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

[GenesisCaptain]

Do you really think these motors, with turbos, weigh less than the Genesis V8?

I thought you guys were all about justifying the use of a 6 cyl and a turbo in large cruisers. That's certainly what I thought you were trying to say.

I think most manufacturers do not publish engine weight, so it is difficult to get an authoritative answer. But, if the 1st gen Genesis 3.8L V6 weighs 225 lbs. less than a nearly identical 5.0L V8. It is probably a reasonable assumption that most of the weight difference can be attributed to the engine. (Interestingly, the 2015 is a 400 lb. difference, but I think the V8 has heavier wheels and other equipment.) Therefore, if the smaller displacement engine with fewer cylinders is lighter, then it is probably reasonable to assume that the number of cylinders and displacement probably directly, proportionally affect weight. The wild card is the extra weight that the forced induction plumbing and devices add. But yes, for two engines of similar power output, I believe it is reasonable to assume that a typical FI engine is probably lighter than a typical NA engine.

The thread originally started with the comment that Hyundai is developing a turbo 3.3l engine for the Genesis. The leaked specs say that the engine will produce 27 more horsepower and 84 lb-ft more torque. Since they dropped 1/2 liter in displacement, it is probably reasonable to assume that it will be no heavier than the 3.8 we have today. And, the torque will come in way lower in the power band. That is almost the same torque as the current V8, so the car will potentially out-accelerate the NA V8.

If you had to have a V6, wouldn't you rather have the Hyundai 3.3l turbo with 380 lb-ft of torque at 1,500 RPM versus the 3.8l with only 293 lb-ft at 5,000 RPM?

Likewise, if you were choosing a V8, wouldn't you rather have something like the S550's blown beast with 516 lb-ft of torque at 1,800 versus the current Genesis V8 with 383 lb-ft at 5,000 RPM? Or, if you were going to "settle" for the wimpier Audi engine, that one is a full liter smaller than the Genesis V8, yet it produces 444 lb-ft torque at 1,500 RPM. The Audi engine probably is lighter and would accelerate the Genesis much faster than the current NA engine.

 

[CanukV6]

I'm surprised that you, as a V6 guy, are touting the fact that these German mfg. use a 5.5 L and a turbo and the Audi uses, what, a 4.3 and a turbo.

Do you really think these motors, with turbos, weigh less than the Genesis V8?

The point is not that they added a turbo for extra performance, its that they didn't switch to a 6 and a turbo.

I thought you guys were all about justifying the use of a 6 cyl and a turbo in large cruisers. That's certainly what I thought you were trying to say.

You missed the point. The M-B S550 used to have a 5.5 litre NA V8 motor, but now has a 4.6l Bi-Turbo V8. Smaller displacement, less weight, better performance and better fuel economy. What could possibly be wrong with that. M-B did not use this engine just to increase performance, and yes, even with the turbos, it weighs less. Audi has followed a similar path, although they have gone to V6 turbo engines where they once used V8's.

From my perspective this 'discussion' is about using turbo technology to maintain or increase performance while offering weight and fuel savings. It can be equally applied to any engine regardless of cylinder count. I have nothing against NA V8's or any other NA engines. I am just saying that there is an argument for, and advantages to, using turbo technology and smaller displacement engines as an alternative to big NA motors. Far from "spluttering" these engines offer excellent low-down torque, which peaks at a lower rpm and is sustained for a wider rpm band than equivalent power NA engines. No they can't provide the same soundtrack as a NA engine, but that is because the turbos muffle the sound, which is why this (admittedly silly) artificial synthesised audio habit has started.

 

[zielritter]

You missed the point. The M-B S550 used to have a 5.5 litre NA V8 motor, but now has a 4.6l Bi-Turbo V8. Smaller displacement, less weight, better performance and better fuel economy. What could possibly be wrong with that. M-B did not use this engine just to increase performance, and yes, even with the turbos, it weighs less. Audi has followed a similar path, although they have gone to V6 turbo engines where they once used V8's.

From my perspective this 'discussion' is about using turbo technology to maintain or increase performance while offering weight and fuel savings. It can be equally applied to any engine regardless of cylinder count. I have nothing against NA V8's or any other NA engines. I am just saying that there is an argument for, and advantages to, using turbo technology and smaller displacement engines as an alternative to big NA motors. Far from "spluttering" these engines offer excellent low-down torque, which peaks at a lower rpm and is sustained for a wider rpm band than equivalent power NA engines. No they can't provide the same soundtrack as a NA engine, but that is because the turbos muffle the sound, which is why this (admittedly silly) artificial synthesised audio habit has started.

Perfectly summarized.

 

[Monolith2001]

You missed the point. The M-B S550 used to have a 5.5 litre NA V8 motor, but now has a 4.6l Bi-Turbo V8. Smaller displacement, less weight, better performance and better fuel economy. What could possibly be wrong with that. M-B did not use this engine just to increase performance, and yes, even with the turbos, it weighs less. Audi has followed a similar path, although they have gone to V6 turbo engines where they once used V8's.

From my perspective this 'discussion' is about using turbo technology to maintain or increase performance while offering weight and fuel savings. It can be equally applied to any engine regardless of cylinder count. I have nothing against NA V8's or any other NA engines. I am just saying that there is an argument for, and advantages to, using turbo technology and smaller displacement engines as an alternative to big NA motors. Far from "spluttering" these engines offer excellent low-down torque, which peaks at a lower rpm and is sustained for a wider rpm band than equivalent power NA engines. No they can't provide the same soundtrack as a NA engine, but that is because the turbos muffle the sound, which is why this (admittedly silly) artificial synthesised audio habit has started.

Very strong post!

 

[jimb100]

I think most manufacturers do not publish engine weight, so it is difficult to get an authoritative answer. But, if the 1st gen Genesis 3.8L V6 weighs 225 lbs. less than a nearly identical 5.0L V8. It is probably a reasonable assumption that most of the weight difference can be attributed to the engine. (Interestingly, the 2015 is a 400 lb. difference, but I think the V8 has heavier wheels and other equipment.) Therefore, if the smaller displacement engine with fewer cylinders is lighter, then it is probably reasonable to assume that the number of cylinders and displacement probably directly, proportionally affect weight. The wild card is the extra weight that the forced induction plumbing and devices add. But yes, for two engines of similar power output, I believe it is reasonable to assume that a typical FI engine is probably lighter than a typical NA engine.

The thread originally started with the comment that Hyundai is developing a turbo 3.3l engine for the Genesis. The leaked specs say that the engine will produce 27 more horsepower and 84 lb-ft more torque. Since they dropped 1/2 liter in displacement, it is probably reasonable to assume that it will be no heavier than the 3.8 we have today. And, the torque will come in way lower in the power band. That is almost the same torque as the current V8, so the car will potentially out-accelerate the NA V8.

If you had to have a V6, wouldn't you rather have the Hyundai 3.3l turbo with 380 lb-ft of torque at 1,500 RPM versus the 3.8l with only 293 lb-ft at 5,000 RPM?

Likewise, if you were choosing a V8, wouldn't you rather have something like the S550's blown beast with 516 lb-ft of torque at 1,800 versus the current Genesis V8 with 383 lb-ft at 5,000 RPM? Or, if you were going to "settle" for the wimpier Audi engine, that one is a full liter smaller than the Genesis V8, yet it produces 444 lb-ft torque at 1,500 RPM. The Audi engine probably is lighter and would accelerate the Genesis much faster than the current NA engine.

Where to begin?

First, the difference in weight is not all in the motor. The 5.0 has bigger wheels, bigger tires, electronic suspension and several other electronics. The difference in engine weights is probably less than 200#. In a car that, with driver, passenger, gas, weighs almost 5000 pounds, that's not making a huge difference in handling. I wouldn't think it was even noticeable.

Next, what you attribute to the 3.3L turbo hasn't been tested, afaik. When they put it on a dyno in a production car, we can see real numbers.

Lastly, the Benz S550 is a $90K car. Sure, I'd rather have that. Actually, I'd rather have the new Ferrari 488 but by budget only allows for a $55K Hyundai. Which I prefer with the V8.

 

[jimb100]

You missed the point. The M-B S550 used to have a 5.5 litre NA V8 motor, but now has a 4.6l Bi-Turbo V8. Smaller displacement, less weight, better performance and better fuel economy. What could possibly be wrong with that. M-B did not use this engine just to increase performance, and yes, even with the turbos, it weighs less. Audi has followed a similar path, although they have gone to V6 turbo engines where they once used V8's.

From my perspective this 'discussion' is about using turbo technology to maintain or increase performance while offering weight and fuel savings. It can be equally applied to any engine regardless of cylinder count. I have nothing against NA V8's or any other NA engines. I am just saying that there is an argument for, and advantages to, using turbo technology and smaller displacement engines as an alternative to big NA motors. Far from "spluttering" these engines offer excellent low-down torque, which peaks at a lower rpm and is sustained for a wider rpm band than equivalent power NA engines. No they can't provide the same soundtrack as a NA engine, but that is because the turbos muffle the sound, which is why this (admittedly silly) artificial synthesised audio habit has started.

No, you missed the point.

1. Flagship cruisers are still using V8s.

2. The S550 costs over $90K. Yes, they boosted performance with a turbo. But it costs over $90K.

The 5.0 in the Hyundai is a cost effective solution. I don't want to spend $90K on car. I like spending $50K and getting 90% of the performance.

A V6 turbo doesn't provide the same level of performance, especially in the Hyundai Genesis as, not only doesn't it provide the HP and torque, it doesn't provide the electronic suspension, which you all seem to treat as inconsequential. Its not. Its a big deal. You just don't know it because you don't have it in the V6.

 

[EXBMWGUY]

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the 3.8 FI V6 in the GT-R. More butter on my popcorn, please.

 

[GenesisCaptain]

First, the difference in weight is not all in the motor. The 5.0 has bigger wheels, bigger tires, electronic suspension and several other electronics.

Incorrect. The 2012 offered both engines in essentially otherwise identical cars. So, the weight difference must mostly be the two engines. I did call out that the weight difference in the 2015 is about 400 lbs., so that could be the difference in the wheels and suspensions.

Next, what you attribute to the 3.3L turbo hasn't been tested, afaik. When they put it on a dyno in a production car, we can see real numbers.

True, but the claimed numbers are totally consistent with just about every other car maker's performance between otherwise similar NA and FI engines. While they may be different, they will likely be substantially higher than the numbers on the current 3.8 NA engine.

Lastly, the Benz S550 is a $90K car. Sure, I'd rather have that.

The point is NA vs FI performance potential. The same performance deltas are there in less expensive cars. I just referenced those they existed in two prior posts.

 

[ksoze]

Mercedes went through this same debate in MY 2102 with the switch to blown engines in the E550.

After the screaming subsided, the new 4.6 twin-turbo V8 easily won favor with it's specs - an extra 20 hp and 52 lb-ft more torque than 5.5-liter eight. There are those who still pine for the non-boosted V8, but the increased mileage and power in the useable band (443 lb-ft of torque from just 1800 rpm) has let most move on without looking back.

 

[zielritter]

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the 3.8 FI V6 in the GT-R. More butter on my popcorn, please.

That's just a sputtering, rice burner you're promoting there. A twin turbo, AWD, fire-breathing, yet sputtering, rice burner.

Funny though I watched the Top Gear Patagonia special and they did a drag race between the GTR, Bentley Continental, and a BMW M6. They were testing if three modern "Grand Touring" cars could survive the Australian Outback.

All three were boosted, but the Bentley and M6 used V8's (Bentley has AWD plus cylinder deactivation too). While the GTR jumped off the line, the other two gradually reeled it in and trounced it over the distance. The BMW ended up winning. All 3 are cars I wouldn't mind owning.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[CanukV6]

No, you missed the point.

1. Flagship cruisers are still using V8s.

2. The S550 costs over $90K. Yes, they boosted performance with a turbo. But it costs over $90K.

The 5.0 in the Hyundai is a cost effective solution. I don't want to spend $90K on car. I like spending $50K and getting 90% of the performance.

A V6 turbo doesn't provide the same level of performance, especially in the Hyundai Genesis as, not only doesn't it provide the HP and torque, it doesn't provide the electronic suspension, which you all seem to treat as inconsequential. Its not. Its a big deal. You just don't know it because you don't have it in the V6.

I'm trying to remain diplomatic here, but did you read anything I wrote?
"From my perspective this 'discussion' is about using turbo technology to maintain or increase performance while offering weight and fuel savings. It can be equally applied to any engine regardless of cylinder count. I have nothing against NA V8's or any other NA engines. I am just saying that there is an argument for, and advantages to, using turbo technology and smaller displacement engines as an alternative to big NA motors. Far from "spluttering" these engines offer excellent low-down torque, which peaks at a lower rpm and is sustained for a wider rpm band than equivalent power NA engines. No they can't provide the same soundtrack as a NA engine, but that is because the turbos muffle the sound, which is why this (admittedly silly) artificial synthesised audio habit has started.

• Flagship Cruisers and Price have nothing to do with it.
• I agree, the Tau V8 powered Genesis is great value for the performance it provides.
• How can you possibly state that "A V6 turbo doesn't provide the same level of performance, especially in the Hyundai Genesis as, not only doesn't it provide the HP and torque, it doesn't provide the electronic suspension, which you all seem to treat as inconsequential."? Since the proposed engine hasn't been released yet, you don't know that it won't have the same or better HP & Torque as the 5.0 NA Tau V8. A Turbo V6 is certainly capable of meeting or beating the same power ratings, it just depends upon its state of tuning.
• What on earth has electronic suspension got to do with this discussion?

 

[dareaction]

No, you missed the point.

1. Flagship cruisers are still using V8s.

2. The S550 costs over $90K. Yes, they boosted performance with a turbo. But it costs over $90K.

The 5.0 in the Hyundai is a cost effective solution. I don't want to spend $90K on car. I like spending $50K and getting 90% of the performance.

A V6 turbo doesn't provide the same level of performance, especially in the Hyundai Genesis as, not only doesn't it provide the HP and torque, it doesn't provide the electronic suspension, which you all seem to treat as inconsequential. Its not. Its a big deal. You just don't know it because you don't have it in the V6.

A V6 turbo doesn't provide the same level of performance according to who? Granted this 3.3 TT will be replacing the 3.8 and not the Tau which I assume you are referring to, this new engine will be offering 54 more hp than the current Genesis sedan 3.8 and 86 lb-ft more. The current Genesis 3.8 is .9 sec off the acceleration times of the 5.0 so this new engine would certainly close the gaps on those times. Add the fact that there will be less weight on the front end not to mention better gas mileage. I would predict that this new 3.3 could net at least 30 mpg hwy which would be significantly more than the 5.0. That FI Tau can't get here soon enough.

 

[jimb100]

I'm trying to remain diplomatic here, but did you read anything I wrote?
"From my perspective this 'discussion' is about using turbo technology to maintain or increase performance while offering weight and fuel savings. It can be equally applied to any engine regardless of cylinder count. I have nothing against NA V8's or any other NA engines. I am just saying that there is an argument for, and advantages to, using turbo technology and smaller displacement engines as an alternative to big NA motors. Far from "spluttering" these engines offer excellent low-down torque, which peaks at a lower rpm and is sustained for a wider rpm band than equivalent power NA engines. No they can't provide the same soundtrack as a NA engine, but that is because the turbos muffle the sound, which is why this (admittedly silly) artificial synthesised audio habit has started.

• Flagship Cruisers and Price have nothing to do with it.
• I agree, the Tau V8 powered Genesis is great value for the performance it provides.
• How can you possibly state that "A V6 turbo doesn't provide the same level of performance, especially in the Hyundai Genesis as, not only doesn't it provide the HP and torque, it doesn't provide the electronic suspension, which you all seem to treat as inconsequential."? Since the proposed engine hasn't been released yet, you don't know that it won't have the same or better HP & Torque as the 5.0 NA Tau V8. A Turbo V6 is certainly capable of meeting or beating the same power ratings, it just depends upon its state of tuning.
• What on earth has electronic suspension got to do with this discussion?

If you want to promote turbo technology, I don't care.

I'm only interested in what works best in the Hyundai Genesis.

Frankly, I don't see any advantage in any existing turbo charged engine compared to the current 5.0.

You can speculate about what some future engine might do. You can claim all sorts of wonderful things will happen. But we are talking about today.

The only thing You can say the current engine is missing is cylinder deactivation. But to me, for the couple of mpg you get at low speed, its not worth it.

There are lots of technologies available in $90k cars. If you want to say the Genesis might be better with a twin turbo v8, you may be right. It would be even better with a twin turbo v6 with a 100 hp electric motor at each wheel and a Tesla battery pack. I don't know and neither do you.

What I do know is GM does a great job with an old push rod v8 and Hyundai makes a great $55k car with a dohc v8.

Keep pushing the turbo and people will think you're part of the conspiracy. Lol

Also, comparing the performance of the Genesis 3.8 with the 5.0 and electronic suspension in a joke.

 

[ksoze]

Frankly, I don't see any advantage in any existing turbo charged engine compared to the current 5.0.

Not sure I understand. There are several examples (MB, BMW) where the newer blown engines are faster, lighter and more economical.

 

[Nikgen]

Not sure I understand. There are several examples (MB, BMW) where the newer blown engines are faster, lighter and more economical.

The crazy part of this thread is that some seem to think any discussion of an alternate to the Tau V8 is an attack on the current Tau V8 Genesis and somehow trying to talk up V6 engines as better. The reality is that everyone acknowledges that the current NA 5.0 is a more powerful engine than the NA 3.8 V6 and makes for a quicker car.

However, the FACT is that a smaller twin turbo V6, if offered, could very well make for a lighter, faster, and more economical (when not driving it hard) vehicle than with the larger NA V8. Of course, this is all theoretical - and there are tradeoffs involved with different engine tech, but that is the nature of the thread topic.

And what does the electronic suspension have to do with the engine topic - if we want to go there, then we should also be talking about what getting the e-suspension gives up by not having AWD available (in the USA, at least). AWD can bring more tangible benefits to many people in normal day-to-day driving than the e-suspension likely will (imho - and I'm not saying the e-suspension has no value).

 

[ferrethouse]

You can speculate about what some future engine might do. You can claim all sorts of wonderful things will happen. But we are talking about today.

No. This thread is specifically asking about a proposed engine that may happen in the future. Speculation and claims are EXACTLY what this is about.

 

[dmitriylm]

I own the 4.6 V8 and I have a decent amount of experience with turbocharged vehicles (the upgraded turbo Genesis Coupe I had being the most recent). After they get the tuning down, I have no doubt that 3.3T V6 will be the better overall powerplant. It will have better mileage, produce more torque and have higher peak power potential. Modern turbocharged engines are phenomenal and the only downside is losing the V8 exhaust note, although its not like the stock exhaust systems really make it known anyway.

 

[zielritter]

Does anyone have a link to information about the electronic suspension in the V8 models '12-'14? I knew there were differences in the steering mechanism (electro-hydraulic vs pure hydraulic), but I thought that the suspension components were the same aside from obviously being stiffer/tuned for sportiness on the R-Spec. Looking to educate myself more than anything.

 

[Sal Collaziano]

Forced induction isn't as problematic as it used to be years ago. That's one important factor to keep in mind here. Yes, smaller engines with forced induction can be more powerful than larger, naturally aspirated engines. And yes - everybody knows that if that same larger engine also had forced induction - that IT would be more powerful than the smaller engine.

There's no replacement for displacement with added technology - such as forced induction. However, since we're trying to save weight and fuel - smaller engines with forced induction are being used to mimic - or improve on - the experience of larger, heavier, more fuel hungry engines...

It's no big deal.

 

[CanukV6]

You can speculate about what some future engine might do. You can claim all sorts of wonderful things will happen. But we are talking about today.

Also, comparing the performance of the Genesis 3.8 with the 5.0 and electronic suspension in a joke.

No, this thread is all about the future and what a Bi-Turbo V6 3.3L might be like in the Genesis. As noted by others, nobody is criticising the Tau 5.0L V8 here, but you seem to be so defensive about it you are unable to see the wood for the trees.

I have never in this thread compared the performance of the current V6 3.8L to the 5.0L V8. Obviously the V8 gives better performance. Nobody's arguing that. Again you are slamming people for comments they did not make.

For goodness sake drop the references to "electronic suspension". It has nothing to do with this Thread. Yes its a nice feature to have and I have driven a number of vehicles where it provided benefits - My wife's 2006 Volvo XC70 Wagon has it - but it is irrelevant in this discussion.