pagemaster

By Al Binder
WardsAuto.com

Although 2008’s skyrocketing fuel prices began fading from the American psyche in 2009, consumers apparently weren’t ready to resume profligate energy consumption, a Ward’s survey of ’09 model-year light-vehicle production by engine size and type shows.

With gasoline prices hovering just over $2.00 per gallon through much of the year, the installation rate for V-6 and V-8 engines fell to 57.1%, from 63.9% in ’08, continuing a 5-year decline from a peak this decade of 76.2% in ’04.

Economic woes, mounting home foreclosures and a dearth of consumer financing sidelined a large number of potential new-car buyers, resulting in just 7,943,327 new light-vehicles built for the U.S. market in model year ’09, the lowest level in more than 20 years and 39.4% less than the 13,117,992 manufactured in 2008.

A 42.2% drop in production of light-trucks, where V-6s and V-8s still accounted for 84% of ’09 output compared with 88.2% in ’08, was a big factor in declining applications of the engines.

While V-8 usage showed only a modest decline in the light-truck segment, slipping to 40.0% from 40.7% in ’08, it dwindled to an all-time low of 4.9% in cars, a far cry from the glory days of the late 1960s, when V-8s powered 88.9% of the cars built in the ’69 model run.

The once lowly 4-cyl. increased its car-market dominance to 61.9% of ’09 production, from prior-year’s 51.7% , while it rose to a record light-truck share of 14.8%.

Building more engines with fewer cylinders increased the share of powerplants with less than 3.0L displacement to 43.1% of ’09 light-vehicle output, according to a Ward’s survey, up from 36.5% of ’08, 32.6% of ’07 and a 10-year average of 29.6%.


Ford’s 2.5L Duratec inline 4-cyl. engine
Still, the usage rate for the smallest engines, those with displacements of less than 2.0L, fell to 7.1% from 8.2% in ’08, while those in the 2.0L-2.9L category climbed to a second consecutive record of 36.0% in ’09 from prior-year’s 28.3%.

Engines with displacements of 3.0L-3.9L exhibited the largest ’09 decline, dropping four percentage points to a 29.0% share of light-vehicle output from 33.0% in ’08. This compared with a 0.4-point dip, to 11.3%, for engines in the 4.0L-4.9L group and a 2.2-point decline, to 16.6%, for those 5.0L or larger in size.

At the same time, a Ward’s survey of ’09-model U.S.-market import and domestic light-vehicles showed the installation rates of most “specialty” engines held steady or increased, despite an overall market decline.

The turbodiesel engine gained both share and volume in ’09 thanks to the reintroduction of the powerplant in the Mexico-built Jetta.

Oil-burners accounted for 3.7% share on volume of 380,325 in ’09, compared with 2.1% on volume of 338,541 in ’08.

Turbocharged gasoline engines also edged up in share, but not in volume, to 2.9% in ’09 from 2.3%, while supercharged engines held on to a 0.1% rate despite a volume decline of 27.6%.

Hybrid powerplants accounted for a record 2.4% of import/domestic volume in ’09, up from 2.1% in ’08, although unit-volume was down 34.9%.

Also gaining share were flex-fuel engines, even in the face of a diminishing price differential between regular gasoline and ethanol in many parts of the country.

Those engines, which garnered extra fuel-economy credit for the auto makers, accounted for a 7.9% share of the market, up from 7.4% in 2008, although volume was down 33.6%.


http://wardsauto.com/ar/engines_lose_ground_100315/

Och

iTrader: (3)

This is probably because of the stupid cash for clunkers program in 2009, where everyone traded their aging gas guzzlers for econo-crapbuckets to get maximum return.

LexFather

Yawn.... and yet companies are building new V-6s and V-8s and some with forced induction.

Consumer reports just noted their LS 460 got the same economy with a V-8 as the Accord V-6 they had.

IS-SV

V6 and V8 engines will continue to dominate in premium cars, for those willing to pay the price.

SLegacy99

Your stand 2.4 to 2.5L today puts down 170 + HP. 15 years ago thats what the V6 engines were doing in the Camry and Accord. With the emphasis on fuel consumption, I'm surprised that we arent seeing bread and butter midsize vehicles with 150 HP 4 cylinders. Personally, I think that a 2.0L powerplant would be ideal for the Camry Hybrid.

Och

iTrader: (3)

The V6 engine in the Camry of 15 year ago was the size of a 4 cylinder engine in todays Camry. And todays Camry is a lot heavier.

SLegacy99

Indeed. Fatter the Camry is but...

2010 Camry: 0-60 in 5.8 seconds (Car and Driver), 268 HP.
1995 Camry: 0-60 in 8.4 seconds, 185 HP.

That is quite the difference. I think that the grocery getters would do just fine with V6 offerings of around 220, 230 HP. Ford apparently has a similar goal with the 2.0L Ecobost. Should be interesting.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

it's only a matter of time before the u.s. slaps extra fees/taxes etc. on displacement and cylinders like other countries.

SLegacy99

The auto industry showed us a long time ago that we don't need displacement or cylinders for high power outputs. I'm surprised that we aren't seeing 3.0 Literish turbocharged engines.

Och

iTrader: (3)

What the hell are you talking about, there are tons of 3.0 literish turbo charged engines.

Do you know what it costs to maintain and repair them?

caddyowner

The fading of V8s in cars is one of the reasons I had to buy a V8 sedan this year. Now with two V8 cars, I just need to do something about my V6 putt-putt truck. Hmm...

CK6Speed

iTrader: (1)

I agree, I think most mid sized cars would be perfectly fine with 200HP or a little more. Anything less would probably have to be in smaller economy cars like Civics/Yaris/Corolla sized cars. I remember my 200 HP car wasn't the fasted car on the block, but could move pretty effortless whenever I wanted it to. My 186 or so HP ES300 I felt couldn't get out of its own way. My 1995 Camry was dead slow for me though. I hated going up the mountain with this car and even my 94 Accord as they really felt under powered. I think those cars has what 145-150HP.

Och

iTrader: (3)

Todays mainstream cars with base 4 cylinder engines at around 2.5L are fine. They are fairly efficient, and yet not painfully noisy and slow as the 4 cylinder cars of the old days. Less displacement and less power does not always equate to better fuel economy, sometimes its quite the opposite.

SLegacy99

Sure, depending on the ride though. Toyota's 3.5L is certainly more efficient than the 3.3L and the 3.0L V6 before that. But this typically is not the case and generally is more applicable logic in really, really heavy vehicles given the stress that weight puts on a small engine.


I'm sorry, I honestly do not see the need for a car like the Camry to have more than a 4 cylinder. These vehicles have average handling, are typically FWD, and most people who buy them are not looking to do spirited sprints/races. If they were they would buy a 5 series, Legacy GT, A4, etc.

I think you missed my point. People in the U.S. have bought cars based on the number of cylinders for a long time. I read today that 89% of the cars sold in 1969 were V8s. Anyway, the consensus is that the V8 is dying. But people still want them, arguing that the V8 has qualities that an engine with fewer cylinders can't deliever. A small, turboed V8 might be just what the doctor ordered. It wasnt all that long ago that BMW had a 3.0L V8 engine. I think we will see small V8s (and smaller 6's) come back from the auto companies that depend on them and who have the means to produce them.
In Sum, the potent V6s of today give little reason for a V8, yet that are plenty out there who would buy one still if it could deliver what the 6 does.

mmarshall

The best examples (and even under 3.0L) are probably the Mitsubishi Evo and Subaru STI. Both put out (roughly) 300 HP and 300 ft-lbs. of torque......from small 4-cylinders. But, of course, they cost money...in some cases, close to 40K.