Americans losing their love for V8s

[cawimmer430]

Americans losing their love for V8s

The end of the performance V8 engine is approaching. Of course, there will also be the odd enthusiast after the smooth revving and torqeuy nature of a big V8 but their numbers are dwindling fast. A new study has found that installation rates for V8 engines, the favored choice of powerplant for performance fans in the U.S. for more than five decades, is dropping and that new car buyers are markedly less interested in V8 power.

Data compiled in the Edmunds study reveal overall demand for V8s has dropped from 19% years ago to just 15% today. The drop is even more significant for SUV buyers, whose interest in V8s has dropped from 24% in 2006 to just under 18% at the end of last year. Demand for V8 power in large cars also slid from 36% to 29% in the same time frame, and the same story could be told for two-seaters. The only segment where demand for V8s has actually increased is the fullsize pickup market, with demand rising from 55% in 2006 to a current level of 59%.

With fuel prices now more expensive than ever and the push for green vehicles constantly being posted across the media, the allure of big V8s understandably is fading. America?s carmakers have seen the writing on the wall and for once are acting fast. GM has already canceled its future luxury V8 program and Chrysler has stated that its legendary HEMI doesn?t have a place in its future powertrain lineup.

Link: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/industry/americans-losing-their-love-for-v8s/

[r0tor]

oh noes!

[Nethead]

Heterosexual Americans haven't lost their love for V8s.

[SVT666]

I'm deeply saddened by this news.

[Raza]

Long live the turbo four.

[SVT666]

I don't think anyone is actually losing their love for it, they're just losing the desire to pay for the gas.

[Soup DeVille]

Exuse me, I have to ge reassure my V8 that I still like her.

Thanks, Wimmer.

[NomisR]

Long live the turbo four.

Turbo 4?  Most don't make the same power or have the same fuel efficiency as the pushrod V8s...

[GoCougs]

The one fact poignant fact not mentioned IMO is that the mid-sized 260-280 hp V6 of today is more powerful (let alone infinitely more efficient) than virtually all of the V8s up until the mid/late '90s, including even the muscle car era save for the ultra-rare hi-po small blocks (fuelie 327, Chevy 302, etc.) or fairly rare hi-po big blocks (440 Magnum, 454 LS-5, etc.).

[Raza]

Turbo 4?  Most don't make the same power or have the same fuel efficiency as the pushrod V8s...

Oh? 

LONG LIVE THE TURBO FOUR!!!

[NomisR]

Oh? 

LONG LIVE THE TURBO FOUR!!!

Rotary!

[sportyaccordy]

The one fact poignant fact not mentioned IMO is that the mid-sized 260-280 hp V6 of today is more powerful (let alone infinitely more efficient) than virtually all of the V8s up until the mid/late '90s, including even the muscle car era save for the ultra-rare hi-po small blocks (fuelie 327, Chevy 302, etc.) or fairly rare hi-po big blocks (440 Magnum, 454 LS-5, etc.).

Exactly, horsepower is horsepower. Not to mention cars are much smaller and faster on average than they were when V8s were the norm.

[the Teuton]

Rotary!

Blasphemy with horrible gas mileage.

I miss our old Civic and all of its 35-40 mpg goodness.

[Byteme]

Now that I think about it I've owned exactly 1 V8 in 42 years of car ownership and that was in a 1966 Charger.

[Nethead]

GoCougs: So, CougDude, I assume the figures from the articles mean that those who never should have been allowed to purchase V8-engined vehicles are now being ferreted out and punished appropriately, right?  Good.  The world is a far, far better place...

[Vinsanity]

It doesn't help that some V8's are losing their power advantage over their V6 siblings. Look at the M45's engine compared to the G37's. Cadillac's new DI V6 is awfully close to the power output of the aging Northstar. Heck, last year, Lexus continued to offer a 290-hp GS430 alongside the 306-hp GS350

IIRC, my CTS's 263 lb-ft of torque is in the ballpark of my old Q45's torque output.

[GoCougs]

GoCougs:  CougDude, explain again how 260-280 HP made by a V6 is more powerful than 260-280 HP made by an I4, a flat four, a V4, an I5, an I6, a flat six, an I8, a flat 8, a V8, a flat 10, a V10, a V12, a W12, a V16, or a radial engine of any number of cylinders and rows?  Where I live, 260-280 HP is 260-280 HP.  Maybe physics is different in Seattle--or is poignant horsepower computed differently than brake horsepower?

Okay, fair enough. My main point is that "years ago" (the article's terminology) engines were rated in gross HP, not net HP as like today. And I used the modern V6 owing to its common availability.

My secondary point that I didn't explicity mention is that the article tries to play on the common misconception that "V8" is the American absolute in performance. Not so when looking at the numbers - Detroit literally builts tens of millions utterly gutless V8-powered vehicles that are both out-powered and out performed by a new below-average-cost V6 Camry (as were the majority of V8s of the muscle car era).

[NomisR]

Now that I think about it I've owned exactly 1 V8 in 42 years of car ownership and that was in a 1966 Charger.

hehe, I haven't owned a single one yet.  I've never even owned anything more than 4 cylinder. 

[r0tor]

Rotary!

[SVT666]

Roughly 65% of all the cars and trucks I've owned are V8.

[280Z Turbo]

So engineers can do more with less. Sounds like progress to me.

The Corvette dropping the V8 would be a tragedy, but normal "point A to point B" daily drivers don't.

If your wife's SUV needs 260 hp...why not get that power from a V6 that gets 20 mpg vs. a V8 that gets 15 mpg?

[NomisR]

So engineers can do more with less. Sounds like progress to me.

The Corvette dropping the V8 would be a tragedy, but normal "point A to point B" daily drivers don't.

If your wife's SUV needs 260 hp...why not get that power from a V6 that gets 20 mpg vs. a V8 that gets 15 mpg?

Doesn't the Corvette get mid 20s to 30 mpg, which seems a lot better than a lot of V6/I6 out there? 

[280Z Turbo]

Doesn't the Corvette get mid 20s to 30 mpg, which seems a lot better than a lot of V6/I6 out there? 

That's true. Even with "outdated" OHV technology.

GM engines are like that. They have so much torque that they are perfectly happy sitting at less than 2000 rpms.

[FoMoJo]

Doesn't the Corvette get mid 20s to 30 mpg, which seems a lot better than a lot of V6/I6 out there? 

If you toddle around in 6th gear.  But then, what's the point of driving a 'Vette?

[280Z Turbo]

If you toddle around in 6th gear.  But then, what's the point of driving a 'Vette?

It would be good on the freeway.

Unfortunately, my exuberant acceleration on the onramps might be enough to cancel that out.

[NomisR]

It would be good on the freeway.

Unfortunately, my exuberant acceleration on the onramps might be enough to cancel that out.

But then it's the same with any engine.  Maybe GM should go back to the pushrod V8s and call them something else with a marketing twist, that should lure some customers in.  "newer" technology v8 that's smaller and lighter than standard v8 and better fuel economy.. why not?  and it's all true too!

[MX793]

It's not like there's a great many V8 car offerings that are affordable (under $40K).  By my count, there are only 10 cars with V8s with MSRPs of $40K or less.  GM's W bodies (Impala SS, Grand Prix GXP, and LaCrosse Super), the Buick Lucerne, two of Ford's Panther cars, the Mustang, and Chrysler's 3 LX cars.

And automakers are transitioning from truck-based SUVs to car-based CUVs for their midsize (bread and butter) SUV entries, many of which have FWD architectures with transverse engines.  You're seeing V8s disappear from that segment by virtue of the fact that transverse, FWD cars with V8s are few and far between (GM's W bodies and G bodies and the Volvo S80 are it).  I'm not sure how much of this move was due to demand for CUVs and how much was due to the automakers striving to bring their CAFE fleet averages up.

[SVT666]

But then it's the same with any engine.  Maybe GM should go back to the pushrod V8s and call them something else with a marketing twist, that should lure some customers in.  "newer" technology v8 that's smaller and lighter than standard v8 and better fuel economy.. why not?  and it's all true too!

They tried calling in Cam-in-block the last couple years, but it never seemed to catch on.

[NomisR]

They tried calling in Cam-in-block the last couple years, but it never seemed to catch on.

That's because the name sucks, they need a gimicky name that can make the consumer think it's a new technology.  In a way, it is compared to OHC engines so they're not lying, and neither is efficiency. 

And they need lots of advertising dollar into it to make a big stink about it.. V8 with the fuel efficiency of a I4 and power of a V8.. Consumers will buy into it in no time.. you just need advertising dollars.

[NomisR]

CUV

CUV?  Car Utility Vehicle??