Camry to dump V6 for you know what.

[hotrodalex]

Depends on altitude for me...

[12,000 RPM]

Turbos are way more efficient than superchargers. For the street, it's really hard to argue against turbos, though of course NA is best for the heart.

[GoCougs]

Turbos are way more efficient than superchargers. For the street, it's really hard to argue against turbos, though of course NA is best for the heart.

Turbos are not more efficient. Their practical downfall is their less predictable boost profile which necessitates an even lower CR and wonky engine controls such as sporadic spikes in A/F mixture.

Easy to argue against turbos as shown (or at least for mainstream cars where huge power/small package or very high altitude are not a factor).

[12,000 RPM]

Turbos are not more efficient. Their practical downfall is their less predictable boost profile which necessitates an even lower CR and wonky engine controls such as sporadic spikes in A/F mixture.

Easy to argue against turbos as shown (or at least for mainstream cars where huge power/small package or very high altitude are not a factor).

Turbos are mos def more efficient. And lol. Sporadic A/F spikes are not unique to turbo engines, I've seen them on N/A OEMs. And yea, turbos dont have torque curves as flat as N/A engines.... but again, lol. You were exhalting the fact that the G37 was faster to 150 than the 335i. Dude. You will never see 150 MPH. In the stoplight drags where you try to assert your manhood the turbo 335i has the edge, easily. Turbos don't deliver a full RPM powerband, but here's the bigger point.... most street driving, even enthusiastic driving, doesn't really require it. Better to maximize performance and efficiency in the RPMs where folks spend 99% of their time. Which, by the way, Toyota and Honda do with their V6s. What % of Camcord V6 drivers do you think will ever even SEE redline? Why do the same engines in the IS350 and TL make ~40 more Cougs approved manufacturer/SAE verified HP? Lol. Dude. Pls.

[GoCougs]

Your attempt at strawmanning is admirable if a bit confusing with all the acronyms/Netspeak, but alas, it is not successful.

Once the EPA readjusts their testing procedure turbos will be out once again; too expensive, too complicated, to fragile (esp. the BMW), no mpg advantage.

And easy bro, the point was it's the car that enables the 335i to be slightly quicker than the G37, not this magical turbo hp; the 335i is much smaller and launches a bit better (a bit more rearward weight balance, a bit larger rear tire stock).

[12,000 RPM]

Lol, so now the EPA's ratings count? And what about EU's ratings? People's real world data on Fuelly? Edmunds road testing? All of these sources have the 335i 2-3 MPG better than the G37. And the new 535i, which is about 200lb heavier than the Q70 3.7, still gets better gas mileage and matches it in performance. So much for it "being the car".

So just to recap, BMW's 3.0 bests Nissan's 3.7 in pretty much any measure of fuel economy, be it controlled testing by govt agencies or a large sample of actual driver's real world consumption. Hyundai/Ford lost no performance and gained real MPGs going from V6s to turbo 4s (i.e. whatever Honda/Toyota are doing is irrelevant- their engines have always been better than Hyundai's/Ford's). Anything else? Mind you, I'm on my 3rd VQ and I'm sad about the slow death of NA. But thermo is thermo....

[GoCougs]

Oh, Sporty, two strawmen in row = auto loss. You're trying too hard. Turbos are defensible but not in the way you wish them to be.

[AltinD]

Your attempt at strawmanning is admirable if a bit confusing with all the acronyms/Netspeak, but alas, it is not successful.

Once the EPA readjusts their testing procedure turbos will be out once again; too expensive, too complicated, to fragile (esp. the BMW), no mpg advantage.

And easy bro, the point was it's the car that enables the 335i to be slightly quicker than the G37, not this magical turbo hp; the 335i is much smaller and launches a bit better (a bit more rearward weight balance, a bit larger rear tire stock).

You do know that turbos are replacing NA because they make possible that a smaller displacement engine can produce more power, while consuming less fuel ... right?

[GoCougs]

You do know that turbos are replacing NA because they make possible that a smaller displacement engine can produce more power, while consuming less fuel ... right?

No, no mpg advantage, as practically and theoretically explained ITT. They are smaller engines sure (which games displacement taxes in countries with such things), and sometimes they make more power sure, but at the expense of reliability/durability.

[AltinD]

No, no mpg advantage, as practically and theoretically explained ITT. They are smaller engines sure (which games displacement taxes in countries with such things), and sometimes they make more power sure, but at the expense of reliability/durability.

LOL, how's there no MPG advantage? Have you checked the figures for the new cars that got their N/A replaced for smaller turbo engines that produce even more power .... or you only follow what's happen to a couple of car models?


PS: I hope you are not reading as if we are saying that sticking turbos to the same engine would make it consume less   

[GoCougs]

No, no mpg advantage. 'Tis why Ford and Hyundai are getting sued like crazy and in general why turbo cars' mpg suck. The data and engineering are ITT.

[GoCougs]

Consumer Reports had a pretty big test, and their conclusion was the same: smaller turbo engines were lucky to match their larger N/A counterparts in mpg (and usually didn't):  Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims.

Turbos are good at gaming the current EPA test but suck otherwise.

[AltinD]

No, no mpg advantage. 'Tis why Ford and Hyundai are getting sued like crazy and in general why turbo cars' mpg suck. The data and engineering are ITT.

Those are HYBRIDS   

[CJ]

I seem to recall the fact (this is fact) that my father's Sonata 2.0T gets superb fuel economy.  The indicated average right now is 26.2 (I drove it 5 minutes ago), with 90% of that being around the City of Plano.  On the highway, it pulls 34-35 regularly.  Yes, it'll do 31-32 if you drive well above the speed limit, but it generally tends to do between 34-35.  Tell me I'm wrong.

[12,000 RPM]

No, no mpg advantage. 'Tis why Ford and Hyundai are getting sued like crazy and in general why turbo cars' mpg suck. The data and engineering are ITT.

Ford's lawsuits were for hybrids, and Hyundai's lawsuits were for NA engines. Ford and Hyundai's turbo MPGs are improvements over their own NA MPGs. You keep recalling Honda and Toyota's V6s, but the fact that Toyota 1. has decades of extensive reliable turbo engine experience (with their HiLux and Land Cruiser turbodiesels) and 2. is even considering going turbo on a mainstreamer kind of throws all that shit out the window. Honda is confirmed to be going turbo as well

[GoCougs]

I seem to recall the fact (this is fact) that my father's Sonata 2.0T gets superb fuel economy.  The indicated average right now is 26.2 (I drove it 5 minutes ago), with 90% of that being around the City of Plano.  On the highway, it pulls 34-35 regularly.  Yes, it'll do 31-32 if you drive well above the speed limit, but it generally tends to do between 34-35.  Tell me I'm wrong.

Telling you the V6 Camcord will do as good or better on mpg and yet be quicker, smoother and more robust/reliable isn't saying you're wrong . I challenge you to find a real test that proves otherwise. For MY2014:

EPA:
Sonata 2.0T: 21/32/25 (lowered from 22/34 after lawsuits and getting slapped)
Camry V6: 21/31/25

Consumer Reports:
Sonata 2.0T: 25 mpg
Camry V6: 26 mpg

So don't take turbocharged engines' eco-boasts at face value. There are better ways to save fuel, including hybrids, diesels, and other advanced technologies.
- Consumer Reports

[AltinD]

Telling you the V6 Camcord will do as good or better on mpg and yet be quicker, smoother and more robust/reliable isn't saying you're wrong . I challenge you to find a real test that proves otherwise.

What test? The replacement turbo 4 engine isn't out yet.

[ifcar]

What test? The replacement turbo 4 engine isn't out yet.

Or even confirmed to exist.

[12,000 RPM]

Or even confirmed to exist.

Its in the Lexus NX.

[CJ]

Telling you the V6 Camcord will do as good or better on mpg and yet be quicker, smoother and more robust/reliable isn't saying you're wrong . I challenge you to find a real test that proves otherwise.

We didn't look at the Camry when we bought the Sonata for good reasons. The interior isn't that great (it's not great on the Sonata, but it's better), and the dull styling was a buzzkill. That and my dad just didn't want a Camry.

[AutobahnSHO]

So don't take turbocharged engines' eco-boasts at face value. There are better ways to save fuel, including hybrids, diesels, and other advanced technologies.
- Consumer Reports

LOL @ your quoting which supports other subjects you rant about

[GoCougs]

Or even confirmed to exist.

The NX is small ala 1st gen RDX. Well, we know how that went (2nd gen RDX dumped turbo for V6, although given how small it is proportions worsened a bit to fit it).

But Toyota isn't immune to the pressures of caving to EPA mpg testing hegemony...

[GoCougs]

LOL @ your quoting which supports other subjects you rant about

How? My Internetry has rock-solid consistency.

[12,000 RPM]

The NX is small ala 1st gen RDX. Well, we know how that went (2nd gen RDX dumped turbo for V6, although given how small it is proportions worsened a bit to fit it).

So 1 SUV/engine = every and all SUVs/engines?

But Toyota isn't immune to the pressures of caving to EPA mpg testing hegemony...

Which you just claimed will be "corrected" to expose such chicanery........

[MX793]

The NX is small ala 1st gen RDX. Well, we know how that went (2nd gen RDX dumped turbo for V6, although given how small it is proportions worsened a bit to fit it).

But Toyota isn't immune to the pressures of caving to EPA mpg testing hegemony...

The RDX was the only Honda powered by a turbo motor.  Economies of scale worked to their favor when switching to the V6, which is used in every other Acura and most of the Honda lineup.

[FoMoJo]

Consumer Reports had a pretty big test, and their conclusion was the same: smaller turbo engines were lucky to match their larger N/A counterparts in mpg (and usually didn't):  Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims.

Turbos are good at gaming the current EPA test but suck otherwise.

Don't believe everything you read.

[GoCougs]

Don't believe everything you read.

I don't. Turbo motors don't do as well w/MPG, and pretty much any sort of reputable test shows it, including that CR test.

[FoMoJo]

I don't. Turbo motors don't do as well w/MPG, and pretty much any sort of reputable test shows it, including that CR test.

But they can.

[GoCougs]

The RDX was the only Honda powered by a turbo motor.  Economies of scale worked to their favor when switching to the V6, which is used in every other Acura and most of the Honda lineup.

Economies of scale (or lack thereof) were known when the 1st gen RDX was being developed...

Just as with pretty much all such examples, what probably killed that turbo 4 was that it was much less refined vs. a V6, esp. important for Honda/Acura buyers accustomed to the J-series.

[GoCougs]

But they can.

At best some of them can be a match in mpg, but then again they aren't as refined and aren't nearly as reliable/durable/long lived.