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

[jimb100]

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.

The point is that the V8 is a good compromise between the complexity and packaging issue of the V12 and the lack of low end torque in the 4 and 6.

Frankly, surprised you didn't know that.

The M 3 is very costly to repair and very expensive to produce. 98% can't afford one or afford to keep it running after warranty.

 

[svensk]

A v-12 with dime size cylinders is no more efficient than a similar overall displacement V8.

 

[DRS]

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.

I was there, you looked up a old magazine article.. Mercury was contracted to design and build the motor. Lotus provided validation consulting after the prototypes were already built. Their studios had various flow measurement equipment and other tech that was used to test what was created with mostly pencils and slide rules by genius at Mercury. One modification they suggested for emissions was reducing the HP through camshaft, intake, and programming. As a integration consultant for a high performance boat manufacturer, I/we did not have those concerns when testing. The marine version of cam timing, intake design, and CPU mapping, provided more down low torque and higher HP. Some of this was adapted when the engine was upped to very conservative 400HP Corvette version. Many of the Lotus "improvements" were scrapped.

The tyrants in the BHO White House of horrors, through using Unconstitutional powers at the EPA have in fact been dictating engine design. Screwing the measurement rules to favor in non street based certifications. Which in turn are destined to favor smaller displacement boosted engines in order to make the pollution, CO2 emissions and faux mileage requirements. They are thugs. Just like the Carol Browner pigs back in the Carter days. There was a trend to push turbos then too. Never really took off as Reagan administration gutted the tyrannical preference of chaos forcing turbo use. What was in the pipeline for turbo designs did come out in small quantities. And we're used, like with the Buick GNX to offer more power, not better mileage or emissions. By late 80s turbos were mostly gone.

And the lobbyists from Garrett and others ran out of funds to keep up their under the table criminal behavior with the then fired Carter regulators and demoncrats in Congress.

I was there. You obviously were not. Too many younger folks here that have no understanding of history, except for brainwashing in schools, or a up close in time vain view of history. I suggest you listen. You will grow as a result.

 

[DRS]

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).

You have no idea who was the figure head for publicity, verses who really did the work. I do, I was there. You were not. I used the ZR1 as a example not some lightning rod for vain youth to create an argument. You do admit, good for you, the bias with testing models that force by default car companies to go with sputtering boosted burners in order to meet regulations. This is a start. You should be mad about that.

As for the modular engine program. What I say is real. I was there, consulting then for Ford, you were not. NASCAR, and GM drones the France families, stopped the twin OVC Emerging Ford design from coming into NASCAR. As a casual matter of record, the Mercury Marine ZR1 was designed to counter that already approved for production modular programs which would also be used in NASCAR. Which was never needed when the France family thugs forced Ford to use pushrods.

As for GM engines kicking Ford engines butts... This is a brand preference argument, and how Ford is stupidly insistent on detuning a great engine design.. On a side note the Ford DOHC V8 was first used in the Mark VIII, and then a variation in the Navigator and SVT versions (which you claim to have owned one). It's original design was done in the mid to late 80s. By 1989-2000, or so, France thugs had told Ford they could not use SOHC or DOHC in NASCAR. So, the smaller 4.6 SOHC V8 was first relegated to Crown Vic duty starting in 1992.

Point is.... EPA through their handlers in the White House of horrors are forcing us to 54mpg standards and a horrid expense to decrease in historical perspective emissions by 3%.. Along this journey car companies here have to create these small turbo engines to meet the standards coming. And Europe is following, not leading. Their largest export market is USA, so those by nature socialist engineers over there are all too happy to stop their larger displacement programs and go to sputtering engines.

These sputtering engines SOUND so bad, the Europeans and some American company's have to fake you millennials out by sending FAKE sounds into the interior through the sound system or some weird sound horn through the firewall. Craziness.

Wake up folks. Your government and their busy bodies in government and corporations are forcing you to buy what they think is best for you. Soon no more arguments will be around talking about GM V8 pushrods kick Ford's OHC design. Get it? You are being railroaded.

 

[DRS]

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

Yea... 6.9 is cool. Glad you are able to own one. Congrats.

 

[DRS]

The point is that the V8 is a good compromise between the complexity and packaging issue of the V12 and the lack of low end torque in the 4 and 6.



Frankly, surprised you didn't know that.



The M 3 is very costly to repair and very expensive to produce. 98% can't afford one or afford to keep it running after warranty.

^^ +1

 

[carlosfernandez]

I will wait until the 2016 to see if the engine HP and torque will increase !! I drove this car yesterday and really love it and the car move good but more HP and torque will give this car to another level !!!!

 

[CanukV6]

I was there. You obviously were not. Too many younger folks here that have no understanding of history, except for brainwashing in schools, or a up close in time vain view of history. I suggest you listen. You will grow as a result.

Nice of you to include me in the "younger folks" category, I'm 62
I understand history very well and I think I'm fully grown (maybe a little overgrown around the middle). Also, unlike you, I have an open mind and am prepared to consider all opinions, not just keep shouting louder until people accept my views.

If you think that all the car manufacturers in Europe and Asia are moving towards smaller displacement Turbo engines just to satisfy your current US administration in power, you really are out of touch. The fastest growing car market in the world today is China and while the US market is still important to overseas manufacturers, I doubt the White House dictates their R&D programmes.

Like Carlos Fernandez, I will wait to see how the Genesis is with the new motor before condemning it. Try it you might like it .

 

[Monolith2001]

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".

Can't speak to anyone's seat of the pants. I personally always loved engines that give that sudden kick of power (fond memories of my early VTEC Honda Prelude and my buddie's old turbocharged 240Z. The # of cylinders has little to do with it, it's about power delivery and you can have a wide range of flat and peaky V8s as with any other mill.

What is more knowable is that most modern turbo motors can generate more power AND torque (at lower rpm) than many of their larger NA counterparts. The only lack of torque comes from turbo lag which has been significantly curtailed in most mainstream applications. Smaller turbos, lighter impellers, dual scrolling and better efficiency minimizes lag allowing turbos to spool up fast with less exhaust pressure.

Obviously if you throw massive amounts of displacement at it, you will eventually overcome that. A good example is that Ecoboost 3.5 V6 F-150 will give 365hp/420 ft-lbs@2500, while the larger NA 5.0 V8 is 385hp/387 ft-lbs@3850. Torque-wise, those V8 numbers are more inline with the new 2.7 V6 Ecoboost which makes 375 ft-lbs@3000. The old 6.2 V8 made 385hp/434 ft-lbs of torque @4500 and compares more favorably to the 3.5 tV6 but at almost twice the displacement and still doesn't have the low end torque curve of the 3.5 tV6.

If you take the E92 M3 (4.0 V8) and compare it to a F80 M3 (3.0 tV6), you get more power and torque and if you look at dyno curves, the way torque is delivered will blow your mind.
http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html

It's always going to be hard to do 1:1 comparisons as you often will be looking across generations (like the M3) or different applications (manufacturers generally aren't going to offer engines that compete with each other). I mentioned the F-150 as that is an example of a manufacturer offering competing engines...one for it's performance and economy, the other to please those who simply think big trucks should have V8s and don't embrace the complexity and possible increased long term maintenance of the tV6.

I'm not advocating for one of the other as I think both have their place but it's hard to argue that there aren't significant performance benefits to turbocharging such as power, torque, weight savings and potential economy benefits. Complexity and relative durability compared to NA engines are the biggest knocks. Everything else is personal preference (sound, NVH differences, mindset etc...)

 

[jimb100]

Nice of you to include me in the "younger folks" category, I'm 62

Like Carlos Fernandez, I will wait to see how the Genesis is with the new motor before condemning it. Try it you might like it .

Normally, predicting the future is risky but in this case, the laws of physics help.

The 3.3L turbo will not provide the same performance as the 5L dohc. Sorry, we don't need to wait and see on that one.

I won't condemn the 4/6 cyl turbo for use in smaller cars where the V8 just doesn't make sense, more from a size and weight standpoint. For example, a Volkswagen Golf with a 5L really doesn't make a lot of sense.

However, in today's world, a V8 with modern engineering (direct injection, improved coil packs, cylinder deactivation, etc.) provides an excellent choice for balancing complexity, performance and mileage.

BMW's smaller engines with turbos are an attempt to circumvent Europe's silly "tax the displacement" strategy for improving fuel mileage.

I think we can all agree that the world would be better off with powerful electric cars rather than gas powered, but battery technology and charging availability dictate the gas engine will be with us for quite a while.

But for cars the size of the Genesis, smaller turbo charged engines don't really offer any advantage over the modern V8.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[jimb100]

Can't speak to anyone's seat of the pants. I personally always loved engines that give that sudden kick of power (fond memories of my early VTEC Honda Prelude and my buddie's old turbocharged 240Z. The # of cylinders has little to do with it, it's about power delivery and you can have a wide range of flat and peaky V8s as with any other mill.

What is more knowable is that most modern turbo motors can generate more power AND torque (at lower rpm) than many of their larger NA counterparts. The only lack of torque comes from turbo lag which has been significantly curtailed in most mainstream applications. Smaller turbos, lighter impellers, dual scrolling and better efficiency minimizes lag allowing turbos to spool up fast with less exhaust pressure.

Obviously if you throw massive amounts of displacement at it, you will eventually overcome that. A good example is that Ecoboost 3.5 V6 F-150 will give 365hp/420 ft-lbs@2500, while the larger NA 5.0 V8 is 385hp/387 ft-lbs@3850. Torque-wise, those V8 numbers are more inline with the new 2.7 V6 Ecoboost which makes 375 ft-lbs@3000. The old 6.2 V8 made 385hp/434 ft-lbs of torque @4500 and compares more favorably to the 3.5 tV6 but at almost twice the displacement and still doesn't have the low end torque curve of the 3.5 tV6.

If you take the E92 M3 (4.0 V8) and compare it to a F80 M3 (3.0 tV6), you get more power and torque and if you look at dyno curves, the way torque is delivered will blow your mind.
http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html

It's always going to be hard to do 1:1 comparisons as you often will be looking across generations (like the M3) or different applications (manufacturers generally aren't going to offer engines that compete with each other). I mentioned the F-150 as that is an example of a manufacturer offering competing engines...one for it's performance and economy, the other to please those who simply think big trucks should have V8s and don't embrace the complexity and possible increased long term maintenance of the tV6.

I'm not advocating for one of the other as I think both have their place but it's hard to argue that there aren't significant performance benefits to turbocharging such as power, torque, weight savings and potential economy benefits. Complexity and relative durability compared to NA engines are the biggest knocks. Everything else is personal preference (sound, NVH differences, mindset etc...)

Not disputing anything you say, but....

Why do I want increased maintenance, greater complexity and durability concerns to equal or only slightly better the LAST generation of V8 engines?

Apply the same levels of complexity to a latest gen V8, and the performance exceeds the turbo.

Again, in smaller cars its easier to make the argument for the turbo, but for the Genesis, and its 100k mi powertrain warranty, V8 is hard to beat if you care at all about performance.

 

[Monolith2001]

Not disputing anything you say, but....

Why do I want increased maintenance, greater complexity and durability concerns to equal or only slightly better the LAST generation of V8 engines?

Apply the same levels of complexity to a latest gen V8, and the performance exceeds the turbo.

Again, in smaller cars its easier to make the argument for the turbo, but for the Genesis, and its 100k mi powertrain warranty, V8 is hard to beat if you care at all about performance.

I think it's very clear that you are a pretty big NA V8 fan. Hell in some ways I am too. I'd take a Mercedes 6.2L M156/M159 (my favorite fantasy engines) over the turbo replacements all day every day. That said I don't ignore that time moves on and so does technology.

The complexity doesn't really matter unless you are breaking down your own motors. The complexity really is more on the manufacturer (engineering) side and the costs associated with it. I'm sure there are people who would look at the Tau and shake their head at its complexity while they admire their 70's small block and it's accessibility.

Durability is sort of a red herring as it assumes that an engine that normally only makes x power is going to be stressed when boosted. I think this concern comes more from the days when motors were built and then a turbo was added rather than modern ones that are fully engineered to be turbocharged.

There are no free lunches but there is no technology regardless of complexity that can you can add to any engine that can come close to what forced induction can without exponentially increasing cost.

The cost benefit analysis says that a manufacturer can get the following from a turbo smaller engine:
- Power and torque of a "much" larger engine
- More torque at a lower rpm and over a wider rpm range
- Better efficiency at idle and cruise
- Lower weight (especially up front for front-engined cars)
- Potentially lower ongoing manufacturing costs (usually turbo/intercooling/plumbing/wastegate will come in much cheaper than more/larger pistons, block, valves, cams, crank etc...)

 

[Aquineas]

My 1999 Cobra was recalled due to not making the advertised horsepower. Yeah, I'm very familiar with the modular V8. The truth of the matter is, the LS1 at the time was smaller, lighter, and more powerful than the Cobra engine. This isn't brand bias, I certainly could have bought an LS1 car back then I wanted. I bought the Cobra because part of me had some Ford loyalty, and I wanted to believe in the DOHC. Ford finally did get it right however, because the Coyote and it's successors have some serious street cred. By that point I was over my 2 door performance phase.

Back to the point at hand, turbo engines don't have to sputter. Properly tuned, they also don't have the oil coking and oil cooling problems or detonation problems that many had in the last millenium. As far as sound, an inline 6 sounds better to my ear than cross-plane V8. I'm no BMW worshipper (in fact, I'm very much a realist when it comes to them, which is why I don't own one), but the i6 in the BMW sounds glorious to me. Inline 6 engines represent the pinnacle of smoothness and refinement because there aren't second-order vibrations. I'm not sure why BMW (and other manufacturers) pipe sound in, as I find that whole concept just as asinine as you do.

My point is turbo engines have come a long way, and there are potential mileage benefits to a V8 engine when the turbo engine isn't under load (unless you start getting into V8 cylinder deactivation). Have you driven a recent turbo engine? And I'm not talking about a 4 banger. I'm talking 6 cylinder and above. Open your mind, try new things. You just might be surprised.

 

[DRS]

Nice of you to include me in the "younger folks" category, I'm 62

I understand history very well and I think I'm fully grown (maybe a little overgrown around the middle). Also, unlike you, I have an open mind and am prepared to consider all opinions, not just keep shouting louder until people accept my views.



If you think that all the car manufacturers in Europe and Asia are moving towards smaller displacement Turbo engines just to satisfy your current US administration in power, you really are out of touch. The fastest growing car market in the world today is China and while the US market is still important to overseas manufacturers, I doubt the White House dictates their R&D programmes.



Like Carlos Fernandez, I will wait to see how the Genesis is with the new motor before condemning it. Try it you might like it .

Not condemning the 3.3.. I do not want manufacturers to be forced to go boosted because that is the only way to meet .gov regulations. And they are doing this. Here and across both ponds.

Also, I do not like punks who also decide what is needed or not. Let the market decide. Looks like the boosted sputtering engines will be the in vogue and required item for the foreseeable future. And the FAKE sounds from audio and other mechanisms playing full bore to hide the true sound of these sputtering wheezing designs is hilarious.

Glad you are young at heart and "adapting". I adapt too. However in this case IMO, I will make a stand for a V8 design. And am cranked off at .Gov forcing the issue. By 2025 this debate will not matter. With a average corporates fuel economy including trucks required at 54MPG, the 3.3 turbo will be restricted to small production, if allowed. Even sputtering "sound enhanced" boosted burners will be having problems meeting what is coming, faked measurements or real world.

Take my sarcasm about turbos as amplified words to show a point. I do like some designs that are boosted. Not sure the extra complexity is worth the gain. The 3.5 Ecoboost is amazing. Looks like 500k mile durability (published and those torture videos), solid refinement... They are finally stepping up the power in this too. SHO and trick owners have been cracking the CPUs for some time. Getting between 400-600hp and the engine does not crater. As a 6.4 and 6.7 Ford PS owner I appreciate the ability to get easy and durable extra power using common sense and technology, if desired. Non boosted V8s have limitations with easy massive CPU based HP gains.

What Ford allowed with Boosted 5.4 DOHC V8 in the GT 500 was amazing. Factory warranties for Shelby American HP boosts up to 650HP. Then they came out with 650HP themselves. I heard, not confirmed, they supported Shelby American taking the last engine and boosting to 775 on and support factory warranty. I imagine .Gov Motors and the Italians are allowing the same kind of thing. By 2025 the Obama/Bush mileage and CO2 standards will outlaw all this. A crime against humanity.

You bring up a good point... I wonder what the ChiComs are doing regarding pollution standards for cars? More weather modification like they attempted for the Olympics? Gotta love those ChiComs for attempting that. Serious, I wonder if they are outlawing by Jack boot regulations bigger displacement V8s? Even as total ChiComs, these Communist tyrant ruled people spirit is one of innovation, bigger, better, and faster. In some ways they have fewer draconian socialist Amish like reactionaries running things than we experience from .gov busy body overlords. Will they force the 3.3 turbo like sputtering sound enhanced designs?

 

[DRS]

Can't speak to anyone's seat of the pants. I personally always loved engines that give that sudden kick of power (fond memories of my early VTEC Honda Prelude and my buddie's old turbocharged 240Z. The # of cylinders has little to do with it, it's about power delivery and you can have a wide range of flat and peaky V8s as with any other mill.

What is more knowable is that most modern turbo motors can generate more power AND torque (at lower rpm) than many of their larger NA counterparts. The only lack of torque comes from turbo lag which has been significantly curtailed in most mainstream applications. Smaller turbos, lighter impellers, dual scrolling and better efficiency minimizes lag allowing turbos to spool up fast with less exhaust pressure.

Obviously if you throw massive amounts of displacement at it, you will eventually overcome that. A good example is that Ecoboost 3.5 V6 F-150 will give 365hp/420 ft-lbs@2500, while the larger NA 5.0 V8 is 385hp/387 ft-lbs@3850. Torque-wise, those V8 numbers are more inline with the new 2.7 V6 Ecoboost which makes 375 ft-lbs@3000. The old 6.2 V8 made 385hp/434 ft-lbs of torque @4500 and compares more favorably to the 3.5 tV6 but at almost twice the displacement and still doesn't have the low end torque curve of the 3.5 tV6.

If you take the E92 M3 (4.0 V8) and compare it to a F80 M3 (3.0 tV6), you get more power and torque and if you look at dyno curves, the way torque is delivered will blow your mind.
http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_the_rollers_we_dyno_the_2015_bmw_m3_last_generation.html

It's always going to be hard to do 1:1 comparisons as you often will be looking across generations (like the M3) or different applications (manufacturers generally aren't going to offer engines that compete with each other). I mentioned the F-150 as that is an example of a manufacturer offering competing engines...one for it's performance and economy, the other to please those who simply think big trucks should have V8s and don't embrace the complexity and possible increased long term maintenance of the tV6.

I'm not advocating for one of the other as I think both have their place but it's hard to argue that there aren't significant performance benefits to turbocharging such as power, torque, weight savings and potential economy benefits. Complexity and relative durability compared to NA engines are the biggest knocks. Everything else is personal preference (sound, NVH differences, mindset etc...)

Good response and thoughts. Agree.. Choice is good. Let our own debates and experiences determine market and best for us. NOT .gov. Hyundai should not be bullied by .gov if possible and offer one of 5.0, 5.4 or 6.2 V8 in the new Coupe. And offer the 3.3... They will sell more vehicles because of choice for both meets the needs and preferences of both type of users. Ford now has a Mustang that has the 2.3 turbo, and growing to over 600HP V8s.

I also agree about your thoughts on low end torque with modern tech boosted engines. Ford has made a good science at that. Still, do not like the sound. Rode in a tweaked SHO with about 475 HP. Sounded like a UPS delivery truck. What a shame. Otherwise was very nice. Kept thinking of a Genesis that went on a diet of say 700lbs, was AWD, had a el natural 5.7 or 6.2 version of the the TAU (with cylinder deactivation and other mileage enhancements), or a blown 5.0, would be a good choice. Oh, and the V8 sound would be amazing.

One other thought.... Why does Ford not allow e85 in the Ecoboost platform? Seems odd to me. For the Ecoboost trucks in ethanol country, would make sense. And the CPUs could adapt to the high octane and jump the boost and HP. They lazy or something wrong with the design?

 

[Midnightsun]

All this talk about turbos especially the F150 that has been mentioned a few times in the thread. I happen to own one with the 3.5 eco boost and so does a good friend of mine and another good friend has the 5.0. The 5.0 naturally aspirated V8 gets better milage. My friends 1 year old eco boost has already been in the shop several times with the turbo replaced. Mine has been pretty much OK except there is a hesitation intermittently which points towards another bad turbo. Do a search, the eco boost and all of Fords eco boost do little in the way of economy and have in fact been really problematic. As mentioned the Turbo is just a way of bypassing the restrictives laws coming into effect. This article should open some eyes. After you understand what is going on you will most likely opt for naturally aspirated or you can continue to live with your head in the sand and go turbo. http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I never trailer long distances wit the F150 eco boost however I just came back from a snowmobile trip. Towed a single place all aluminum, enclosed, aerodynamic snowmobile trailer for about 1400km. The trailer weighs about 900 lbs so relatively light and the snowmobile about 800. Conditions were perfect, no winds, bright and sunny however quite cold. Roads are basically highway all the way with no hills to speak of in fact flat and boring. Got a miserable 25L/100km going and coming back 23.7L/100km. That is a measly 9.5mpg. So where is the 22mpg they advertise on TV while towing your boat? Lots of BS going on here.

 

[DRS]

Normally, predicting the future is risky but in this case, the laws of physics help.



The 3.3L turbo will not provide the same performance as the 5L dohc. Sorry, we don't need to wait and see on that one.



I won't condemn the 4/6 cyl turbo for use in smaller cars where the V8 just doesn't make sense, more from a size and weight standpoint. For example, a Volkswagen Golf with a 5L really doesn't make a lot of sense.



However, in today's world, a V8 with modern engineering (direct injection, improved coil packs, cylinder deactivation, etc.) provides an excellent choice for balancing complexity, performance and mileage.



BMW's smaller engines with turbos are an attempt to circumvent Europe's silly "tax the displacement" strategy for improving fuel mileage.



I think we can all agree that the world would be better off with powerful electric cars rather than gas powered, but battery technology and charging availability dictate the gas engine will be with us for quite a while.



But for cars the size of the Genesis, smaller turbo charged engines don't really offer any advantage over the modern V8.

^^ ++++1

 

[DRS]

I think it's very clear that you are a pretty big NA V8 fan. Hell in some ways I am too. I'd take a Mercedes 6.2L M156/M159 (my favorite fantasy engines) over the turbo replacements all day every day. That said I don't ignore that time moves on and so does technology.



The complexity doesn't really matter unless you are breaking down your own motors. The complexity really is more on the manufacturer (engineering) side and the costs associated with it. I'm sure there are people who would look at the Tau and shake their head at its complexity while they admire their 70's small block and it's accessibility.



Durability is sort of a red herring as it assumes that an engine that normally only makes x power is going to be stressed when boosted. I think this concern comes more from the days when motors were built and then a turbo was added rather than modern ones that are fully engineered to be turbocharged.



There are no free lunches but there is no technology regardless of complexity that can you can add to any engine that can come close to what forced induction can without exponentially increasing cost.



The cost benefit analysis says that a manufacturer can get the following from a turbo smaller engine:

- Power and torque of a "much" larger engine

- More torque at a lower rpm and over a wider rpm range

- Better efficiency at idle and cruise

- Lower weight (especially up front for front-engined cars)

- Potentially lower ongoing manufacturing costs (usually turbo/intercooling/plumbing/wastegate will come in much cheaper than more/larger pistons, block, valves, cams, crank etc...)

Good points. However, I will not allow (if I have any power) some egg head in .gov skew testing requirements to force feed designs like what you are suggesting. That is the source of all this debate. We should have the Liberty to debate this topic, not be forced into some design because little tyrants in .gov say so.

 

[DRS]

My 1999 Cobra was recalled due to not making the advertised horsepower. Yeah, I'm very familiar with the modular V8. The truth of the matter is, the LS1 at the time was smaller, lighter, and more powerful than the Cobra engine. This isn't brand bias, I certainly could have bought an LS1 car back then I wanted. I bought the Cobra because part of me had some Ford loyalty, and I wanted to believe in the DOHC. Ford finally did get it right however, because the Coyote and it's successors have some serious street cred. By that point I was over my 2 door performance phase.

Back to the point at hand, turbo engines don't have to sputter. Properly tuned, they also don't have the oil coking and oil cooling problems or detonation problems that many had in the last millenium. As far as sound, an inline 6 sounds better to my ear than cross-plane V8. I'm no BMW worshipper (in fact, I'm very much a realist when it comes to them, which is why I don't own one), but the i6 in the BMW sounds glorious to me. Inline 6 engines represent the pinnacle of smoothness and refinement because there aren't second-order vibrations. I'm not sure why BMW (and other manufacturers) pipe sound in, as I find that whole concept just as asinine as you do.

My point is turbo engines have come a long way, and there are potential mileage benefits to a V8 engine when the turbo engine isn't under load (unless you start getting into V8 cylinder deactivation). Have you driven a recent turbo engine? And I'm not talking about a 4 banger. I'm talking 6 cylinder and above. Open your mind, try new things. You just might be surprised.

I totally get what you are saying. My main point, including sarcastic fun comments at those so confident, .gov has NO business being terrorists by skewing testing that forces car companies to go with smaller boosted engines for testing (CO2 and mileage) that is of very little street value. They are using their opinions and tyranny to force the issue.

Yes, drove V-Sport, various stock and CPU enhanced SHO, one F150, and one 2015 Expedition (3.5). All we're very good. Have driven a buddy 335 before. I agree out of the 6 choices the inline sounds better and is smooth to me compared to a V design. I owned two 300E with straight 6. The Ecoboost in the truck and Expedition is diamond cutter smooth. Could be the platform hiding the vibration..

Again, I want to have raucous debates in what is better over another. I will call out and end .gov forcing the design choices through false test requirements and draconian tyranny through regulations. This is the source of all this debate. Egghead environmental control freak tyrants, verses those of us that demand the most Liberty..

 

[DRS]

All this talk about turbos especially the F150 that has been mentioned a few times in the thread. I happen to own one and so does a good friend of mine and another good friend has the 5.0. The 5.0 naturally aspirated V8 gets better milage. My friends 1 year old eco boost has already been in the shop several times with the turbo replaced. Mine has been pretty much OK except there is a hesitation intermittently which points towards another bad turbo. Do a search, the eco boost and all of Fords eco boost do little in the way of economy and have in fact been really problematic. As mentioned the Turbo is just a way of bypassing the restrictives laws coming into effect. This article should open some eyes. After you understand what is going on you will most likely opt for naturally aspirated or you can continue to live with your head in the sand and go turbo. http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos

^^ ++++++++++1

Here we go... Good actual comparison of real world. And this is and will not be a Ford only problem. Ford has attempted to get ahead of the forced .gov curve. And Ford is taking the arrows like we see above. He is dead on.

I suggest we let DC burn to the ground and put on trial for high crimes, and war crimes, a few million .gov employees and office holder tyrants. they are the source of this misery. And the much greater misery to come later.