Are we in the golden age of the 6cyl engine?

[TuneRVisioN]

Yeah, we need more hybrids, not more of that Typical V8 Thurst. Come on, I even saw a car that only had 7MPG in the city. WTF is that!? We need more fuel efficient cars. The Civic isn't bad, but cars like the 4.6L V8 Mustang with 215HP is really not necessary. Sorry for getting off-topic again, but this is rediculous. My mom typed some of this too, since she wants a Honda CR-V Hybrid. No need for a car with plenty of HP if you get tickets for using all of that HP.

 

[JCE]

Stop with the TVR discussion please. My topic is about the global affordable 6 cylinder engine. And TVR's aren't affordable in any market. While I do love me some TVR goodness they just aren't practical for this discussion. We now resume the regularly scheduled topic. Thank you.

 

[YSSMAN]

What will be interesting will be seeing how the Japanese react to the new-found prowess of the American engine builders when it comes to V6 power. Not too long ago, we just stuck a V6 in everything because our I4s weren't making enough power. Now that we've caught up there, we're making more power with the V6 lineup, and in many cases have surpassed the competition in output.

So whats next for Honda and Toyota? Are their 300+ BHP V6s on the way too (yes, I realize the RL has 300 BHP...)? Or will they go a different route?

At least for me, what it comes down to is that while we've gotten the power we need to motivate most of our cars, its the fuel efficiency that is becoming the issue. Direct Injection will likely be the future here, and possibly minimizing displacements in favor of forced-induction to make up for the power deficit.

...The problem is, it all costs money. With GM just getting their 'value' engine line up to spec (same goes for Ford and Chrysler), the focus is shifting towards making the premium engines cheaper as well (GM and Ford are doing so). However, in many cases the best engines are still too expensive for regular consumers, and thereby are regulated to premium models...

---

This discussion certainly needs the mention of diesel power as well. With Mercedes and VW hell-bent on diesel domination in North America, GM and BMW will be doing their best to counter-balance the push for diesel in the US with their own products...

...Quite frankly, GM's new 260 BHP (406 lb ft!) 2.9L diesel will be awesome when it shows up in the CTS, and hopefully proliferates to other models (GMT960s, Epsilon IIs?). The maximization of power and fuel economy is going to be key, and I think the new diesel programs have it in spades...

 

[JCE]

I'll be looking forward to more diesel engines actually. As long as the diesel fuel here in the US is as clean as Europe they should be good value.

 

[Joey D]

Yeah, we need more hybrids, not more of that Typical V8 Thurst. Come on, I even saw a car that only had 7MPG in the city. WTF is that!? We need more fuel efficient cars. The Civic isn't bad, but cars like the 4.6L V8 Mustang with 215HP is really not necessary. Sorry for getting off-topic again, but this is rediculous. My mom typed some of this too, since she wants a Honda CR-V Hybrid. No need for a car with plenty of HP if you get tickets for using all of that HP.

No we don't need more hybrids because thats like putting a bandage on a broken leg...it's doesn't work. Hybrids aren't the wave of the future.

What would make the golden age of the six cylinder would be about a 3.0L V6, putting out about 240hp, and powered by say hydrogen that wasn't harvested through natural gas.

Yes car companies are starting the whole E85 thing as alternative fuel, but once again that doesn't solve the problem because it takes just as much, if not more fossil fuel to harvest the corn and distill it.

 

[Tornado]

It only had 200bhp, not impressive when you consider the VG30DE Nissan engine of the same years had 227bhp in the 300ZX with only 3.0L to work with.

The VGDE was also in a sportscar produced during a Japanese bubble economy, and it was a 5 year newer design; or, if you wanna be a hardball, a 35 year newer design.
The VGE engine that debuted at about the same time as the 4300 did had only 160 BHP out of the same 3.0 liters. The VG30i that was used in the Nissan Hardbody and Pathfinder (that competed against the S-10 and Blazer) had only 140 BHP, also out of 3.0 liters.

The REAL GM 6cyl engine that is quite good is the 4.2L I6. When it came out it was rated at 275bhp and when retuned it gave 291bhp. A much better engine than the 4.3L V6. Less displacement and more power.

And it was 23 years newer.

Great engine, once forced induction was added. The turbo 4.3L was 280bhp and 360lb.ft. of torque, great numbers but it needed a massive turbo for that kind of power.

You are missing the point. At the time of its introduction (1985), it was quite a powerful engine, matching (and exceeding some of) the power outputs of the small block V8 engines used in GM pick-ups at the time (matched the 5.7, exceeded the 5.0).
At the same time, remember, Ford had an I6 that was 5.0 liters and only had 150 BHP. Ford introduced the Essex 3.8L in 1982 (3 years before the 4300) and it only had 112 BHP.

 

[Joey D]

Well put, you really need to put the 4.3L in it's proper era to see that it was an amazing engine. Even today it isn't bad, the performance is decent and if I punch it I can get to 60 in just over 7 seconds (I believe the time is 7.2).

 

[Dave A]

Stop with the TVR discussion please. My topic is about the global affordable 6 cylinder engine. And TVR's aren't affordable in any market. While I do love me some TVR goodness they just aren't practical for this discussion. We now resume the regularly scheduled topic. Thank you.

You need to define affordability, in terms of sportscars TVR's are insanely affordable. Secondly, your first post didn't seem to indicate anything about wanting a discussion based soley on the global affordability of the 6 cylinder engine. Please note, I don't have any problems with you wanting the topic to be about that, but I just didn't get that impression after reading the thread title and the first post. I didn't think it defined that you wanted the thread to be that specific rather that simply about the golden age of the 6 clinder which could comprise of applications across the board. Perhaps naming the thread "Global affordability of 6 cylinder engines" or stating that this is what the thread is about in the first post would make it clearer should a similar missinterpretation of the thread occur again. Again, no problems with the thread, it's yours and I'm happy to carry it on from there, just a suggestion that's all and apologies for instigating the off topic discussion regardless .

 

[1X83Z]

if I punch it I can get to 60 in just over 7 seconds (I believe the time is 7.2).

God himself couldn't get that time from it in your car.

Not doubting the engine - they're such workhorses - but you're only running 190 horsepower. The Audi A4 2.8Q sedan had the same power output, was much lighter, and they hoped people would believe a 7.5sec 0-60 time - with a 5-speed automatic.

 

[Joey D]

Beats me, I've never actually timed it. The guys on the s10forum seem to think that's what I can get. I guess I'm going to have to try it.

 

[Tornado]

As much as I wish it to not be true, I'm pretty sure the most an S-10 Blazer could do was tie a 240SX to 60.

 

[JCE]

You need to define affordability, in terms of sportscars TVR's are insanely affordable. Secondly, your first post didn't seem to indicate anything about wanting a discussion based soley on the global affordability of the 6 cylinder engine. Please note, I don't have any problems with you wanting the topic to be about that, but I just didn't get that impression after reading the thread title and the first post. I didn't think it defined that you wanted the thread to be that specific rather that simply about the golden age of the 6 clinder which could comprise of applications across the board. Perhaps naming the thread "Global affordability of 6 cylinder engines" or stating that this is what the thread is about in the first post would make it clearer should a similar missinterpretation of the thread occur again. Again, no problems with the thread, it's yours and I'm happy to carry it on from there, just a suggestion that's all and apologies for instigating the off topic discussion regardless .

My oppologies then, I should of made it more clear about the globalization and affordability.

As much as I wish it to not be true, I'm pretty sure the most an S-10 Blazer could do was tie a 240SX to 60.

Sure could, with almost twice the displacement, 2 more cylinders, and 1000lbs or more weight I'm sure it would be about the same. The 2002 regular 2dr Blazer tips the scales @ 3840lbs and the 4dr goes for over 4000lbs. If it wasn't for the torque in that 4.3L (all 250ft.lb of it) that engine would even be a waste for trucks. I still maintain unless forced induction is added the 4.3L is rubbish then and rubbish now. Just like the engine that is in my Camaro right now, worthless truck engine with no horsepower and all torque. But I digress, you people forced me to break my own rules. Shame on you.

 

[Tornado]

Then the small-block chevy was a useless engine from 1972 to 1990, because during that time it was outpowered by the 4300.

Just like the engine that is in my Camaro right now, worthless truck engine with no horsepower and all torque.

Just like every single engine from the 80's. Except it was quite powerful when new. And that is a fact.

 

[JCE]

Then the small-block chevy was a useless engine from 1972 to 1990, because during that time it was outpowered by the 4300.

Just like every single engine from the 80's. Except it was quite powerful when new. And that is a fact.

The 4.3L most certainly didn't out power the 305/350 in the TORQUE number. So at best it was better in horsepower on some of the years of the 350 and all of the years of the 305--but the torque number is a different story. And, 175bhp in 1990 was not "quite powerful". The car (my 1990 Camaro for example) is almost dead over 3000rpm in terms of the power. When you floor it you get alot of noise as the RPMs rise but until you shift up or the automatic shifts you up you won't get any surge of power what-so-ever. Which is why it makes the perfect pickup truck motor.

 

[1X83Z]

Not many cars back in 1990 were running much above 175hp - the most powerful E-class sedan of the period was putting out 177, the top 5-series was putting out just over 200, Cadillac's most powerful V8 was rated at only 200, and for comparison's sake the A4-sized Audi 80 was running 108hp in its base engine (today it's 200) and 130 in top spec (versus 256 today). I tend to agree with Toronado - it may not be powerful in absolute terms, but it was relative to other cars of the period.

 

[JCE]

Not many cars back in 1990 were running much above 175hp - the most powerful E-class sedan of the period was putting out 177, the top 5-series was putting out just over 200, Cadillac's most powerful V8 was rated at only 200, and for comparison's sake the A4-sized Audi 80 was running 108hp in its base engine (today it's 200) and 130 in top spec (versus 256 today). I tend to agree with Toronado - it may not be powerful in absolute terms, but it was relative to other cars of the period.

But the difference is America needed more cylinders for that kind of power whereas Europe and Japan didn't. My mom bought a 1990 Camaro IN 1990 and while it was an awsome car with an awsome color (candy-apple red) it just didn't feel as fast as it looked. I will say this, at least they made a glorious noise. I will have to record the exhaust of my Camaro--it sounds great even with almost 240k miles on the odometer. 👍

 

[Joey D]

You forget the US was going through eco-friendly emissions problems during this time as well.

 

[JCE]

No I haven't forgotten. Still, take off the smog pump and put on a much better intake and exhaust system that breathes much easier and these engines still don't product much bhp. It's a fact.

 

[Joey D]

With the 4.3L if you put a decent intake on the thing and a new free flowing exhaust system you will see a big difference. Both are really restrictive, the exhaust in particular on my truck is horrid.

 

[YSSMAN]

Not to side-track the wonderful 4.3L discussion, but shouldn't we be talking about, oh I dunno, more modern V6 engines?

Maybe a debate over the best current V6 available to the public?

 

[///M-Spec]

Not to side-track the wonderful 4.3L discussion, but shouldn't we be talking about, oh I dunno, more modern V6 engines?

Maybe a debate over the best current V6 available to the public?

In JCE3000GT's first post, he talks about a 330hp+ Nissan and a 300hp+ Toyota. The only 330hp Nissan I'm aware of is the G37 which is expected to cost more than $34,000. The only 300hp+ Toyota I know of is the $35,700 Lexus IS350.

If $35,000+ cars are considered 'affordable', then I submit BMW's "300"hp (really ~325hp) twin-turbo N54 in the $38,900 335i should also be considered. Stock, it makes way more torque than the Toyota and Nissan, is smoother, arguably sounds better and has more tuning potential. So what if it's not a V?


M

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm still a big fan of the GM LY7 (250-275 BHP) V6 and its new cousin the LLT (300-ish, rumored to go as high as 314 BHP) DI V6, both displacing 3.6L, both DOHC, and both being seen in a wide variety of vehicles. Quite frankly, the LY7 is the smooth and powerful V6 for the masses, and its adaptability is only one of the major perks to the platform overall. The LLT on the other hand paves the way for the future of the V6 models in GM's lineup, starting first with the CTS and STS, and presumably going to the SRX as well.

A bit of debate, reportedly, is going on at GM as to what the future will hold for LLT. Given that it took nearly three years for the LY7 to be as popular and as affordable as it is, part of GM wants to make the LLT much the same as the LY7, while others want to keep it a Cadillac-exclusive (much like the early LY7s). But with the LLT rumored to be expandable to 4.0L (reportedly, GM is working on it) with power outputs nearing 350 BHP, it may be enough to let the LLT eventually proliferate to the 'lesser' companies after all.

...I usually think of it this way: With the LY7 and the LLT producing nearly as much power as some of the low-end V8 models, the combination of low-weight and smaller size, not to mention the drastic increase in BHP/L and fuel economy, it seems like a no-brainer to make this engine standard across the board...

Early tests of the new LLT in the STS characterize it as smooth, efficient, and powerful... All while running on regular fuel, and generally speaking, nearly matching the Northstar 4.6L V8 that it will likely replace. Is it the best V6 engine on the market? It has good legs under it, certainly, but it is hard to say overall.

Against the LLT, you've always got the VW VR6, Nissan's VQ, Honda's VTEC lineup, etc. The LLT certainly appears to be a world-class V6, and in all honesty, it may be the best American V6 made available to the public...

 

[JCE]

Not to side-track the wonderful 4.3L discussion, but shouldn't we be talking about, oh I dunno, more modern V6 engines?

Maybe a debate over the best current V6 available to the public?

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of even talking about that 4.3L V6--it's old as snot and useless for this discussion. And discussing the BEST 6cyl is acceptable--in another thread.

In JCE3000GT's first post, he talks about a 330hp+ Nissan and a 300hp+ Toyota. The only 330hp Nissan I'm aware of is the G37 which is expected to cost more than $34,000. The only 300hp+ Toyota I know of is the $35,700 Lexus IS350.

If $35,000+ cars are considered 'affordable', then I submit BMW's "300"hp (really ~325hp) twin-turbo N54 in the $38,900 335i should also be considered. Stock, it makes way more torque than the Toyota and Nissan, is smoother, arguably sounds better and has more tuning potential. So what if it's not a V?


M

For one $34-36k is affordable when you consider how much inflation has taken place the last 10 years. And secondly, I said no forced induction from the start so that disqualifies the BMW--no matter how good the engine is with those turbos. And secondly it is your opinion that the BMW sounds better and is smoother--the Nissan takes those awards and infact the tunability as well. There is a much larger aftermarket for Nissan engines than BMW engines--and that is a fact. I disagree on both accounts. And I NEVER said NOT to discuss inline 6cyl. engines...infact I stated the complete opposite.

I'm still a big fan of the GM LY7 (250-275 BHP) V6 and its new cousin the LLT (300-ish, rumored to go as high as 314 BHP) DI V6, both displacing 3.6L, both DOHC, and both being seen in a wide variety of vehicles. Quite frankly, the LY7 is the smooth and powerful V6 for the masses, and its adaptability is only one of the major perks to the platform overall. The LLT on the other hand paves the way for the future of the V6 models in GM's lineup, starting first with the CTS and STS, and presumably going to the SRX as well.

A bit of debate, reportedly, is going on at GM as to what the future will hold for LLT. Given that it took nearly three years for the LY7 to be as popular and as affordable as it is, part of GM wants to make the LLT much the same as the LY7, while others want to keep it a Cadillac-exclusive (much like the early LY7s). But with the LLT rumored to be expandable to 4.0L (reportedly, GM is working on it) with power outputs nearing 350 BHP, it may be enough to let the LLT eventually proliferate to the 'lesser' companies after all.

...I usually think of it this way: With the LY7 and the LLT producing nearly as much power as some of the low-end V8 models, the combination of low-weight and smaller size, not to mention the drastic increase in BHP/L and fuel economy, it seems like a no-brainer to make this engine standard across the board...

Early tests of the new LLT in the STS characterize it as smooth, efficient, and powerful... All while running on regular fuel, and generally speaking, nearly matching the Northstar 4.6L V8 that it will likely replace. Is it the best V6 engine on the market? It has good legs under it, certainly, but it is hard to say overall.

Against the LLT, you've always got the VW VR6, Nissan's VQ, Honda's VTEC lineup, etc. The LLT certainly appears to be a world-class V6, and in all honesty, it may be the best American V6 made available to the public...

I'll still hold a bit of reserve judgement for the new GM V6 engines until I spend some quality time abusing one. If GM can squeeze 300bhp+ from the 3.6L they will have a huge winner with enthusiasts and car fans alike. They don't need more than 3.6L, anything more and it would be a waste in my opinion. I feel the same way with the Ford 4.0L V6, they need to ditch it in favor of the new D35 Duratec 3.5L.

 

[///M-Spec]

For one $34-36k is affordable when you consider how much inflation has taken place the last 10 years. And secondly, I said no forced induction from the start so that disqualifies the BMW--no matter how good the engine is with those turbos.

You did? I thought it was about 'global affordable 6 cylinder engines'.

My topic is about the global affordable 6 cylinder engine.

It seems a little arbitrary to me, since FI (BMW's route with N54), high revs (BMW's route with S54 and Nissan's route with VQHR) and increased displacement (Any 6 displacing more than ~3.2) are all just different ways of getting more air into the engine. Maybe to be consistent, you should have an upper rev limit rule or maximum displacement size?

But whatever. It's your thread.

And secondly it is your opinion that the BMW sounds better and is smoother--the Nissan takes those awards and infact the tunability as well. There is a much larger aftermarket for Nissan engines than BMW engines--and that is a fact.

Well of course it's my opinion the BMW sounds better. That's why I put 'arguably' in my original post. I also happen to own a VQ powered car. AND I've also driven every major iteration of the VG and VQ since the Z31 except for the very recent HR version. In my experience, the BMW M5x and N5x family of motors are far smoother in operation.

As for the tuning argument, let's be specific. The N54 is already turbocharged. Every one knows most turbo cars have easy and inexpensive gains with a tune and exhaust. You can (and many people do) turbo a VQ. But not for the $3,000 a Vishnu stage 1 kit will run on the 335. For that money, a 335 is putting close to 360+ to the wheels. I am not aware of any solution for NA VQ cars to produce that sort of power, with that little time and money investment (nitrous kits aside).

In other words, it will cost less to get a significant bump in power for a 335i vs. a 350Z. Just like it would costs less for a 300ZX Turbo to get a significant bump in power over an M3. After the initial investment for the VQ, the sky's the limit for both cars, it just depends on how much you want to spend.

As for you blanket statements on BMW vs. Nissan aftermarket in general, it would be hard to prove either way, unless you happen to have a study of 2006 aftermarket parts sales for both brands. Nor does it really matter. We're really talking about just the VQ and the N5x motors.

I disagree on both accounts. And I NEVER said NOT to discuss inline 6cyl. engines...infact I stated the complete opposite.

Look at my post. It was directed at YSSMAN, who specifically stated "V6". Joey D has also made statements that this thread should be confined to discussing just "V6"s.

There are several four cylinder engines that put out 260hp and we aren't talking about them. It's not the horsepower output that we are discussing, its 6 pistons in a V formation.

And I should note that you +rep'd him for that post.

So if you were happy to discuss straight sixes, that's certainly news to me.


If you want to disqualify the N54, it's up to you. No skin off my nose. If you don't even want to talk about comparing engines, that's up to you too. I've said my piece and I'd be happy to let it go.

But please don't reply to this with a counter-argument AND complain about me taking the thread off-topic at the same time, k? Remember it takes two.


M

 

[JCE]

You did? I thought it was about 'global affordable 6 cylinder engines'.

It is, take a look around America--people are spending more money on people carriers than the price range I stated: $34k-36k. When I see hundreds more SUVs around here in the $40k range being bought than I do G35 saloons then one could make the arguement that $34k-36k is affordable.

It seems a little arbitrary to me, since FI (BMW's route with N54), high revs (BMW's route with S54 and Nissan's route with VQHR) and increased displacement (Any 6 displacing more than ~3.2) are all just different ways of getting more air into the engine. Maybe to be consistent, you should have an upper rev limit rule or maximum displacement size?

But whatever. It's your thread.

I mentioned "naturally aspirated" more than once in my original post--maybe that wasn't enough of a message? Do we need to start being more specific? *edit* I'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually being serious with that question. */end* And forced induction is JUST 100% air, any engine with a displacement larger than 3.0L is more than just "different ways of getting more air into the engine" versus a 2.8L 6cyl for instance--it is infact quite a bit more than increased air intake.

I won't comment on the rest because it is a bit offtopic.

 

[///M-Spec]

It is, take a look around America--people are spending more money on people carriers than the price range I stated: $34k-36k. When I see hundreds more SUVs around here in the $40k range being bought than I do G35 saloons then one could make the arguement that $34k-36k is affordable.

I am not arguing over whether or not $34-36k is affordable. You are welcome to define the price, this is your thread. I only brought up affordability to justify my mentioning the 335i because the term seemed to include the similarly priced IS350 and G35.

I mentioned "naturally aspirated" more than once in my original post--maybe that wasn't enough of a message? Do we need to start being more specific? *edit* I'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually being serious with that question. */end*

You mention it several times, but never in a context in which I would presume discussing turbo motors were off limits.

I'm not a massive fan of going over semantics with a fine tooth comb, so how about we just stop debating what you may, or may not have said and just concentrate on the topic at hand?

I would simply like to know why forced induction is not acceptable, but large displacement or high-reving engines are. It's not a big deal. I'm just curious what your thinking is.

And forced induction is JUST 100% air, any engine with a displacement larger than 3.0L is more than just "different ways of getting more air into the engine" versus a 2.8L 6cyl for instance--it is infact quite a bit more than increased air intake.

Huh?

What does a turbocharger or supercharger do? Takes exhaust gases, compresses it and feeds it back into the motor. End result = more air/fuel per combustion cycle. (or in the case of the supercharger uses a belt driven, not exhaust driven compressor ..same idea different 'power' source)

What does increasing displacement do? Makes cylinders larger or increase cylinder count so more air can be burned. End result = more air/fuel per combustion cycle.

What does a high rev motor do? Spins faster, so more there are more combustion cycles per minute. End result = more combustion cycles = more air/fuel is burned.

Fundamentally, improving performance can come from more efficient burning, burning more or some combination of the two concepts. More efficient burning can be achieved independently or in combination with turbos, high revs or greater displacement, but these time honored methods are primarily used to achieve the latter. In other words, turbo or supercharging is just an engineering/production solution like high-revs or increasing cylinder size/count. It is a different solution, with its own pros and cons, but the end goal is the same.

I don't know why you don't want to include them in this conversation. Again, it's up to you. But it doesn't make sense to me personally.


M

 

[TuneRVisioN]

I hate to bring up buses again, but I recently found out that they have 250HP Hybrid buses with a 5.9L. Also they produce......



2,700NW OF TORQUE!!! That is coming from an Inline 6!


Now off that topic and back to the real topic. I believe that things are still improving, we just got to give it time. They said something about a 80HP car with a V12 engine or something like that, but that was way back then. So the more time passes by, the more car engines improve, except for some of the american car engines IMO.

 

[Joey D]

I guess you haven't had any experience with MODERN American engines. Old ones weren't exactly great but in the past couple of years American engines have gotten quite a bit better.

 

[TuneRVisioN]

Whoops forgot to put the word "some american cars" in my post. Sure they're a few good V6 american engines, but american cars are also heavy, and like say, the V6 charger. The V6 is not good enough for powering a car with that mass. I just like cars that are FOTB. (Fresh Off That Boat.) The old mustang 5.0 my uncle got had probably 220-250HP, but now thier V8 from the new mustang produces 300HP (maybe more since you know how they show that the car appears to have less HP than they really have. Best shown with the Nissan Skyline GT-R V-Spec II R34. There are still some crappy V6's out here though. I just wish that american cars reduced thier weight a little bit. Again, just got to let V6's mature and give it time.

EDIT: Whoops talked about V8... Sorry.

 

[Joey D]

Most modern cars are heavy then older cars. There was a column in Motor Trend a few months back about it, pretty interesting.

For example:
1964 Chevy Impala weighed in at 3340 lbs.
2008 Chevy Impala weights in at 3711 lbs.

Case in point, modern cars are just heavier in general. Added airbags, traction control, etc.