Saintor

Unfair comparison. Put direct injection "high pressure" in the Camry V6, give it latest technology and come back to us. Again, check the fuel economy of the N53 270HP in the Euro 330Xi and despite being heavier by 400lbs, how it compares favorably to the Audi TTS 4-cyl. 270HP.

Not impressed by only a 10% difference city anyway. "Much better" is an abused term.

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

I'm confused.

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

But it was fair to compare an SUV to a sedan? I see how this is going to go.

And no, DI wouldn't make that much of a difference, not 4 mpg by a long shot.

Also, getting back to the TL, the TL's mileage is beaten out by other vehicles of similar weight with FI 6s.

Saintor

Did you miss the 'same weight' part? Same SH-AWD system. Possibly the RDX AWD is geared quicker, but the TL is still 25% more powerful, quicker and slightly more fuel efficient.

This is your opinion, but facts proved it. Again check the N52 330i vs N53 330i and 4mpg improvement is about the right number. Not all DI systems will improve by so much. In evidence the 2009+ VW 2.0T vs Audi 2.0T (both are DI). When the Passat went DI, city EPA went from 19 to 22. The A4 did even better.

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

Not trying to be a jackass.. but Saintor, you seem to have magazine numbers of every single vehicle on this planet.. did you memorize all that or are you just looking through a huge pile of your magazines? OR constantly googling stuff?

I'm just curious, that's all.

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

It isn't just a weight thing. SUVs because of their ground clearance and wind rush under the body (with the drag of the underneath bits) don't get sedan fuel economy.

So again, that's not a comparison you can make. Of course if you DID compare it to an FI engine (like maybe the SHO), your case would quickly fall through the floor. The SHO has 4300 pounds of weight and a 3.5-liter bi-turbo with 365 horsepower and still gets 17/25, the same as the TL. The S4 automatic has 333 horsepower and weighs about the same as the TL AWD and gets better mileage.

CLpower

the have a 6 speed manual in a camry?

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

Technically yes with the 2010-2011 I-4s.

Saintor

It begins to be painful having to store them (since 1977). Here is a part of the excess.... the main part (100s of them, probably 60-75% of C&D, R&T and MT for 30 years) are on shelves.... the other room in the basement is too dark to have pic with my iphone.

Never Summer

Cool collection!

Saintor, you're a slightly less annoying and slightly less delusional version of SSFTSX. No one like him, get the point?

'01White3.2CL

it should also be noted that usually with this problem, there are long starts (4-5 seconds), but once the car starts, it usually will go into limp mode which means no turbos. i guess you can still drive it into the dealer if anything.

here's a video I found where a 335i goes into limp mode on the race track. at 4:20, limp mode comes on and from his previous racing, you can see how different the car is without turbos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJMjyMxpBXc

Saintor

The ground clearance is not significant compared to the front area and tire width, both of them being probably worse in the TL.

The Ecoboost is another joke and color me unimpressed.

Chrysler 300C AWD 8 cyl, 5.7 L 375HP , Regular 16/23mpg - running on regular so the 1mpg disadvantage will be easily offset. The HEMI is essentially an old tech engine a bit updated, now imagine if it had direct injection, mmmm?

Lexus GS460 8 cyl., 342HP 17/24mpg

Genesis Sedan 8 cyl, 4.6 375HP, Premium 17/25mpg

All of this $$$ turbo-frenzy for 1-2mpg ? I have only one word that comes in mind and it spells H-Y-P-E.

Bottom line; people who won't tune them don't need them.

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

Oh I have to laugh at saying ground clearance isn't much of a factor. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

The 300C runs on midgrade, of which most stations charge more than regular fuel. The EcoBoost hits all of its marks on regular, so that piece of information blows to pieces. Also, the Hemi's nice mileage is due to its MDS, which can run it as a 2.9L V-4 or 5.7L V-8, which helps. Lastly, the Hemi is hardly old tech these days. It now has variable valve timing and so on, but I suppose you're one of "those" that buy into the whole "OHCs are way better than OHVs".

All of those vehicles you mentioned weigh hundreds of pounds less than the SHO and only have two wheel drive, which easily helps their mileage by -generally speaking- about two mpg. Those two factors alone would sap any advantage they have, but in the Lexus' case, there's more you a haven't considered. The Lexus has an 8-speed automatic to the Ford's mere six.

It was a nice attempt you made, but it more or less shows how wrong the vehicles are that you're comparing. The 300C was the closest thing (and arguably spot on, in fact).

P.S. I'm not saying FIs can replace V-8s. You're changing the topic. You said larger NA engines do the same job as in 3.5-3.7 liter competitors to the BMW 3.0 bi-turbo.

Saintor

Nope. You misread (while laughing at things that you obviously don't understand). I correctly wrote Chrysler 300C AWD and its weight is within 50lbs of the porky SHO.

You can try again if you still feel that itchy urge.

Saintor

BTW, the 300C AWD has 5-sp.

TheMirror

Me too. These internet racing threads are murder to follow sometimes.

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

Oh I addressed the 300C in its own paragraph and was referring to The Genesis and GS460.

Sorry, but you didn't catch me there.

The Chrysler has a 5-speed automatic but it has a 2.65 final drive ratio which is enormously tall, plus the MDS.

Thus, we conclude on the list of things you don't understand:

-Gears
-Final drive ratios
-Drivetrain losses
-Weight
-Ground clearance

Not a good list when you're attempting to debate fuel economy.

Form a new case if you wish to, but it's pretty clear one doesn't exist considering you are maintaining this off topic discussion. Of course I understand why, because back on topic of the 6-cylinders NA versus FI the case went *poof*.

Saintor

Sure I did, you are just being dishonest. Be a man and assume what you wrote.

Proved wrong on both accounts.

You also failed in your attempt to suggest that the new Hyundai/Kia 4-cyl. turbo was to beat any 6 cyl. Same goes in your attempt to suggest that implementation of direct injection and related technology can not improve fuel economy by 4mpg.

Again, if you want to discuss fuel economy from your limited technical perspective, you can't just create your own rules and decide that ground clearance is more important than tires width and front area - it is not.

Legend2TL

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...sizing-feature

Pretty interesting short article from Car and Driver last year on the hype and myth of turbo engine economy gains. For diesel engines and constant speed applications (trucking, railroads, marine,...) diesels do prove efficiency. For applications with more dynamics throttle conditions they prove less efficient to the point of equalling the NA in some cases.

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

Nope, but that's just too bad for you.

LOL! You really leave a guy speechless sometimes.

GS460: rear drive, 3836 lbs according to Lexus' site, which makes it almost 500 lbs lighter than the SHO.

Genesis 4.6: rear drive, 4012 lbs according to Hyundai's site, which makes it over 300 lbs lighter than the SHO.

So what were you aiming for by saying that? The 300C? You know it can run on four cylinders which really isn't the same as what we're discussing.

Fail.


No, you just whined about the Hyundai having direct injection. My point was made, you just don't want to accept it. The truth is in what I said: It has more power than anything in the class and ties for top torque while running on regular fuel and being rated for 22/34, better by far than anything in the class, which is usually around 17-18/27-28.

You're also changing what I said, which is telling of you needing to manipulate that truth. Cute, but no. I did not say "related technology" couldn't improve mileage by four mpg, I said direct injection alone wouldn't. There is a difference, but likely you don't understand that.


You're the one creating rules and pathetic claims.

But as I've read the things others have said about you, I'm getting a good idea of what I'm dealing with:

"Saintor, you're a slightly less annoying and slightly less delusional version of SSFTSX. No one like him, get the point?"

"you seem to have magazine numbers of every single vehicle on this planet.. did you memorize all that or are you just looking through a huge pile of your magazines? OR constantly googling stuff?"



Anyhow, again you add in things I DID NOT SAY. I never mentioned tire width, and the RDX-TL are differentiated by one side difference, 235s and 245s. That's not even one mpg a difference. LOL

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

Yes, I don't believe in NA engines having worse mileage than a downsized FI engine.

That said, I certainly prefer downsized NAs in terms of the performance they can offer and yet sip only as much fuel as the larger engine.

Disclaimer: I am referring to something like the BMW 3-liter twin-turbo or Audi 3-liter supercharged compared to an Acura 3.7-liter or Toyota 3.5-liter.

I am not a fan of going for something like a FI V-6 replacing a V-8.

Saintor

Of course, it was the 300C, silly you and there is no reason to dismiss the 300C because of MDS; it is the overall result that counts, even if it doesn't fit your stupid agenda. The Ecoboost could use MDS too, but both used different technology choices. BTW, MDS has been in the hemi since the beginning (300C introduced as MY 2005) and it was getting lower gas mileage for 340HP. Last year, with the help of variable timing, it got upgraded to 375HP (+10% increase in HP) and the mpg improved too.

So it gets 16mpg vs 17 (for the SHO) with no direct injection and 5 speed. Have it upgraded with DI and 6 speed, then you'll see that the EcoToy is just what it is.

To the contrary of a few hundreds pounds difference that you claimed, that's still 4321lbs for the 300C AWD vs 4368 for the SHO. Stop being in self denial. You= fail.

22mpg is nothing impressive and can easily matched by 6cyl. from the competition. I already told you that the BMW N53 6 cyl. used in the Euro 330i had equivalent or better figures. You are just limited with what you knew. Now you know better.

DI allows different technical choices that can't be used without it. So the determinant aspect of it is direct injection, want it or not. Direct injection, for instance, allowed the Audi A4 Quattro to have a 23mpg city instead of 19, with +11HP and +58lbs-ft. With no direct injection, they wouldn't have made it, it is crystal clear.

Why are you suggesting this nonsense? I did mention that tires width *and* front surface, as being more significant on drag than ground clearance. One mpg is not bad considering that the TL has 25% more power.

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

Cylinder deactivation is a whole new game. That said, I find it hilarious you wanted to dismiss the GDI engine because it had DI but now want to include vehicles with MDS compared to ones without said feature. Hmm .... manipulation of the system whenever you want to make it work in your favor. Typical of your magazine-reading breed.

And no the Hemi did not always have MDS. It was a feature added later when it was revised for car duty and the updated trucks.

Once you get to a certain point in weight the city rating is always going to suck, but you don't know this. There are family sedans with the V-6 being rated 17-18 in the city, smaller and wayyyyyy lighter than these vehicles with NA V-6s.

Anything with a 2.65 rear end like the Chrysler is going to have a nice mileage advantage, but yet again, something you don't understand.

But I'd like to see a DI Hemi with more gears in the tranny it's hooked up to. Chrysler announced their partnership with ZF last week for the 8-speed. Maybe we will see that in this.

You = FAIL for continuing to make it look like I'm referring to the C when I've stated I am not.

But I like how you dropped the comparison with the other models.

Yeah well you can say it is or isn't. Fact remains the other NA I-4s on the market in that class are rated around that for the city, so people with remote intelligence would say that's pretty good. Then on the highway it's rated for better than almost anything in the class.

The 330i EDM model is not certified for US consumption and so if they brought it over with the proper EPA standards you really don't know that it would do the same or better. If it does, great, but that doesn't change anything no matter how badly you want it to. Again the fact remains the GDI engine is putting down economy numbers with NA I-4s and power of the NA V-6s. There's nothing to dispute that.

That's a turbocharged engine and forced inducted anything is going to benefit very well from DI. Never said it wouldn't. However, I did say that you wouldn't see a Camry V-6 getting GDI mileage from it because the compression is already higher on the scale and it won't help with boost....because there isn't any. Those are the facts. This is the same reason that Chrysler's new Phoenix 3.6 does not have DI -it doesn't have significant payoff in NA engines. In fact if you look at DI NA V-6s like GM's 3.6 you see that there are non-DI engines with similar output and better torque bands, thus similarly good engines without using DI. But again the new range of forced inducted engines -especially turbocharged ones- are getting a real benefit with DI

This remains a poor example because:

A) Ground clearance difference between a car and SUV is a much greater effect than one difference in tire width.

B) The K23 is not a very modern engine in its design, especially for an engine designed not very long ago.

C) A heavier vehicle like an SUV isn't going to see big improvements with a turbocharged I-4 instead of a good V-6 because at that weight the I-4 needs extra revs for torque because of its small displacement and that wastes fuel. On top of that with boost coming in around then that's even more burned fuel. This is why something more powerful engines in vehicles that are larger in displacment as well get equal or better mileage -because they DON'T work as hard.

Legend2TL

TheMirror

I agree, this thread is pretty good. I thought about jumping in and correcting all the inaccuracies but that would spoil the fun. I'll just enjoy my own instead.

Saintor

Irrelevant. We talked about 300C ONLY and its HEMI has always featured MDS since day 1st, with poor mpg until 2009, with variable timing.

BTW, since you bug over MDS, how come would it be different from a TURBO which is in vacuum mode and not working in economy mode? Oh snap, you didn't think about that one. It is just a different choice of technology and live with it.

It depends on the application. The 2.3L turbo is a star in the MazdaSpeed3 but sucks in the CX-7.

The Euro 335i has a 17mpgUS rating and 13.4L/100km urban as per Euro cycle. The Euro 330i has a rating 9.9L urban rating and in proportions, this would translate to 23mpgUS city (17*13.4/9.9), for a vehicle 3-400lbs heavier than a Sonata. BTW the 335i N55 has a 19mpgUS EPA rating for a vehicle still heavier by 3-400lbs and more powerful. Shave the weight, make it equivalent powerwise, and there's no magic in Sonata's numbers.

Don't assume such a thing. They can play much further with that engine. They can have an higher gas pressure and higher compression ratio. They are carefully experimenting the impact on the reliability and increment those variables.

Wrong. If not, why the others would do it in majority? There are so many examples of successful and well executed applications in NA engines, including the N53. Look for the upcoming F10 528i and how it gets about 10% better fuel economy than the E60, with more power.


Nothing new, this is precisely what I explained earlier in this thread. Same goes for the GM 3.6 (it reminds their 'mild hybrids').

Saintor

As for the N54, here is a class-action lawsuit against BMW North America.
http://www.mwerks.com/artman2/publis...4-Issues.shtml

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

Well you just said Hemi, not the Hemi for the LX cars. You had a hayday when I didn't specify the GS and Genesis and excluded the 300C.

See it's pretty lame when you jump on someone's wording isn't it?

That's really, REALLY not the same thing

An engine being able to theoretically run on half of itself is far different from a turbocharged engine in any "mode" other than a cylinder deactivation.

That's EXACTLY why Ford and others claim that when you just drive steady, it runs "like a V-6" -in the case of the EcoBoost that is.

I suspect you didn't think that through very well, no offense.

That's what I would've said. LOL

Whatever your case is here, I'll repeat what I said before: The fact remains that the GDI Hyundai engine performs among the BEST naturally aspirated four cylinder engines in its class and far ahead of any V-6 competitor.

There's simply no way around it. You can say it isn't magic or whatever you want, but the facts are the facts.

But that's a two handed comment simply because I can say "Hyundai can play much further with that engine". The reality is neither engine is at its full potential, or we may never know what their full potentials are.

This is especially true when you consider the advancement of turbocharging technology.

Because the majority of the auto industry goes to fads. Turbocharging came and went, and now it's back.

With EcoBoost and all, Ford among many others are saying downsizing and turbocharging improves both mileage and performance, like the EcoBoost instead of a V-8 for example. The truth? A lot of those automakers are blowing hot air.

The new Ford Mustang V-6 has the Duratec 37 which has 305 horsepower and 280 lb-ft, numbers that compare strongly with similarly sized DI competition. That's just one example.

I'm also going to restate my position again: I'm not saying DI has zero benefits or no payoffs. That's 100% wrong. But "significant" in NA engines, not so much.

'01White3.2CL

^wtf is going on in here!...you would think a HPFP went out or something...calm down guys.

Saintor

I never played with your wording. You just can't assume what you wrote. What's lame is when you take part out of uits context; I never talked about the HEMI outside of the 300C, period.



It is *exactly* the same logic. Think twice.


Which I have proven *FALSE* with hard facts. Get over it.


The truth is that forced induction IS NOT REQUIRED to get the most efficient engines these days. Most of them can be matched or bettered with larger displacement modern engines.


You are so dead wrong here. I talked extensively about the incredible improvements of the BMW N53 over the N52. Now let's talk about Porsche and demonstrate how wrong you are. Let's take their words.

http://www.porsche.com/usa/aboutpors...fuelinjection/

With direct injection on NA engines, Porsche not only achieved the extraordinary fuel economy and emission improvements, but also increased their HP (from 325 to 345HP on the base 911).

*Now* would be a good time to adjust your talking.

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

You only said Hemi. Just as I had a special paragraph just for the 300C and you went over that and kept saying I was including the 300C in my weight and drive wheel comments.

You can't have it both ways. I guess I should've specified the Genesis and GS460 just like you should've specified the LX Hemi instead of simply "the Hemi". Right? Right. You can't have your cake and eat it too, not in this case.


No it isn't, think again. Even with some Google knowledge you'd be able to realize otherwise.

LOL no, you just speculated with "if Toyota did X". You can't get around the reality. Get over it.

I don't disagree with that at all.

*Now* would be a good time to adjust your talking. [/quote]
Marketing rhetoric/speak is never a good thing to buy into. LOL. This is the same company that made all kinds of claims related to the GT-R and whined endlessly about it down to the Ring times.

You'd see similar claims for Ford's EcoBoost V-6 when the truth is that it isn't necessary to do it compared to a modern V-8.

juniorbean

iTrader: (5)

Probably the best decision in this thread! Arguing with Saintor is like watching a dog chase it's tail. You just keep going round and round in circles. MyCarIsntInMyWifesName is still new here, so he took the bait hook, line, and sinker

MyCarIsntInMyWifesName

As you said I'm a who doesn't know who should be ignored. I learned this the hard way with SSTFX.

I'll be done then.

:surrender

juniorbean

iTrader: (5)

It's good preparation for the R&P forum since a lot of people in there present circular arguments as well. Just wait till you're debating something and they try the old bait and switch on you. You'll think back to this topic and have an "ah-ha" moment

Saintor

Please learn to read. Do it.

In the same line;
Whatever...

Marketing stuff with undeniable HARD FACTS that prove you wrong is wonderful. Unless you are in denial, which you are obviously.

Porsche says specifically that direct injection on their NA 6-cyl. in the 911 allowed up to 15 % reduced fuel consumption and up to 16 % reduced CO2 emissions. On top of that, they increased the power by 20HP. Same kind of accomplishment done by BMW with their N53 and N55. That's breakthrough technology my friend.

So far, less expensive cars don't get the real direct injection stuff. Probably because high pressure gas components are not cheap. For now, that is. Don't worry; it will eventually come to your Camry NA.

SpiderX1016

Take one for the team

MrX123

Wow everyone, what a great thread this has turned out to be....I love it when they turn into pissing contests.. :-)

Of course I don't literally mean that the N54 is garbage; I just scoff at the idea of a 50-60k BMW stranding me, or even taking ten seconds to start because of the HPFP. That is ridiculous. My TL turns over precisely after 5-6 turns, like clockwork, it's as sure as the sunrise.

MrX123

I'm not saying Honda's perfect, but it's pretty damn close. Other than said tranny issue, Acura is pretty much bulletproof. Some of you who are implying that Acura reliability is subpar while praising BMW's are crazy. I say this with complete and 100% envy every time I see a 335i, or any desirable Bimmer.

And regarding that tranny issue, alot of it had to do with abuse....not saying that makes it okay, but I believe the software allowed potential abuse (and the tiptronic software was corrected for the 3G)...you rag the hell outta any automatic (except maybe a GM), it's gonna break.

I was shocked when the tranny went out in my last car, an Infiniti I35. That is what prompted me to go ahead and get rid of it for the TL. I totally scammed the dealership, they wanted the sale so bad that they gave me $7500 for a 2002 I35 with 125k, in pretty good shape other than a shot tranny. That car would get maybe 4k if in perfect condition and even that's pushing it....rambling, anyway it is well known that the Infiniti I, through all it's generations before it was cancelled, was one of the most reliable cars on the road. Scored much, much above average throughout it's lifespan. But I abused the hell out of it, and the tranny broke. I guess I forgot that Nissan's strengths are making motors, not auto trannys.

Crazy Bimmer

Abuse had nothing to do with it sir. Trust us.. we were here during the whole ordeal.

juniorbean

iTrader: (5)

Since 2000 We've owned two Acuras and two Audis. Each Audi blew away each Acura as far as reliability. Now, that's not to say that the Acura's were bad... b/c other then the tranny in the last Acura I owned, it was pretty good. But, the Audi's were that much better and the Acura's were in the shop far more then the Audi's. That coupled with a completely different ownership and service/dealer experience puts Audi (and any German manufacturer for that matter) well ahead of Honda/Acura in my book.

I'd say pre-2005 I would have agreed with you... but since then the Germans have closed the gap and most are now very compatible when it comes to reliability verses the Japanese. Case in point... Porsche took over the #1 spot on the 2009 JD Power's ratings.

.