Comments on: V8 Death: Edmunds Gets It Half Right

By: SunnyvaleCA

SunnyvaleCA — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:01:42 +0000

For simonptn: here’s the wikipedia entry on the Honda, complete with weight, power, engine size, transmission information for every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Accord

To summarize–

1976 Accord: 2000 pounds, 68 HP, 2-speed automatic.
1982 Accord: ???? pounds, 75 HP, 3-speed automatic.
1983 Accord: gain 4-speed automatic
1984 Accord: 86 HP
1985 SE-i version: 110 HP (i = fuel injection)
1990 Accord: 125-130 HP from a 2.2L 16-valve
1994 Accord: 145 HP
1995 Accord: optional V6 2.7L
1998 Accord: 2.3L with 130 HP or 150HP: 3.0L 200 HP
2006: V6 engine is quoted at 244 HP and I4 is 166.

By: TriShield

TriShield — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:54:00 +0000

Having driven the new CTS I will dispute the claim that the acceleration is “good”, it’s adequate but not what you expect for the type of car. You have to cane that V6 to get acceptable performance from it and it doesn’t sound great when revved. Many other big V6 cars behave the same way.

The irony of V6s motivating heavy vehicles and putting out that much power is that they use nearly as much fuel as a V8 engine without providing the same performance.

Let’s take the Pontiac G8 for example.

The V6 G8 is rated at 25MPG freeway. The V8 G8 is rated at 24MPG freeway. You also get nearly 100 more horses, much more torque, an engine that sounds so much better, and a car that drives so much better.

What besides money to buy the car initially are you saving by getting the V6 model?

By: Landcrusher

Landcrusher — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:45:13 +0000

I opted for the 6 cylinder version of the Land Cruiser, so you know where I stand.

Still, if I were buying American, I would go with the eight. No scientific data on that, just a feeling that the folks in Detroit make better 8’s than anything else they try.

By: yankinwaoz

yankinwaoz — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:21:52 +0000

Another factor is the same legacy reputation that hurts the Detroit 2.8. A lot of Americans associate V8’s with the POS land barges of yesterday.

They also compare these Detroit monsters to the German and Japanese cars. They seem to be just wonderful with only 4,5, or 6 cyl motors.

So one comes to the conclusion that V8’s are for gas guzzling land barges of yesteryear.

By: EngineeringTheAtom

EngineeringTheAtom — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:16:38 +0000

Well for what it’s worth, I previously had a Olds Aurora with the 4.0 V8 and it got about 3mpg better than the 3.0 V6 Escape I own now. And the Olds made 70hp more while pulling about an extra 850lbs.

It will be a sad day when you can no longer get a V8 in a car.

By: cRaCk hEaD aLLeY

cRaCk hEaD aLLeY — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:09:14 +0000

Driving my in-law’s 5-door Yaris, manual transmission, 1.5L this week: spools up faster in stop-go traffic than my e46 (close-ratio, short 1-2-3 gearing), averages 40mpg (as opposed to 27mpg) and in general is a much easier car to commute on.
More than sufficient beans for daily commute. Heck it’s even fun.
I rented a 1.0L Volkswagen in Brazil last year, though, and that, folks, was a dog’s r-e-g-u-r-g-i-t-a-t-e-d breakfast: heavy chassis, no torque and would generally only wake up after what seemed like 5K-6Krpm of protest (nothing but speedometer). Even with a first and second gear ratio borrowed from a New Holland, it would not move.
Traded it for a GM-Opel Meriva with a 1.4L flex-fuel 4-banger and that performed amazingly well with 2 adults a child and luggage in all sorts of conditions.
There’s more to it than just displacement and number of lungs in an engine. Overall weight and proper trottle mapping play a very important part on the grin factor.
Americans: We keep buying horsepower but driving torque.

By: FunkyD

FunkyD — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:04:59 +0000

It’s a matter of displacement more than cylinder count. A 4.0L V8 can be just as efficient as a 4.0L V6 (if not more so as the V8 has a broader power band).

Rumors of the death of the V8 have been greatly exaggerated before and will be again.

Both of my current vehicles are V8s & RWD. Just call me retro!

By: Brendan

Brendan — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:50:43 +0000

The future is in 4-cylinder engines. They’re the only engines that will hit 35 MPG right now and I don’t see how that will change.

By: Matthew Danda

Matthew Danda — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:30:07 +0000

I was dead-set on getting an Impala SS in 2006–torque steer be damned. But then the $3/gallon gas started to hit, and, well, who needs 17MPG from a sedan? Nope, sorry, will shop for something else. Did the same with the Magnum. Loved the car, but not at $3/gallon.

By: blautens

blautens — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:19:27 +0000

While I appreciate almost all engines I’ve owned, from excellent 2.2L turbo 4 Mazdas, super smooth 2.4L Honda 4 cylinders (how do they do that with such large pistons?), there is a certain visceral appeal to the thunder of my current ride’s LS2 V8 that is hard to deny.

Yeah, it’s 12MPG of premium gas, but I never got more than 20MPG in any of my 4 bangers…and it’s my only “hobby”, if you will. The sound and speed are a little like crack (I’m imagining) – it’s hard to stop.

By: cretinx

cretinx — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:56:44 +0000

HOWEVER – those six cylinder engines don’t have the power delivery of a V8 – they’re not as smooth and they don’t have the earth rotating torque – most of them make their power through higher revving.

EX – Nissans VQ may put out 330 hp but only 270 lb-ft of torque, whereas Ford’s 4.6L makes 300 hp but 320 lb-ft of torque.

Plus the power is made at lower RPM.

By: lewissalem

lewissalem — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:03:51 +0000

I had a feeling it was the beginning of the end of the horsepower war when the Honda Accord had an available 268hp.

By: simonptn

simonptn — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:54:15 +0000

And on a parallel topic.

I would like someone to do a thorough analysis of the progresson of the Camry and Accord from being smallish 2 litre “mid-sized” sedans to 275 hp “Buicks”.

Imagine how much better fuel consumption would be if they had incorporated the last 10 years of technical developments in a car the same size as when it was introduced.

You wouldn’t even need batteries!

(Before everyone gets crazy, I realize it is about the money. I’m just sayin’ …)

By: jaje

jaje — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:41:32 +0000

I’ve never owned a car (outside of my pickup used primarly for towing and hauling) with anything larger than a 4 cyl. I’ve never needed it or cared for the big engine. Reason why is it makes it so much harder to drive and more dangerous at the limit. Let’s see my daily driver is an 944S2 with a 3.0 liter 16v 4 cylinder. That car is a hoot and I can easily keep up with most vehicles with v8s (but for me going fast in a straight line is quite boring – I like to drive a car for all it’s worth – that means braking and cornering). I find that a well sorted lightweight 4 cylinder car is fine for my tastes and the 5% of the time I wish I’d had a v8 for it’s sheer torque – I’d rather trade off the better fuel economy, and much better corning ability.

By: BuckD

BuckD — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:20:41 +0000

I’m getting 220 hp from the 2.3 liter turbo four in my Saab. That’s enough power to dust the jackasses in minivans and work trucks that seem to always want to race during my morning commute. I suspect the minivan drivers are feeling neutered and need to prove something, and it’s class warfare for the guys in work trucks.