SLegacy99

Nevertheless, there are people out there, and there always will be, who don't believe that fewer cylinders can be a good thing. I'm all for 4 cylinder turbocharged engines, I just think that there is a market for more cylinders combined with turbos. Even BMW went from 4.8 to 4.4 TTs.

mmarshall

And look what happened.....the BMW TT 4.4 is a torque monster (see my December 2009 review of the BMW 550i GT). Its 450 ft-lbs. of torque almost equals the 469 ft-lbs. of last year's Mercedes E63 AMG (which I also reviewed).

Och

iTrader: (3)

This logic does not only apply to really heavy cars. With a really small, gutless engine you're more likely to have to drive it harder, and end up with less fuel economy than with a larger, more relaxed engine.

Like I said before, todays 4 cylinder engines in the CamCordTima are damn near perfect for their application.

There are tons of people that do spirited driving in their CamCordTimas. Not everyone can afford a 5 series, and therefore V6 CamCordTimas appeal to many, and as long as there is market for them, they will sell.


Back in 1969 gas was cheap, cars were enormously large and heavy with drag coefficient of a brick, and V8 engines were rather gutless for their size. Pretty much all cars back in those days only came with a v8 (at least in the USA).

As far as your argument that todays 6 cylinder delivers what an 8 cylinder used to deliver, yes thats true, but many of these 6 cylinders are now displacing what V8's used to displace. And no 6 cylinder will ever provide the refinement and smoothness of a well engineered V8. And the V8's today provide the power that V12's used to provide, so there is still a good reason to get them.

As far as smaller V8's and V6's, I just don't see it happening. Engines have been growing and growing consistently. The only manufacturer that has recently reduced the size of their V8's is BMW, but they compensated for it with turbo chargers. That does help to reduce a bit of weight, but it makes the drivetrain that much more complicated and expensive, drives up the cost of repairs and maintenance, reduces reliability and efficiency.

SLegacy99

Who said anything about a really small gutless engine. I said that these vehicles would do fine with a smaller engine, less powerful engine. I am not advocating for a 95 HP Camry.


Audi has moved down to a 3.0L. AMG is going to a 5.5L. Ford is ecoboosting. GM is utilizing a new 3.0L. Chrysler is moving from a 3.5, 3.7, 4.0 to a 3.6L.

Yes, my point exactly.

Yes and there will always be people out there who want a V8. Thus, I think that there is a market.

Och

iTrader: (3)

So what exactly are you advocating? The current Camry has a 2.4 engine with around 160 horse power. What are you suggesting it should have instead?


All turbos, right? Naturally aspirated engines are still growing.

GM and Chrysler do not really count. They are finally moving away from 60's designed low tech OHV engines to modern engines, at taxpayers expense.

IS350jet

I don't think that a car can have "too much" HP. As long as it's manageable and economical. I'd be fine with a 350 HP Camry as long as it was RWD/AWD and got better than 30 MPG. Fortunately, those days are comin' The new HP race is, who can build the most economical power?

SLegacy99

The current Camry has a 170 HP 2.5L I4. Toyota I am sure will want to compete the 198 HP Sonata and DI their 4 cylinder and it will have 200 or so HP. My point is that is too much HP for a base model. A 160 HP 2.0L with DI would be more than enough power for a base Camry, Malibu, Fusion, etc. and the mileage would presumably be quite good. Makes sense given the cafe standards.

But there never will be a RWD Camry. It's FWD and the HP war continues on IMO. Engines are getting more powerful when companies should be working to reduce weight instead. The industry has made great strides in efficiency in the last 30 years. However, cars are heavier and quicker than ever. I like my quickish Legacy just fine. But if I were buying a Camry I would not be looking for my 4 cylinder to do 0 to 60 in the 7s. I'd be more concerned about efficiency.

(Cj)

The Camry doesn't need DI. DI cost way too much for a mainstream car. If Honda can get 190hp from a NA regular 2.4L Toyota should be getting 200hp from a regular 2.5L. Toyota could probably bring in a 2.0L as well if they wanted to bring the Camry into the $16-17K price range. If they were to do that it would be a sales move not an efficiency one.

Likewise it doesn't make sense to go back to 3.0Ls when 3.5Ls are just as efficient? In most cases the 3.0L and 3.5L are the same size and the only difference is the bore of the engine.

As for V8s there will be a market for small powerful V8s like the LS460 for instance. It gets the same horsepower as the S550 with 0.9 less displacement and it's a LOT more fuel efficient (as 1SICKLEX noted).

(Cj)

Anyway I wouldn't be surprised if we see more I4 luxury cars in the future. Audi does alright with it's 2.0L turbo powerplant, and BMW and Mercedes will be introducing I4 luxury cars soon too. Maybe the next IS250 could be a DI 2.5L I4?

Och

iTrader: (3)

Have you driven both S550 and LS460? I know they have the same maximum HP output, and even have the same 0-60 times, at least on paper, but S550 feels a lot more powerful. The LS is almost sluggish off the line in comparison, and, in my opinion, it is in DIRE need of a larger base engine with more low end grunt.

pagemaster

Both Lexus and Merc claim 5.4 0-60mph. The Lexus is lighter than the S550

Och

iTrader: (3)

I believe both of them, although I have no way to confirm these claims personally. With that being said, the Merc feels a lot more torquer, at least off the line.

pagemaster

I never take much claim to the manufacturers claim.

Edmunds claims the LS460 0-60mph is 5.8 sec and the S550 is 5.3...I believe most auto magazines reflect this

CK6Speed

iTrader: (1)

Not always true. Depends on where you drive. Driving up and down the mountain between each side of our Island is a PITA if you don't have power to make it up the hill and have to practically floor the car to maintain 60 MPH. Not fun at all. Trust me. It has nothing to do with spirited driving. On flat freeway roads where minimal power is needed to maintain speed than it really doesn't matter, but there are all types of roads in America and not all of them are flat and level.

Merging onto a freeway from a dead stop also is a challenge if you don't have the power to get up to speed quickly enough. If you have long freeway on ramps than you are fortunate, but if you live in an area with no space than its sometimes an adventure trying to merge to a 60-70MPH freeway when you are doing 5-15MPH without making the guy your cutting in front of slam on his brakes.

Also, not saying I had many cars or been driving for a very long time. I've been driving for about 24 years had about 17 cars and the ones that had less than 200HP felt slow and anemic even during everyday driving (Not necessarily spirited driving). The only car that felt somewhat okay was my Acura Integra, but that car is small and light.

IS-SV

Note: Regarding mountain driving especially when at higher altitudes like the mountains of the Sierras or Rockies for example, that's where turbocharged and supercharged engines have a real significant advantage (much less power loss at high altitudes than normally aspirated engines).