By on January 24, 2014

camryv6

Once upon a time, there was the Accord. It had sixty-eight horsepower from 1.6 liters of four-cylinder power. And the consumer saw that it was good, and the Additional Dealer Profit stickers spread far and wide across the land. The Eye Of Toyota, concealed within the fortress of Toyota City, saw the Accord and commanded the Camry to be built. It was bigger and more powerful, but it was also powered by four cylinders.

The General Motors X-Body and A-Body, to say nothing of the Ford Tempo and Mercury Topaz, could be had with a V-6, but it mattered not, for not a single Accord buyer in history ever decided upon a Cutlass Ciera as an alternative. But then, one day, Toyota raised the stakes.

The Camry V6 didn’t make much sense initially, with an underpowered 2.5-liter mini-motor that added more weight than the power seemed to justify. But when the 1992 Camry arrived, the promise of the big-block was well and truly justified. All of a sudden, the five-speed V-6 Camry was one of the best cars that money could buy. Honda was forced to introduce a rather hapless long-nosed variant of the Accord in response.

And thus the pattern of the marketplace was fixed. In the world of mid-sized sedans, you must offer a four and a six. The six is there to anchor the top of your lineup, to provide a near-luxury experience for buyers who are downgrading from the Europeans, to benefit from the pre-existing synergies with the Lexus or Acura variant of your mid-sizer which has to have a six. The four is there for customers to actually purchase in measurable volume. Over the past two decades, the 80/20 rule has held generally true, with the four gaining a little more ground, perhaps to 90/10, as fuel prices increase and real-world purchasing power drops.

All was well until the Koreans decided to throw salt in the game with the turbo-four Optima and Sonata. General Motors promptly followed them over the cliff with the Malibu Turbo. Ford decided to provide two turbo engines for the Fusion, one of them the same displacement, more or less, as that original 1977 Accord but making two and a half times the power.

This is the most choice we’ve had in the midsizer market since… well, since ever, really. It’s a shame nobody’s offering a wacky-weed eight-cylinder anymore (pour one out for the Taurus SHO, the Impala SS, and the Passat W8) but right now you can get anything from a force-fed 1.6L to a silky-smooth 3.5L V-6. What would you pick? What’s the best mix of fuel economy and power? Will the turbo four kill the V-6, and if so, why don’t the Japanese know this?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

246 Comments on “QOTD: Four On Six? (Or Boost?)...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    This is a great article, it really speaks to me. V6 FTW all day long.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      If you drove a 2013 2.0T or later you’d be impressed. Most automatic transmissioned 2.0T(V6′s too) electronically adjust to driver style. Make sure the test car is at operating temperatures and preferable with premium fuel but not necessary with GM turbos. Find yourself at 35-45 mph and a punch to pass senario and I’ll think you’ll be impressed 250-270 hp/trq. Sorry for the dead throttle response off idle unless you stomp on it, SUA of high strung off-idle torque converter spike Japanese cars have ruined the fun for all of us.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Hot six. But I prefer a size class above these cars like an Impala. I love when a powerful 6 gets stuffed into a midsize family hauler cause it feels like the old days of big block family cars that the “cool dads” would order.

    V6 Camry? Wow your Mom chose the car but your Dad got to pick the options.

    • 0 avatar
      TheAnswerIsPolara

      I bought my first Toyota in ’94 — a Camry V6 LE – A Japanese assembled unit too. Green, tan interior. That is likely the very best car I’ve EVER owned. Except for a couple of batteries and regular maintenance, nothing — I mean NOTHING — had to be done to the car in 160,000 miles and 8 years.

      We’d still be driving it but my wife didn’t keep up with the oil changes and we spun a bearing and it got traded in for a minivan. My current ’12 Avalon reminds me of the Camry experience.

    • 0 avatar
      mechimike

      I just rented an Impala- Hertz is still renting the last gen Impalas (before the 2014 redesign) and that thrashy, boisterous V6 is every bit the powerhouse that a big block was. Holy crap. No way to turn traction control off, and that’s probably a good thing: even with it enabled, the torque steer would about rip your arms off. I dusted a freaking Porsche from a stoplight. Yee Haw!

      • 0 avatar
        Willyam

        Me too, mechimike, all because of the recommendations from the commenters here. I regularly rent from the same place, and while too small to ever have much in the way of fun cars, the manager said if I had a request let him know. I said new Impala, and got an LTZ with the 3.6. Took my young stepson and his friends out and had repeated fun on backroads sending the hood toward the sky and the steering wheel pulling like mad. If the Camaro could be this silly with the same motor they’d sell tons of ‘em.

  • avatar
    Idemmu

    The turbo four is quickly becoming the V6′s replacement in the market. What baffles me is that no one gave GM credit for starting the all 4cyl thing when they did it with Saab. Everyone hated on Saab’s lack of bigger engines (neglecting the fact that the current engines were pretty powerful and smooth), and now it’s the cool thing to do. Saab once again was ahead of it’s time. Kia/Hyundai is the new saab, but i guess they are out Saabing Saab.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      GM didn’t buy Saab until 1989 or 1990. Saab had already been all-4-cylinder for over twenty years and had offered a turbo as their top-spec since 1978. BMW had a 4-cylinder turbo four years earlier, but they replaced it with a small 6 for better refinement, efficiency, and dependability. Saab didn’t have the resources to build a new engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      According to reality, Saab made some awesome turbo engines, and then GM bought them and killed them off…Ok, I admit the guys in Sweden didn’t try very hard to cater for the general buyer. GM deserve no credit for the turbo 4cyl. They just bought the best of them.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      He means the magazine comparisons when SAAB competed in the near luxury segment that Buick owns now. Sorry CJ, no HMC content here because the lack of turbo chargers in mass production.

      The Saab 9-5 of the 2000′s decade did finish mid-upper pack from one of the magazines. But that was when they used iron-block turbo charged sourced from Saab. In 2005 GM Ecotec and Direct Injection(only ones not have pump and carbon problems?) 2.0T LNF to the states with a warrantible 290hp/340trq. This block was what Saab needed a decade before it’s demise with block mounted accessories. I have the 2.4l Ecotec in a Sky with a Mitsu TD04 cluttering up the exhaust pipe and it purrs to 350hp/400trq

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        The only Saab to get the direct-injected version of the Ecotec was the new 9-5. The old 9-3 had the non-DI 210hp version of the Ecotec, and the old 9-5 had the last iteration of the iron-block Saab motor. Which was a win-some/lose some proposition. What they gained in efficiency they mostly lost in durability, especially in the OG9-3 and early 9-5s. Much improved over the years, but still not as stout as the old ones. Which were hampered by the gearbox they were bolted on top of. Can’t win!

        For all intents and purposes, Saab designed the Ecotec though, with input from Opel. A lovely motor, and as others have said, ahead of it’s time by about a decade.

        A V6 is a waste of two cylinders, IMHO. Turbo 4 all the way. Inline 6 is a harder choice, but I would still take the 4.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Ignorance is bliss. HMC built the City turbo decades ago. They stopped when they developed superior naturally aspirated engines. How does it feel knowing that the garbage you drive was built to appease Chinese regulators?

  • avatar

    For family/commuting/driving-around-town duties? A 4 pls. All day long.

    The only place a 6 or an 8 would be superior is on a highwat trip, but with all the radars and traffic nowadays, the 4 is the answer ’cause it serves other functions better.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      Why would a 190 bhp Lexus 2.5L six be better on the highway than the 250 bhp turbo 4 in a Verano?

      • 0 avatar

        More torque for overtaking? Seriously, i agree with you. Modern fours are rendering sixes and eights obsolete.

      • 0 avatar
        darkwing

        The 2.5L in the IS, at least, makes 204 hp. Though the more apt comparison would seem to be the 3.5L making 306.

        Putting the loaded comparison aside, though, and comparing a turbo 4 and a NA 6 with similar specs, of course the 6 is going to be better once you’re above the 4′s torque peak.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          Jmc is onto to it! No sub 3.5l NA has the torque of the GM Ecotec 2.0T, peak or plateau.

          @darkwing the Lexus is a 16 second quarter mile car with 87 mph trap speed. My 1988 2.8l V6 Beretta GT could do that!

          http://m.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=660710&styleid=13

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          No, not really. Despite having newer and better tech, the 3.0L 6 in my ’11 BMW is a worse engine in every way but the noise it makes than the 2.0T that was in my ’08 Saab. You have to rev the hell out of it to go fast, it has no torque down low, and it is notably less efficient. Sounds absolutely lovely though. The turbo was the better car motivator.

          • 0 avatar
            DC Bruce

            This would be the descendant of the twin-turbo 6 that, when introduced, the car mags said had “virtually no turbo lag?” [chuckle]
            The question I would ask is whether a newer generation of n/a larger displacement engines with cylinder dactivation might be a better solution. Consider that the new 5.3 and 6.2 liter V-8 Chevy truck engines introduced for the Silverado 1500 are both EPA rated at 22 mpg highway, which is 2 mpg less than the 3.5 liter V-6 in my ’08 Pilot, which develops 245 hp vs. 335 and 420 hp for the Chevy motors. Also consider the fact that the vehicle they’re pushing around weighs about 1000 lbs. more than my Pilot. Except for some small displacement versions I remember from decades ago, every 4 displacing two liters or more has a coarse and sound “feel” to it that is missing from 6′s or 8′s.

            Turbos are certainly much more drivable now than when they were introduced in the 1980s, but there’s still no replacement for displacement and 6+ cylinders for drivability, smoothness and linear power delivery, IMHO.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “with cylinder dactivation might be a better solution.”

            Unfortunately cylinder deactivation has had some teething issues of its own.

    • 0 avatar
      pragmatist

      Smoothness.

      3 power strokes per revolution instead of two.

      More importantly, on the 6 a new power stroke is starting as the old one is ending. With a 4,you have two dead spots per rotation.

      No balance shaft will fix that.

    • 0 avatar

      Totally agree. I own a Fusion with the 1.6 Ecoboost. It works great for all situations. My only complaint is that the highway mileage is not that great, but most of most of my driving is in town at 40-45 MPH, which seems to be the mileage sweet spot.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      Your road conditions must be different in Brazil than in the US. I’ve found most 4 cylinder cars to be fine on the highway, but the extra torque from the V6 lets you grab open road accelerating from a stoplight. However, recent 4 cylinder engines paired with more flexible transmissions offer about the same acceleration capability as the V6 Camry in the picture. Trading fewer cylinders for more gear ratios.

      • 0 avatar

        Hey George B! Actually, the engine situation here in Brazil has always been completely different. Mainly due to the price of gas, but also due to government regulations regarding taxes on displacement or horsepower output (it has varied greatly over time), most Brazilians think a 2.0 NA I4 is a big engine. In reality Chrysler and Ford offered some V8s in the 70s, and GM has for most of its 80 yr history offered some form of 6, but due to mostcbars here having been some form of 1.someting I4, in our minds a V6 is the most powerful thing imagineable! Imports have only been allowed from the 90s on and due to their obscene pricing only the Germans have been able to really establish themselves. However, that is a very exclusive club and in Brazilians’ minds something still very foreign and exotic.

        Modern turbo I4s are a very recent thing, being largely available only the last few years from many, and on and of again over a longer period, mainly by Fiat. Anyone who has one is considered to have a very powerful car indeed.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    I don’t think any car above compact size should be without at least a V6, turbo nonsense or no turbo nonsense.

    • 0 avatar
      JuniperBug

      That’s fun to say until you have to pay for it, in terms of production costs and MPG. Do you have the funds? The fact that 80-90% of buyers of mainstream sedans opt for the V-6, shows that we live in a world where we can’t afford to make cylinder count a priority.

      The most characterful, and fastest, ride I ever had was a two cylinder (can be seen in my avatar). I’ve never had more than a four, and for something to get you where you need to go, it gets it done, and then some.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        My current car is an old school pushrod V6 that doesn’t get the greatest MPG and I handle it just fine. Unless some absurd ownership costs come with new cars, I think I’d have an even easier time affording a more reliable and efficient modern V6.

        4 cylinders are perfectly fine for compacts, but for midsize and above, give me NA V6 over turbo I4 every single time. There’s a certain smoothness and ease to a V6 that 4 cylinders just don’t have, unless I’ve just only ridden in poor examples of 4 cylinder cars.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Have you even tried any of the current crop of midsize sedans with a NA I-4, or a turbo 4? No offense but even the NA I-4s would make mincemeat of your 3.1 V6 in any contest of speed, all while having superior MPG, smoothness, you name it. Look at the numbers: a Gm 3100 has 158 hp, 185 lb-ft, an “earthdreams” accord has 185hp, 181 lb-ft. Technology marches on. A camry with the 2.5 will do 0-60 in 8 flat, an accord with a stick shift and the 4cyl will do the same feat in 6.6 seconds, the same as a W-body with the direct injected 3.6 V6 as a matter of fact.

          For the premium segment and fullsize cars, I agree with you that a v6 is nice just on principle.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            If I’m going to buy a brand new car, I’m probably going to get it as premium as possible to prolong upgrading regardless. So I would want a V6 in my Camcord, even if the 4 cylinder is “perfectly fine”.

            As for smoothness, I guess my mom’s Ecotec Malibu is just exceptionally un-smooth, I hate that buzzy piece of junk.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        The reason more buyers of mainstream sedans opt for the 4 cylinder choice is the smaller engine option has gone from anemic to adequate. The V6 is smoother and makes fewer awkward noises, but with consistent $3/gallon gasoline, the V6 has become a luxury item.

  • avatar
    jmo

    With modern day levels of refinement, I don’t really see the value add of the v-6. I’d imagine there was a massive NVH gap between the iron duke ans the 2.8L v-6 in an 89 cutlas ciera. The NVH gap between a turbo ford and a v-6 Camry is pretty negligible.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      NVH gap between an Iron Duke and a 2.8 V6 is roughly the same as between a paint shaker and a modern stand mixer whipping cream.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        That 2.8L in my Dad’s ’86 Century (last year with a carb.) made a subtle growl when revved, and was reasonably smooth.

        When GM started “exaggerating” the exhaust notes on vehicles with the 2.8 and 3.1, e.g. Corsica and especially the Beretta, it just sounded cheap from the outside!

        (Had a lot of rides in various As, but damned if I can recall if any of them had the 2.5. My fave was the father of a young lady in my circle of friends who always bought the top-line Oldsmobile as-was, without any options, so crank windows and delay wipers weren’t present on his ’85 Ciera! He still goes to my church, so when Olds was about to go Tango-Uniform, I asked if he was going to grab a last Olds. He had–an 88 LSS stripper!! :-) )

  • avatar
    Zackman

    4 or 6? It all depends on the weight. The new Impala can be had with a 4, but I would be hesitant about that option. Pulling the extra weight probably negates any fuel saving.

    I know technology has changed, but the law of physics tell me that a 4 cylinder powering 3900 lbs. will work much harder than a V6 pulling the same weight.

    Perhaps around town a 4 cyl. would be OK, but my 3.6L Impala on the highway about 100 miles a day is a very nice venue to cart my behind around! Even so, my old 2004 Impala with the 3.4L was a very nice engine that gave me better fuel economy than the monster I drive now, but I stop complaining when I step on the gas and feel those 300 horses go to work! It feels real good…

    As to the Camry and Accord, as large as they have become – they used to be Corolla/Civic-sized – they are right on the bubble between a 4 & 6, so pick your power! The same goes for Malibu and the other mid-sizers.

    • 0 avatar
      CobraJet

      Zackman, I agree about the feeling of power. I have an 07 Impala with the 3.9 V6. I believe the transaxle has a quicker final drive ratio that also helps. It turns more RMPs at a given speed than a comparable 3.5 Impala that we have at work.

      Mine is smooth and quiet with a lot of low-end torque. My daughter has an 07 Mercury Milan with the 4 cyl. A fairly peppy car, but has that 4 cyl drone under any type of acceleration.

  • avatar
    kvndoom

    Until the lack of turbos cause the Accord and Camry to not be the two best-selling cars in this country, they have no reason to change anything.

    Sorry but the two turbo cars I’ve owned that weren’t a diesel (Juke, MS3), really failed to impress me when they weren’t in the boost range.

    Frankly, of all the cars I’ve owned, none have ever enamored me like that V6/6MT Accord Coupe. The J35 is a man amongst boys. I wish Honda could build a comparable V8, but they don’t exactly have anything to put it in!

    • 0 avatar
      goldtownpe

      J35 and 2gr are my two favorite V6. Smooth as an inline 6 yet deceptively powerful.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Sorry to bust your bubble but 2.0T in my Verano quieter under all conditions(cruise, wot) than the larger Accord Coupe or Sedan with V6.

      • 0 avatar
        LectroByte

        Quieter? Not by any reviews I’ve seen, and in my admittedly subjective test of a Verano, it seemed to be way noiser than a lot of the contemporary offerings. Have you driven a Ford lately? I liked the MKZ a whole lot more than I thought I would. The Verano? Not so much. Accord V6 crushes it in so many ways.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Norm’s Verano does a 12 second 1/4 mile, gets 42mpg in mixed city/highway driving, and his interior decibel rating @ 75mph is 58 decibels.

          On a serious note, I’ve yet to come across any modern 4 banger of any configuration that is remotely as smooth as any modern V6 or I6, whether at idle or otherwise.

          Most of the people claiming otherwise are comparing malaise era GM crap with the best modern 4s.

          I keep hearing that I’m mistaken, het until I HEAR and feel that I’m mistaken in real life, comparing modern 4s and 6s, I’ll continue to believe that there’s a lot of B.S. Being shoveled high in yet another thread.

          In fact, 90% of modern 4 bangers, regardless of manufacturer, sound like crap at idle, and not much better at anything other than a very narrow sweet spot in their power band.

          • 0 avatar
            arun

            You should try the turbo 4 in a vw cc. Don’t try it in other vw cars like the gti or the tiguan-try it in the cc and tell me what you think. You would be very surprised..

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            arun, we owned a 2006 VW Passat, which as you’re probably aware, is essentially what the VW CC is now, and it had the 2.0T motor.

            Not only was the vehicle problematic, but of more relevance, the 2.0T, while decent in terms of making power, was hardly a benchmark of smoothness & mechanical refinement.

            We dumped that car after only 2 1/2 years, and we typically keep our vehicles for at least 6 years (and if reliable and good overall, as long as 10+ hears).

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Does GM have a “modern” oversquare (if that’s the correct term for a large-displacement) four? Seems that their upper four is the 2.0T.

          Such an engine would really make the Verano a nice deal without, IMHO, the inherent risks and “peakiness” of a turbo.

          A thought just occurred to me: would a small supercharger (which, if I’m correct again, so B&B, help me here if not), help provide a little more power WITHOUT the risks associated with a T-charger?

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            I’m not a supercharger guru or anything, but our supercharged MINI is “always on”. That always on condition means that there isn’t a benefit on the EPA tests and the EPA tests seem to drive decision making these days. With turbos, you can play all sorts of tricks with the wastegate and boost pressures to get an advantageous efficiency rating.

          • 0 avatar
            bumpy ii

            “Oversquare” means that the cylinder diameter is larger than the stroke length. This is generally a trait of high-revving sports car engines, and thus is rather rare to find in new cars these days. The vast majority of car and truck engines are undersquare (longer stroke), which provides better low-rpm torque but also contributes to rougher sounds and vibration.

    • 0 avatar
      JD23

      I have an A4 with the 2.slow and would trade that engine for the J35 in my brother’s Accord coupe any day of the week; the 3.5 V6 is smoother, has more upper end power, and is far more pleasant when driving hard. The 2.0T does has the advantage in low-end torque, however.

  • avatar
    geozinger

    Turbo 4.

    I had a Dodge Lancer Turbo ES back in the day, great fuel mileage and on boost, plenty of power. I currently have a Pontiac G6 with the Ecotec and six speed autobox. Great fuel economy around town, but sluggish in the mountains. Would love to have one of the boosted Ecotecs in my Epsilon, but not available until recently.

    If a 747 engine fell out of the sky and crushed my G6, I’d be cross shopping the Regal Turbo and the Malibu Turbo.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    2 liter turbos were long a popular option, in Italy. That was because Italian tax laws had punitive rates for larger engines. Ferrari even offered 208GTB/GTS turbo in the ’80s. They still offered superior, larger displacement, naturally aspirated engines for export markets. All that has changed is that this time it is China with the asinine 2 liter tax cut off, and they are the most important car market in the world. I don’t live in China, so I will buy engines built for my use instead of ones built for their bureaucratic whims.

    • 0 avatar
      ccode81

      I seem to be winner with Alfa GTV 2 liter V6 turbo.
      God, I have another 3liter V6 NA Alfa and 4liter V8 supercharged Jag,and feeling the smallest engine is just good for me…

  • avatar
    Zykotec

    V6 engines are some of the smoothest , but not the most efficient engines you can get. They make up for the lack of efficiency by being very small, and giving great torque, but there have been very few really powerful NA v6′s throughout history. A turbo 4 can often make more power, but will still be less refined(or more fun, YMMV).
    Remeber, you can also put turbos on a V6 :)
    For that luxury feel, I’d take a v6 over a 4 any day. For going fast, I guess turbo 4. (or just an insane old vtec)

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      My Verano 2.0T is actually quieter than Honda’s V6 in the Accord. Edmunds has some stellar db data that shows the Verano quieter thn a LS460. Motortrend revealed db and sones ratings of the Verano blowing away the Acura ILX and Civic twins.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        I’d wager that if the Verano is quieter than an LS 460, it isn’t because of the 2.0 turbo…which is very noisy. The Buick has all sorts of sound-deadening material, triple-glazed glass, and all that…

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        Probably not a surprise, especially depending on which engine was in the ILX. Honda needs to work the NVH magic on the Civic that they did on the Accord; had a Civic LX this week while my Accord was in for service, and even the 2013 revisions didn’t do much for it. They’ve done further tweaks for 2014..perhaps better NVH is one.

      • 0 avatar
        goldtownpe

        I guess in your world, you must believe that 61.8 dB is less than 58.2 dB.
        http://www.edmunds.com/lexus/ls-460/2010/road-test-specs.html

        http://www.edmunds.com/buick/verano/2013/road-test-specs.html

        Quieter than an LS460…lol.

  • avatar
    86er

    I didn’t know Derek was a zombie.

    What can I possibly say? The only constant is change.

    Now that I’ve been half-diplomatic, I’m going to go start up and listen to one of my V8s. Enjoy your four-bangers, suckers!

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    Naturally aspirated 4 cyl for this guy. A modern 2.4-2.5L makes more than enough power, is plenty smooth, and is cheaper to buy. Add to that less worries long term in terms of servicing and DIY-friendliness. That’s 2 fewer fuel injectors, 2 fewer plugs and 2 fewer coils to worry about. Then again on modern engines it may as well be a sealed unit well past 100k.

    I can appreciate the effortless passing and smoothness of a V6 on the highway, but the refinement gap has been narrowed considerably. With a well sorted 6spd automatic, the 4cyl will drop a gear or two and the response will be perfectly adequate and quick.

    Having recently worked on a turbo-4 (a boxer subaru to be fair), I saw first hand just how much additional plumbing there is and just how cooked (brittle) the rubber vacuum and coolant lines get when they’re routed in close proximity to a massively hot turbo. No thanks.

    • 0 avatar

      My ’08 Civic’s 1.8 L 4 feels very refined. My late father’s old ’95 Volvo 940′s (non-turbo) 4 felt even more so.

      I prefer natural aspiration.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        David, that R18 has nothing on the B-series motors previously in the Civics — damn near turbine-smooth, and they LOVED to rev! (My Mom’s 1990 Civic EX Sedan was a sedan body on a Civic Si chassis and motor — handled like a roller skate, and the B16 would rev sweetly and sonorously all day long! :-D ) The newer ones (like yours and my Mom’s 2007 Civic EX 1.8) are a little “gritty”-sounding for a Honda.

        They’ll rev, but just don’t sound like they’re having as much fun doing so; all the same, the fuel mileage is still mid-to-high 30s in most situations. Both the Bs and the Rs have nothing on the K-series motors, however, in terms of smoothness.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          That was a D16a6, not B16, in that old EX Civic. Compared to their contemporaries, yes those old Civics had sewing machine smooth engines. But I’m not sure I agree on the R18s being less smooth than older Civics. My 2012 LX is a lexus compared to my 1990 D15b2 equipped wagon (throttle body injected SOHC 1.5, 92 hp). Then again a lot of that could be attributed to all of the other NVH and worn motor/transmission mounts on the wagon.

    • 0 avatar
      kvndoom

      I won’t lie; I am very impressed by the 2.4L in the Kia Forte. It has surprising torque down low…. I can get it above 50 in 2nd gear and it accelerates pretty linearly. Unfortunately the next 4 gear ratios seem to be targeting MPG instead of performance, so I can’t maintain that thrust as I upshift.

    • 0 avatar
      ixim

      Couldn’t agree more. My n/a 2.4 I4 Equinox does all the things you say, and it was cheaper to buy than the V6.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      This! I owned a 90 Miata with the 1.6 and an 04 Mazdaspeed Miata with the 1.8 Turbo simultaneously. The 04 was to replace the 90 which I intended to sell. 6 months later I sold the 04. They both had similar suspensions, etc. Was the Mazdaspeed faster? Yes. But the 90 was more fun 99 percent of the time. I kept the 90 until right before my last deployment and I regret selling it still. I have one more deployment to save up and rectify that.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      I’m a bit torn. I have 2.4L Honda and 3.4 pushrod V6 Pontiac. The Honda is plenty smooth and quiet, but at highway speeds it’s spinning at least 3000 rpm. The Pontiac cruises at 2000, with plenty of torque to spare. The Honda motor loves to hoon(helps that it’s attached to a clutch), the Pontiac wants no part in any shenanigans. But it’s a great cruiser.

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    Did someone say turbo-4′s? Granted they lack the sole of larger displacement engines with their electric-like torque and elastic nature, but they have the torque through the operating range that no NA 3.5l V6 can match, nor the +40 mpg the turbo-4 with manual transmission can see.

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    How about a turbo six in a midsizer? Can’t Ford just figure out some way to stuff the 3.5EB or even Coyote V8 into the Fusion. I promise to buy one of the seven that sell.

  • avatar
    vvk

    BMW 550i and Mercedes E550 are midsize sedans, are they not?

  • avatar
    imag

    Toyota and Honda have previously stated that they don’t think turbo fours will have the longevity of NA sixes.

    My personal inclination is to agree with them. One of the reasons people switched away from Saabs was that they tended to blow turbos under 100K miles. I assume that newer turbos are more reliable, but they still won’t be cheap to fix.

    For me, the sound of the six versus the turbo four seals the deal.

    • 0 avatar
      sproc

      Mixed feelings on this. There’s something quite satisfying about the burp of a blowoff valve under full throttle shifts.

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      I agree with them too, as I’ve said here before.

      Wait till those EcoBoosts get up past 100 grand in the hands (the ham fists?) of Joe and Jane Oblivious, trying to subsist their biennial oil changes. No way.

      Turbos in mainstream cars, along with direct injection and trick trannys, are just the opening volley in what’s quickly shaping up as an increasingly desperate play by the world’s automakers to answer ever-tightening MPG standards. Price, reliability and driving pleasure all will suffer.

      Me, I’m a V6 guy all the way. Read every publication that’s tested the new BMW 3 series, with its standard 4. As pointed out above, on paper it blows away the previous generation’s 6-pot in every way. On the road, as measured by your ears, your backside and the quick shrinkage of your smile, it’s a whoooole different story.

      • 0 avatar
        vvk

        Uh, have you actually driven the new 328i with the four cylinder? That engine is a monster. A MONSTER. There is no way it produces less than 300 hp. The car is blindingly fast!

        I don’t know about Ford’s Ecoboost but SAAB has been putting turbos into mainstream family cars since 1978. 300k miles is not uncommon for those.

  • avatar
    c6steve

    Not a lot of GM love with you guys ???

  • avatar
    dwford

    Since none of the automakers puts any effort into making engines sound good or look good under the hood, it really doesn’t matter anymore. They are all just nondescript appliance motors so who cares.

    • 0 avatar
      Ion

      Pfft when was the last time you opened a hood. It isn’t 98-2005 anymore engine covers are the norm. I could care less about pretty, though pretty is dead weight (not our fellow commenter).

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Agreed, Ford in particular has done a good job with the presentation of the Coyote’s motor and anybody who sees just another appliance under the hood of its big brother GT500 well… well needs to check in at the morgue.

        To say nothing of the 5.4 living under the hood of the 2000 Cobra R.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          One of those would grace my fantasy garage — you know, the “unlimited-funds-and-stalls” one! (As well as if I could drive a stick without grinding the poor transmission into powder since I cannot coordinate my left foot and right hand to save my life!! Oddly, starting from a stop comes easy, along with the upshift to second; once I’m up to speed, and have to exist in traffic, forget it!)

  • avatar
    vvk

    I recently drove a 2014 BMW 528i with a turbo-four. It was a very pleasant car.

  • avatar
    PonchoIndian

    The Accord and Camry were J/N-body and Tempo/Topaz competition back in the beginning. The J-cars offered turbo-4s and V6′s, as well as the N-body’s.

    The X and A body was more of a Cressida and Maxima competition size wise, Honda didn’t have a mid-size car until the 90′s when they started putting a V6 in it.

    I’ll take a 6 over a 4 any day of the week. I don’t care how good turbos have gotten, I can’t stand turbo lag, and they all still have it.

    • 0 avatar
      carve

      I drive a 335i and my girlfriend has a 325i (both e90). They both have a 3.0 six, but mine a DI TT. My car has just the tiniest bit of lag, but evn before the turbo has spooled the motor feels just as stout as hers if not more.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      There is no turbo lag today. Today it is electronic throttle body lag thanks to Toyota. My Verano 2.0T thanks to direct injection(injects fuel right into the combustion chamber instead of dribbling it down the intake and onto the valve-for you V8 knuckle draggers…I have an LS6 too FWIW) and twin scroll exhaust manifold give instent feedback at throttle tip in all gears once rolling. But if the speedometer says zero the throttle body response on my 6MT is slooooow right off idle or about 1,000 rpms. Once rolling in 2nd or 3rd gears at the same 1,000 rpms the response forward movement of the car.

  • avatar
    smartascii

    Think of all the legendarily reliable engines throughout history. There were V-6s and I-6s and V-8s and I-4s. They’re pretty much all naturally aspirated, too, and of the few engines that will run 3-500k that ARE turbocharged, approximately none of them do it on their first turbo. This perspective may well be outdated, and we’ll see what happens over time with this latest crop of turbo/DI offerings, but for now, correct me (with data, not single examples) if I’m wrong.

    Most of the new turbo engines appear to be offered either because it makes sense tax-wise in a foreign market or because it helps the OEM game the fuel efficiency ratings system. I don’t think they’re actually more efficient than the larger-displacement NA engines they’re replacing in real-world use, and the pressures and compression ratios required to extract 178 hp from a 1.6L Fusion engine (or 360 hp from a 2.0 CLA AMG engine, for that matter) seem to make them more expensive to make and less reliable in the long run.

    • 0 avatar
      Ion

      Your data is skewed because turbo engines are less common compared to NA gas engines. Subaru, Toyota, and others have made reliable turbo mills in the past.

      • 0 avatar
        kablamo

        That begs the question why – if turbo has always been a viable alternative, why hasn’t it been more commonly used?

        My guess is for most of automotive history, carmakers understood turbo wasn’t dependable enough to reliably make it through the warranty period. It could be used for specialty applications where enthusiasts are more diligent about maintenance and tolerant of flaws, but mainstream not so much.

        If Toyota and others were satisfied with the reliability of their past turbos, why not expand it to their lineups then? There are tax/mileage/emissions reasons for the current push, but why not before if it was superior? Subaru has been doing turbo for decades but they are hardly an exemplar of reliability. I have doubts whether a 100k+ car with a turbo can still be a dependable commuter whereas now many naturally aspirated 100k+ cars are.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          I have a 140k+ supercharger with an underdrive pulley that’s just fine. Modern coatings extend the life of turbos and superchargers. 200,000+ shouldn’t be a problem.

        • 0 avatar
          DC Bruce

          For those who have attempted it, turbos and old-school carburettors were not a happy marriage for street driving. It has required the development of extremely sophisticated engine-management systems to control all of the engine parameters necessary for a turbo gasoline engine to operate seamlessly in an automobile.

  • avatar
    goldtownpe

    I take a 6 any day over a turbo 4. There’s no advantage to having a turbo 4 except in the EPA labs. As this motortrend test proves, the two NA V6 trounces the turbo 4 in all aspect of speed measurements including passing but they get the same or slightly better fuel economy.

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1112_2011_hyundai_sonata_se_vs_2012_toyota_camry_se_vs_2012_volkswagen_passat_vr6_sel_comparison/viewall.html

  • avatar

    I think the modern I4 has made the V6 unnecessary, but it’s a matter of preference.

    I owned a 1997 Infiniti I30 with the Nissan V6 and absolutely loved it. Part of the reason was that engine. Now I have a 2013 Fusion with the 1.6 Ecoboost, which puts out the same power as the Nissan 3.0 V6 in the Infiniti but sounds coarser. The upside is, I get 25-30% better mileage and the Fusion looks far better than the I30. Ultimately, I chose the Fusion over a Maxima because of the looks. I liked the Nissan V6 better than the Ecobost but overall I liked the Fusion as a car better than the Maxima.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Couple of nits.

    Yes, you could get a V6 in a Tempo but basically at the end of the party. The Ford Vulcan 3.0 was mated to the even for the time, the ancient 3 speed auto. I remember reading a review of the Tempo V6 that basically said, “finally, and it has breathed life into the bread and butter offering.”

    Yes, GM had plenty of V6 offerings in their various 80′s and 90′s vehicles. But they were down on power and thirsty, even compared to the 4-cylinder competition from Japan (and that gap got horrific in the 90′s).

    Sure the GM 3.8L V6 reliability has become the stuff of legend now, and it is not a case of perception versus reality – but compared to the same V6 offerings from Japan, it too was down on power significantly, and coarse.

    What’s interesting today is the Toyota 3.5L V6 that puts out 268HP is now down on power compared to almost all of the competition with identical +/- 2/10 of a liter displacement. Recent reviews now say it is no longer as refined as the competition. It isn’t that it’s a bad engine – but fascinating to see how the tide has turned. The Toyota 3.5 is turning into the GM 3.8L – reliable, solid power, good with gas, easy to service (relatively speaking) but compared to its competition – coarser and down on power.

    The Camry SE speed is more of a product of being so lithe, than it is the HP numbers under the hood.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “but compared to the same V6 offerings from Japan, it too was down on power significantly,”

      My ’89 Electra makes 165hp. The ’89 Maxima made 160hp. The ’89 Legend made 160hp. The ’89 Mazda 929 made 158hp. The Buick also gets a higher EPA rating. This is to say nothing about how it stacked up against the American V6s and even V8s of that time.

      A Motortrend test showed a ’98 Bonneville would handily outrun a 3.2L Concorde, and when the 3800 went into the F-body it only made 5hp less than the Mustang GT.

      The 3800 wasn’t “down on power” until the about the final 4 years of its existence so you’re ignoring nearly two decades of production in your generalization. It was also the base engine in those final years, not the big-power option.

      And, this is completely discounting the supercharged versions of the 3800 (just like how you seem to ignore the 306hp version of the Toyota 3.5L)
      ____________
      “reliable, solid power, good with gas, easy to service (relatively speaking) but compared to its competition – coarser and down on power.”

      What is so bad about an engine in a mid-size family sedan or Granny Cruiser that offers those attributes? That is exactly what some people want out of a vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        musicalmcs8706

        I have a 2005 3800 in my Impala LS. I have never thought it was underpowered.

      • 0 avatar
        Russycle

        The 3800 didn’t look like much on paper, but man did it drive well once it got fuel injection.

      • 0 avatar
        Drewlssix

        He probably means it was down on hp per liter… Cuz that matters….Somehow.

      • 0 avatar
        Featherston

        +1 @ ajla, musicalmcs8706, Russycle, and Drewlssix.

        I’d also add that the 3800 was not coarse. That accusation seems to be based on the original Fireball V6′s having been coarse–And how many of us have driven a 1962 Buick Special?–and on a stereotype on this and other “enthusiast” sites that *all* American engines are coarse. The change to to a split-pin crankshaft (in ’77, if Wikipedia is right) and the addition of a balance shaft (in ’88) cured that coarseness. In LN3 and later forms, the Buick V6 was a smooth engine.

        Now the non-balance-shaft-equipped LB4 I used to drive on occasion, *that* was a coarse engine.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      To me, the 2.0L Tempo like my Grandmother’s ’91 was similar in experience to the Buick 3.8 in a G-Body (Regal/Cutlass): it did OK getting out of it’s own way, but nothing more. I’m sure even with the 3-speed, the V6 did the Tempo well, not unlike dropping the 3.8 into a Ciera.

      Only thing that GM has now is the 3.6, which ain’t necessarily a bad thing! (Does the full-size truck V6 go into any GM cars or SUVs?)

  • avatar
    Wheeljack

    I like 6-cylinder engines, but prefer them to be arranged all in a nice straight line. As crude as the 4.0L I-6 engines are in my 2 Wranglers, they are still buttery smooth when compared to most V-6 engines. Plus, the diesel-like torque curve and power delivery of an I-6 is a great sensation that a high-revving V-6 can’t match.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      You know, I used to think that, but the VQ40DE V6 in my Frontier outclasses the 1FZ-FE in my old Land Cruiser in every way. Admittedly, there is a 20 year gap there though. I think the straight 6′s last gasp in a mainstream vehicle was the GM Atlas motors. Now I did really like those and I think given the developments of the last few years would have been great truck motors. I guess a cam in block v6 is cheaper to build though and the new 4.3 v6 is pretty good too though. Maybe Ford will unleash some inline 6 ecoboost monster, but don’t hold your breath.

    • 0 avatar
      Drewlssix

      Myth. I sixes do not have appreciably different torque curves.

  • avatar
    cargogh

    I’ve had 2 turbo 4s, a GLH and a 740 wagon.
    Fun to drive, but I think I enjoy turbo lag.

  • avatar
    mies

    V6. I have a 1.5L I4 in my Fit and it makes me long for the days of my 3.8L GM cars. I miss the low end torque and passing power. The V6, even hooked up to the old school 4 speed automatic, felt way more refined than the Fit’s screaming 4 cylinder and rough shifting 5 speed automatic. Freeway fuel economy was good on the 3800 too, although my Fit trounces it in city driving. I test drove a VW GTI with the 2.0 turbo and that actually felt really good. If you hadn’t told me the car had a turbo 4, I would have thought it was a 6 cyclinder. I’m still concerned about the long term reliability of a turbo 4. I try to get 8-10 years out of a car. I’d rather have the simpler naturally aspirated 4 or 6 cyclinder until I see some bomb proof turbo 4s.

  • avatar
    healthy skeptic

    Turbocharged inline-6 FTW!

    Low-end torque all day long, silky smooth, nice and growly at higher RPMs. And still gets good milage.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Turbo motors make sense on paper, but in real life they don’t deliver. Especially when you factor in powerband and engine note. Not to mention, none of the turbo 4s deliver on fuel economy, for example. V6 all day.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      Just because Ford is having issues with this doesn’t mean everyone has. Saab got stunning economy from their turbo 4s, and the BMW N20 is huge leap in both power and efficiency from their n/a sixes.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      I got 37 mpg at 70 mph for 1,000 miles across upper PA in my VERANO. The 2013 Malibu LTZ 3.6l had about 300 lbs more cargo and with the V6 could only squeeze 32 mpg at 5 mph(65mph) but in cooler weather and on curvy I-76 for similar 1,000 miles, all fillups hand calulated.

      Turbo-4 powa FTW!

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        The difference between 32 and 37 mpg over 1000 miles works out to about $12.50 at the gas price I paid this week.

        I don’t think that is going to get V6 folks running for a trade-in.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          The difference is my turbo-4 with Trifecta tune makes 70-100 more hp/trq. So the turbo -4 makes more power than 3.5 or 3.6l V6 and walks all over it for fuel economy.

          • 0 avatar
            sportyaccordy

            I’d rather the V6. $12/1000 miles for an engine note worth listening to, choice seems obvious.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            A Trifecta tune is not a factory option on the Verano.

            If you are into engine modifications then forced induction is a great choice, but not everyone wants to go that route.

            IMO, 32 versus 37 is a loose definition of “walks all over”.

            Enjoy your Buicks. I like mine.

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            CRACK IS WACK

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    Of course, if you never pass anyone engine choice becomes a lot simpler :-D

  • avatar

    I was looking for a new car for some time, I drove a rental Altima S, a rental Camry 2.5 SE and took a test driver on an Accord sport.
    While driving each one of these, I kept asking myself why do they still make them with a v6? we are not talking 1995 4 cilinder power, these cars can move really quick.
    So…yesterday, I took delivery of the 2014 Accord Sport, really great car and I’m very happy with it.
    The car I replaced was a 2011 Mazda 3S 2.5L.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      Congrats!! :-)

      A four-cylinder car is OK for most folks, and the Accord is one of the best! The CamCordTima fours will even offer good passing power; heck, 125 horses in a 1991 Accord without VTEC had more than enough cajones, and yet could cruise at 90+ with no drone (although the road noise may have drowned that out somewhat) and high-20s or low-30s MPGs!

      I’d just rather have the option of more power if I want it, with low-end, seamless grunt. A turbo is more of a “high-maintenance” item IMHO, which like the same type of woman, gets tiresome after a while! And for all that trouble, you still get an engine that takes a second to gather itself before launch (as in planting the “loud pedal”)!

  • avatar
    Spartan

    V6s are better and I’m glad the Japanese still offer them. The Fusion Sport 3.5L V6 was a damn good car. Shame it had to go to make room for the MKZ 3.7L, essentially forcing you to buy the Lincoln in order to get the V6.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      Agreed on that old Fusion Sport, that car could haul the mail and do it with style.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        They need to do an SVT version of the car as a modern day SVT Contour, people really loved that car.

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          That SHOULD be the modern day SHO. It is much closer in size and spirit to the original.

          • 0 avatar
            SaulTigh

            I consider my ’08 MKZ to be the SHO that I wanted when I was in high school, but with a nicer interior and better paint. I believe all dimensions are within an inch of the ’92-’95 SHO, 24V V6 but the 3.5L has more HP and torque, which should neatly offset weighing several hundred pounds more. My MKZ has a whole lot of scoot, especially compared to the dogs I grew up driving.

    • 0 avatar
      TEXN3

      Man I was so close to my wife getting one as our family car. Marked down to $22k (Aug 12) and the dealer would even swap the painted grill from a special edition SE. But then my wife test drove an Accord EXL with its roomier interior, more features, and better fuel mileage. We ended up paying the same. I guess I’m happy in the end, the Accord is a superb car but that Fusion Sport seemed special.

      Now I know how my dad felt when they got the Sabke instead of a second SHO.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        If your finances and other circumstances allow, pick one up for yourself anyway! I’m sure there are a few CPO diamonds out there.

        (In general, the new Fords are so overdone on the inside that the last-gen Fusion looks good — bolt-simple, if a bit dated, steering wheel controls and decent ergonomics. Not to mention that I am OCD to a fault when it comes to rattles and squeaks, and with all the oddities on the dashboards and center stacks of the new ones, I suspect they’re going to be a symphony of rattles in short order. Contrast that to my 2013 Accord, whose only rattle, aside from an occasional “tick” here or there when the A/C is cooling the car in the summer, is from my sunglasses in the overhead holder, after 10.5 months!!! This car is nearly like the “bank vault” 4th (1990-1993) and 5th (1994-1997)-Generation Accords in build quality! 8-D Can any Ford owners confirm or deny my thesis?)

  • avatar
    carguy

    I’d say it depends on the transmission

    - If you have a manual car then modern NA V6 is a much better choice. The linear and predictable power delivery makes revving a 6 simply more fun than a turbo 4. The GM HF 3.6 is a great example of a motor that is best enjoyed with a manual transmission.

    - If you choose an automatic then a turbo 4 is really the better way to go. It delivers lots of low RPM torque for effortless progress and, as a bonus, it keeps the nose of the car lighter than a 6 – particularly in FWD cars.

    The has been quite some talk on these pages about the real world fuel economy of turbo 4s vs NA 6s. I owned by first turbo car 5 years ago and initially I came to the same conclusion as I just wasn’t getting anywhere near the advertised mileage. However, I then came to the realization that you use a very different mode of throttle modulation on turbo cars then you do on those fitted with NA engines. The turbo requires requires way less throttle application and revving than an NA engine. You spend most of the time in suburban traffic just “surfing” the fat low end of the torque curve. Once I adapted my right foot technique I had no problems exceeding the official MPG.

    • 0 avatar
      azmtbkr81

      Funny, I agree and disagree with you at the same time. It is absolutely dependent on the transmission and with most of my vehicle purchases I’ve decided on transmission first and engine second.

      For me a manual is a must with any flavor of a 4cyl. I’d rather be the one selecting the gears when the torque is low and especially when the power band is narrow. Even high tech-modern autos (not to mention CVTs) never seem to get it quite right.

      An auto is a better match with a V6 due to the fact that the extra torque makes gear selection a little less important and noticeable. Ditto V8s although manual/V8 combos are a lot of fun!

  • avatar
    wmba

    This is an artificial question, IMO.

    I have no preference set in stone for a turbo 4 versus a NA V6. Each engine in production has certain characteristics, so I look for something I like the feel of.

    That might be a turbo 4 in one car, a V6 in another. I see no reason to lump the engines as groups.

    But people like categorization so they can belong in a “camp”. Instead, perhaps they should judge each individual case on its merit.

    Fat chance of that happening, mores the pity.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      NA is always the better choice if driving pleasure is an objective.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Turbo is always a better choice if passing with a shit-eating grin as you go by is an objective.

        • 0 avatar
          sportyaccordy

          I was unaware turbos had a monopoly on shit eating grin passing power

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Verano 2.9T with Trifecta will pass every Japanese V6 this side of the GT-R. I quite sizing up Lexus and TL’s and looking for AMG, M…

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            Street racing is lame in general but going up against an Acura TL or Lexus GS moves it to an entirely new level of eye roll worthiness.

            Your “Read how fast and great my tuned car is!!! TIME TO HUNT AMGs!!!” statements are starting to sound like some “Fast and the Furious” worshipping ricer circa 2001.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @NormSV650 In addition to the TriFecta Tune, you’ve also pulled your catalytic converter -correct?

        • 0 avatar
          goldtownpe

          Better for passing huh…not according these numbers.
          http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1112_2011_hyundai_sonata_se_vs_2012_toyota_camry_se_vs_2012_volkswagen_passat_vr6_sel_comparison/viewall.html

          http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1210_2013_acura_ilx_vs_buick_verano_turbo/viewall.html

          Verano is smaller car yet is slower in all straight line speed measurements (including passing) and uses more fuel than the midsize sedans.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      C’mon all, to each their own! ;-)

  • avatar
    Dan

    Fours? I don’t care how good the new ones are, the twenty five years before that when they only went in shitboxes for poor people poisoned the well for me. I’m not poor anymore and I’m not paying new car money for something that reminds me of when I was.

    • 0 avatar
      Dweller on the Threshold

      Word.

    • 0 avatar
      GiddyHitch

      Boom goes the dynamite.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      Absolutely! My experience with turbo fours is identical. Say what you want about “today’s” turbo-fours, I’ll seek out a six where ever possible because of such negative memories

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        This, more than anything, is why I prefer NA over turbo, but again, your choice.

        It would be nice to HAVE a choice! I might have not bought a Fusion, being a confessed Honda fanboi, but I would at least give it a try if it had an NA V6 as an option. (The expectancy of a cacophony of rattles from that dash, not to mention the embarrassment of passengers having to hear that weird assortment of dingers for things, along with my Honda fanboi-ism, would keep me away. Why Ford couldn’t have kept that classy, ELEGANT “bong-bong” chime from the 1990s, with an “i” warning light and message-center display to tell the driver what’s wrong, I’ll never know!!! Of course, Honda dropped their timeless Morse-code “H” as their “key-in” warning, so I suspect that the REAL deal here is that this Lutheran ABHORS change!!! ;-) )

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      You damn kids with your turbo 4′s, get off my lawn!

  • avatar

    470 HP/ 470 Torque V8.
    Anything less just doesn’t make me smile.

  • avatar

    If I could custom build a 2015 Chrysler 200, I’d be willing to accept a twin turbo Pentastar V6 with AWD and upgraded BREMBO brakes.

  • avatar
    brianyates

    I once owned a 1987Citroen CX Turbo2 that had a 2500cc 4cylinder motor with 178 hp. it went quite quickly 0to 60 in 7.7, seconds but was a pig on petrol. Of course this was way before the horsepower wars.

  • avatar
    racer-esq.

    Turbo 1.5 liter inline-3 like the new 3er.

    The optimal single piston displacement is about .6 liters (notice all the ~2.4 liter fours, ~3.6 liter sixes and ~4.8 liter eights). These sub-2-liter fours should really be threes.

  • avatar
    Dweller on the Threshold

    I don’t understand what happened to the smaller displacement V6s.

    One reason for the spread in MPG between modern 4s and 6s is simply that the 6s are often just too much engine.

    I’d like to know who took away the mainstream, family sedan 3.0 liter V6? And why? To further segment the market?

    • 0 avatar
      racer-esq.

      They are smooth and have high rev potential, but are inefficient and relatively heavy. And counterbalance and isolation technology constantly improves. If you are going to go through the manufacturing effort to make a six why get less than 3.6 liters out of it? A 3.6 liter six costs the same to make as a 2 liter six. Really the only reason for low displacement, high cylinder count engines is displacement capped race series that do not allow turbos.

      • 0 avatar
        Dweller on the Threshold

        Well, Honda’s 3.5 certainly tends to prove your point.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          An engine which, in the 9th-Gen Accords, gets better MPGs than my 2006 Accord with the J30 could ever consider!

          Even on the crap winter gas in the Siberian temperatures that Ohio has experienced since Lord-knows-when, my worst tank has been 19mpg in combined driving!

          Same engine will do mid 30s in the summer on a road-trip with the A/C blasting, and the cruise set at 80+!

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Agreed. My 95 Stratus had a lovely 2.5 V6 (Mitsubishi-sourced) that was a joy to drive. And Infiniti recently discontinued their 2.5 V6 with its 7000 rpm redline.

      But nobody did the small V6 better than Ferrari.

  • avatar
    anti121hero

    I’ll take straight six or v8, maybe a 4 pot for a little truck, rwd. If I absolutely have to choose fwd, which i can’t stand because of stupid handling, wierd steering, and difficulty to work on, I either want an economy sub 2 liter 4 banger naturally aspirated or a 3800. That’s about all I would get for a fwd drive car, and I’ve owned a few of both varietys. I grew up driving an old suburban with a three on the tree and went from there to full size rwd sedans and pickups. They just handle right, steer right, and are more responsive and you actually feel like your driving, not operating an appliance. That’s my personal preference though. Although for my taste, my next vehicle would only be used, either a s10/ranger, maybe a blazer or exploder, or another 80s 90s Ford with a 300 straight six, with a standard mandatory for any choice.although all my friends tell me I have a ridiculous taste in vehicles, these choices are based on utility and practicality, where I live the roads are never plowed and we frequently get 3 feet+ snow, I carry a lot of tools and equipment and like to buy stereo equipment and haul musical instruments, and i go off road into fields and trails semi frequently, and i like the feeling of DRIVING.

  • avatar
    tankinbeans

    I’ve never owned a turbo anything and have never owned a V8. I’ve always had 4s and a couple 6s. With the exception of my 93 Escort with its weezy 1.9, they’ve all been smooth enough and powerful enough to me with no discernible difference in smoothness.

    My Focus is a joy, but my Blazer is a laugh. It makes a lot of noise, but direct tally get anywhere very quickly as its engine seems anemic for its size. I primarily like 4s because they’re ready to work with.

    I think my friend’s 5 in the Jetta is interesting (not strictly relevant to the topic, I know), but the car itself is garbage.

    • 0 avatar
      anti121hero

      It’s a 4.3 in your blazer right? There must be something wrong with it, I had one in a full size 1500 long bed truck and it was pretty quick for what it was, and I’ve known many people with blazers that praise it’s durability and torque. It’s always been my second choice to a Ford 4.9. And the fives are cool, I know the colorado/canyon offered one but I never drove it and only heard bad things about it, my friend has a base four cylinder 5 speed and it gets up and goes but I guess the 5 cylinder could only be had with an auto and extended cab or larger. My grandmother has an xc70 awd with a five cylinder turbo, every single option checked, and i absolutely love that car, except for the repair costs.

      • 0 avatar
        tankinbeans

        Yup, it’s the 4.3. I don’t think there’s anthing wrong per se, but at less than 200hp for a 4.3 it’s pretty gutless at the top end. I suppose it makes up for it by having all of its torque at 2500 rpm.

        Unfortunately it has the most dimwitted automatic transmission I’ve dealt with.

      • 0 avatar
        musicalmcs8706

        My dad has the five cylinder Colorado. It replaced his 98 Blazer. Definitely a different sound, but has a lot more power. Granted the 100k miles less could be a big part of that. And my mom is on her second five cylinder Volvo turbo. They’re used to five cylinder cars by now!

  • avatar
    Hemi

    I’d probably go for the V6, however most current I4s have come a long way. I may even opt for a lowly I4 now. Nowadays most family sedans can hit 0-60 in 7-8 seconds with a 4 banger (for example the 2013 Accord), while delviering awsome MPG. The same cars in V6 trim can now hit 60 in less than 6 seconds. 

    There are still some cars with horrible power even in 2014, see the new Corolla, 0-60 in almost 10 secs. 

    As great as turbo fours are, there is the added issue of dealing with turbos. rebuilding the turbo, proper cooling and reduced reliability . Im sure we will see the V6 and probably V8 disappear from most non performance vehicles over the next 20 years. 

     The current turbo engines also greatly  vary  The new turbo Buicks seem good, but kinda slow. Below par when compared to comparable V6s(Honda and Toyota).  The Ford Eco boost and the VW/BMW on the other hand seem to be way better. Not only that, they respond well to modifications. The Ford Flex with a tune is a beast for such a huge “non performance” vehicle. 

    Either way nothing  beats the rumble and sound of a good ole V8 for me. 

    • 0 avatar
      Wheatridger

      Rest easy, hemi. I’ve had at least one turbo car in the two-car family fleet since 1992. Over several hundred thousand miles of motoring, never have I had a turbo failure. One VW TDI that I bought at 100K had a coking problem with its variable-geometry vanes, so it underboosted and put out some smoke on heavy acceleration, but that was only a cosmetic problem that I never got fixed (the cause? the previous owner didn’t drive it hard enough).

      So enjoy your rumble, but don’t fear the turbos.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        Is it still necessary to install a “Turbo Timer,” or shorten oil-change intervals?

        Wait–turbodiesels are OK since they can’t rev quite as high, so the turbo won’t work as hard. Gas turbos, such as the 1.6 EcoBust, give me pause!

        Original ?? at the top of the post still stands.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          No turbo timers needed on watercooled turbos since the 1990′s(or. 1980′s?)

          The Verano 2.0T use 6 quarts of synthetic blend that is required to be changed every 7,500 miles.

          Modern day turbo chargers reach 100,000 rpms by about 2,500 engikne rpms. Diesels maybe sooner. Afterthe vacuum controlled max turbine speed is attained the waste gate opens to maintain compressor speed. There is not always a corelation of turbine/compressor speed to engine speeds.

          I can see when Japanese V6 owners make the switch to turbo-4′s we’ll be discussing this topic again how turbos work.

  • avatar
    enzl

    I’ve never felt more qualified to comment :
    10 years in and out of rental spec to lux’d out small and mid size sedans, a different one every 2 weeks on average.

    My take on it is that the 4s are better balanced rides, the 6s simply too much mass over the front wheels to be anything better than a neutral companion.

    4 cylinder Accords, Camry SEs, and Fusions all work for me personally. I find Korean stuff soft in older gens and gadget-y in present form – they drive bigger than anything other than the first gen epsilons.

    As a lease, I welcome our new, turbocharged overlords, but I’d be hard pressed as a long term ownership proposition.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    Just make the damn things lighter (and not rust Mazda) and I’ll take an NA4. I feel like it is the wild west right now with regards to how companies are getting to the Fuel Economy goals. Nissan slaps a CVT under everything, Toyota is all in with Hybrids, Ford is all about the Turbos, and GM seems to be the most diverse. I can get the Volt, a turbo 4, or an OHV v8. I like that they seemingly haven’t put all of their eggs in one basket, I just don’t like any of their vehicles.

    Hopefully my Frontier will last until my kids are gone and then I can get a Full Size, Regular Cab pickup if such a beast still exists and no, I don’t want a Turbo 4 in it unless it takes Diesel.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      And offer the same level of equipment! Honda, for example, only puts the HomeLink garage-door opener on V6s, not fours!

      If Honda produced an Accord Touring Hybrid with the same performance and trunk space (including a flop-down rear seat and fog lights) as my 2013 V6 Touring, I’d be all over it!!!! And I’m no “greenie-weenie,” either!!

  • avatar
    Bill Steege

    A couple of months ago we bought one of the leftover 2013 Camry SE sedans with the V6. It was nearly $28K after all the discounts and came with a bunch of options and equipment we didn’t want or need, but the price was just too good to let it slip by us.

    We had driven the I-4 SE model on a test run and found the little engine noisy during hard acceleration on the Interstate, and buzzy at the 75mph speed limit on cruise control.

    The V6 version is smooth as silk, gives excellent acceleration and cruises effortlessly at 75mph and faster. The V6 is the only way to go! Better get one while you can still get one.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      2012 Camry I-4 buzzy at 75mph? It’s barely loping along at 2000 rpm at 80mph!!!

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Starting to think Camccord owners think their cars walk on water?

        TMC 2.5l in the Camry should see 2,333 rpms @ 80 mphbased on the 1,750 @ 60 mph:

        http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1305_2013_honda_accord_sport_toyota_camry_se_2014_mazda6_grand_touring/

        Not to brag but my 6MT Verano 2.0T tachometer reads 2,222 rpms.

        • 0 avatar
          schmitt trigger

          “Not to brag but my 6MT Verano 2.0T tachometer reads 2,222 rpms.”

          OK, we get it. You don’t like japanese cars. And the Verano is a perfect vehicle.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Dear TTAC/the rest of the world,

            Please let it be known, NormSV650 does NOT represent ANY of us (but especially me) who might be strongly considering buying/actually buying a Verano Turbo.

  • avatar
    namstrap

    I agree with most folks here. Personally, I prefer a four cylinder engine, but when the displacement gets over a certain level, they require counterbalancer shafts to quell the inherent secondary vibrations. V6s also are unbalanced, but some of that can be helped with changing firing, like Volvo, Peugeot, and Renault did. However, the old in-line six had built-in perfect primary and secondary balance.
    I once had a Honda CBX motorcycle I hardly had to shift out of fifth between highway and city if I played the lights right.

  • avatar
    84Cressida

    Gen 2 Camry V6 is underpowered? I don’t think so, because my ’91 Camry V6 sure has plenty of get up and go. Pair one with the rare 5-speed and it has even more spirited performance.

    The 2VZ is a porker though, thanks to the cast iron block, but on the Camry it makes the car feel more solid/planted.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Servicing a V6 is a pain, but they tend to run nicely.

    In today’s market, I tend to consider how a turbo 4 would propel a car if it WASN’T turbocharged. For some cars, this consideration makes a turbo 4 a poor choice, because the turbo has to work too hard. The Explorer 2.0 Ecoboost is a good example – it’s just too much vehicle for too little engine.

    On the other hand, my son’s 2011 Sonata 2.4 4-cylinder is silky smooth with plenty of power. I think Hyundai made the right choice to eliminate the V6 option.

    • 0 avatar
      rdchappell

      I think the VW 1.8L in the new Jetta and Golf is right-sized in regards to your second paragraph. As it is it makes around 180 hp, so a NA 1.8L would be around 140-150 hp, which sounds perfectly ok in a 2900 lb car. A 1.6L in a car as big as the Fusion though? Different story there.

  • avatar
    V6

    V6 for me. The sound and smoothness of a v6 transforms a car. I drive a 94 Galant with 2.0 v6, my partner has a current Sonata/i45 and it is such a clackety coarse engine, my 20 year old car feels turbine smooth in comparison. I actually prefer the older style small displacement 2.0 – 2.5 6 cylinder engines. Is not about the power for me but the smoothness and sound. A 4 cylinder could be smooth in vibration and harshness, but the sound ruins it

  • avatar
    Zykotec

    As someone who has tried a couple of ‘real’ Saabs. Turbo 4′s at least used to be very good. A friends 1985 Saab 9000 had incredible torque from 1800 rpm, made 185 horsepower, and could do well over 30mpg on the highway, and 25-30 on average. (Compared to his ’98 with basically the same engine, that gets 22mpg and has 150 horses, but it’s an automatic)
    And a 1987 900 Intercooler has no more lag than most modern cars with drive by wire. Old Saab turbos felt more like V8′s than V6 engines (if you are deaf offcourse)

  • avatar

    Today’s 4-cylinder Naturally aspirated engines are putting out more power than yesterday’s V6.
    Todays 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder turboecharged engines are putting out more power than yesteryear’s V8′s.

    It really depends on the type of vehicle and how much fuel economy you want. If I had to drive 80 miles a day, I wouldn’t have SRT. I’d just buy a Prius.

    • 0 avatar
      Tim_Turbo

      If I drove 80 miles a day, I probably wouldn’t buy a hybrid. Unless its 80 miles of city driving.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      Bingo. I have a theory that most people are comfortable with a certain level of performance in their daily drivers. There will always be outliers on both ends, but I think that ’60s V8s, ’80s V6s, and ’10s I4s are in the fat part of that bell curve.

  • avatar
    mhickman73

    Here’s an oddball…My 99 Saab 9-5 has an asymmetrical turbo V6 210hp. Cool idea, but not the best execution. This is the bastard child of Opal and Saab, and I know it’s largely a piece of junk. Most of these engines bit the dust when their owners (and dealers) changed the timing belt without changing pulleys. It’s a hooptie worth $800, but at 180k it’s still surprisingly quick and smooth and I get 30mpg hwy.

    I love the smoothness of a V6 (or better yet a BMW I6…probably my favorite engine), but sometimes I like a little turbo lag violence in acceleration too.

  • avatar
    Tim_Turbo

    I had a 2011 Sonata 2.0 Turbo. The plus was it did have plenty of power, especially on a nice cool day. It was fun to drive as it was kind of a sleeper. I could run with (notice I didn’t say “beat”) a lot of cars that were supposed to be a lot faster on paper-not to mention way more expensive, especially when you nail it at around 40mph-100. It was fun to run against and keep up with people in a 60K BMW or Audi. I did beat my friend in his v6 accord on more than one occasion though.

    The other upside was fuel mileage. I was usually in the low to mid 30′s combined-keep in mind I live in a mostly rural area, no bumper to bumper traffic for me-unless I was really hammering on it, even then lowest I saw on a tank was 25mpg.

    The downside was the motor sounded about as cool as a vacuum cleaner. No growl/grumble, no tuned exhaust or anything. Which most people buying a 26-30K sedan probably don’t even care about. But I love the sound of a nice v6 like Honda and Nissan offer, among others.

    Would I buy it again? Probably not. While Hyun/Kia have come along way, I just don’t think they are quite there yet. At the time it just happened to fit in my budget and since it was a lease there was no risk involved. Turbo 4 making 270HP or a base Accord or Fusion were my 3 choices so I went with the one I thought would be the most fun.

  • avatar
    SaulTigh

    I’m a big fan of the V6, currently owning two of very different execution. I’ve got a ’95 Sable with the 3.0L pushrod engine and an ’08 MKZ with the 3.5L DOHC. The Sable sounds like a diesel compared to the MKZ, and is adequate around town, but breathless on the highway. I LOOOOOVE the V6 in the MKZ. Smooth and powerful, easily the best feature of the car. I’m hoping to get several hundred miles out of both of them.

  • avatar
    RHD

    Had the same quandary after my Accord got totaled by a woman in a Durango who decided that her cell phone was more interesting than her brake pedal.
    I’m not the first to post this solution, oh well… but the new (to me) Volvo 5-banger is
    pretty darn nice!

  • avatar
    Quentin

    I’m all over the place. I’ve had N/A flat 4s, supercharged I4s, hybrid I4s, turbo I4s, N/A V6s. It really depends on the vehicle. With a FWD sedan, like the question asks, I’d probably just stick with a naturally aspirated I4. The are efficient, light, reliable, easy to work on, inexpensive, and get the job done. As long as the transmission is geared properly, the cars are as fast as they ever need to be and still very efficient.

    As a curveball, I think the drivetrain in the Camry hybrid is simply fantastic. It returns 38 to 42mpg in the real world (city, highway, whatever), has plenty of pep as Motor Trend tested it almost as fast as HyKia’s turbo 2.0L, shuts off when you are in traffic, and is great off the line with the electric motors. I’d probably have purchased a Camry Hybrid if they offered it in the SE trim over my Prius v. The wagon form factor won out in that case. If it was priced as the midrange engine between the V6 and the I4, I think Toyota would sell 60% of their Camry volume as hybrids. It is just a great jack of all trades drivetrain.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      TMC hybrids are the worst handling still? And with the low rolling resistance the braking has to be about the worst. Granted they are about the lighest weight.

      • 0 avatar
        Quentin

        The powertrain has nothing to do with the brake or handling performance… brake feel, yes, but braking distances are easily class competitive. Everyone is running low rolling resistance tires these days on even their non-hybrids. It is low hanging fruit to get the mileage up.

  • avatar
    Wheatridger

    Want smoothness? Buy an electric car.
    Want a car that’s even more nose-heavy? Buy a 6-cylinder.
    Want power? Buy a V6 or a turbo 4.
    Want power at high elevations? Buy a turbo.

    The only time I get to push the gas pedal hard for more than a few seconds is when I drive uphill in the Rocky Mountains. Living in Denver, a normally aspirated car gives up about 10% of its power to lower atmospheric pressure. Up at the Eisenhower tunnel, at 11,000′, a car might lose 25% of its rated power. Turbos restore most of that missing air pressure, so you still have about 90% of rated power, from what I’ve read. That’s the big difference for me.

    Besides lighter weight, the four has other minor advantages, like cheaper oil changes and fewer spark plugs, and a less constricted engine bay. I’ll take that too. And when the turbo Threes come along, I’ll be waiting!

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      While normally aspirated engines lose power at altitude, turbocharged engines lose power with temperature. Makes sense to pair mountain-friendly all wheel drive with a turbocharger, but someone living in Houston wants rear wheel drive and a large normally aspirated engine. Some regions of the country like Subaru and some like Infiniti.

  • avatar
    sgeffe

    Gonna respond, then look at the rest of these!

    No! Replacement! For!! DISPLACEMENT!!! 8-D

    My 2013 Accord V6 gets mid-30s at 80+ in the summer with two people on-board and A/C cranked!!! And it goes like stink if I wish!!!

    This Accord is an “EarthDreams” 6, which has cylinder deactivation (6-3) AND the variable-valve timing (true VTEC) on the intake side, unlike the last-generation Accords, which had 6-4-3 deactivation, but no VTEC.

    Fortunately, unlike the new Acura RL, that J35Y1 in the Accord doesn’t have direct-injection yet, which should eke out a little more HP and MPGs. Plus, unlike the Acuras, 87-octane gas is just fine for the Accord!

    If Honda has to give in to the turbocharging garbage to make CAFE and keep Dear Leader in DC happy, it’ll be a sad day! Of course, CAFE and Dear Leader probably want us all driving the equivalent of four-cycle Trabants anyway, so if need be, I’ll drive the wheels off my 2013, having one more “fun” car in my life!

    Mind you, the four-cylinder K24 in the Accord is good when paired with the CVT, as the CVT’s programming is the best out there, behaving like a conventional torque-converter slusher without the normal upshifts. But I’m used to the TORQUE of the V6!!! A true Jekyll-and-Hyde car!

    Plus, I’m just not sold on the long-term reliability of a turbo having to haul around a car with a tiny four in it. (The NA fours in the Accord and Mazda 6 are at what I would consider the minimum-sized engine for a mid-sized car, and if tuned right, as in these two examples, will provide a little fun and not require expensive repairs, as a 2.0- with turbo might.)

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Are you sure you don’t have a 4-cylinder? Only I4 comes close to your V6 of 30′s mpg.

      http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showthread.php?t=75020&page=43

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        My observations, not EPA numbers.

        And as I stated up-thread, if Honda could get V6-like performance out of a Touring Hybrid (with 2.0L Atkinson K-series four and the electric motor) while reducing the footprint of the battery pack to reclaim the trunk space and allow the seat to fold down), I’d consider this! Goes like stink and ** 40s MPGs **???!!! COUNT! ME!! IN!! 8-D

        (My guess is that they’d have to use an Atkinson K24 to get part of this; I’m NOT sure about the battery pack!)

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          No one on the Accord forum has beat EPA in a V6, that’s why I question your observation. Most of the Verano, Regal, and Encore(turbo-4) owners exceed EPA highway numbers.

      • 0 avatar
        AlternateReality

        There’s something inherently f***ing hilarious about having Normie question someone else’s MPG claims.

  • avatar

    4 v 6? Hard to pick, because it’s heart vs head.

    Current Volvo S60 T6 = 3.0L 24v I6, single turbo. 300/325 (325/354 w/polestar.)
    Next year S60 T6 = 2.0L 16v supercharged/turbo. 302/295. Better mileage.

    I bet it’ll sound like crap and be more of a hassle, though.

  • avatar
    Sjalabais

    Wao, that’s a mind-numbing amount of comments. I’ll just leave mine here:

    What about an I6? Smoother, more relaxed, and certainly better fitting to the likes of Camry and Accord? Do you get the Volvo S80 with an I6?

    But…in the real world, I’m a frugal person, and I’ve always had I4′s in the driveway. As a matter of fact, one of them today is a Camry 2.4.

    • 0 avatar
      Lightspeed

      Love the I6 in my Cressida, glass-smooth on the highway. Love the V8 in my Lexus even more. Drove V6s for 14 years, then when new car time came, I said screw it, I’m gonna get another V8. Nothing like a V8, nothing.

  • avatar
    Reino

    90% of V6 Accords and Camrys are never used to their potential. I made the decision on a four cylinder Accord. Going from a green light, I’m five car lengths ahead of every other car on the road. Every. Single. Time. I prefer economy in my beigemobile, saving the money for a big engine in my 2nd ‘fun’ car.

  • avatar
    PandaBear

    Father in law bought a Camry V6 XLE new in 97, never used it for anything useful that a 4 couldn’t do, he just bought it because it is “top of the line” and it is “almost a Lexus” on paper.

    Fast forward to 2014, the car is much more expensive to maintain due to the V6′s extra work on spark plug, belts, and harder to replace leaky gasket, and most importantly HORRIBLE FUEL ECONOMY.

    The same happen to my dad who bought a 2001 Ford Taurus Vulcan in 2002 for $11k

    I’ll never buy a V6 ever in my life if 4 is available on the same car. I’d even pay more to get a 4 cylinder instead of a 6.


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

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States