4-Cylinders Becoming The Dominant Choice

[William Maley]

4-Cylinders Becoming The Dominant Choice

William Maley - Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

July 26, 2011

US consumers are buying up more 4-Cylinders than before. According to research by IHS Automotive, 43% of vehicles sold in the first half of 2011 were equipped with a 4-Cylinder engines. In 2005, only 26% of vehicles were equipped with a 4-Cylinder, while 6-Cylinders took 43% during the same year.

And what about 8-Cylinders? Well, they have been falling as well. In 2005, one of every three new cars was powered by a 8-Cylinder. Fast forward to 2011 and only one out of six new vehicles is powered by 8-Cylinder.

While fuel economy is becoming a top priority when consumers buy new cars, they're also getting more for their money. A 2.0L 4-cylinder in a compact Ford Contour in 1999 produced 120-hp while getting 19/28 city/highway mpg. By contrast, the 2011 Ford Focus 160-hp and gets as much as 40 mpg on the highway.

Source: Automotive News

[riviera74]

This is depressing. More and more people are switching to 4cyl engines, mostly because of gas prices. I hope that those little engines are more reliable and worth the cost now vs 10 or 20 years ago. What is even worse is that midsize cars are going 4cyl ONLY. Is the buying public going to have a lifestyle similar to that of Europe where 3cyl and 4cyl are everywhere and a V8 is impossible to find?

[loki]

This is depressing. More and more people are switching to 4cyl engines, mostly because of gas prices. I hope that those little engines are more reliable and worth the cost now vs 10 or 20 years ago. What is even worse is that midsize cars are going 4cyl ONLY. Is the buying public going to have a lifestyle similar to that of Europe where 3cyl and 4cyl are everywhere and a V8 is only found in cars $45k+?

Fast forward to 2011 and only one out of six new vehicles is powered by 8-Cylinder. if trucks and such are 50% of gm, ford, and chryco, there are ~9 total "brands"? obviusly that's not right but that's the simplified math. and even that can't be right with ford's ecoboost being in high demand.

i'm guessing this isn't counting diesels...?

[Drew Dowdell]

and why not?

25 years ago, V8s were the norm and they typically put out between 160hp to 240hp.

10 years ago the typical Family V6 sedan could come with horsepower somewhere in the range of 160hp to 240hp.

Fast forward to 2011 and most 4 cylinders (some with turbo) are capable of .... 160hp to 240hp... with some going higher than that even. V6es have moved into the 260hp to 360hp range.... any V6 with less than 260hp gets laughed at.

People buy what they need and can afford.... and the 160hp - 240hp appears to be the range that satisfies most drivers.

[Justin Bimmer]

Output is all that matters. Who cares if it comes from magnets and wires or 34 holes of fire burning nitro.

[SAmadei]

25 years ago, V8s were the norm and they typically put out between 160hp to 240hp.

The years where the V8 was the norm are not as common as you would think. Yes, they were more common, especially in cars then they were 10 years ago, but with the exception of higher luxury cars like Olds, Buick and Cadillac, more models came with I-6s and V-6s than V8s.

I'd say you need to go back to the short window between '72 and '76 (35 years ago) where you could accurately describe V8s as being the norm.

[SAmadei]

Output is all that matters. Who cares if it comes from magnets and wires or 34 holes of fire burning nitro.

Not necessarily true, otherwise we'd be using turbines. However, the testers felt the power came on too unnaturally... and the project ended.

[Drew Dowdell]

Output is all that matters. Who cares if it comes from magnets and wires or 34 holes of fire burning nitro.

Not necessarily true, otherwise we'd be using turbines. However, the testers felt the power came on too unnaturally... and the project ended.

To expand on what JB said... it's the size of the boat AND the motion of the ocean.

[Justin Bimmer]

I'm just saying if my car goes from A to B adequately, then most likely what is powering it is not relevant.

[Camino LS6]

Glad I'm not part of the majority.

I hate crowds.

[Justin Bimmer]

Glad I'm not part of the majority.

I hate crowds.

For the most part, I enjoy not following the herd as well. I am just playing devil's advocate. I would personally prefer a Camaro SS.

[Camino LS6]

Oh, I could enjoy a 4-banger... if it came wrapped in a Solstice coupe!

[67impss]

and why not?

25 years ago, V8s were the norm and they typically put out between 160hp to 240hp.

10 years ago the typical Family V6 sedan could come with horsepower somewhere in the range of 160hp to 240hp.

Fast forward to 2011 and most 4 cylinders (some with turbo) are capable of .... 160hp to 240hp... with some going higher than that even. V6es have moved into the 260hp to 360hp range.... any V6 with less than 260hp gets laughed at.

People buy what they need and can afford.... and the 160hp - 240hp appears to be the range that satisfies most drivers.

I agree on all counts Olds But I think the article is a skewed bit of propaganda to make people feel good about either choosing a 4 pot or being forced into the lesser engines by the manufacturers Chevy,Hyundia... all for the CAFE standards. Not being a V8 only guy but loved a certain flat six, turbo Ecotec, 3800 3500 & 3900's I like what I like even I3's.

[riviera74]

The real issue is weight of these newer cars, period. If all carmakers removed 500-700 pounds of excess GVWR, that would solve their CAFE problems quickly. The increasingly porcine nature of most new cars thanks to increased safety standards is the real reason high MPG is hard without a detuned 4cyl. The choice is simple: more MPG or more safety features.

[Robert Hall]

I had 4cyl cars (one a diesel) back in the late '80s and early '90s. Can't imagine going back..

[§carlet §wordfish]

One nice thing about the fourbanger in our new Escape... it makes for a very tidy engine bay.

[Drew Dowdell]

and why not?

25 years ago, V8s were the norm and they typically put out between 160hp to 240hp.

10 years ago the typical Family V6 sedan could come with horsepower somewhere in the range of 160hp to 240hp.

Fast forward to 2011 and most 4 cylinders (some with turbo) are capable of .... 160hp to 240hp... with some going higher than that even. V6es have moved into the 260hp to 360hp range.... any V6 with less than 260hp gets laughed at.

People buy what they need and can afford.... and the 160hp - 240hp appears to be the range that satisfies most drivers.

I agree on all counts Olds But I think the article is a skewed bit of propaganda to make people feel good about either choosing a 4 pot or being forced into the lesser engines by the manufacturers Chevy,Hyundia... all for the CAFE standards. Not being a V8 only guy but loved a certain flat six, turbo Ecotec, 3800 3500 & 3900's I like what I like even I3's.

No one is being forced into anything. If you want 300hp+, it's out there... in a family cars even. General consumers are choosing the 4-cylinder of their own volition... and finding that it suits their needs.

I think there is a bit of distorted nostalgia going on in here. In the 60's most cars weren't Impala SSes. The biggest sellers were typically the I-6es and small V8s.

[balthazar]

^ For Chevy; yes. But you look at Buick & Olds & Pontiac- the senior cars were ALL V8s. and a bunch of their intermediates were V-8, also. <--- Lot of family cars in those millions & millions of units...

Look, I agree with the sentiment that power trumps all; in that if the performance is adequate for the majority of consumers, it doesn't matter if it has 6 or 4 cylinders.

Then again- few people have that sort of mechanical relationship with the spec sheet of their cars anymore...

Personally, I have a brace of 389s and 455s, so I feel covered.

[the_yellow_dart]

I had 4cyl cars (one a diesel) back in the late '80s and early '90s. Can't imagine going back..

I've had two 6-cyls back in the early '00s. I can't imagine buying one again either...

[Drew Dowdell]

^ For Chevy; yes. But you look at Buick & Olds & Pontiac- the senior cars were ALL V8s. and a bunch of their intermediates were V-8, also. <--- Lot of family cars in those millions & millions of units...

Look, I agree with the sentiment that power trumps all; in that if the performance is adequate for the majority of consumers, it doesn't matter if it has 6 or 4 cylinders.

Then again- few people have that sort of mechanical relationship with the spec sheet of their cars anymore...

Personally, I have a brace of 389s and 455s, so I feel covered.

Buick was a luxury brand.

Pontiac still sold lots of I6es (except in '55-'60 where the base engines were relatively small V8s)

Olds was maybe entry lux until '61 when they went down market and began offering a 3.5liter V8

My point being... very few of the cars sold were SS, 442, or GTOs.

[balthazar]

I had 4cyl cars (one a diesel) back in the late '80s and early '90s.

'Late '80s' was a long long time ago - the industry has progressed massively since then.

Edited July 27, 2011 by balthazar

[Drew Dowdell]

I had 4cyl cars (one a diesel) back in the late '80s and early '90s. Can't imagine going back..

You've missed out on some real 4-cylinder goodness.

[Robert Hall]

I had 4cyl cars (one a diesel) back in the late '80s and early '90s.

'Late '80s' was a long long time ago - the industry has progressed massively since then.

I know..my point being is that personally I long ago moved on to 6s and V8s...going to a smaller vehicle w/ a 4cyl would be a step down for me. V8, at least 4000lbs, RWD is the likely configuration of my next car (or an SUV w/ RWD/4WD)....(I'm really leaning towards another Grand Cherokee, Charger R/T, or 300C for my next new car..GM and Ford don't have anything equivalent...(though I still like the idea of going old school w/ a late model Grand Marquis or Town Car )

Edited July 27, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

An Ecoboost V6 in RWD would probably suit you very nicely.

Sing it with me.... 350 lb-ft @ 1500rpm - 5000rpm.... and capable of 27mpg in AWD form.

[GMTruckGuy74]

I am not a 4 cylinder fan... I have two issues with them. Issue #1: the thing I disliked most on my '07 Saturn SKY roadster was the 2.4L 4 cylinder (although it is a great engine regardless)... everyone that looked at my car thought it had a bigger engine in it (i.e. V8). It moved the car, but I never owned a 4 cylinder before (drove plenty though) and was expecting the car to perform better than what it did (I wished it had a V6 to distinguish it more from the Solstice). Issue #2: while doing fire police traffic duty Saturday morning, a new Buick Regal CXL passed me by. As awesome as the car is, the sound it made as it passed by was just BLAH. 4 cylinder exhaust notes are not music to the ears (and ricers with fart can exhausts it's pure torture). I love the sound of a V8 and even most V6 (especially GM vehicles from the late '80s & early '90s <4.3L V6, 2.8L/3.1L V6>). 4 cylinders sound small by nature and don't invoke power.

I love the Atlas 4200 I6 in my Envoy and have been happy with the 3500 V6 engine that powered my '04 Malibu LT, '07 AURA XE, and the wife's '08 G6. I foresee myself owning nothing smaller than a 6 cylinder, however a 4 cylinder may always be possible (the wife and I do like the new Verano, and we were impressed with the performance of the Cruze LTZ RS we drove at the Philly Main Street in Motion). However, comparing the 2.4L 4 cylinder versus the 3.0L V6 in the GMC Terrain, the V6 wins out hands down in my opinion.

[Cory Wolfe]

I really don't have a problem with my turbo 4's power. Only thing I'm missing to embarrass plenty of V8's is a stick due to the slow shifting auto.

[SAmadei]

I'm not a 4 cyl fan, either. I don't like driving something I have to drive like I hate it to get through traffic. And every time anyone bad mouths a 4 cyl, someone posts pictures of the LNF and that awful dyno chart GM made up (I have YET to see a actual dyno chart from a stock LNF). Sure, the LNF should be good, its got a big turbo on it! Well, the LNF is dead, just like the short lived GNX. The 4 cyls GM is plugging into most cars right now are not even derivatives of the LNF. Stuff like the LAF... 182hp@screaming 172tq@way too late.

I drive 4 cyls... the Sunfire's Twin Cam does good in traffic... 150hp@5600, 155tq@2400 (Not bad for a 20 year old design)... but at a cost. It gobbles fuel. I get better fuel economy from a V6... notably the 3800NA and 3800SCs in the family. I don't currently have a V8 in the family newer than a LT1... but knowing the massive changes, I imagine a LS3 would give me similar economy.

I fear that people are being persuaded and duped into 4cyls by friends and salespeople who brag about great fuel economy, but in the end, they get a compromised vehicle... too little engine in too fat a vehicle giving meh fuel economy. In the meantime, GM is getting stingier in what cars will have the big V6, V8 power. The next rumored to be Malibu being 4 cyl only... thats a lot of car to be saddled with a 4.

GM has happily saddled all of its cars in low powered engines before. I hope they aren't moving in that direction again.

[balthazar]

Wife has a 4-banger Malibu ('09), and it's comparable to the 3.8 GP also in the drive. I don't know who would win in a race (the GP seems stout for what it should be), but that's hardly the point. If I want to, I can leave 3 lanes of traffic far behind at a highway light without going over 65 (in a 50) in the 2.4L. For the purpose & use of the 2 cars, it's a wash AFA performance goes.

I have a 600+ TRQ V8 I drive around daily- and someday I will finish another 550+ TRQ gas engine to bookend it.

[67impss]

and why not?

25 years ago, V8s were the norm and they typically put out between 160hp to 240hp.

10 years ago the typical Family V6 sedan could come with horsepower somewhere in the range of 160hp to 240hp.

Fast forward to 2011 and most 4 cylinders (some with turbo) are capable of .... 160hp to 240hp... with some going higher than that even. V6es have moved into the 260hp to 360hp range.... any V6 with less than 260hp gets laughed at.

People buy what they need and can afford.... and the 160hp - 240hp appears to be the range that satisfies most drivers.

I agree on all counts Olds But I think the article is a skewed bit of propaganda to make people feel good about either choosing a 4 pot or being forced into the lesser engines by the manufacturers Chevy,Hyundia... all for the CAFE standards. Not being a V8 only guy but loved a certain flat six, turbo Ecotec, 3800 3500 & 3900's I like what I like even I3's.

No one is being forced into anything. If you want 300hp+, it's out there... in a family cars even. General consumers are choosing the 4-cylinder of their own volition... and finding that it suits their needs.

I think there is a bit of distorted nostalgia going on in here. In the 60's most cars weren't Impala SSes. The biggest sellers were typically the I-6es and small V8s.

Olds you misread me I believe, are you telling me that I could buy a Malabu with a 3.6l V6? that' what I mean. I think I remember you saying that they should sell what we want, you know give the customer what they want and the car was engineered for a v6. If I align myself with Chevy why should I be saddled with a poor preforming no option offered model? Oh go buy the Buick to get the v6 some would say. Me I've lost 1 division and am not looking to shop for a new one again. Chevy was my first and it looks like I'll come home home with her.

BTW the distortion is that SS'es were all V8's but you could have an Impala or Chevelle SS with a I6 or any tranny fact is the Chevelle's had quite a few I6's less in Impalla's but I've touched 3or4 myself. Novas could be had with I4's but I6 & up on SS. the notion that all SS'es were big blocks or fuel injected small blocks is wishful thinking or sometimers disease.

I like the powerful 4's but offer options even I3's should be made hell I'm a big fan of cars like GEO Metro or Ford Aspire, Subbie Justy(try to even find one they had a CVT). I drove quite a few 110hp powerglide Corvairs so power isn't everything for me in all cars. The article was skewed maybe from my flawed thinking but but this isn't politics and I don't want to go there I respect you and your Ideas but don't subscribe to all of them just some We're close on cars wide on politics and I value your input it makes me think & I like intelligent friends.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Malibu will be getting a revised 2.0T with over 250hp. If you want a V6, there is a 300hp Impala or Lacrosse.

You know what I meant about the SS.

[z28luvr01]

I really don't have much of a problem with this. A 4 cylinder engine in a well balanced car can actually be kinda fun to drive. And I personally like the sound of the Ecotec - one of the best 4cyl exhaust notes in the business.

To be honest, I could see the V6 dying before the V8. In practice it's just not as efficient as either the 4cyl or V8. For all the kudos GM gets for having a 300hp V6 that get 30mpg highway, they were doing that a long time ago with the LS1. There's no doubt in my mind that with the advances GM has made with its V8s in the 14 years since the first LS1 was dropped into a C5, that they couldn't build a lower displacement V8 that would easily exceed the fuel economy of the current 3.6L while keeping up with the Joneses in terms of horsepower.

My only caveat WRT the transition to smaller engines is this: In turbo'd applications where premium is required, the increased cost of operations offsets any fuel economy gains.

[riviera74]

I'm not a 4 cyl fan, either. I don't like driving something I have to drive like I hate it to get through traffic. And every time anyone bad mouths a 4 cyl, someone posts pictures of the LNF and that awful dyno chart GM made up (I have YET to see a actual dyno chart from a stock LNF). Sure, the LNF should be good, its got a big turbo on it! Well, the LNF is dead, just like the short lived GNX. The 4 cyls GM is plugging into most cars right now are not even derivatives of the LNF. Stuff like the LAF... 182hp@screaming 172tq@way too late.

I drive 4 cyls... the Sunfire's Twin Cam does good in traffic... 150hp@5600, 155tq@2400 (Not bad for a 20 year old design)... but at a cost. It gobbles fuel. I get better fuel economy from a V6... notably the 3800NA and 3800SCs in the family. I don't currently have a V8 in the family newer than a LT1... but knowing the massive changes, I imagine a LS3 would give me similar economy.

I fear that people are being persuaded and duped into 4cyls by friends and salespeople who brag about great fuel economy, but in the end, they get a compromised vehicle... too little engine in too fat a vehicle giving meh fuel economy. In the meantime, GM is getting stingier in what cars will have the big V6, V8 power. The next rumored to be Malibu being 4 cyl only... that's a lot of car to be saddled with a 4.

GM has happily saddled all of its cars with low powered engines before. I hope they aren't moving in that direction again.

GM did do that about 20-25 years ago with those weak 4cyl cars and any GM V6 that was NOT a Buick 231 (aka the 3800). I remember renting a Chevy Lumina back in 1996 or 97 with a 3.1L V6 and that POS had no torque at all! I have been told by local dealers that the 4cyl in the Equinox & Terrain is better than the 3L V6 (that may be true). I suspect that the modern 4cyl engines (all from Opel) are better than the Iron Duke era 4cyl, but I am still skeptical as to whether they are actually good enough.

Look at what Ford is doing now: EcoBoost Four

[the_yellow_dart]

riviera - maybe that's why I don't get the draw of V6s. My two V6 cars were both 3.1L ('91 Trans Sport, '99 Lumina)

[Robert Hall]

riviera - maybe that's why I don't get the draw of V6s. My two V6 cars were both 3.1L ('91 Trans Sport, '99 Lumina)

Well, I've had 4 vehicles w/ 6s--1 V6 and 3 straight 6s...('88 Ford Bronco II, '96 BMW M3, '91 Mercedes 300CE, '00 Jeep Grand Cherokee)...a 4cyl wasn't available and wouldn't have made sense in any of them, and the one that was available w/ a V8 (Jeep) I didn't need the V8 towing capacity....

Of the 4cyl cars I've had, one felt fine w/ the 4 (Escort diesel) the other was underpowered and would have benefited from the optional V6 or V8 ('86 Mustang LX).

Other than rental cars, I haven't spent much time w/ modern 4cyls, but I still really wouldn't want one...(though there are some 4cyl sports cars I'd like to drive)

Edited July 28, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[SAmadei]

riviera - maybe that's why I don't get the draw of V6s. My two V6 cars were both 3.1L ('91 Trans Sport, '99 Lumina)

I'd have to agree. The 3.8 was the V6 to drive. 2.8, 3.1, 3.4 are the Chevy based 60 degree V6s and I've never drove one worth zilch. Most could be out driven by an Iron Duke 2.5. Putting your foot to the floor in a 2.8 did nothing but make more noise.

It makes me cry a bit inside when I remember all GM's current V6s are (distantly) related to the 1980 Citation.

[Robert Hall]

It makes me cry a bit inside when I remember all GM's current V6s are (distantly) related to the 1980 Citation.

That's just the pushrod HV engines, though, isn't it? And those are gone for MY '12...

[z28luvr01]

I think the lineage between the Citation and today goes (roughly) something like this

2.8->3.1->3.4L->3.4L DOHC->Northstar->3.6L

The non-DOHC 3.4L eventually spawned the 3.5L and 3.9L

The Northstar spawned the Aurora V8 and Shortstar V6. The Northstar itself was redone around 2004-ish, and the revised engine may actually be the basis for the HFV6 family.

Or, I could be completely full of it.

[SAmadei]

It makes me cry a bit inside when I remember all GM's current V6s are (distantly) related to the 1980 Citation.

That's just the pushrod HV engines, though, isn't it? And those are gone for MY '12...

Depends on how you count. The HFV6s are also 60 degree and can be made as small as 2.8, so they are the spiritual successors to the 1980 2.8... just like the LSx engines are spiritually related to the Chevy small block by a few crucial measurements.

I just haven't had much love for 60 degree V6s over the years.

[Robert Hall]

It makes me cry a bit inside when I remember all GM's current V6s are (distantly) related to the 1980 Citation.

That's just the pushrod HV engines, though, isn't it? And those are gone for MY '12...

Depends on how you count. The HFV6s are also 60 degree and can be made as small as 2.8, so they are the spiritual successors to the 1980 2.8... just like the LSx engines are spiritually related to the Chevy small block by a few crucial measurements.

I just haven't had much love for 60 degree V6s over the years.

Those are all gone, though. GM's only V6 family in NA for '12 is the HF DOHC family (LY7,LLT,LFX).. And I'm not aware of any relationship of those engines to the HVs (pushrod)...

I think the lineage between the Citation and today goes (roughly) something like this

2.8->3.1->3.4L->3.4L DOHC->Northstar->3.6L

The non-DOHC 3.4L eventually spawned the 3.5L and 3.9L

The Northstar spawned the Aurora V8 and Shortstar V6. The Northstar itself was redone around 2004-ish, and the revised engine may actually be the basis for the HFV6 family.

Or, I could be completely full of it.

I thought the Northstar was related to the earlier Cadillac 4100 V8 from the early '80s. I've never heard of any connection between the Northstar and the older or newer OHC V6s (except for the short-lived Shortstar).

Edited July 28, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[SAmadei]

Those are all gone, though. GM's only V6 family in NA for '12 is the 3.6 OHC family, isn't it? And I'm not aware of any relationship of those engines to the HFs...

LLT and LFX are still derivatives of the HFV6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Feature_engine

[Robert Hall]

Those are all gone, though. GM's only V6 family in NA for '12 is the 3.6 OHC family, isn't it? And I'm not aware of any relationship of those engines to the HVs...

LLT and LFX are still derivatives of the HFV6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Feature_engine

I meant HV..the pushrod oldies... too many similar acronyms.

The point I've tried to make is the HV pushrod engines may or may not be descended from the 1980 Citation 2.8. The modern HF DOHC engines are unrelated AFAIK.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

I think the lineage between the Citation and today goes (roughly) something like this

2.8->3.1->3.4L->3.4L DOHC->Northstar->3.6L

The non-DOHC 3.4L eventually spawned the 3.5L and 3.9L

The Northstar spawned the Aurora V8 and Shortstar V6. The Northstar itself was redone around 2004-ish, and the revised engine may actually be the basis for the HFV6 family.

Or, I could be completely full of it.

2.8 -> 3.1 -> 3.4DOHC.... and that's where the linage ends.

The pushrod 3.4 was not the basis of the 3.4DOHC, they actually used the 3.1 pushrod and increased the bore slightly while keeping the stroke.

Nor was it the basis of the HV engine other than it was the predecessor to them.

There is no direct link between the 3.4 DOHC and the Northstar other than GM using it to learn what NOT to do.

There is a stronger case to say that the 4-cylinder Quad-4 lead to the Northstar. In very early Northstar development GM did produce a Frankenstein engine by connecting two Quad-4s at the crank in 90 degree bank. There is a picture on the internet somewhere if one of you is up for a good scavenger hunt.

The 3.5 Shortstar is only related to the Northstar in that the same team developed it. About the only thing that might carry over is the pistons. It is a completely from scratch block....even the bore centers are different.

The HV and HF line were almost entirely all new and not derived from prior engines. The HV line has slightly offset bore centers in each bank of cylinders which none of the prior V6es had.

The HF was developed because GM knew that neither the 3800 nor the 3.5DOHC Shortstar nor the 3.2DOHC Opel engine would be sufficient going forward. It is a "from scratch" design and any similarities to prior engines are coincidence.

[Drew Dowdell]

Those are all gone, though. GM's only V6 family in NA for '12 is the 3.6 OHC family, isn't it? And I'm not aware of any relationship of those engines to the HVs...

LLT and LFX are still derivatives of the HFV6.

http://en.wikipedia...._Feature_engine

I meant HV..the pushrod oldies... too many similar acronyms.

The point I've tried to make is the HV pushrod engines are descended from the 1980 Citation 2.8. The modern HF DOHC engines are unrelated AFAIK.

The HVs are not descended from the 2.8 in anything other than they are both pushrods.

[Robert Hall]

Those are all gone, though. GM's only V6 family in NA for '12 is the 3.6 OHC family, isn't it? And I'm not aware of any relationship of those engines to the HVs...

LLT and LFX are still derivatives of the HFV6.

http://en.wikipedia...._Feature_engine

I meant HV..the pushrod oldies... too many similar acronyms.

The point I've tried to make is the HV pushrod engines are descended from the 1980 Citation 2.8. The modern HF DOHC engines are unrelated AFAIK.

The HVs are not descended from the 2.8 in anything other than they are both pushrods.

Ok, so that's a misconception that's been spread around over and over and over and over ad infinauseam. Anyway, they are gone, it's a moot point...

[riviera74]

riviera - maybe that's why I don't get the draw of V6s. My two V6 cars were both 3.1L ('91 Trans Sport, '99 Lumina)

I can understand that. Then again, most of my experiences were with the 3800 ('84 Cutlass Supreme, '98 Intrigue, '05 Lacrosse, '99 Park Avenue Ultra (3800SC)). THAT v6 (other than maybe the Cadillac HT4100 of 1983-88?) was the V6 worth not going for a V8 over.

Nowadays, the HF V6 you want is the 3.6L v6. The 3L V6 I hear is kinda weak and lacks torque. Allegedly the 2.4L 4cyl is better than the 3L these days.

[Camino LS6]

Like Z (and I've said this before), I really don't see much point in a V6 anymore. They offer little advantage over a 4 for power, and less over an 8 for economy.

I'll stick with the V8.

[the_yellow_dart]

Ford just announced that they're putting a 2.0L ecoboost 4 into the Explorer. 237 hp, 250 lb·ft.

[Robert Hall]

Ford just announced that they're putting a 2.0L ecoboost 4 into the Explorer. 237 hp, 250 lb·ft.

I suspect this will be the base engine in the F150 eventually.

[the_yellow_dart]

Imagine telling someone 15 years ago that there would be a 4-cyl Explorer.

[GMTruckGuy74]

Imagine telling someone 15 years ago that there would be a 4-cyl Explorer.

AND that it's based on the Taurus platform too