in the M3 is likely plenty for 99.99% of drivers and too much 98% of them and makes the case over the previous NA V8 in almost all specs. While a fan of NA engines from an era now passing, some of that is nostalgia for the muscle cars of my past 65 cent gas and suitable mechanics at gas stations.

GenesisCaptain · Feb 21, 2015

We'll all be driving electrics soon anyway, and they are king of low end torque.

DRS · Feb 21, 2015

Midnightsun said:
Agree with you 100%. Only reason others are doing turbo is they get away with great CAFE results which translates to more $ at the end of the day. Here our plates go by cylinders, talk about stupid. A normally aspirated V8 gets hit big time and as the Cu/In increases so does the price. This all has to do with gas consumption and the theory that bigger engines are more powerful and therefor more dangerous in the end. Basically BMW with their twin turbo at 400hp + is laughing as they get away with murder so to say while hiding under the veil when it comes to power to weight ratio. This is what it is all about if you can read through the lines. Even the insurance want to know either the cu in or the number of cylinders, they are too far behind to realize a 4 cylinder with dual turbos can be a monster. Take this little Subi 4 banger as a good example of a V8 vs a 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva-EHDP3V4

That being said, the turbo will never be as long lived as any normally aspirated engine. The turbo spins at 150,000 rpm which simply cannot hold up for 150,000 miles+. Yes there a re big improvements but they still are problematic. One of the most well know turboed engines must be the BMW straight 6. Do a search on this and you will see what a mess this has become. I change my cars at a max of 60,000 miles so for me it really does not matter however keep in mind that turbos requires premium fuel at a premium price so again they hide under the veil as the mpg is really 20% less if you compare fuel prices to a car running on regular. Just food for thought.

Glad you agree 100%. Now. The video. The two wheel drive stick V8 will run reliability for 200k miles, get over 30mpg on highway, never have to be tinkered with and rebuilt (turbo or engine)... In the real world, it is just better than some wound up sputtering rice burner. With they said... That was not my point. As you noticed, we are being forced into sputtering grinders many of us do not want. Because busy body crappers are in power deciding what we should drive. They commit treason, many say.

Hey, anyone want a rice cooker with sputtering sound? Go ahead. Have at it. Do not force ME into that mess in order to get performance.

DRS · Feb 21, 2015

ksoze said:
I believe we have the tin foil hat winner of the month with that post. Also the prize for most people and groups insulted within a single post.

No... It is a insult and crime to force me to drive sputtering burners to get performance under false pretenses. Just the way it is. Stick it in your tyrannical noggin.

DRS · Feb 21, 2015

Aquineas said:
What a crock of utter crap. I'm sure there have been no advancements whatsoever in engine management, turbo cooling and lubrication, or engine efficiency in the last 40 years. This guy certainly seems to imply that there hasn't been.

I imply history is repeating itself. Either you are a slave if you agree that I need to be forced into sputtering burners, or you are in a position of power that is a crime to do so. Especially under false pretenses.

DRS · Feb 21, 2015

CanukV6 said:
Well I guess whatever I say here will brand me as a Pinko, Left-wing, tree-hugging weenie, or something similar, but what the heck .

No question that politics played a big part (too big) in lowering national speed limits and mandating CAFE numbers on car manufacturers ill prepared to meet the technical challenges required. It took North American car makers years to make cars that were economical, but still had reliability and good performance. In the meantime people went out and bought Hondas and Toyotas, etc.. As for Europe, the cost of gas there forced manufacturers to innovate and make cars with efficient engines while maintaining decent performance.

Mercedes-Benz had overhead camshaft engines back in the 1950's, so I'd be surprised if they could learn much from Ford with regard to V8 OHC engine technology. The 1972 6.3SEL had a big V8 with single overhead camshafts and was hailed as the fastest luxury sedan in the world. The Corvette ZR1 of the nineties had an all-aluminum double overhead camshaft V8 designed in England by Lotus.

Today most European countries tax their vehicles based on Carbon Emissions from the tailpipe - a real-world measurement of engine efficiency and pollution rather than some arbitrary EPA test that creates meaningless MPG figures for the sales brochures. The EPA test is much better now than it was, but still not an accurate indicator of true economy. Gas in Europe still costs 3 or 4 times what it does in the US so car manufacturers design engines to meet the severe European emission standards and still provide good performance and gas mileage. That is why they are all moving towards lower displacement engines with fewer cylinders and turbochargers.

Modern technology has made turbos ultra-reliable even though they spin at 150,000rpm and beyond. There are thousands of trucks out there with million-plus miles on their diesel engines and turbos. I'd be more concerned about the High-Pressure Fuel system components required for modern Direct-Injected engines than I am about my turbo failing. Don't get me wrong, I love the sound of a big V8 performance engine, but there is no denying that they suck gas like WC Fields downing a beer. A good friend had an AMG Mercedes with the 6.3 V8 (now there's a sound to relish) and he loved it, but the only thing it couldn't pass was a gas station. He recently changed it for a new version with a 4.4 Bi-Turbo V8 and while HP & Torque are higher, his gas mileage is better by about 20%. Gotta love this new technology

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

ZRI was designed and built by Mercury Marine. I know. I was there. Lotus was there to learn, not help. And for GM to use the name.

Ford DID license their new OHC tech to Mercedes. They even made a TV commercial about it for the Super Bowl back then. Was funny. Had Germans speaking German in a golf cart driving through the Cleveland engine plant. With the sub titles talking about Mercedes making the license deal for the modular design. Their 6.3 was a mess compared to Ford design. They only had straight 6 at the time and wanted shorter V6 single and DOHC design. Same for the 4. Ford licensed the patents and IP to them. Just the way it is. Up until they time their gas engines could not go much beyond 125k without tearing them apart. Now their engines will match 250-400k miles that the Ford V8 does in severe duty routinely with cop cars they go to taxis service. And Town Cars they go more than 400k in limo service before needing a rebuild.

Get your head out of the low quality VW European snotty hole. They are not savior. And I do not accept busy bodies forcing any of us into certain engine designs under false pretenses.

The European model for gas prices is crap. Thank goodness we still do not have that. We are more competitive as a result.

DRS · Feb 21, 2015

GenesisCaptain said:
We'll all be driving electrics soon anyway, and they are king of low end torque.

Get that. Now, if is Tesla like and slightly more affordable with better range count me in. As long as I HAVE the choice. Not being forced into riding as a shock jockey in some pathetic electric box faking it as a car.

CanukV6 · Feb 21, 2015

DRS said:
Wrong, wrong and wrong.

ZRI was designed and built by Mercury Marine. I know. I was there. Lotus was there to learn, not help. And for GM to use the name.

Ford DID license their new OHC tech to Mercedes. They even made a TV commercial about it for the Super Bowl back then. Was funny. Had Germans speaking German in a golf cart driving through the Cleveland engine plant. With the sub titles talking about Mercedes making the license deal for the modular design. Their 6.3 was a mess compared to Ford design. They only had straight 6 at the time and wanted shorter V6 single and DOHC design. Same for the 4. Ford licensed the patents and IP to them. Just the way it is. Up until they time their gas engines could not go much beyond 125k without tearing them apart. Now their engines will match 250-400k miles that the Ford V8 does in severe duty routinely with cop cars they go to taxis service. And Town Cars they go more than 400k in limo service before needing a rebuild.

Get your head out of the low quality VW European snotty hole. They are not savior. And I do not accept busy bodies forcing any of us into certain engine designs under false pretenses.

The European model for gas prices is crap. Thank goodness we still do not have that. We are more competitive as a result.

Sorry friend, it is you that are wrong. Lotus designed the ZR1 motor, Mercury Marine built it.

From Car & Driver September 1995:

"After a worldwide search for companies that could participate in developing what would become the ZR-1's LT5 powerplant, GM put Lotus Engineering, which it owned by then, to work on the project."

"The contract to build the engines went to Mercury Marine, and the first ZR-1 actually put down 375 horsepower and 370 pound-feet of torque to its fat rear wheels through a ZF six-speed transmission. Like the LT5 engine, this gearbox was the product of a global technology assessment, here including proposals from two other vendors."

Oh, by the way that ZF Transmission was German

Listen, nobody is forcing you to drive anything you don't want to, but don't ram down my throat your opinion that new technology and different design approaches cannot offer equal performance, quality and reliability to traditional V8 engine design. Yes the latest versions of the GM pushrod V8's are providing very good performance and economy, but mostly due to new technology.

Aquineas · Feb 21, 2015

Your "logic" has more holes in it than a Dunkin Donut chain. You sprinkle bits and pieces of truth to support head-scratching conclusions. Yes, the LT5 was built by Mercury Marine, but it was run by Lotus engineer Tony Rudd. Lotus was owned by GM at the time, so one could argue it was all in the family, but GM at the time wasn't exactly known for famous, reliable, high-output DOHC engine designs.

In any case, deep within your twisted reasoning, you somehow stumble upon the truth here and there (even a broken clock is right twice a day). It is, for example, quite possible for a turbo engine to perform significantly better in EPA tests than it will in daily driving (just ask any Ecoboost owner), and how it will perform is largely dependent on engine load. Turbo engines can do better in EPA tests because the turbocharger need not be operating at all times, and if power demands can be met without forcing extra air and fuel into the combustion chamber, then a turbo engine, for all intents and purposes, is operating as a smaller displacement engine (using less air, burning less fuel). But if you need more power/torque, then it's going to burn more fuel.

Pretty much everything else you say is a crock. The Ford Modular V8 used to get its ass handed to it by the GM LSX and later engines until Ford redeemed itself with the Coyote (and I'm a former Cobra owner).

EXBMWGUY · Feb 21, 2015

DRS said:
Their 6.3 was a mess compared to Ford design. They only had straight 6 at the time and wanted shorter V6 single and DOHC design. Same for the 4. Ford licensed the patents and IP to them. Just the way it is. Up until they time their gas engines could not go much beyond 125k without tearing them apart. Now their engines will match 250-400k miles that the Ford V8 does in severe duty routinely with cop cars they go to taxis service. And Town Cars they go more than 400k in limo service before needing a rebuild.

My 6.9 was not a mess! It was the finest beast I have ever owned.

Finally, hyundai is pushing the 3.3L turbo. share your comments!

Registered Member

Registered Member

Registered Member

Getting familiar with the group...

Banned

Been here awhile...

Registered Member

4th Genesis

Registered Member

Registered Member

Registered Member

Registered Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Registered Member

4th Genesis

Been here awhile...