By on December 13, 2013

Audi 3.0 TFSI Engine

‘Tis the season for year-end Top 10 lists celebrating and lamenting all things in the world of life, and the automotive industry is no exception. Ward’s Automotive has announced its list of the 10 best engines for 2014, and it’s a turbodiesel-intercooled festival of power this year.

The winners on the 20th anniversary of this list are as follows:

  • 3.0L TFSI Supercharged DOHC V6 (Audi S5)
  • 3.0L Turbodiesel DOHC I6 (BMW 535d)
  • 3.0L Turbodiesel DOHC V6 (Ram 1500 EcoDiesel)
  • 83 kW Electric Motor (Fiat 500e)
  • 1.0L EcoBoost DOHC I3 (Ford Fiesta)
  • 2.0L Turbodiesel DOHC I4 (Chevrolet Cruze Diesel)
  • 6.2L OHV V8 (Chevrolet Corvette Stingray)
  • 3.5L SOHC V6 (Honda Accord)
  • 2.7L DOHC H6 boxer (Porsche Cayman)
  • 1.8L Turbocharged DOHC I4 (Volkswagen Jetta)

Of note, Ford’s three-pot EcoBoost marks the first time an automaker won a spot on the list with only three cylinders, while Fiat scores a first-time win with its 83 kW electric motor found in the 500e. On the other end, only two engines from last year’s list returned — Audi’s 3.0-liter TFSI and Honda’s 3.5-liter V6 — while six of the 10 are oil-burners, a first for Ward’s.

General Motors scored two wins this year for the first time since 2008 with the Cruze’s 2-liter turbodiesel I4 and the new Corvette Stingray’s 6.2-liter naturally aspirated V8. Among trucks, the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel is the sole winner, based on the strength of its 3-liter turbodiesel stump-puller.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

92 Comments on “Turbos, Diesels Rule Top 10 Engine List in 2014...”


  • avatar
    Jacob

    I am curious about the 2.7L Cayman engine. For one, I didn’t know they have a new engine. What makes it so special? Is it used in Boxster too?

    • 0 avatar
      SunnyvaleCA

      The 2.7L is used in the Boxster and Cayman. The “S” models of have a detuned 3.4L version. The 911 has non-detuned 3.4L and the 911 S has a 3.8L.

      The high redline makes the engine exciting to drive on a racetrack.

      With the automatic, it benchmarks 22/32 MPH, a top speed of 165, and sub 5.5s. Not bad.

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    Japanese combustion engine suckage continues. They are so far behind everyone else. And now not just a gas turbo-4 in multiple lineups produced by every manufacturer but diesels too. Why are the Japanese so far behind everyone else?

    • 0 avatar
      Carrera

      The Japanese ( at least Honda and Toyota) are doing great when it comes to turbo diesel engines Norm. You just don’t seem them in North America. Honda makes a great CRdi engine for Europe. Last I checked the diesel 2010 CRV AWD was getting 35-40 mpg in Europe ( not imperial mpg). So no, not really; they are not far behind at all.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        But will they survive our higher sulphur content? Everyone else has adpated to the states, what’s holding up the Japanese?

        • 0 avatar
          Carrera

          You mean our lower sulphur content? I am sure they can survive it, but is it a good business proposition to bring their diesels to USA? I don’t know, I am not their CEO to know that, but I would jump on one of their diesels in a heart beat. Who is “EVERYONE” that has adopted to our ULSD? The Germans are really the only ones. Actually even they are having problems adapting to it ( VWs well known self destructing HPFP that go into Jetta/Golf/Bettle) Even the Koreans have great diesel offerings in Hyundai and Kia…just not in the USA. Thank CARB for that. Because of that, all diesels that come to USA have to have urea injection. That’s extra cost and extra drama. The only company working around that right now is Mazda with their diesel offering. They will not have urea injection but they are having some challenges with their engines and their entry to USA has been postponed because of that. If it wasn’t for CARB and EPA’s more stringent than Europe rules, you would see a lot more diesels in North America. I think actually you will see more diesels coming to USA since Europe will soon catch up with our EPA regs. When that happens, the manufacturers will not have to work on two diesel engines for two different markets anymore.

          • 0 avatar
            Onus

            Sulfur content is the same in practice. Ours is 15ppm max, theirs 10ppm max. I imagine our diesel has lower sulfur than 15ppm. Our cetane is lower and fuel is lower quality no one arguing that.

            The sulfur argument goes back to when we had no sulfur limits, then from the late 90′s until 2007 we had 500ppm sulfur limits while Europe had been on 10ppm since the late 90′s.

            The same Bosch HPFP is self destructing in Ford and Chevy diesel pickups.

            We are a few years ahead of Europe emissions wise that is why the diesels are all ramping up now or will be soon as Euro 6 goes into effect next year IIRC. The Euro 6 diesel emissions are very close to EPA 2010 emissions. Euro 6 engines will also have Scr(urea), and a dpf.

          • 0 avatar
            drewtam

            Euro 6 begins in 09/2014.
            regulations are g/km
            CO – 0.5
            HC+NOx – 0.17
            NOx – 0.08
            PM – 0.005
            [PN - 6x10^11]

            US Tier 2 requirements phased in 2004 to 2009. The reg allows cert to different bins, which are different emissions levels, bins 1-8 are currently allowed. The fleet avg needs to be close to Bin 5.
            The US reg is in g/mi. The cycles are also different, but I will ignore that here. I also converted the g/mi to g/km to make comparison to EU easier. US Bin 6 is closest to the EU6 Compression Ignition reg.
            CO – 2.61
            HC – 0.056
            NOx – 0.062
            PM – 0.0062

            Hitting the lower EPA NOx is a pinch point, but should be doable with similar technology just a different calibration.

            The US is also phasing in a Tier 3, starting 2017 to 2022. The fleet avg must be close to Bin 30. Available Bins are 160, 125, 70, 50, 30, 20, 0 (these are named after the mg/mi NMOG+NOx limit). The closest to EU6 CI is Bin 125. Again this is converted to g/km for easier comparison.
            CO – 1.3
            NMOG + NOx – 0.078
            PM – 0.0019

            In this case, the EU version diesel must be a smaller and smaller percentage of fleet sales so that fleet emissions meet roughly a Bin 30 average.

            So we have upcoming about a 5yr overlap where a 2009-2017/2020 EPA Tier 2 Bin 6 cert will match 2014 EU6 CI regulation, where I would expect easier import and cert of European market diesel models with minimum engine development and only slightly negative impact on fleet emissions averages in the US.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @drwtam
            You must remember that on average a Euro vehicle emits less than an average US vehicle.

            Fuel tax makes for a smaller engine, hence less fuel is burnt reducing all pollutants.

          • 0 avatar
            drewtam

            @Big Al

            You are mistaken and misunderstand US and EU emissions regulations.

            The regulations are g per mile (or kilometer). Therefore, all engines are required to meet the same aggregate output of pollutants, regardless of size, power or fuel consumption.

            Furthermore, fuel consumption and emissions typically have an inverse relationship when holding tech level constant, especially for diesel engines. That is, lower emissions often deliver worse fuel economy. And only more expensive drivetrains and engines are able to push the tradeoff curve. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, regardless of what politicians and activists of any stripe might tell you.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Onus,
            “We are a few years ahead of Europe emissions wise that is why the diesels are all ramping up now or will be soon as Euro 6 goes into effect next year IIRC.”

            Different emphasis “Clean” US Diesels fail CO2 emissions here and in Europe. Upshot cannot sell them.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @drewtam
            I’m not convinced with your argument.

            Just look at any satellite imagery of the NA continent and the European continent.

            In Europe from Manchester down through to the top of Italy is a massive conurbanation wit a larger population and population density than the NE corridor in the US. In fact over twice the population.

            The US’s atmosphere is full of $hit and pollutants in comparison to Europe.

            This area of Europe even has a much larger concentration of transportation and industry.

      • 0 avatar
        jz78817

        I drove an Indian-market Honda Amaze for a weekend about a month ago, which had the 1.5l iDTEC engine. It was pretty sprightly but holy crap it was noisy for a car engine.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      “And now not just a gas turbo-4 in multiple lineups produced by every manufacturer…”

      Really, what’s the fascination with turbo fours replacing normally aspirated engines? Ford’s 1.6 gives neither better fuel economy nor quicker acceleration than the NA 2.5s in other cars. I don’t see any benefit to buying a 2.0 turbo from Ford, Chevy, or Kia/Hyundai over the Honda, Toyota, or Nissan 3.5 V6s. The Dart 1.4 isn’t well-loved. The Cruze 1.4T is slower than the 2.0s in the Focus and Mazda3. You know who’s doing the turbo thing the best? VW.

      Regarding other areas, the Japanese are being very conservative and that is leading to some very uninteresting engine choices in the B and C segments for North America.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        And do you own any of the above mentioned?

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          You own an Accord V6? Do a side-by-side comparison between the Ford 1.6 and Toyota 2.5? As with Carrera’s comment regarding diesels, your response is either silence or a diversion.

          Norm, if you are able and willing to explain why you think turbo fours are superior to normally-aspirated engines, I’ll gladly read it. So go ahead.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          Yeah, I thought so. Crickets.

        • 0 avatar
          Jacob

          A pretty damning report from CR:

          http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            The Turbo articles were earlier this year so I’ll save the band width here. Ward’s engine choices just reaffirm what the mmanufacturers already now, aside from the predominant Japanese makers.

            Mazda finally designed a car around fuel economy and the Mazda6 2.0l still can’t break 40 mpg like my 14 year old Saab 9-5. Today’s 2.0T in my Verano Turbo with 6-speed manual beats the Mazda hands down and with a Trifecta Tune has twice the output and better fuel economy on heavy 18″ wheels 235mm rubberand no fuel economy tricks. With the ecu tune and mpg I’m getting Japanese V6′s are a thing oof the past and looking to size up againist V8s.

          • 0 avatar
            jz78817

            if people (meaning car buyers in general) really want better fuel economy, then they’re going to have to get used to having less powerful engines. No two ways about it. Most of us can point to some shitbox we had three decades ago which could get 45 mpg uphill in gale-force headwinds, but conveniently forget that they had less (oftentimes a lot less) than 100 hp and weighed less than 2500 lbs.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            There isn’t a single non-hybrid midsize sedan getting 40 MPG. Mazda is competitive with the rest of the segment, and actually matches its EPA rating in the real world, which not all its competition does.

            The fascination with small turbo engines is because most of the Eurozone taxes engines based on displacement over 2L. So there’s a significant incentive to make engines at that size and below, and get as much power as you can out of them, instead of just increasing displacement.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            I’ll believe standardized testing before I believe the internet claims of a brand-specific fanboy who has every motivation to give us selective optimistic claims about his favorite car manufacturer. Please Norm, enlighten us as to why CRs test procedure is faulty and therefore their results are invalid. Be sure to be as specific as you are about your miracle Saab and modified Verano.

            And consumers don’t care what an engine does when you tune it aftermarket. They do care if their turbo family sedan doesn’t deliver near the EPA ratings.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Hey Norm, Edmunds just tested a Buick Regal GS and managed to get a 0-60 of 7.3 seconds out of 259 hp and 295 lb-ft of turbocharged fury. The Lexus IS250 they tested does it in 7.5 sec. Wanna explain how the hell GM’s marvelous engine tech allowed that to happen?

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Turbo power putting a Japanese V6 to shame in a straight line measured in whole seconds.

            http://www.edmunds.com/lexus/is-250/2014/comparison-test.html

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Norm, I didn’t use the IS250 as an example of Japan’s best. Quite the contrary. Everyone knows it is outdated and underpowered. So why is the Regal GS just as slow?

            Your Edmunds link shows that the ATS 2.0 is embarrassed in a straight line by German turbo power, GM has to equip the ATS with a turbo to be quicker than the IS250 (the ATS with the same 2.5L displacement as the Lexus is very similar), and the IS350 would easily outrun the ATS 2.0. And probably the ATS 3.6. So would a Camry V6.

            And you still haven’t explained why CR’s mpg methodology is flawed. Or explained why the Regal GS is IS250-slow. Or why Hyundai/Kia, Ford, or GM are unable to meet or beat Japanese 3.5 V6 power and fuel economy with their 2.0 turbos. Or why a Focus with the 2.0 NA four is quicker than the Cruze 1.4T.

            In short, you have completely failed to explain why small displacement turbos are inherently better than larger NA engines, which was the entire start of this conversation.

            Keep floundering, though.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            German’s underated 2.0T vs the ATS on the dyno with piss water 91 octane.

            http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/dyno-tested-2013-cadillac-ats.html

            I, like others on Priuschat, can’t comment on CR’s fuel economy tests as we don’t know how they come up with their FE. If Fetch30 can find me their highway test loop I’ll drive from Ohio to compare numbers.

            http://priuschat.com/threads/consumer-reports-the-mpg-gap.129233/

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        I would imagine in Ford’s case its taking advantage of how euro fuel eco y standards favor small turbocharged engines and parlaying that into a priwmum engine in the US. Mustang guys are drinking the EcoBoost koolaid so deeply they want the next SVT cars to be painted tree hugger green with EcoBoost replacing the s make emblems

    • 0 avatar
      npaladin2000

      It’s not Japan being far behind, it’s Honda and Toyota, they’re too conservative to adopt new engine tech in a reasonable amount of time. Look at Subaru and Mazda and you’re seeing DI, turbos, high compression, all kinds of good stuff.

      • 0 avatar
        84Cressida

        Both Honda and Toyota have made several turbo engines in the past, Honda even more recently, and have had DI in several of their cars in Japan and the US for several years now. Toyota’s D4-S Direct injection is one of the most advanced on the market. It eliminates one of the biggest problems with DI and that’s carbon build up. Most automakers still do not have a system like it.

        They are not behind in technology, they’re just not in any rush to market turbos that have lesser reliability and fuel economy gains than what certain other makers are suggesting. Toyota will have a few turbo engines very soon, and I’m willing to bet they’ll be a lot more reliable than what everyone else is doing.

        • 0 avatar
          npaladin2000

          The past is the past. Right now, Honda and Toyota are uncompetitive. So is Nissan when you get down to it. They’re not innovating, and sticking a system on a comparatively low-volume Scion FR-S doesn’t make up for their stone-age 1.8 engines.

          They’d better wake up soon, Hyundai, Kia, Ford, and GM are eating away at their market share more and more, and once Mazda gets the Mexico plant going they’ll take some of it too. While everyone’s adding DI, turbos, high compression, or some combination of those, Toyota is trumpeting “improved” variable intake valve timing. Which everyone else is already doing…except maybe Honda and Nissan.

          I do believe we are on the verge of a new “Malaise Era.” If we’re not already in it. Except it’s the Japan-3 that are coasting rather than the Detroit-3.

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            Two of the best selling car companies are not competitive?

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            As far as engines? Absolutely. Remember back when American car engines are so primitive they couldn’t compete, and their fanboys had to fall back on bragging about how you could fix them with a brick and some twine? (That was yesterday, right? LOL!) That’s where Honda, Toyota, and Nissan’s mainstream engine tech is now, sitting next to GM’s turbos, Ford’s DI turbos, Mazda’s high compression DIs, Dodge’s turbo multiairs, VW’s turbo whatever-they’re-doings, etc etc. Next all all these, we have “improved partial variable valve timing.” Ok, sure. So now their fanboys are falling back on how simple and reliable they are, so they really don’t need to do any of that stuff. Which sounds really really familiar.

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            Your argument can be seen to make sense historically, even if the old american iron wasn’t quite as reliable. One of my fears as somewhat of a Honda fanboy, is that Honda will pull a ’57 Chrysler and ruin their reputation for quality to make up for their lack of fashionability.
            By your logic classic american pushrod engines are still among the best though, just look at the supercharged Hemis in drag racing :)

          • 0 avatar
            jz78817

            I’m convinced that were it not for the automotive press harping on it, GM could still be using the 3800 V6 and nobody would really give a crap.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The Japanese 3 will still come out smelling like a rose when the “new tech” starts to give its owners grief 3-5 years into ownership. Appliance buyers simply want reliable appliances, most new car buyers fall into this category.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            The 2L high compression DI engine in the Focus came out in 2010, as did the 1.4L turbo in the Cruze. They seem to be appliancing along just fine so far.

            Once Honda and Toyota start losing business over this, they’ll wake up and realize they need to become competitive again. After all, they wrote this whole story the first time, walking into a stagnant market with smarter, more advanced designs, and caught the Detroit-3 napping. And the Detroit-3 defense? Oh, that newfangled stuff just won’t last, you’ll see, in 3-5 years they’ll be falling apart, and you’ll wish you bought that reliable old American Iron. :)

            Malaise Era, Part Deux. You heard it here first. ;)

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            I thought you would say something like that. I also hear from a lot of BMW owners;”It’s three years old, and nothing has gone wrong yet” Come on, three years? You think a car is reliable if it lasts three years, what kind of cars have you people owned in the past ? I expect to buy a 10 year old used car that runs like new, even if it’s a Ford…

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            1. Your expectations are too high, I’ve NEVER owned a 10 year old used car that ran “like new.” Most of them ran like they had over 100k miles on them. Or more. They’ve all also needed significant repairs and/or wear replacements of one sort or another. As to “the rest” they weren’t in that good shape even. If the thing ran like new, it wouldn’t be a used car, the first owner would still own it.

            2. Some people do a lot of miles per year than average due to long commutes (for example, I do 24k). Some of THOSE people must have Focuses or Cruzes and would have noticed long-term durability issues by now.

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            Well, I’ll admit that if I had to drive 24K a year, I would want a better interior and less road noise than my ’03 CRV had. Before it was totalled by an oncoming car that forgot what side of the rad he was supposed to drive on, it was still running great at 120K though, even if it allready had some wear parts replaced. Most of my cars before that have been 12-17 year old cars with 200K or more on them, which is in my exprience as far as older European cars can be economically serviced (meaning I was usually the last owner) But, one of my previous cars, a 1990 Accord is still somewhere out there with close to 250K on it. And the rust is starting to bother my brothers 98 Integra Type-R, and some wear parts (one wheel bearing and brakes and cam belts)have been changed in it’s less than pampered 140K life. And I’m currently looking at a ‘like new’ 2007 CRV to replace the totalled one…

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            If Toyota buyers want economy they buy a Prius which is a nut the Big 3 have yet to crack. And I have owned many cars over 100k. Very few of the needed more than gas.

        • 0 avatar
          ponchoman49

          Yes because Toyota is god and can do no wrong. I suppose that is why I just looked at a 2006 Camry XLE V6 that is pouring oil out the rear side of the intake manifold causing quite the smoky mess and smell inside the vehicle. oh and it is elderly owned with but 70K miles and never abused. “Oh what a smell”

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @NormSV650
      I do think we could ask why does the US import most of it’s engine tech? This comes from Europe and Japan.

      What engines of US origin are actually US? Even the Pentastar is very similar to the Merc V6′s. Daimler and Chrysler worked together in the Phoenix program (Pentastar an Merc V6′s).

      I think that the US and Japanese are at a similar level with internal combustion engines. The Japanese might have an edge. Skyactive?

      • 0 avatar
        jz78817

        “What engines of US origin are actually US? Even the Pentastar is very similar to the Merc V6′s.”

        So that must mean the design came from Mercedes, right? Christ, Daimler did all they could to destroy Chrysler and people like you are still piling on. It’s like the ignorants who keep saying the Grand Cherokee is “Mercedes ML-based” when it was Auburn Hills who had the lead.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      I would rather an “old” VQ35 than pretty much anything on the list but the Vette motor. Newer doesn’t always equal better. Look up “carbon build up” with either “VW FSI” or “Mazda 2.3″.

      Not to mention, none of the 2.0T motors have an ounce of character. Aside from BOV whoosh they make no kinds of good sounds and they die off around 5000 RPM. “Progress” indeed.

      • 0 avatar

        None of the new turbo engines do. I had a Fiesta ST with the fake engine sound plumbed in, and then drove an Escape 1.6 EB. The Escape 1.6 is near silent.

        • 0 avatar
          jz78817

          it’s not fake, Derek, it actually comes in from the engine’s air intake. It’s basically the same thing as the Mustang GT’s Sound Induction Port, but being that the Focus was done in Europe they came up with a foofy name like “Active Sound Symposer.”

    • 0 avatar
      ponchoman49

      The Honda 3.5 V6 still uses a timing belt. Talk about archaic. I can’t think of one other V6 that still does.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I’ve never understood the need for using a belt over a chain in the first place other than to save the money on the chain at assembly time and to give the finger to your longer term car owners.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        Yeah man, ask pre 2013 VQ40 owners how if they would prefer a belt over a chain when they drop there trucks at the dealer for a squeal and get the quote for new timing chain tensioners. Is a belt every 60k really a big deal? You know chains stretch too and the tensioners and gears do not last forever. If they really cared about durability and simplicity then they would have neither like my old Ford 2.8 which was gear driven.

  • avatar
    jz78817

    cripes, that Audi V6 is wide. I’m assuming it’s a 90° engine?

    • 0 avatar
      ZCD2.7T

      I never really thought about the motor’s dimensions. Fits just fine in the engine bay of my S4….

      For the record, it’s an absolute sweetheart of a motor:

      - Power and torque pretty much anywhere in the rev band
      - Smooth as can be
      - A really nice, healthy V-6 “burrrrrr” on-throttle
      - Best of all, INSTANT throttle response (thank you, supercharger) that makes all turbo- and most naturally-aspirated motors feel positively lethargic by comparison.

      The fact that Audi left so much performance on the table for the aftermarket to exploit is just icing on the cake…

      • 0 avatar
        jz78817

        thanks, but none of that answers my question.

        thankfully I know of Wikipedia. I’ll leave you to your fawning.

        • 0 avatar
          ZCD2.7T

          So, wait – your job is professional whiner, huh?

          Who knew such a profession even existed?

          Seriously, though – what does the width of the engine have to do with ANYTHING?!

          The original post is about good motors, as is mine.

          Yours is indeed a question for Wikipedia, or audiusa.com.

          • 0 avatar
            jz78817

            no, I was just curious. I know Audi did a 120 degree V6 in one of their racers but was pretty sure that wouldn’t fit in a passenger car.

            I wouldn’t call myself a “professional” whiner, just very practiced.

    • 0 avatar

      Yes, all of Audi’s V6s are 90-degree. I assume it’s for lower clearance, since they’re mounted so far forward.

  • avatar

    There must be some mistake with the list because I don’t see the 6.4-Liter HEMI up there.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    This might sound silly, but are the BMW diesels available in the US? I know Mercedes’ diesels have been, but I’ve never seen a diesel Beemer on the roads…

  • avatar
    wmba

    Never understood the criteria Wards uses for “best engine”. Never understood the criteria used by the Europeans for International Engine of the year. Both seem to choose winners based on no relevant criteria, but usually on hidebound views of superiority based on nationalism. Wards is a bit better this year in that regard.

    Surely the best engine is the one that produces the most energy for the least consumption of fuel, so long as the usual criteria of NVH are addressed.

    In this regard, my winner is the Honda 2 liter Atkinson cycle engine in the new Accord Hybrid. It’s a more modern take on the Prius-type engine. From the 22nd Aachen Colloquium Automobile and Engine Technology 2013 conference, you can download the A2.3_Yonekawa_Honda .pdf

    BSFC of 214 g/kWh, fuel economy and max power VTEC cams. The remainder of the paper shows the NA engine has a better BSFC than a turbo, and how to get DI to work on a small gas engine without oil dilution.

    I think that the pontificators who think that some generic iron block GM turbo engine as stuffed into the Cruze is the technological equal of Honda’s latest engines is operating on blind hope and fanboism.

    Putting a turbo on a engine is not high technology, nor is a practitioner of high technology a person who can manipulate the touch keypad of a smarphone. But the latter think they are.

    Anyway to satisfy the gee-whiz crowd, Honda is designing turbo engines so you can feel cool too.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      There certainly are other factors that should matter in an engine, such as power/weight ratio, durability, cost & complexity, etc.

    • 0 avatar
      jz78817

      Honda is late to the game with things like DI which the US makers have been doing for a while (and the Germans even longer) and we’re supposed to genuflect to their innovation?

      “Putting a turbo on a engine is not high technology, nor is a practitioner of high technology a person who can manipulate the touch keypad of a smarphone.”

      Nor is closing your intake valves late and calling it “OMG VTEC Atkinson Yo!”

      • 0 avatar
        Zykotec

        There is a looong list of problems with DI engines, there is still barely a short list of problems with Hondas… Being ‘boring’ is not a problem in itself, both Toyota and VW has managed to sell boring cars for decades…

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Honda usually waits until the engines are perfected. (Transmissions, not so much! ;-) Though the 6-speed autos are OK now.)

          And as I always say: No! Replacement! For! Displacement!

  • avatar
    korvetkeith

    I count 3. What am I missing?

  • avatar
    mor2bz

    not so fast with the jabs against Toyota: my Previa (please do not laugh now) 1995 is supercharged and works just fine. I had a ride in a
    Toyota truck that was supercharged and it was unbelievable (it had been hopped up a bit).

    So they can do it as well as anyone. They usually don’t for the sake of reliability. Hats off.

    • 0 avatar
      npaladin2000

      Wait, so, you mean being so primitive you can fix it with a brick, some string, and a roll of duct tape is an ADVANTAGE? Quick, someone tell GM to bring back the Iron Duke!

      Food for thought. :)

      • 0 avatar
        Zykotec

        I think making a car that can potentially last beyond it’s warranty, and can be realistically serviced later on, will have some resale value (unlike some of the engines you’ve mentioned earlier), which may in return help sales of new cars, to those left with a longer attention span than most i-phone buyers, or people who plan more than 15 minutes ahead. ( I know, we’re mostly close to 40 years old or more, but some of us will live to be a 100…)

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        You can still do that with an LS motor, pretty straight forward and simple.

  • avatar
    Zykotec

    I actually miss seeing Hondas new 1.6 diesel on the list. Seems that in real life in a Civic it gets better mileage and is faster than most of it’s competitors(here in Norway). 58 mpg and 0-60 in 10.5 seconds…
    Luckily we don’t seem get the ‘boring’ Hondas over here :P

  • avatar
    tbone33

    A truly great engine needs to:

    1. Be reliable. Great engines don’t have constant nagging issues.

    2. Last a long time. This data is not available until the engine has been around at least 5 years and there are several high mileage examples.

    3. Be efficient or powerful or character-rich in a way that is superior to most engines.

    It appears that this competition totally ignores #1-2 and simply rewards companies who are quick to the market.

    • 0 avatar
      ponchoman49

      It’s obvious most of this list is made to appeal to the fad crowd who think diesels and tiny boosted engines are cool ala “fast and the furious” kids.

      • 0 avatar
        bikegoesbaa

        Yeah, can’t wait until Diesels and forced induction go the way of those other silly fads like FWD and automatic transmissions. When was the last time you saw any of them around nowadays, amirite?

        I’m sure someday we’ll all think about compression-ignition and high specific output motors the same way we do pet rocks today.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      Disagree. Some of the greatest engines ever require a rebuild every 500 miles.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    I’m surprised the Honda 3.5L SOHC V6 made the 2014 Top 10 Engine List notwithstanding excessive oil consumption. The bar cannot be set very high.

    http://www.hondaproblems.com/problems/excessive-oil-consumption.shtml


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India