GM mid sized sedans to only be offered with 4 cylinders
#91
I think that IS-SV might enjoy this karma the most.
I ran over a metal rod of some kind today and it punctured my tire beyond repair. My dad has been gracious enough to let me borrow his IS until my tires are shipped as he is away. I will admit, it is smooth, but it is so ungodly slow!!!! And it really jerks you into first gear. That part is not smooth. And I'm not sure how I feel about parking it in my apartment parking lot.
I ran over a metal rod of some kind today and it punctured my tire beyond repair. My dad has been gracious enough to let me borrow his IS until my tires are shipped as he is away. I will admit, it is smooth, but it is so ungodly slow!!!! And it really jerks you into first gear. That part is not smooth. And I'm not sure how I feel about parking it in my apartment parking lot.
#92
^^^ See post #60 for a better understanding of what the topic is here.
You are not correct, I do not find it enjoyable hearing about a metal rod puncturing your tire, plus it has nothing to do with the topic. Consider a new thread about destroying tires beyond repair, sadly I think we all have a story about that.
You are not correct, I do not find it enjoyable hearing about a metal rod puncturing your tire, plus it has nothing to do with the topic. Consider a new thread about destroying tires beyond repair, sadly I think we all have a story about that.
#94
http://www.buick.com/vehicles/2010/l...=tabHighlights
LaCrosse CXL AWD
Engine Power 3.0L DOHC SIDI V6
Transmission 6-speed automatic, electronically controlled with overdrive, Driver Shift Control
Last edited by mmarshall; 09-02-10 at 06:29 PM.
#95
LOL... oops, sorry! I do work for Lexus but I fail to see how that relates to the efficiency of V8's compared with V6's and I4's. Anyway, my apologies to Och, as I was just half joking and trying to make a point. Nothing personal.
It just seems that the point he was trying to make was that V8's were more fuel efficient that 4 or 6 cylinder powered cars. I kind of see where he was headed but I disagree, here. His point is clear in that if you yanked out the V6 in a ES350 or the 4 banger in the Camry, and stuffed them with the 4.6 from the LS, both cars would get better hwy mileage than with their original engines. That, I don't agree with. To the argument as to weather a FI 4 will get better mileage than a NA 6, I think generally speaking, on average, yes.
It just seems that the point he was trying to make was that V8's were more fuel efficient that 4 or 6 cylinder powered cars. I kind of see where he was headed but I disagree, here. His point is clear in that if you yanked out the V6 in a ES350 or the 4 banger in the Camry, and stuffed them with the 4.6 from the LS, both cars would get better hwy mileage than with their original engines. That, I don't agree with. To the argument as to weather a FI 4 will get better mileage than a NA 6, I think generally speaking, on average, yes.
Another situation is aggressive driving. With a smaller engine, you will have to floor it more and push it harder, and in the end your fuel economy will be pretty miserable, vs a big engine that doesn't have to break a sweat to be driven aggressively. A good demonstration of that would be Top Gear's test where V8 M3 got better fuel economy than a hybrid, gutless Prius. The Prius was driven all out around the track by Stig, and JC stayed right on his *** in the M3, and got about 2mpg better efficiency.
Back on the topic of GM discontinuing V6 engine in favor of turbo fours, I think its a bad decision on many levels. Here are my reasons:
1) People who are economy minded and do not want to spend a lot of money on a car, will buy a regular non turbo four.
2) There are people who do not care about power, and do no drive aggressively, but buy the V6 (or more) purely for the refinement and smoothness. GM will simply lose these customers. And believe me, this is a good percentage of customers.
3) There are people who buy the V6 engine because they like to drive aggressively, and i4 doesn't provide them with sufficient performance. They will have to buy the turbo fours instead, and it is my strong belief that when driven aggressively, a turbo four will deliver far worse efficiency vs NA V6.
What Mike (1sicklex) said really makes sense. If they are so efficiency concerned, they should be investing more in hybrids. A turbo four will probably carry a 3-4k price premium over NA four, so if they sold a hybrid four with the same price premium, that would make more sense. They would actually accomplish better fuel economy, and offset some of the nastiness of the four banger. When I drove the HS250 for instance, which is a hybrid four, the one thing that I liked about it is that the petrol engine shuts off when the car is stopped, so you don't get any of that crude four cylinder idling.
#96
BTW, the new LaCrosse is really growing on me....especially with AWD. That, the Ford Fusion Hybrid, and the Chevy Malibu seem to be three really nice American-badged vehicles. I could live with any of those three. Still, once you've sampled Subaru's AWD, it's hard to switch....they can be addicting.
#97
1) People who are economy minded and do not want to spend a lot of money on a car, will buy a regular non turbo four.
2) There are people who do not care about power, and do no drive aggressively, but buy the V6 (or more) purely for the refinement and smoothness. GM will simply lose these customers. And believe me, this is a good percentage of customers.
3) There are people who buy the V6 engine because they like to drive aggressively, and i4 doesn't provide them with sufficient performance. They will have to buy the turbo fours instead, and it is my strong belief that when driven aggressively, a turbo four will deliver far worse efficiency vs NA V6.
2) There are people who do not care about power, and do no drive aggressively, but buy the V6 (or more) purely for the refinement and smoothness. GM will simply lose these customers. And believe me, this is a good percentage of customers.
3) There are people who buy the V6 engine because they like to drive aggressively, and i4 doesn't provide them with sufficient performance. They will have to buy the turbo fours instead, and it is my strong belief that when driven aggressively, a turbo four will deliver far worse efficiency vs NA V6.
Last edited by mmarshall; 09-02-10 at 06:56 PM.
#98
BTW, the topic is GM mid-sized sedans to only be offered with 4 bangers, not addictions, lol.
But certainly the Fusion, Malibu and various Subies sell well in 4 cylinder form, for the buyers that are willing to accept the horsepower and NVH differences.
And I agree improvements in 4 bangers can increase acceptance.
But certainly the Fusion, Malibu and various Subies sell well in 4 cylinder form, for the buyers that are willing to accept the horsepower and NVH differences.
And I agree improvements in 4 bangers can increase acceptance.
#99
I tend to agree....but if you don't drive a four very aggressively, or at high RPMs, then the issue of refinement is a rather moot point. And not all V6 are that refined either.....a good example was the 90-degree GM 3.8L (now discontinued) originally designed by Buick. It took a long time for engineers to get the inherent imbalance and vibration out the 90-degree layout and firing-order. That's why many other V6s are either 60-degree, or, like VW's VR-6, an extremely-narrow 15 degrees.
As far as the layout, technically the ideal layout for a V6 should be 120 degree. Since it is not very practical, 60 degrees would be the next best thing. A 90 degree V6 is not a very good layout, and its likely that a 90 degree V6 started out as a V8 with two cylinders "chopped off".
#100
But certainly the Fusion, Malibu and various Subies sell well in 4 cylinder form, for the buyers that are willing to accept the horsepower and NVH differences.
And I agree improvements in 4 bangers can increase acceptance.
#101
If you want truly horrendous, check out their 3.1 and 3.4 V6 engines, which were externally balanced. Now these were simply horrendous.
As far as the layout, technically the ideal layout for a V6 should be 120 degree. Since it is not very practical, 60 degrees would be the next best thing. A 90 degree V6 is not a very good layout, and its likely that a 90 degree V6 started out as a V8 with two cylinders "chopped off".
(I once owned an old Buick 5.0 V8, BTW, and it was butter-smooth (when the carburator worked right)
As others have pointed out, though, we may be a little off-topic.
#102
IF (?) that's the case, then Buick needs to update their website.....it still shows the CXL AWD with the 3.0L. (the AWD is an option only on the CXL trim-level).
http://www.buick.com/vehicles/2010/l...=tabHighlights
LaCrosse CXL AWD
Engine Power 3.0L DOHC SIDI V6
Transmission 6-speed automatic, electronically controlled with overdrive, Driver Shift Control
http://www.buick.com/vehicles/2010/l...=tabHighlights
LaCrosse CXL AWD
Engine Power 3.0L DOHC SIDI V6
Transmission 6-speed automatic, electronically controlled with overdrive, Driver Shift Control
When I was new car shopping back in February I took a long look at the LaCrosse. AWD isn't important to me, but all of them at that time had the 3.0 engine. I prefered the 3.6 engine anyway and FWD would have been fine.
You'd think that if/when the 3.0 goes away the 3.6 would be the natural choice for the AWD model. As you said, too much weight for the 4 cyl.
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Funny I just read the Quad 4 part. My father had a Grand Am with the Quad 4 as a company car then ending up buying it. It was loud, course but pulled the car reasonably well. Of course as soon as it hit 150k and the car was paid off the engine simply committed suicide and he bought another engine.
Funny my first car was a hand down Sentra with a 4 cylinder and my first car in college was a 4 cylinder Hyundai Scoupe TURBO.
4 cylinders have made tremendous improvements. The new Mazda ones sound great.
Funny my first car was a hand down Sentra with a 4 cylinder and my first car in college was a 4 cylinder Hyundai Scoupe TURBO.
4 cylinders have made tremendous improvements. The new Mazda ones sound great.
#104
Funny I just read the Quad 4 part. My father had a Grand Am with the Quad 4 as a company car then ending up buying it. It was loud, course but pulled the car reasonably well. Of course as soon as it hit 150k and the car was paid off the engine simply committed suicide and he bought another engine.
Funny my first car was a hand down Sentra with a 4 cylinder and my first car in college was a 4 cylinder Hyundai Scoupe TURBO.
4 cylinders have made tremendous improvements. The new Mazda ones sound great.
#105
Digressing, 2.0 liter Pinto engine was a durable 4 banger in its time.
The Miata engine has been one of the nicer 4 cylinders for years.
btw, which Mazda engines have Ford orgins?
(Note: I am not asking which Ford engines have Mazda origins)
The Miata engine has been one of the nicer 4 cylinders for years.
btw, which Mazda engines have Ford orgins?
(Note: I am not asking which Ford engines have Mazda origins)
Last edited by IS-SV; 09-02-10 at 10:17 PM.