The V6 wars may show no signs of stopping. However, Ford is quietly making contingency plans for a future conflict: The war of the four-bangers. Start hoarding your big bore brutes and head for the hills. Ford may want to take them away.
Ford will use the upcoming SAE World Congress, to be held from April 13-15 in Detroit, to showcase its engine-building prowess. Ford will demonstrate to the world’s most eminent confab of piston-heads that there is a replacement for displacement.
On display (at least in PowerPoint form) will be three new four-cylinder mills. A 1.6-liter Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) Sigma I-4, a 2.0-liter direct-injection Ti-VCT Duratec® I-4 and a 2.0-liter Ti-VCT EcoBoost™ I-4.
That alone wouldn’t be worth the keystrokes for that post, wouldn’t Ford’s press release stress the point that small is beautiful, that V8 brutes are going the way of the dodo, and that the destiny of the V6 may be doubtful.
The four-bangers are Ford’s response “to shifts in consumer buying patterns with the introduction of more fuel-efficient small engines.”
In1969 “nearly 90 percent of vehicles sold in America were powered by V-8s,” says Ford. Last year, the share of the eights was down to 4.9 percent, “an all-time low,” while I-4s dominated with nearly 62 percent, according to Ford’s numbers. The way they are announcing this, they make us believe that that number will rise to European and Japanese proportions. It used to be an overseas thing to get more and more power out of smaller and smaller engines. No more: Ford is stepping up to the (most likely CAFE-induced) plate full of mini-mills.
The 2011 Ford Fiesta, powered by a 1.6-liter Ti-VCT I-4, is projected to deliver 40 mpg on the highway. The turbocharged 2.0-liter I-4 promises fuel economy “at least 10 percent better than a comparable V-6, while delivering class-leading power and torque for an I-4,” fawns Ford over the four.
And where are the batteries? Not included? A “more efficient battery-electric vehicle culture” receives only passing mention in the announcement. Ford forecasts that by 2020, plug-ins, hybrids, and plug-in hybrids might garner “up to 25 percent of total vehicle sales in the U.S., Europe and Japan.”
Paul Mascarenas, Ford vice president of Engineering Global Product Development, who happens to be chairman of the 2010 SAE World Congress, sounds like someone working at Volkswagen when he says: “As important as alternative energy sources are, in the foreseeable future most passenger cars and light trucks will continue to use petroleum-based fuels. Our challenge in the engineering community is to make them vastly more efficient.”
Ford makes it clear that the ICE is here to stay for the foreseeable future. And it looks more and more like a fourseeable future.
In1969 “nearly 90 percent of vehicles sold in America were powered by V-8s,”
We can file that under suprising fact I didn’t know.
Though when you reflect on it, in 1969 the vast majority of cars sold were intermediates or full size, most of which were powered by V-8 engines. The only cars with 4-cylinder engines were imports and other than the VW Beetle, there were relatively few of those. American compacts were mostly powered by 6-cylinder engines, but they sold in much smaller numbers than larger models.
I’d bet that the 90 percent figure is pretty close to accurate.
I am very surprised by that number. Very good for the day inline 6s were available in everything. Hard to believe they only got 10% of market.
Agreed, very surprising. I would have thought that the V6 mix on a muscle car like the Mustang would have been lower than average, but evidentally similar product mixes could be found throughout the range of cars available.
@ Lundbergh: Mustang did not get a V6 until around 1974 or 75, in the Mustang II. Prior to that it was just V8’s and the I6.
I used to read the Popular Mechanics owner reports, and the difference in fuel mileage between comparable sixes and V8’s was generally only one or two miles per gallon. Not much incentive to go with the six.
Color me skeptical too. In most lines the I6 was the base engine, and the V8 was an extra cost option. The Chrysler slant 6 was doted on by fleet owners everywhere.
Sorry, I knew that. The point though was the I6 was at least 10% of the Mustang sales. This makes a claim that 90% of total sales were V8s hard to swallow.
Are they going to imply that the 5.0 Coyote motor slipped out of their R&D department while no one was looking? In any event, the I-4 turbo DI 2.0 in my GTI is a wonderful motor – torquey, smooth and with a mellifluous exhaust note. But the 4.6 V-8 in my Mustang is even more enjoyable – torquier, smoother and with an even more mellifluous exhaust note. It’s status as an endagered species is exactly why I went out and bought one while I still could. A future of small, punchy turbo I-4s may not be awful by any stretch. But we car nuts sure will miss the joys of the big honking V-8s through 12s.
Still missing out!
Quote
“FORD’S first blown XR8 will mark the 50th anniversary of Australia’s Falcon in 2010, according to official Australian Design Rule documents.
Federal vehicle certification information obtained by GoAuto reveals Ford Australia has received formal homologation approval
for an XR8 Falcon ute powered by a supercharged 5.0-litre petrol V8 that delivers 315kW (422 hp) at 6500rpm.
The document clearly states the XR8 will continue to be Ford Australia’s sole V8 Falcon model
Apart from being the most the powerful version of Ford Motor Company’s new allaluminium Coyote V8, which debuted in naturally aspirated 5.0-litre configuration in North America’s 2011 Mustang GT in late December, the all-supercharged V8 line-up
would be a first for Ford.”
End quote
All I-4’s? Wouldn’t all this technology work with a compact V-4? Didn’t Saab have the right idea way back when?
That V4 that Saab used was a Ford motor , and the reason Ford of Germany and Ford UK both introduced V4 engines was that they were needed for the Transit van.
Although you *could* build any cylinder configuration you want to with turbo and direct-injection, there is no pressing reason to build a V4 instead of an inline arrangement. The V arrangement adds extra machining operations, increases the parts count (particularly if you are talking overhead-cam, which you need in order to get maximum flexibility out of variable-valve-timing mechanisms), and has an irregular firing order unless you do something funky (read: expensive) with the crankshaft, and if you do *that*, the engine doesn’t balance correctly.
And for what? There is no vehicle layout in current production that I know of, in which a V4 arrangement would be preferable to an in-line (or in Subaru’s case, a flat-four). The inline is short enough to fit transversely or longitudinally.
Ford’s V4 in the old days was two cylinders knocked off a 2.8 Cologne V6, and they left the firing order irregular.
I had a Ford Transit van with a V4 for a short time when I lived in Germany. That’s the only time I’ve ever seen one, and as I recall it was unremarkable. It moved the van where it needed to go, and didn’t blow up. My standards were a bit lower back then, but there was nothing that makes me think it can’t be done. The question is really why?
The V4 worked because it had to fit longitudinally-mounted under the very short hood of the Transit. Since most 4-cylinder cars are FWD and the engines are transverse-mounted, it makes more sense from a packaging standpoint to make it an I4.
Of course there’s always the Subaru flat 4, so I don’t know why a V4 wouldn’t be possible. There’s just not an economic case for it.
A friend of mine recently rebuilt his Subaru flat four and put it back in his car. It’s very compact and short but servicing it can be more difficult than an I4. Volkswagen has their compact VR engines, and could probably build a VR4 if they wanted to, but their 2.0FST is doing just fine.
Thank god things have come so far from the 2.5 ltr Iron Duke in my ’82 Chevy Celebrity. It made all of 92hp, today a 2.5 ltr Nissan 4 makes right around 175 hp.
.. and the Honda 2.4 makes 190-200, the Hyundai 2.4 DI makes 198 and the Honda 2.0 VTEC made 200 – 9 years ago!!
The 2.0T DI will be the new V6 going forward.
And although I still prefer a stick shift with a 4cyl, automatic transmissions don’t suck up as much HP as they used to either. So more HP and less parasitic losses. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
It’s 1975-1985 all over again. Remember the 4-cylinder 1982 Camaro?
For all of Ford’s crowing, Hyundai already has the next-generation 4-cylinder on the road in the Sonata, with direct injection and optional turbocharging. And excellent fuel economy and pricing.
I loved the 1982 4-cyl Camaro. Raise the hood and you could read a newspaper on the ground between the radiator and engine. What a waste of space.
Let’s not forget most of those 1969 V8’s made well under 200HP!
I agree with Ford that petroleum combustion power of one sort or another is going to be the vast majority of the market for a long time.
General Motors had a 2.0 liter DI turbo (260 hp) in the Cobalt SS and a few other cars for several years now.
So we’re buying proportionally fewer V8’s than in the ‘60s, but are we getting less power? Have 0-60 times gone up, on average? If not then we can surmise that people have power levels they’re comfortable with and they don’t care how they’re achieved.
Another reason for smaller cylinder counts is that individual cylinders have grown in size; you can get I4’s with larger displacements than many old V6’s. A 2.7L I4 would’ve sounded bizarre ten years ago. Nissan’s VQ DOES sound bizarre now that it’s grown to 3.7L.
I think most people are more than satisfied with 150-200hp. More is nice, of course, but based on sales numbers of cars with multiple engine choices it’s clear that few people feel the need to pay for it.
“Ford will demonstrate to the world’s most eminent confab of piston-heads that there is a replacement for displacement.”
I’ll believe it when I see it. I’ve never met a 4cyl car that I was ok with using for DD duty. If they can get a reasonable amount of torque out of a small-displacement gasoline 4cyl-and do so at a reasonable RPM I’ll buy into it.
As it is, my STI gets driven maybe two or three days a month because its utter gutlessness below 3500rpms drives me absolutely insane in normal driving. It’s an awesome car for blasting around mountain roads or around a track, but as a daily driver it’s a miserable little SOB. Unless Ford (and other manufacturers) start getting ~200lb-ft @ ~2000rpms out of these things, I’m sticking to larger displacement and/or diesel engines for most of my cars.
Try a TDI. Max torque comes on ~2000 RPM, so as a daily driver it is very V-8 like in casual driving. The big upside is MPG numbers in the 40s.
How about 258 lb. ft. from 1500 – 4200 rpm? (Audi/VW 2.0T in base trim.)
I guess to each their own, but I’ve been happy from day 1 with my Protege5’s 130hp/135 lb/ft. If anything, I think it makes me a better drive, because I pay more attention when merging to make sure I have enough room to get up to speed before the next car arrives.
Any modern 4 cylinder has more than enough power to get a car around safely and without fuss in most any driving condition.
I won’t say that I don’t get a big smile on my face driving a Mustang, a Taurus SHO, or someone’s trade-in with a nice V8, because I do. However, at the end of the day, while those cars are fun, a basic 4 cylinder with nice handling and a good chassis provides plenty of grins and gets the job done just as well.
Chuck: Yup; my current DD has a 3l 6cyl turbodiesel. It’s a total slug compared to the Subaru of course, but in everyday driving I like it more than the STI.
talkstoanimals: I haven’t driven anything with the 2.0T yet; serviced a few of ’em a few years ago but never drove them. I won’t buy a VW, but I may have to go test drive one.
Sorry for the double post, posted my last comment on my iphone and I can’t edit it from here. Anyhow.
Nullo: It’s not so much that ~130hp is necessarily inadequate as it is that I dislike the manner in which that 130hp is delivered by most small engines.
There are some torquey 4 bangers; the NA Subaru F4 isn’t awful, the old Volvo redblock makes (relatively) a good amount of power at low revs, as did some of the old VW flat 4s (again, relatively speaking), and apparently the 2.0T is decent in this regard too.
But most 4 bangers (most small-displacement engines regardless of cylinder count, for that matter) need to be beaten on to get any power out of them. And that’s fine, if I’m in the mood to beat on the car. But at 7:30 in the morning on my way to work, I find that the need to rev the snot out of the engine at every intersection just to keep up with traffic becomes highly irritating in short order. Obviously that’s a subjective thing and some people will disagree with me. But that’s why I tend to dislike small engines, not because I find that ~130hp or whatever is necessarily inadequate for normal driving.
Geeky –
That’s true, I do like the effortless low end torque a nice lazy V8 provides. There are plenty of V6s, and even some I4s that produce more power than the Town Car’s V8, but there is a certain serenity that comes from driving a big classic American barge with a loping V8 under the hood.
I suppose the area where you drive makes a difference too. Having (unfortunately) had to drive in NYC, Jersey, and DC in the past I know all too well the manic drag race from stoplight to stoplight mentality that seems to be the norm in those places. Down here in South FL all of the old folks puttering around slow the overall flow of traffic a good bit. The downside is having to dodge folks like the Q-tip driving an E-350 club wagon between two lanes with only the top of her head visible over the steering wheel, the octogenarian merrily puttering along the wrong way on a one way road in a Grand Marquis, and the various South, Central, and Mexican American immigrants who will zip right in front of you in traffic on foot or on bike with nary a care in the world.
My 2005 Saab 9-5 makes max torque at about 1800, and it’s pretty flat up to 6. It’s quite easy to leave a couple of long stripes behind you from a rolling start, and that’s with the weaker 220hp engine and a slushbox. Low end grunt it doesn’t lack.
Of course, as TTACs reviewers pointed out when driving Saabs, a 4-cylinder engine belongs in a Daewoo, not a real man’s car, so it’s worthless. :P
The undersquare Chrysler 2.5 liter had good low-end torque and pulled more like a diesel than a gas engine. Only 100 hp. but with the torque it had, that was plenty. Even in my 1993 Caravan 5-speed I never felt like I didn’t have enough power and I never needed to flog it.
Used to think of ’80s and ’90s Fords as being behind the curve on engine technology. They sold the Pinto OHC 2.3, an OHV 4-cylinder as a base engine on the Tempo and Taurus, variants of the Windsor V8, most frequently 302 and 351, and the Cologne V6. GM had at least few divisional variations on the 350, V6s cut down from V8 blocks, the 60 degree V6 from the Citation, the Iron Duke and the Quad-4.
Interesting to see the turnaround.
The 4 cylinder engine used in the Tempo was Ford’s old Falcon straight 6 with two cylinders chopped off. It’s too bad that car designs no longer allow space for a straight six. A proper I6 can offer the low end torque and smooth operation of a V8 with only a small economy penalty over an I4.
Please excuse this picky comment; a motor converts energy to motion as in electric motor, while an engine converts fuel to motion as in gas engine.
Thanks,
Oded Kishony
Then why Ford Motor Co (Not Ford Engine Co), General Motors Corp. (Not General Engine Corp.), and the term “Motorcar” (not Enginecar)?
In this sense, motor and engine are largely interchangable with an engine as a motor more likely than a motor as an engine.
We may have finally gotten over Detroit’s lowest common denominator engineering philosophy.
Bless Derrick Kuzak for this.
During the hey-days of the V-8’s—when horsepower was King—Did any one of us ever envision that 4-cylinder engines in production cars would go well over 160,000 Km (100,000 miles)? Heck, my daughter’s ’95 Civic is well over 250,000 Km and is destined to go to 300,000 Km.—and Honda is not the sole claimant to that achievement!!! Can we honestly say that today ‘Engine technology is King’?
Getting rid of leaded gas had a huge impact on engine longevity. You used to figure on an engine rebuild every 100,000 km. (70,000 km for the VW flat-4). The Slant 6 was the first engine that would reliably go 250,000 km. before needing a rebuild. It was the acids produced from combusting leaded gas that ruined engines. The other major factor is the universal use of fuel injection, which doesn’t dump huge amounts of raw gas into a cold engine, like carburetors used to do, stripping oil off the cylinder walls.
Since those days, I’ve taken four Chrysler 3.3 liters to 450,000 to 500,000 km. with zero internal problems (I replaced a coil pack once and replaced several fuel pumps). The engines lasted longer than the suspension systems in Northern Minnesota’s frost-heaved, salt belt severe climate (-52C to +42C). Right now, my 12 year old Neon 2 liter has 330,000 km. and all I’ve done is replace the timing belt and one set of plugs.
Ford is, indeed, really getting with it. It’s going to start with the Mustang but when the Fiesta and new Focus get rolling it’s going to vastly change the image of what a domestic automobile is. Instead of a gas guzzling HUMMER or old person yacht (think Buick, Oldsmobile or Lincoln) as the image of domestic it will be replaced with young, incredibly hip, zippy little Fiestas and Focus models. Then there will be strong new Mustangs with much better engines and special tires for the more traditional Ford customer. Don’t forget the Fusion or new Taurus…
Pretty much, there might actually be hope over at Ford.
Kuzak, a guy who delivers, is on the record as saying if there be CapEx on new engine or transmission (or any) technology, the development teams and managers will be held accountable if the result of their efforts is not BIC (best in class).
Ahhh, this is what you guys are going to miss out on, shame, what a pity.
http://www.mellor.net/mellor/mellorweb.nsf/weben/GoAuto%20e-News
I think that the key to this revolution in four cylinder proliferation is the direct-injection technology. Which ever company can produce cheaply and market correctly this technology will have a huge advantage over cars relying on a standard 4 or 6 cylinder cars. 200HP and 200 Ft/Lb of Torque out of an NA four banger while getting over 35 mpg is really the holy grail if it can be done cheaper than a 6 cylinder engine or 4 liter turbo.
People like to point out that the Japanese already produce high powered four cylinder engines already with good mpg. I have driven a K20 and 2ZZ engine and although these engines are amazing in a light compact car I can tell that these engines wouldn’t cut it in a full size sedan over 3400 Lbs; they simply don’t have the torque available at low range to make driving a heavy car enjoyable. I can immediately tell a difference in how my 2ZZ engine acts when I have a passenger in the car.
The only way I see high powered four cylinder engines going mainstream is if direct injection can be implemented cheaply and kudos to Ford if they can pull it off. However right now Hyundai’s 2.4 is going to be the one to watch…. for now.
Go drive an Audi A4 2.0. You will get 30 mpg and its above 200/200. Way above.
The 2.0 Turbo in the Audi A4 Requires 91+ octane gas. A direct injection engine would take 87 octane. Also a Turbo Inline 4 is more expensive than a regular 4 cylinder engine. The point is to make a high out put 4 that can make enough torque to power a full size sedan but is cheaper than a V6 or turbo 4. That’s how ford could make a killing on direct injection four cylinders.
I’ve also driven the old Audi A4 1.8T and turbo lag was ever present in stop and go traffic. I hope that the 2.0T is better.
What will NASCAR do? 4 cylinder COT Fusions????
As nice as modern turbo 4’s like VW’s 2.0L FSI are, I’m happy to own what I believe to be the best engine ever put into a small car, the 24v VR6 (200 hp with almost 200 lb-ft of torque). We will never again see such a velvety smooth, torquey, and refined engine in a small car in our fuel economy driven world. On the other hand, I do get 27-29 mpg in my Jetta GLI with the slick 6-speed (skip shifting is a joy) so I can’t complain. I thought my 1.8T VW was good but the VR6 is in a whole different class for refined power and torque.
Around ’84 or ’85, Prof. Ulrich Seifert of VW came and spoke at my school … he was all hot on side-impact technology improvements and superchargers … VW called these scroll-compressors the “G-Lader” (G-charger) … I forget the displacements but there were two sizes, I think G60 and G90 … at that time, I was working of a DARPA-sponsored project at Cummins Engine for the same technology … we concluded that the performance of a scroll compressor was not well scalable, and the tolerances necessary to get good efficiencies made the things unfeasible for high volume affordable prodution … VW seemed to find this out after launching this on the Corrado pocket rocket … out of this failure was born the VR engine family … V-displacement and smoothness with I-compactness and manufacturing like, but not quite, manufacturing efficiencies… in a small FWD there is so little room for engine that if you can’t hop it up with a turbo or a supercharger, you have to find an efficient way of adding cylinders … thus VR…
Ford USA is doing a good thing. They are leading the US pack but are still trailing the rest of world. 5 years behind rest of world is better than out of business.
5 years behind? Any automaker in the “rest of the world” offering a 400+ hp car for less than U$30k back in 2006? Does anyone do that today?
Well, the Pontiac GTO was pretty close back in ’06, but your point in well made. Ford, GM, and Chrysler have invested more in V8 and V6 powertrains because up until very recently those are what the US public overwhelmingly preferred. I’m happy that Ford is pushing the limits on 4 cylinders, and happy that they haven’t stepped off of V8 and V6 development to do it, with the 5.0 V8, 6.2 V8, and Ecoboost V6 all being leaders in their fields.
I am eagerly awaiting my first chance to drive the new Fiesta though. Part of me worries about such a tiny engine with such low HP, but all that matters is how it feels and drives in the actual car.
“In 1969 “nearly 90 percent of vehicles sold in America were powered by V-8s,”
As it should be.
I much rather have a dependable/durable V8 than some high-strung V6 that drinks like a V8…and sounds like a dentist’s drill…
I’d probably go to the dentist more often if the drill sounded like a big block V8, come to think of it…
Thank goodness V8s are dying out. The market has spoken and clearly it has rejected V8s. It’s embarrassing to see a 1970’s V8 producing less power than a modern 4 cylinder engine. We have come so far in metallurgy, turbo charging, supercharging, variable cams and timing, fuel injecting, fuel quality, etc that V8s are no longer required for 95% of customers (according to Ford’s statistics).
V8s are no longer required?
Yes.
But are they desired?
Hell yes!
Gas would have to be a lot higher than it was even in late 2008 to make me really consider a V6 car. And I can’t think of a single L4, turbo/DI or not, that I would consider buying at this point.
Where were some of you guys in 1969? Surprised by 90%, claiming most of the V8’s in 1969 made less than 200 hp?
I was surprised…surprised it wasn’t closer to 95% V8’s. Virtually everything sold in 1969 had V8’s. Sixes only got you a couple MPG extra, gas was cheap anyway, real cheap so who cared? And the quoted figures for most were over 200 hp. Measured the way modern engines are half may have dropped to around 200 hp.
The Arab oil embargo was in the early 70’s MPG didn’t matter really until then. No significant pollution mandates occurred until 1971/72. So engine power didn’t drop until then. In 1969 cars in the USA were front engined, rear wheel drive V8 powered vehicles.
I would say 90% V8s is about right. Thinking back to the cars everyone had back then, and I can tell you what every adult and kid over 16 was driving back then, the six cylinder and fours were rare indeed. There was the woman who drove an orange VW Bug, and one who drove a Corvair, and another one who had an old Falcon, and that was it. The woman who drove the VW was “odd” in so many ways, several of them I can’t get into here, but she still drives odd cars that most women her age aren’t seen in. A few years ago she had a Subaru, way before the craze hit. I haven’t seen her lately, but I expect whatever she drives will be very, um, quirky.
My dad drove an Avacado green Caddy, there were 4 others, a ton of Chevy Impalas, my mom and sister drove Cutlasses, as did a lot of other people on my street. Others had Dynamic 88s, 225s, Tempests/GTOs, and Chevelles, most of them 350CI V8s or larger. The Mopars were the Imperial my dad had until late 69, complete with hopped up 440V8, the neighbor’s 413 Belvedere that was scary fast and loud, the hippie guy with the 68 Roadrunner who couldn’t drive a stick very well, a wagon of sime kind, and a 383 Dart. Surprisingly, the only Fords or Mercury cars I can remember was the Falcon, a 289 Mustang convertible a woman had, and a Cougar, I don’t know what was in it, but it was definitely a V8. There was a Lincoln MKIII that the oldest couple on the street drove, but most people drove a GM car. Other than the VW, the first foreign cars showed up a couple years into the 70’s, when a Mercedes showed up, and one family had a Toyota for a few years until it turned into dust.
The one car company that could slap an extremely compact V-4 in a small car is Honda, a company that has been producing wondrous V4’s in their VFR line of motorcycles for some 25 years now. A 1200cc motor producing 165hp is in their latest model, and they are extremely complex, albeit hardy, beasts. I think they have shied away from car use because getting them to meet car emission standards is fairly difficult and adds to the expense of an already expensive motor. In addition the robust I4s of the 80’s and 90’s probably gave them little incentive to wander down that alley. But, since their V6s are so mediocre, maybe they should revisit that high performance option. (Their MotoGP V-5 – the rc211v- of a couple of years ago was one of the greatest motors ever built. They used the 5th piston to act as a balance shaft thus creating power out of a mechanism that usually saps a four cylinder of power to create smoothness. Too bad they never bothered with a street version…it would have been an absolute rocket ship.)
” a 4-cylinder engine belongs in a Daewoo, not a real man’s car, so it’s worthless. :P”
Hey now, I used to have a Leganza… 2.2 was ‘technically’ rated at 131hp but what the number doesn’t say is that the HP curve wasnt so much a curve as a leap off idle and a nearly flat run to it’s ~7500 redline/cutoff. In a 2800 pound car, much faster than the numbers said it had any right to be (mostly because mine was stick shift).
And speaking of Daewoo… the commenter that said that it was sad that straight sixes didn’t fit under the hood of modern cars hasn’t peeked under the hood at the Daewoo engine in the Daewoo-designed Suzuki Verona. Yes, it’s not the most powerful motor but that’s a consequence of getting cut off at the knees by GM.
Daewoo was no slouch… it’s that their development got arrested around 2002-2003 by GM’s shenanigans. If that hadn’t happened I’d likely be tooling around in a Daewoo Magnus with a second (ok, 1.5) gen, high-strung ~2.5-2.8 liter straight six transversely under the hood making around 200 horses. The first almost-done effort that went into the suzuki was apparently capable of 180 horses in overseas tune.
Those Daewoo fours btw, all of them were Australian GM engines, and close cousins to the ones in euro GMs.
Ford’s capable of working miracles when they want. Remember the article on the plasma-coated cylinder linings? Ford also started off the sintered-powder, cracked cap connecting rod revolution. Can’t forget the 80’s IMSA efforts either… and back in the 60’s, whooo. Modifying a 221-160 V8 into an absolutely screaming F1 engine… SOHC 427 engines making 700hp… hell, even the street-driven 289 Hi-Po’s that were capable of regular trips to 6500-7000rpm with little bad effect. I think we’re going to see a sub-2.0 liter engine with somewhere between 250 and 275 horsepower, backed up with a couple hundred hours on a dyno at full power output to prove durability.
I started driving in the 70s. All of my early cars were V8s. I loved them and the sound of them. The only people I knew with 6s had baseline Mustangs, Mavericks, Camaros or one of the slant 6s from Chryco. No fours till after the Arab oil embargo. Then the import invasion swung in full force. Vegas and Pintos were the cause of that. American iron didn’t have much thought or engineering put into them on the 4 banger scale. By the late 70s my peers that were not die hard V8 pony car fans were wanting the new Celicas or 280Zs. Enough of the reminiscing. I’ve been an ASE master for more than 25 years. I haven’t had the opportunity to work on many German cars but I do have to say the best V6 I ever drove was an old Mazda M3 with a 1.8 V6. The girl had run it hot and warped the heads. I repaired it and test drove it. I was amazed at its silky smoothness and rev range. Quite and smooth all the way to 7000rpm. Yesterday I made the comment why didn’t the manufactures’ build small V8s that would rev like that? We could still at least have our V8 sound. And to boot, a factory 3 to 3.5L V8 that revved smoothly to 7 or 8000rpm would be awesome.
As a retired farmer, I find the obsession with high rpms interesting, from a distant observer viewpoint.
When you spend all day with a big diesel never turning over 2,300 rpm, you get used to slow speed engines, engines that sound happiest between 1,600 and 1,900 rpm. You get used to the low-end torque that will pull a car out of the ditch while loping at 1,000 rpm. (As an old fellow once said to me as I pulled him out: “You didn’t even have to use the foot feed.”)
What I look for in an engine is tractability, and I’m quite disinterested in what the ultimate horsepower of an engine is. That’s usually at such a high rpm, I wouldn’t be spending any time in those ethereal regions anyway. That’s why I liked the Mopar Slant 6, 2.5 liter and 3.3 liter. They chugged along merrily, pulling right from the get-go.
My brother-in-law used to be a building inspector in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. The county gave him a Ford Ranger with a 4-cylinder, and he was happy with it. Then they replaced those trucks with Rangers with the V-6, and he said that engine had such a peaky torque curve, that its extra horsepower was useless and it was a abear trying to go up steep driveways that the 4-banger took in style.
I understand exactly what you are saying Fred. Believe me, I’d love to have fuel efficient 454s, 455s, 440s, and 460s along with the brute torque that came with them. My ASE certification is in heavy trucks. I understand torque and getting things moving. Without a load a 400hp Cat engine in a truck without a trailer had wonderful acceleration and never broke 2000rpm. The feel was nice. Stab the throttle, listen for the boost to come up and you would feel a nice push back into the seat. In my above thoughts I’m referring strictly to what I like driving and the sound that car guys love. A big V8 is great at torque and sound even at low rpms. Just no longer practical for todays market with new CAFE rules and the ever present environmentalist push. I love the sound of high revving racing V8s though. The only high revving street V8 I’ve driven is the Taurus SHO V8 of several years ago. Sounded great but, no real guts in the seat of the pants feel you get with high torque at low rpms. But it moved around easily and didn’t feel anemic in everyday driving. When I felt like it I could slam the throttle and pull to around 7000rpm and it sounded so wonderful even with the stock exhaust system in place. The torque band was flat and smooth all the way through and that’s what gave it good acceration numbers.
I have to go with Fred on this one. I have always found high torque at a low rpm vastly more satisfying on a day-to-day basis than high horsepower at high rpm. About 20 years ago, I owned a 29 Ford Model A. Torque peak on that engine was 1000 rpm, and it was a very livable engine given the level of technology (and made 40 horsepower go a long way). I too owned a slant 6 (torque peak at 1800) and as the new owner of a Chrysler 3.3, I am liking the character of the engine. Among V8s, the old Ford FE 390 was not the greatest performance engine ever, but it was durable and REALLY torquey down low. It was quite pleasant, even in a big Galaxie with a 2.70 rear end.
The side benefit is that high torque/low rpm engines seem to be much longer lived than the high stress/high rpm engine that everyone seems to think is the wave of the future. I understand the CAFE restraints, but how economical is it really to save on fuel but reduce the life of the engine by half?
The peaky racecar engine with a 6 speed may be a blast to drive on an occasional basis, but for 97% of daily driving, I will take low end torque any day.
I’m with you guys on the love of big engines and their torque. But high revs are fun too is my point. Fortunately I do not have to drive daily in city traffic. My daily commute is 35 miles one way mostly 2 lane county roads and freeway. Plenty of miles, time and places to play with the revs. The 2.0L I drive daily is high strung with a horsepower peak at 6000 and torque peak at 4800. With a 3.94 gear though it is easily driveable and comfortable everyday with it’s 5 speed manual. However, when I do get stuck in stop and go traffic I hate it. I’d rather drive my 3.8L van with automatic in that situation. It isn’t an acceration queen but it will smoke the front tires if I desired (I don’t, it’s a wheelchair van afterall). So it depends a lot on where you have to drive as to what is enjoyable. In stop and go nothing beats displacement with a slushbox for daily drivablility. Now as far as longevity goes my 2.0L has 160,000 miles on it and doesn’t use any more oil than it did 100,000 miles ago. It shows no signs of giving up anytime soon. I will say that in working on cars I have not seen a 200,000 plus mile high rev engine in good shape. I meticulously care for mine with synthetic oil and good filters. I know some may think that the freeway miles are what is giving it longevity but because of the gearing it is turning 3200rpm at 70mph. Hardly low revs compared to the sub 2500 and sub 2000rpms on bigger engines. I think engine longevity has more to do with good maintenance than other factor in the life of a vehicle. Common sense reasoning does indicate that engines that run faster should wear out quicker. But with good maintenance well made engines should last the useful life of most cars.
The torque curves I have seen for the I4 Ecoboost engine shows the torque ‘peak’ at about 1500-1600 RPM. ‘Peak’ is a bit of a misnomer, though, and perhaps ‘mesa’ would be a better term. Torque does not begin to drop off appreciably until near 6000 RPM. Lovely to behold.
“High torque” is a misnomer, “low horse power” or “low performance” would be more accurate. Most naturally aspirated gas engines will make around 1 ft-lb per cubic inch. A high performance 4-valve might get 1.5 ft-lb per cubic inch. This fairly narrow range applies to everything from a Model A to an Indy car.
Granted, an engine that has its peak torque at low rpm is easier to drive, but calling it “high” torque is simply not true.
I get your point. That’s one of the things that annoys me about many modern small engines, the torque peak is at some rarely used or stupidly high RPM. If the peak torque is at 4500 RPM and the engine redlines at 6000 RPM, that’s pretty useless. My old Iron Duke 4cyl may have only made 92 HP but it’s 123lbft of torque was at a very usable 2000 RPM (give or take) that was the only reason the old girl could break the tires loose on wet pavement. My old 97 Escort was the same way 2ltr engine, 110hp but could bark the tires cause the torque was down low and made it easy to drive around town.
Torque is the reason it was easy to drive those big lazy V8s of the smog equipment strangled 70s and 80s.
“VW seemed to find this out after launching this on the Corrado pocket rocket … out of this failure was born the VR engine family … V-displacement and smoothness with I-compactness and manufacturing like, but not quite, manufacturing efficiencies… in a small FWD there is so little room for engine that if you can’t hop it up with a turbo or a supercharger, you have to find an efficient way of adding cylinders … thus VR…”
Lancia started producing narrow angle V4 engines in 1922, and yet credit seems to go to VW.
Is the Fiesta 1.6 any relation to the 1.6 used in the Ford Escort circa 1981 and up?
I have to ask, and maybe I missed it earlier in here, but does that 4.9 % of the market figure include trucks, SUVs, etc.?? I find it really hard to believe that F-series, Silverado, etc. only garner 5% of the market. I know truck sales are off, but I didn’t think that much.
I have driven many of the modern 4 cylinder mid size cars and indeed they do motor along pretty well. But if you want a burst of power you usually have to flog the hell out of it to get there with resulting noise and racket following. This was something I never had to do on any of my 1970’s and 1980’s low end torquey V8 engines, Chryslers Slant 6, AMC’s 258 or Fords 250. Tap the throttle and the engine was right there with lots of response. HP numbers are so often thrown about today with little understanding on how those numbers are derived and the power curve in which that level is reached. The new Sonata is a perfect case in point. It’s 198-200 HP L4 sounds awesome on paper. But try driving one part throttle with the AC going up a slight incline. Guess what? I found myself having to dig into the throttle far harder than any of my 1990’s mid size 3100/3800 V6 equipped GM mid sizers or any Chrysler product with a 3.3 or 3.8 V6. And the noise level this engine makes is not pleasing to the ears. So while small displacement L4’s with lotos of technology thrown in can simulate biger V6 and V8 power number they cannot produce that effertless torque and response of a V8. Just try towing a 5000 LB trailor in a Dodge Ram powered by a magical 300 HP 2.4 liter turbo L4 and see what happens!
You can’t really separate the engine from the transmission when you talk about this subject. In the “good ol daze” of the ’60s, all US car engines were relatively slow turning, whether they were 6s or V-8s. What was required was an engine that developed a lot of torque at low rpms. Consider that the stock manual transmission of the day was a 3-speed and GMs low-line automatic was a two-speed. Connected to that sort of transmission, a low-torque (i.e. small displacement) engine was a PITA.
Fast forward to today. A couple of weeks ago, I ended up driving about 600 miles in a Nissan Altima with a 2.5 liter 4 cylinder hooked up to a CVT. I have to say I was very impressed. The CVT would happily let the engine lug along at less than 1500 rpm at slow speeds, but would spin it right up to what I imagine was the engine’s torque peak, when some acceleration was requested, and would spin the engine right up to redline and hold it there with application of “full throttle” as the car accelerated.
From a driver’s perpective, this system worked fine. The only issue was NVH, which — obviously — increased as a function of engine speed.
The alternative to displacement and a transmission that lets the engine spool up easily and quickly is forced induction. The big turbo on my 250 hp 2.2 liter Saab gives the engine plenty of torque under 2000 rpm. In fact, it’s possible to accelerate relatively briskly to over 60 mph (using the 5-speed auto) without ever cracking 2000 rpm. Unfortunately, asking an engine of that configuration to produce a lot of torque at low rpms results in a “gruff” sound that is not particular attractive.
So I’m optimistic that a combination of forced induction, high rpm, a wide-ratio CVT and plenty of electronic “intelligence” can produce a small-displacement engine/powertrain that will meet everyone’s expectations for responsiveness and even NVH.
But whether it will be “fun to drive” in a way that most of us have experienced, is another question entirely.
I will agree that the transmission is all-important on the hp vs. torque issue. But if we accept that CAFE is the reason that the manufacturers are going to small displacement/high strung engines, how, pray tell, can we expect those designing the cars to pass the EPA mileage test to mate the engine with a transmission that will keep the engine anywhere near its happy range? I predict the opposite, which is that the transmissions will purposely jump the car to the highest gear possible which guarantees that the rpms will almost always be way below optimum torque.
Will a CVT be the answer if it allows the engine to freely rev? If high EPA test cycle numbers are the goal, than I would wager not.
All this said, I own a Honda Fit with a 5 speed automatic, which is the first 4 cylinder car with an autobox that I have not despised driving. However, unless you go to sport mode and shift with the paddles, you are ALWAYS on the wrong side of the torque curve unless you really have your foot in it.
Acura would be vindicated by now for their commitment to never build a V8, if it hadn’t been for them being carted off to the crazy bin by the styling police.
Good reading, a little bit of hype.
In1969 “nearly 90 percent of vehicles sold in America were powered by V-8s,” says Ford. Last year, the share of the eights was down to 4.9 percent, “an all-time low,” while I-4s dominated with nearly 62 percent, according to Ford’s numbers.
Maybe 4.9% of vehicles defined by the EPA as cars, or non-trucks. Since full-size pickups ALONE have about 10-15% of the market, and most of them have V8s, that’s 6 to 12%–not to mention full-size SUVs from the Detroit 3 and Toyo/Nissan, another x%.
I’m always amused by how cleverly politicians and automakers manipulate data. No wonder our country is doing so well economically.
The actual numbers come from WardsAuto, and are summarized here:
http://wardsauto.com/ar/engines_lose_ground_100315/
As you inferred, the 4.9% number refers only to cars, not to total vehicles. Among light trucks, V8s have a 40% share–a number that is clearly diluted by the RAV4, CR-V, Escape and the like.
I still recall reading all about the Model T’s engine. Innovative design, used a bolt on head which was an innovation, and got 25MPG. It had extensions that allowed the engine to run farm machinery, and used a type of steel that Henry Ford noticed being used in French racing cars; he built a plant to produce this steel at his Detroit plant, and used it in engines, the suspension, and other key places to give the Model T incredible durability. And here we are all these years, decades later, still using internal combustion engines, as if there is nothing else out there. I accept that like the wheel, the internal combustion engine is just simply the best answer, but wow, think of how long this design has been around. “Forever.”