jhumbo

iTrader: (1)

I have been shopping for a replacement for my TL and have noticed something disturbing to me. It seems that not a single car manufacturer still makes a USDM sedan with a V6 in the 3.0L to 3.2L range. You know, something that puts out maybe 220-250 hp. Everyone offers a 4-banger or else a 3.5L or 3.7L V6.

I personally, find this annoying because I don't trust a turbo 4-cylinder to get me to 200k miles and without a turbo, I find them underpowered. And then those large V6 engines just don't cut it in terms of highway MPGs.

I'm just curious, are 3.0L V6 and 3.2L V6 a thing of the past? Why is it dying?

jhumbo

iTrader: (1)

In case anyone is curious, here is my other thread detailing some of the cars I've been considering:
Suggestions please - $30k replacement (used or new) for a 3G TL

Mr Marco

I initially thought I would like the big V-6. It's great for power, but holy cow it's heavy as hell too. Getting the front end to comply is a major PITA. I'll bet we see something hooked up with electric motors in a 2.8-3.2 variety eventually.

charliemike

If a turbodiesel can do 400k miles why wouldn't a gas turbo?

jhumbo

iTrader: (1)

Maybe it would. What do I know? It seems to me that I see a lot of users that have problems with their turbo after the miles add up. Maybe it just needs proper maintenance.

charliemike

I think there are oil starvation issues to consider for sure.

I am not going to own a car for that long so it isn't a problem for me. But for people that will buy a car and drive it until the wheels fall off, looking at a new turbo every 100k miles might be a deterrent.

That said, I think small displacement turbo engines are here to stay.

fsttyms1

Whats wrong with 3.5s? The new Accord has a mid 6 zero to 60 and with a NA 4cyl, is that slow? EPA city/highway/combined 26/35/29) with the 3.5 v6 coming in at 21/32/25 with automatic. (and being a honda im sure it will see much better) I wouldnt say thats bad at all.

jhumbo

iTrader: (1)

New Accord NA 4-cyl is 7.6 sec 0-60 in a AT. The MT is 6.8. It's great for a 4-cylinder, but it would be nicer to see numbers closer to 6.0.

A 3.5+ V6 is great for power, but it is heavy and thirsty. Those are really the only problems I guess.

That's basically what I'm saying, ever car manufacturer seems to offer a mid-sized sedan with a big 4-cyl puting out 0-60 numbers in the mid 7s (automatic trans) and then for a higher performance version they either throw a huge heavy V6 at it, or put a turbo 4-cyl. I'm just surprised no one offers a mid-sized 6-cyl.

007Acura

04 TL NAV, EPA 18/26 , 28 highway with 6mt, 3582 lbs.

2013 Accord V6 EXL NAV, EPA 21/34, 3559 lbs.

The new accord has pretty impressive mpg. Seems like a good replacement to me...

Saintor

Did you bother to check at the figures or you just assume?

21/34 combined 25 is excellent for a V6 this powerful. Not obvious that a lesser 3.0-3.2 would get significantly better figures. Don't get a 4-cyl.turbo in this class.... as I said many months ago and essentially proven by CR, they are a joke. See the following data where all NA V6 3.5L are quicker and consume less than their 4-cyl. turbo competitors.

Hapa DC5

Audi A6's are 3.0L supercharged though. Even the previous body style was available with that engine combo. Might be something to look at it, just dunno about it lasting to 200k?

Ken1997TL

'13 V6 Accord owners are seeing 35 mpg on the highway without any problems.

Theory negated.

jhumbo

iTrader: (1)

Saintor, that chart is quite useful and is kind of my point. I just don't get why all the manufacturers are rushing put put out 2.0T engines when there is little benefit. For example, I find it odd that Ford Fusion used to offer two different V6 engines, but no longer has any V6 option.

You may be right about a smaller 6-cyl not saving much fuel. The IS250 and IS350 are a good example of this. 2.5L V6 vs. 3.5L V6 and from most peoples' accounts, the IS250 is only 1 or 2 mpg better than the IS350 in real world driving, especially highway. Perhaps this is essentially the answer to my question. Most people who want a V6 want it for power, so just give them even more power.

doopstr

i need to check that out.

Fwiw I'd take a V6 over Turbo4 any day. The mpg advantage turbo4 is supposed to have over v6 seems to be a fairytail.

Ken1997TL

Temple of VTEC, a few other reviewers and an owner of a '13 V6 coupe (auto) I know have all seen 35 mpg

VCM isn't the soul-sucking experience it previously was, the engine has some serious mid-range power.

ParaSurfer1979

Ken youre correct. The mid-range is better this year as Honda incorporated 3-lobe vtec cams in the new J-series VCM motors thank god. It was funny how the 258hp 3.2L in our TL's would do 0-60 in almost a half a second quicker than the 08-12 Accord 271hp 3.5L V6's. The low-end was awful in those cars so much that you'd think those hp number would be flipped...

MTEAZY

Because the redline is halved. Not to mention all the 400k engines have iron blocks.

RPhilMan1

Why? If the EcoBoost engine can provide more torque and have just as good fuel economy if not better, then what necessitates the need for a V6?

Plus, driving a turbocharged car is fun.

Undying Dreams

iTrader: (3)

I'd just like to say that I love the 3.2 in my TL.

22/23mpg city and 30mpg on the highway doing 75!

The motor is great. It would be sad to see them completely phase it out, but it appears that's what they're doing. Cars are getting bigger so they have to make bigger motors.

CLpower

wrong philosophy, mpg is all about gearing. Hence why 6.0L vettes get 30+ MPG

Hell my 4,000 lb GTO averaged 23-24 daily driving

dnd2984

iTrader: (6)

Perfectly said CLpower

My TSX with the 3.5V6 can get me 32mpg all day long depending on how I drive it.

Ken1997TL

Exactly.

An S2000 and a Corvette realistically get similar highway mileage.

Why?

The Corvette is probably put-putting along at 1400 rpms at 60 mph. The S2000 is doing 3200 rpms.

On the other hand, I can drive through the Oregon mountain passes in 6th gear and pass people uphill.

Brandon24pdx

It seems to me that sixes in general are being dumped for turbo-4's on lower end models, for fuel economy reasons. I get that. A good turbo-4 is better than a bad V6, but a good V6/I6 like a BMW N52 or the new DI V6 in the C350 Coupe...way better engines than any 4 banger.

fsttyms1

I think a LOT of the smaller engines have more to do with CAFE regulations to help the car manufacturer meet them. I mean many have gone to using 0w20-5w20 oil for no reason other than just for that added little boost across the line in overall mpg

CLpower

yea, my GTO was like 2100 rpm at 80 mph..

fsttyms1

^ the vette is like 1600 at 80 (at least the c6 i drove)

CLpower

it may have been below 2K, i don't think the vettes gearing is any different then mine was.....fuck i miss that car

HBaJ

I thought this thread was going to be specifically about the death of Grandpa J-Series. In which case, it was time to pull the plug..

Ken1997TL

Why? 16 years later, the SOHC J series is still competitive AND lighter than before.

HBaJ

In certain segments sure. I absolutely love it in my 2nd gen TL-S, the sound at WOT is still just as sweet as it was 5-6 years ago when I got the car. Now would I still want a J37 in an MDX or RL? Definitely not. It's not an issue of whether it's still "competitive" or not, but you have to agree they've milked it for all it's worth and the potential to build a different engine could of really changed the game for the entire Acura line, years ago. The SOHC J-series could have been put to bed and made way for a DOHC i-Vtec w/ direct injection as early as 07/08 that could of debuted in the 2nd gen MDX/refreshed RL.

With the basic architecture of a 16 year old engine, they (H/A) were definately limited to beefing up the top end with a few extra ponies, because the bottom end/mid range torque left a lot to be desired. And IMO, not very competitive to the likes of the VQ, 2GR-FSE, and definitely not with the N54/55 etc.

I would concede though that the way the 5-Speed autos were geared, it left a lot of the J-Series' potential on the table. Regardless, the opportunity and tech presented themselves years ago. And if H/A wanted to go from being competitive to regaining their spots as class leaders, thats just another piece of the puzzle.

edit: In addition to the 5-Speed, the poor NVH figures didn't help either.

jhumbo

iTrader: (1)

I'm now driving a Turbo4 (Kia Optima SX 2.0T-GDI).

My experience matches this. It is fairytale. My real world MPG numbers seem extremely similar to what I would get with a similar horsepower V6 and not much different than my old 2004 3.2 TL. I've been getting 31-32 on my long highway trips and around 22-24 in town. I used to get roughly 29-30 with my TL and about 22-24 in town. Performance and power are similar (a bit more power in the Kia.)

Why is driving a turbocharged car more fun? I prefered the instant response of my V6. Now, the Turbo4 in the Kia is great and has very little turbo lag, but there still is a tiny bit of lag before the boost kicks in. Not complaining, I just think the V6 was just as much fun, if not more fun due to the instant response.

What I will say is that the Kia feels much less nose-heavy and I'm sure the lighter Turbo-4 has to do with it. Very balanced car and that does make it fun to drive. You can toss it around much like a 4-cyl TSX. This was part of what drove me to choose the Optima over a V6-TSX. The V6-TSX just felt very nose-heavy. I test drove the V6-TSX a few times and test drove the Optima-SX a few times and the difference was quite noticeable to me.

03tLsNBP

iTrader: (9)

Add some bolt-ons and get a tune. Then you'll see why turbocharged cars are more fun

jgj925

I hear good things about the RDX and the turbo

juniorbean

iTrader: (5)

^ They can be fun stock... but they're definitely more fun with some tweaking

oo7spy

Reliability? My understanding of why VTEC even exists is b/c of the Japanese tax laws that penalized larger engine displacements. The number one option to reduce displacement and increase power was forced induction. However, due to reliability concerns, Honda chose to avoid forced induction and rely on changing the valve timing in higher RPMs. Granted this was in 1983, and I am sure forced induction reliability has come a long way. However, for a large majority of the public who see a car as a depreciating asset and need to get the most car out of the least investment, there is too much risk relying the components of a forced induction system that runs over 4,000 RPMs.



What about a SOHC DI J35 with a 30 HP electric motor on each rear wheel?
Agreed.

03tLsNBP

iTrader: (9)

But diesel engines rely on forced induction as well and look how long they last. I don't think reliability is the issue with forced induction. It's more about the cost. A 4cyl turbo is more expensive to manufacture than an NA 6cyl.

charliemike

From the perspective of Ford, no one in the UK or Europe is going to buy a 3.5L V6 en masse so make a world engine like the 1.5L Ecoboost and the 2.0L Ecoboost.

oo7spy

A diesel doesn't turn anywhere near as fast as a gasoline engine does. Saying, "a turbo diesel is reliable, so a turbo gasoline engine is too," doesn't make sense.

Moog-Type-S

You heard wrong.

03tLsNBP

iTrader: (9)

I was talking about the forced induction components of a diesel engine. They run much higher boost and still prove to be reliable. But that's because they are built to be reliable. So why can't a gas turbo engine be built with the same tolerances and reliability?

Because it's freakin expensive, that's why. It's cheaper to shove a simple NA engine in and call it a day.