Turbo-4 vs. V6

Old 02-11-2018, 07:22 PM
  #41  
Banned
 
Saintor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MTL, Canada
Age: 56
Posts: 2,905
Received 124 Likes on 104 Posts
Originally Posted by TacoBello
too bad the V6 is dead. sorry bruh, better get used to it.
So no more 340i, E400 or S4? No it is not dead. It is just that it is in the higher end versions.

Which does NOT diminish its superior desirability. A 6-cyl. has a glorious sound that no mainstream 2.0T can deliver. This is why carmakers make those 4-cyl. discreet.

No Camry for me, but then there is the next ES around the corner.
Old 02-11-2018, 07:31 PM
  #42  
Team Owner
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,487
Received 4,416 Likes on 3,322 Posts
turbo, turbo, turbo.

Sorry. NA v6 is dead.

ES is just a fancy camry. don't kid yourself. it rides very much the same.
The following 2 users liked this post by TacoBello:
1killercls (02-12-2018), kurtatx (02-11-2018)
Old 02-11-2018, 08:12 PM
  #43  
Azine Jabroni
 
kurtatx's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,156
Received 2,158 Likes on 1,386 Posts
At this point, the NA V6 is for snores. Why have a V6 when you can have a V6T?
The following users liked this post:
1killercls (02-12-2018)
Old 02-12-2018, 06:56 AM
  #44  
Banned
 
Saintor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MTL, Canada
Age: 56
Posts: 2,905
Received 124 Likes on 104 Posts
Originally Posted by TacoBello
turbo, turbo, turbo.

Sorry. NA v6 is dead.

ES is just a fancy camry. don't kid yourself. it rides very much the same.
Tell us something we don't know. Like the TL/TLX has always been a derivative of an Accord, right t? I certainly don't have a problem with that.

I don't care V6 or V6T. The key point is V6 (or I6). I just don't really want it if it magically "boosts" the MSRP by $4-5K. Otherwise, it is ok.

Last edited by Saintor; 02-12-2018 at 06:59 AM.
Old 02-12-2018, 11:12 AM
  #45  
AZ Community Team
 
Legend2TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 17,771
Received 4,018 Likes on 2,496 Posts
Originally Posted by losiglow
So my brother is looking to buy a new car. He drives about 120 miles round trip to work and back - about 600 miles per week so economy is important. He's open to pretty much any brand and asking me for advice on make/models and engine configuration. One of the main options he's been wondering about getting a car with a turbo-4 vs. a V6. We've had some discussions about it but I figured I'd get some feedback around here. And before someone suggests a hybrid or electric car, he's already decided against that. He also doesn't want some econobox. He makes a decent salary and doesn't want to drive a tin can. Something with some power but fair economy at the same time. Also, only about half of his commute is highway. The rest will be city driving.

I've never owned a turbo-4, but in my experience with 4-cyl vs V6 cars, I've noticed negligible differences in mileage. And that's with non-turbo 4's. My 4-cyl's (TSX, Nissan Altima and Honda Accord) all got 25-30mpg's. Sometimes I could eek out 32 MPG on my 5MT Accord. My V6's ('06 and '12 TL) also got around 25-28 MPG with the 6MT '06 TL pushing 30-32 MPG on several occasions. I seem to be pushing around 27-28 MPG on my '12 TL with about 60/40 highway/city since KTuner but that might just be a coincidence.

I've read about a dozen articles touting the Turbo-4 as more efficient but the V6 as more potentially more reliable due to the absence of a turbo (another part to potentially fail) and the additional stress of a turbocharged engine. But the V6 is also heavier and most MPG estimates show the V6 getting less mileage. My experience may be due to driving style. Who knows. I'm looking to get opinions or experiences others might have with a turbo-4 car vs V6. I'm steering him toward a V6 Toyota or Honda (Lexus and Acura included). But he's thinking that cruising with a Turbo-4 (not hitting turbo all that much) might be better. Thoughts?
I'd recommend looking at a Camry V6 XLE or a Accord EXL 2.0T. Both are very similar in size/feature/performance and the Accord is ~$2.5k cheaper than the Camry. If he's not much a car guy then I'd recommend the 4 cylinder Camry XLE or Accord EXL 1.5T CVT, since both are fine with ~200HP as well. I spent most of last Saturday in the back seat of a friend's EXL 1.5T, and was comfortable sitting behind the driver (he's ~5'10") and I'm 6'4" so the new Accord is quite roomy and comfortable. NVH is also extremely good for a $30k car. It's interesting that Toyota hasn't introduced a mainstream turbo 4 to their lineup, as Honda has gone all in with turbo's on the majority of their vehicles now. Toyota is pretty conservative and they've obviously have a great dependability/reliability reputation so I wonder if that's what's holding them back from going with turbo's/

As far as the 4T vs V6. that's a never ending debate, and has already been pointed out that it's highly dependent on the vehicle/drivetrain. It's just two difficult to generalize across manufacturers
My 4T experience has been driving my wife's CRV 1.5T CVT for almost a year. It averages ~32-33MPG in mixed driving, it does not feel like a turbo (no noticeable lag, surge, or peakiness). Modern turbo engines are pretty amazing in terms of how un-turbo like they are compared to 80's and 90's turbo's.
I was hesitant at first with getting a turbo mostly for longevity (my wife's previous Pilot has 298k miles on the original J35/5AT, even the exhaust system is original).

Turbo's live in a difficult environment with their very high RPM bearings and turbine seal being in very high temp. I hope the turbo in the CRV gets to 200k.
I've friends who've replaced turbo's in as little as 50k miles (Audi S4) and I replaced a friends KKK T03 turbo in his Passat 1.8T.
Modern turbo engines having better computer management (the CRV has a electric servo motor controlling the wastegate valve) and modern engine oil's are far better than what was around couple decades so I'm not worried recommending a turbo for a DD.
The following users liked this post:
losiglow (02-12-2018)
Old 02-12-2018, 01:24 PM
  #46  
Team Owner
 
oonowindoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 23,362
Received 4,273 Likes on 3,050 Posts
Diesel Turbo... it's got the pull and the real world MPG unlike the advertised Turbo 4 or even V6.

That would be my choice if my #1 priority was not performance.
The following users liked this post:
teh CL (02-12-2018)
Old 02-12-2018, 01:27 PM
  #47  
Team Owner
 
oonowindoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 23,362
Received 4,273 Likes on 3,050 Posts
Originally Posted by TacoBello
turbo, turbo, turbo.

Sorry. NA v6 is dead.

ES is just a fancy camry. don't kid yourself. it rides very much the same.

Correction: Fancy Avalon.. i am not sure if that makes it better or worse tho.
Old 02-12-2018, 01:30 PM
  #48  
Suzuka Master
 
RDX10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 5,344
Received 869 Likes on 665 Posts
Originally Posted by oonowindoo
Correction: Fancy Avalon.. i am not sure if that makes it better or worse tho.
That new Avalon though....
Old 02-12-2018, 01:35 PM
  #49  
Drifting
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
losiglow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Age: 42
Posts: 3,490
Received 849 Likes on 605 Posts
I appreciate the feedback. I sent the link from this thread to my brother and told him to read up rather than have me explain it all I also told him that he should test drive different vehicles with different engine configurations since like Legend2TL said, the car plays a large part - not just the engine.
Old 02-17-2018, 08:41 AM
  #50  
Suzuka Master
 
YeuEmMaiMai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,863
Received 435 Likes on 342 Posts
I would rather have the v6 as it is just quieter... I do a lot of long distance driving and the drone of a turbo 4 is not my idea of fun...
The following users liked this post:
Saintor (02-20-2018)
Old 02-19-2018, 07:08 AM
  #51  
Intermediate
 
GBraidi88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Wouldnt a bigger 2.4 or 2.5 i4 be better than a turbo 4 for city mpg

Are downsized v6t more efficient than the na's?
Old 02-19-2018, 07:25 AM
  #52  
Latent car nut
iTrader: (2)
 
horseshoez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 7,844
Received 2,005 Likes on 1,407 Posts
Originally Posted by GBraidi88
Wouldnt a bigger 2.4 or 2.5 i4 be better than a turbo 4 for city mpg

Are downsized v6t more efficient than the na's?
It depends upon how you drive the vehicle; keep your foot out of it then a 2.0T will get better economy than a normally aspirated 2.4 or 2.5. That said, you keep the GO pedal down all of the time and your fuel economy will be fairly poor.
Old 02-19-2018, 12:44 PM
  #53  
Ex-OEM King
 
SamDoe1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 15,874
Received 5,820 Likes on 3,844 Posts
Originally Posted by YeuEmMaiMai
I would rather have the v6 as it is just quieter... I do a lot of long distance driving and the drone of a turbo 4 is not my idea of fun...
Modern 4cyl cars don't really drone the way they used to.

Originally Posted by GBraidi88
Wouldnt a bigger 2.4 or 2.5 i4 be better than a turbo 4 for city mpg

Are downsized v6t more efficient than the na's?
Read my post from earlier in this thread.
Old 02-19-2018, 12:47 PM
  #54  
Azine Jabroni
 
kurtatx's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,156
Received 2,158 Likes on 1,386 Posts
Interesting opinions regarding the sound. Saintor is in favor of the V6 for its louder sound whereas YeuEmMaiMai is a fan of the softer sound.

I would be inclined to say that the modern 2.0T isn't as loud as it used to be.
Old 02-19-2018, 12:51 PM
  #55  
Team Owner
 
oonowindoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 23,362
Received 4,273 Likes on 3,050 Posts
^ yah every 2.0t i have heard sounds like leaf blowers...
The following users liked this post:
Saintor (02-20-2018)
Old 02-19-2018, 01:02 PM
  #56  
AZ Community Team
 
Legend2TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 17,771
Received 4,018 Likes on 2,496 Posts
Heck, even a 1.5T sounds cool

The following users liked this post:
00TL-P3.2 (02-19-2018)
Old 02-19-2018, 01:06 PM
  #57  
Team Owner
 
oonowindoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 23,362
Received 4,273 Likes on 3,050 Posts
How high can it rev? i dont think it revs as low (6 or 7k) like the street cars.

Any high revving engine would sound good... even a leaf blower.
Old 02-19-2018, 01:20 PM
  #58  
AZ Community Team
 
Legend2TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 17,771
Received 4,018 Likes on 2,496 Posts
^ IDK but guessing ~11k
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SSMTL01
Car Talk
3
05-20-2005 09:06 AM
trev0006
Car Talk
4
05-03-2005 10:16 AM
trev0006
Car Talk
10
02-25-2004 12:10 AM
Type S
Car Talk
4
10-11-2002 10:35 AM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Turbo-4 vs. V6



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05 AM.