The Powerful Japanese V6
- Thread starter Merkava_4
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
A Lotus Elise... Actually, it's a heck of alot faster. (yes it's significantly lighter but you weren't THAT specific)
But you're missing the point. Load that RX-8 up with a car full of people and all their stuff and then see how fast it is. Just like my semi-truck example, the RX8 can do a small amount of work VERY quickly. Good for it. The average Buick driver doesn't want to wind up to 7000 rpm, even if they do want to accelerate quickly. Neither do I in the Focus where fuel economy is more important to me than high horsepower.
The reason horsepower gets a bad name is becuase, as was said before, it's virtually meaniningless in AVERAGE, EVERYDAY driving situations. Unless you race a guy down an onramp everyday, it's a relatively poor measure of performance. Not to mention how much gearing has a huge impact, the size of the tires, the weight of the vehicle, all that...
I was previously unaware that the Elise had been sold outside of the U.S. with less than 189 hp. That car does do a 13.5 second 1/4-mile on only 138 lb-ft though!
I'm not missing the point; torque is always a nice thing to have on tap and I consider the torque rating to be important too. But I'll never stop disagreeing that horsepower is meaningless, at least for sub-geriatric drivers. Even with an auto, having an engine that can rev smoothly and develop some decent horsepower is a good thing. In a smaller car, 100 hp and 150 lb-ft would probably give you a 13 second 0-60 time. 160 hp and 150 lb-ft would probably get you down under 8 seconds. You might not care about that extra 60 hp, but to me that makes a big difference when I'm merging or passing. And an RX-8 loaded with people will still go good if you keep the revs up. If you keep it at 7000 rpm or higher, you've always got at least 200 hp available, and it's smoother there than many engines are at 3000 rpm. So from 7000 to 9000 rpm it will always be faster than a car with 190 hp and 600 lb-ft of torque, provided the weight is the same. Sure, you wouldn't drive around at 7000+ rpm, but it's only a quick double-clutch downshift away when you want it.
With the right gearing, a 500 hp Ferrari V12 engine in a semi could pull the same load up a hill as a 16L 500 hp turbo-diesel. It's ridiculously unsuitable for that, but so is putting a heavy, torquey engine in a car for which you want good handling.
It's fine if you prefer more displacement to more horsepower, but it's not the best option in every situation. The engines listed in the original post all have plenty of torque to go with their horsepower numbers anyway. Not everyone with a high-revving engine bought the car because they were fooled by the horsepower numbers; some people actually like to use that horsepower!
The 60's musclecar ratings are even worse lies though! The "exaggerations" don't apply to the 2007-model engines in the original post anyway.
My Lexus LS400 has a 260hp, 270lb-ft 4L V-8 and it feels like it has 100hp.
Maybe it's the miles.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
I owned a 3800 in my camaro, tons of torque - so much so I broke the 5-speed in it twice and had to trade the car! gm makes great engines but they still need to make better quality cars for them to be put into.
The GM 3800 V6 was probably one of the best engines ever made. They can take a hellacious pounding,have tons of power,run smooth as silk,and simply will not wear out or break. You can cruise those things at redline and they don`t even struggle! I think GM quit making them because they were lasting virtually forever and no one was buying new cars,but instead driving and driving those with that engine.
The GM 3800 V6 was probably one of the best engines ever made. They can take a hellacious pounding,have tons of power,run smooth as silk,and simply will not wear out or break. You can cruise those things at redline and they don`t even struggle! I think GM quit making them because they were lasting virtually forever and no one was buying new cars,but instead driving and driving those with that engine.
When it first came out, the GM 3.8L V6 was a very competitive engine, sans the intake manifold gasket leaks. But in today's competitive market, it's no longer a competitive engine compared to others in its class.
GM's new 3.6L VVT V6 will take the place of its GM 3.8 predecessor in terms of performance, value, and reliability in the mid-sized segment with the next few years.
Actually the GM 3.9 pushrod V6 motor takes the place of the old 3.8 and it makes 250hp and the same torque and is the first pushrod to have VVT.
The 3800 is still the standard engine in the Buick Lacrosse and the Buick Lucerne.
Yes and no. Some of the musclecar engines were rated at well under the actual HP for insurance purposes.
In a recent Road & Track the NA Lexus IS350 V6 ran a 13.5 1/4 and 4.9 0 to 60. This car gets 28 mpg.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=4459
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=4459
My '97 does this with a 4speed auto. Stock numbers are 240HP and 280 lb-ft torque @ 3200 rpm. Long highway trips can pull 30+ mpg and can run sub 6 second 0-60 times. Not too bad for a 10 year old car with a push rod 3800. Throw a couple of modifications and these numbers all improved, but that's another discussion.
You can have it Critic! Being that the 3800 is still being produced in the Lucerne, that gives me plenty of future used cars to choose from.
Sort of off topic but, I had an '86 GT I autocrossed...
There were many differences between the '85 and '86 5.0L engines. I don't think the loss of HP was a desired attribute, it was because Ford used shrouded valve heads that at the time were called "high swirl." They were more efficient than the old models but didn't flow well enough, especially at high RPM, to make the top end HP the previous heads did.
It took port fuel injection and a much better exhaust system to get the '86 models more performance than the carburated '85 model, given the poor head design ( for performance ) of the '86.
You can look at the numbers from '87 on and compare them to the '86 to see what happened when a decent set of heads were used with the other changes that had been made from '85 to '86.
As others have said, the Northtar is an OLD engine. GM is working on a replacement engine as we speak. However, when compared to Toyota's 4.7L the power is actually good.
The S/C Northstar used in the STS-V makes 469hp - not too shabby at all.
The pushrod V6 engines are GM's VALUE engines. You can get a car equipped with those engines for about the same price as a I4 from the competitors.
The Aura and new Malibu have 252hp engines, the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave have 270-275hp and the CTS's V6 makes 300hp on 87 octane.
The S/C Northstar used in the STS-V makes 469hp - not too shabby at all.
The pushrod V6 engines are GM's VALUE engines. You can get a car equipped with those engines for about the same price as a I4 from the competitors.
The Aura and new Malibu have 252hp engines, the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave have 270-275hp and the CTS's V6 makes 300hp on 87 octane.
The 2008 Cadillac STS also uses the 3.6L V6 and it makes 302hp/272lb-ft - again, on 87 octane.
http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/12969/first-drive-2008-cadillac-sts-v-6.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/12969/first-drive-2008-cadillac-sts-v-6.html
You can argue about this forever but the bottom line is the Japanese car makers caught the American auto makers sleeping at the wheel for a long time and the Japanese have been making better engines and cars but the US automakers are finally getting the message and improving their products. You can argue all you want about HP and Torque along with dyno results but millions of Americans voted with their pocketbook and bought foreign for many years.
I am very patriotic as are most of the people on this form but the US automakers haven't really cared about their products for years and don't forget they've had the union albatross around their neck but as I stated before I think the have finally seen what they must do.
Maybe the fallout from the A-bombs dropped on Japan somehow made it's way to detroit and affected the US auto industry after the war.
I am very patriotic as are most of the people on this form but the US automakers haven't really cared about their products for years and don't forget they've had the union albatross around their neck but as I stated before I think the have finally seen what they must do.
Maybe the fallout from the A-bombs dropped on Japan somehow made it's way to detroit and affected the US auto industry after the war.
JHZR2
Staff member
Wonderful... In a car that has so little useful interior space that for as nice as it is, I might as well buy a miata and have a car that is more fun to drive. We sat in the IS at the auto show, and it disgusted me that as nice as it was, and bit as it was on the outside, the interior dimentions were lousy.
Further, the ability to make this much power and obtain that much speed just induces wastefulness in a group of buyers who are tryng very hard to show off, purchasing (actually financing or leasing because they cant afford to actually purchase) cars with a fancy nameplate to do their best to convey an image that they can't afford to do with the 'real thing'.
Does not matter who the manufacturer is... its terribly wasteful behavior, and is yet another reason why the country is going down the tubes economically.
flame suit on...
JMH
- Status
Similar threads
