Infiniti News: Infiniti QX60 drops the V6 in favor of a Turbocharged 4-Cylinder

[Drew Dowdell]

Lately, there has been a trend in the large crossover segment to replace naturally aspirated V6es with engines containing two fewer cylinders and some form of boost, either turbo or hybrid, sometimes both. The Infiniti QX60 is the latest model to join the trend.

For 2025, Infiniti is switching the QX60 to its 2.0-liter Variable Compression turbo-charged engine, also found in the QX50 and QX55. The engine produces 268 horsepower and 286 lb-ft of torque. This represents a drop of 27 horsepower but an increase of 16 lb-ft of torque over a broader engine speed range. The QX60 retains its 9-speed automatic and gains a transmission fluid cooler, bringing the tow rating to 6,000 lbs for every trim. Like the V6 before it, the 2-liter VC-Turbo runs on premium fuel. 

The new powertrain slightly increases fuel efficiency to 22 city / 28 highway / 24 combined over last year's model specs of 20 city / 25 highway / 22 combined for front-wheel drive models. Compared to front-wheel drive, all-wheel drive models lose 1 mpg highway.

The most direct competitor to the Infiniti QX60, the Buick Enclave, also moved to a 4-cylinder turbo for 2025, and we expect others in this segment to follow suit.

View full article

[G. David Felt]

WOW, that SUV could so easily be a Buick too with the headlights / daytime trim lights.

[smk4565]

Kill those V6's.  People were sad to see the V8 go, I think the V6 is about 5 years behind it. 

And what may accelerate the switch to EV's is that every gas car will be a 3 or 4 cylinder turbo and even performance cars like the M5 will be plug in hybrids and so freaking heavy, no one will really want it.  

[Drew Dowdell]

13 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Kill those V6's.  People were sad to see the V8 go, I think the V6 is about 5 years behind it. 

And what may accelerate the switch to EV's is that every gas car will be a 3 or 4 cylinder turbo and even performance cars like the M5 will be plug in hybrids and so freaking heavy, no one will really want it.  

GM's take on this has been better though. The 2.5 Turbo-4s have better horsepower, significantly better torque, and better fuel economy than the V6 they replace. The Infiniti 2.0T does not. I'm betting that this engine will net worse fuel economy in the real world because you need to be deep into the boost all the time to get underway, all for a measly extra 16 lb-ft of torque. 

[smk4565]

10 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

GM's take on this has been better though. The 2.5 Turbo-4s have better horsepower, significantly better torque, and better fuel economy than the V6 they replace. The Infiniti 2.0T does not. I'm betting that this engine will net worse fuel economy in the real world because you need to be deep into the boost all the time to get underway, all for a measly extra 16 lb-ft of torque. 

GM's turbo 4 is a better move, but that 3.6 V6 had issues anyway so I don't think it is as hard to replace, compared to the VQ engines that were great in their day but are past their prime now.  But everyone does this, and 2024 Mercedes E350 makes 13 less horsepower than a 2007 E350 and nearly 50 less hp than a 2012 E350.  The goal is all fuel economy and reducing emissions now, big engines are dead, and it's kind of sad.

[riviera74]

On 7/19/2024 at 1:57 PM, G. David Felt said:

WOW, that SUV could so easily be a Buick too with the headlights / daytime trim lights.

Except that the QX60 will never outsell a comparably equipped Enclave.  The Enclave is still better overall.  Even Nissan/Infiniti fans understand that.

Yes, big engines are dead.  Then again, we do not live in the 1970s anymore, either.

[G. David Felt]

1 minute ago, riviera74 said:

Except that the QX60 will never outsell a comparably equipped Enclave.  The Enclave is still better overall.  Even Nissan/Infiniti fans understand that.

Yes, big engines are dead.  Then again, we do not live in the 1970s anymore, either.

No matter what ICE fans say about EV never taking off, the days of big block engines is over and for those that have driven an EV and has the ability to charge at home, EVs make so much more sense than ICE.

[riviera74]

1 minute ago, G. David Felt said:

No matter what ICE fans say about EV never taking off, the days of big block engines is over and for those that have driven an EV and has the ability to charge at home, EVs make so much more sense than ICE.

True, but not all Americans can charge an EV at home.  Times do change; apartment complexes and condo complexes don't.

[G. David Felt]

8 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

True, but not all Americans can charge an EV at home.  Times do change; apartment complexes and condo complexes don't.

I used to agree with that thinking, but at least here in the PNW, Condo Complexes have been embracing allowing Condo owners to install a charger in their garage much like my daughter has done or has built charging sections. Apartments too are now advertising that they have chargers, something the tech workers want so getting well paid folks to move in.

[riviera74]

14 hours ago, G. David Felt said:

I used to agree with that thinking, but at least here in the PNW, Condo Complexes have been embracing allowing Condo owners to install a charger in their garage much like my daughter has done or has built charging sections. Apartments too are now advertising that they have chargers, something the tech workers want so getting well paid folks to move in.

Key phrase is the PNW.  Down here in Florida, not so much.  Sure, we have Tesla chargers in some areas of downtown and some outdoor malls, but that does not mean that condo complexes and apartments HERE will follow suit.

[G. David Felt]

4 hours ago, riviera74 said:

Key phrase is the PNW.  Down here in Florida, not so much.  Sure, we have Tesla chargers in some areas of downtown and some outdoor malls, but that does not mean that condo complexes and apartments HERE will follow suit.

True, the state is led by an idiot and boomer thinking, so I feel for you and others who want to move forward but are held back by old archaic thinking. 

[ccap41]

On 7/29/2024 at 8:02 PM, G. David Felt said:

EVs make so much more sense than ICE.

They will much moreso when their purchase prices are closer. 

[regfootball]

On 7/22/2024 at 8:08 AM, Drew Dowdell said:

GM's take on this has been better though. The 2.5 Turbo-4s have better horsepower, significantly better torque, and better fuel economy than the V6 they replace. The Infiniti 2.0T does not. I'm betting that this engine will net worse fuel economy in the real world because you need to be deep into the boost all the time to get underway, all for a measly extra 16 lb-ft of torque. 

but it will have lower emissions on the testing which seems to be driving this whole movement.  GM's 2.5 after driving it yesterday does have good power; I cannot for the life of me see how this 2.0 is going to be satisfactory for this Infiniti.  

[regfootball]

On 7/29/2024 at 8:04 PM, riviera74 said:

True, but not all Americans can charge an EV at home.  Times do change; apartment complexes and condo complexes don't.

Having previously worked for an apartment developer for almost 8 years in which every project we evaluated what percent of the parking to plan for and economically provide electric service load for......

It's a huge cost to just run service with adequate to a potential outlet.  And our developer was interested in making the push for wiring for them.  Earlier goals were 20% of parking to have future access to charging outlets.  Most projects reduced to 10% of parking due to the extreme cost of the electrical service.  Some even less.  Retrofit installs of adequate charging infrastructure for even 50% of the parking would not be able to be borne but the owner / developer in order to keep rents in check.  In order to drive mass charging locations in multifamily it would end up needing to be either mandated or subsidized or both.  And still it's high cost and someone somewhere is paying for it.  It becomes a question of who.  Most folks will think the property owner should pay for it, which then means the renter pays for it.  If taxes pay for it, then they will say if the apartment owner gets free charging infrastructure, then my house should also.  Then everyone will say, its too expensive it shouldn't be mandatory.

Until the entire electrical grid has been engineered to distribute EV charging to everywhere, you won't see apartments put in much more charging than they are currently.

[Drew Dowdell]

On 7/29/2024 at 8:59 PM, riviera74 said:

Except that the QX60 will never outsell a comparably equipped Enclave.  The Enclave is still better overall.  Even Nissan/Infiniti fans understand that.

Yes, big engines are dead.  Then again, we do not live in the 1970s anymore, either.

Right on all counts. However, GM made the right move with its engine downsizing by providing a more powerful alternative to the V6. A relatively weak 2.0-liter trying to power something as large as the QX60 is not going to go well. 

On 7/30/2024 at 11:42 AM, riviera74 said:

Key phrase is the PNW.  Down here in Florida, not so much.  Sure, we have Tesla chargers in some areas of downtown and some outdoor malls, but that does not mean that condo complexes and apartments HERE will follow suit.

Condo complexes in Florida have much bigger fish to fry... like having enough financial reserves to keep them from falling down.

[Drew Dowdell]

On 8/2/2024 at 4:44 PM, ccap41 said:

They will much moreso when their purchase prices are closer. 

Eh, they're getting much closer these days.  A Model-Y and BMW X3/5 overlap in price quite a bit.  Even inside BMW, an i4 beats the performance of the 4-series sedan for just about the same money.

On 8/11/2024 at 2:02 PM, regfootball said:

Having previously worked for an apartment developer for almost 8 years in which every project we evaluated what percent of the parking to plan for and economically provide electric service load for......

It's a huge cost to just run service with adequate to a potential outlet.  And our developer was interested in making the push for wiring for them.  Earlier goals were 20% of parking to have future access to charging outlets.  Most projects reduced to 10% of parking due to the extreme cost of the electrical service.  Some even less.  Retrofit installs of adequate charging infrastructure for even 50% of the parking would not be able to be borne but the owner / developer in order to keep rents in check.  In order to drive mass charging locations in multifamily it would end up needing to be either mandated or subsidized or both.  And still it's high cost and someone somewhere is paying for it.  It becomes a question of who.  Most folks will think the property owner should pay for it, which then means the renter pays for it.  If taxes pay for it, then they will say if the apartment owner gets free charging infrastructure, then my house should also.  Then everyone will say, its too expensive it shouldn't be mandatory.

Until the entire electrical grid has been engineered to distribute EV charging to everywhere, you won't see apartments put in much more charging than they are currently.

There should be a third option.  Third-party companies like ChargePoint or IONNA should partner with these developers to manage the charging station installs.

[ccap41]

21 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Eh, they're getting much closer these days.  A Model-Y and BMW X3/5 overlap in price quite a bit.  Even inside BMW, an i4 beats the performance of the 4-series sedan for just about the same money.

Yes, they're getting there. They are very competitive with leases but, that's not owning anything. 

The Model Y and X5 are pretty far apart, the X5 starting about 20k more before the 7500 rebate on the Model Y. The X3 even starts about 5k more than the Model Y, again before the 7500 rebate. The Model Y seems extremely competitively priced versus luxury brands. 

 

[G. David Felt]

7 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Yes, they're getting there. They are very competitive with leases but, that's not owning anything. 

The Model Y and X5 are pretty far apart, the X5 starting about 20k more before the 7500 rebate on the Model Y. The X3 even starts about 5k more than the Model Y, again before the 7500 rebate. The Model Y seems extremely competitively priced versus luxury brands. 

 

Yet I will say that Tesla is NOT a Luxury brand but a Minimalist Brand. As such, you get far more luxury in BMW than Tesla ever gives. Quality is a whole other issue too.

Tesla biggest benefit is their charging superstations and even that is a limit especially in North America since V4 are non-existent and most are v2 and about 1/3rd V3 along with old 400V technology which only a few auto makers which BMW is not one of is actually delivering on a true 800V system.

[Drew Dowdell]

20 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Yes, they're getting there. They are very competitive with leases but, that's not owning anything. 

Unfortunately, that's the direction the manufacturers are trying to go, a subscription model for the whole car.

[ccap41]

16 hours ago, G. David Felt said:

Yet I will say that Tesla is NOT a Luxury brand but a Minimalist Brand. As such, you get far more luxury in BMW than Tesla ever gives. Quality is a whole other issue too.

Tesla biggest benefit is their charging superstations and even that is a limit especially in North America since V4 are non-existent and most are v2 and about 1/3rd V3 along with old 400V technology which only a few auto makers which BMW is not one of is actually delivering on a true 800V system.

They're "not" but everybody seems to treat them like they are. 

If you're going to compare EVs to "traditional" brands, then they're still a long way off. 

36k for a Telluride or 55k for an EV9. ~15k difference with the fed's rebate still. Even add in some state's rebates and let's say it's "only" 10k more for an EV9 over a Telluride. 10k in gas and oil changes is A LOT of gas and oil changes, that also aren't being financed and charged interest. 

[Drew Dowdell]

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

They're "not" but everybody seems to treat them like they are. 

If you're going to compare EVs to "traditional" brands, then they're still a long way off. 

36k for a Telluride or 55k for an EV9. ~15k difference with the fed's rebate still. Even add in some state's rebates and let's say it's "only" 10k more for an EV9 over a Telluride. 10k in gas and oil changes is A LOT of gas and oil changes, that also aren't being financed and charged interest. 

But that's base for base. A base EV9 has more standard features than a Telluride on top of more power.  That's where making direct comparisons becomes difficult. The 4-series v. I4 is the most glaring of this. They are super close in price but the I4 has a lot more vigorous acceleration and that disparity only grows as you get to the higher spec units.  The Mach-E v. Ford Edge is no comparison in terms of power and a base Edge isn't anything special while a base Mach-E is quite nice. When the Edge was still around, it was only a couple grand difference out the door to get a Mach-E instead.

[ccap41]

19 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

But that's base for base. A base EV9 has more standard features than a Telluride on top of more power.  That's where making direct comparisons becomes difficult. The 4-series v. I4 is the most glaring of this. They are super close in price but the I4 has a lot more vigorous acceleration and that disparity only grows as you get to the higher spec units.  The Mach-E v. Ford Edge is no comparison in terms of power and a base Edge isn't anything special while a base Mach-E is quite nice. When the Edge was still around, it was only a couple grand difference out the door to get a Mach-E instead.

You also only get 230 miles of range so it's obviously a give and take with what you get at a base price. If the statement on their website is accurate, a heat pump "is available", meaning you must pay extra for that. 230 miles of range, I'd want every available feature to make it as efficient as possible from Nov-Mar.  

A base EV9 only has 215hp/258tq vs 291hp/262tq. I know EVs will put the power down differently, but I cannot imagine a much heavier EV9 being much different than the gasser in terms of acceleration with those numbers. 

A couple grand for a Mach-e over an Edge makes more sense, a couple grand. That's a pretty noticeable amount different than say 10-15k. 

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, ccap41 said:

You also only get 230 miles of range so it's obviously a give and take with what you get at a base price. If the statement on their website is accurate, a heat pump "is available", meaning you must pay extra for that. 230 miles of range, I'd want every available feature to make it as efficient as possible from Nov-Mar.  

A base EV9 only has 215hp/258tq vs 291hp/262tq. I know EVs will put the power down differently, but I cannot imagine a much heavier EV9 being much different than the gasser in terms of acceleration with those numbers. 

A couple grand for a Mach-e over an Edge makes more sense, a couple grand. That's a pretty noticeable amount different than say 10-15k. 

I don't mind the heat pump being optional at the low end of the trim range. For my parents, a heat pump is entirely unneeded, so there is no point in making people pay for it who don't need it. 

The EV9 gets that 258 lb-ft of torque at zero RPM.  The Telluride doesn't get to 262 lb-ft until 5,200 rpm, which, while a decent RPM for a DOHC V6, is still a higher RPM than is typically used in everyday traffic driving.   Horsepower numbers are nearly pointless for EVs, and the sooner we can drop them as a point of comparison, the better. 

[ccap41]

17 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The EV9 gets that 258 lb-ft of torque at zero RPM.  The Telluride doesn't get to 262 lb-ft until 5,200 rpm, which, while a decent RPM for a DOHC V6, is still a higher RPM than is typically used in everyday traffic driving.   Horsepower numbers are nearly pointless for EVs, and the sooner we can drop them as a point of comparison, the better. 

Yeah, and when you actually need to get up to highway speed or pass somebody, that's where the superior hp figure comes into play. EVs clearly taper off. I haven't seen a test where an EV's 0-60 wasn't quick while having a mediocre 1/4 mile and an odd trap speed, for its respective segment.

The Telluride will be quicker than the Light and Light Long Range RWD to highway speeds. They're borderline underpowered, IMO. 

You have to spend 64k to get something that's legitimately quicker than the Telluride. 

[G. David Felt]

9 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Yeah, and when you actually need to get up to highway speed or pass somebody, that's where the superior hp figure comes into play. EVs clearly taper off. I haven't seen a test where an EV's 0-60 wasn't quick while having a mediocre 1/4 mile and an odd trap speed, for its respective segment.

The Telluride will be quicker than the Light and Light Long Range RWD to highway speeds. They're borderline underpowered, IMO. 

You have to spend 64k to get something that's legitimately quicker than the Telluride. 

Before you say the Telluride FWD will be quicker than the light or light long range RWD at highway speeds, I strongly suggest you go actually test drive a EV9 Light. I have and I know the fact that it is every bit equal to the Telluride that my son bought. 2024 model of both. 

Yes, my son bought a mid-level AWD Telluride, but he did test drive the FWD only model and found it lacking even as an SUV that starts at $38,000 roughly and the EV9 Light RWD moved every bit equal to the FWD Telluride. Once you go to AWD, then the Telluride falls behind the EV9 and on the highway even at speed does not have the get up and go that the EV9 has. Both are solid SUVs, but Kia has taken into account the torque and HP of the electric and it surpasses the ICE Telluride.

[ccap41]

11 hours ago, G. David Felt said:

Before you say the Telluride FWD will be quicker than the light or light long range RWD at highway speeds, I strongly suggest you go actually test drive a EV9 Light. I have and I know the fact that it is every bit equal to the Telluride that my son bought. 2024 model of both. 

Yes, my son bought a mid-level AWD Telluride, but he did test drive the FWD only model and found it lacking even as an SUV that starts at $38,000 roughly and the EV9 Light RWD moved every bit equal to the FWD Telluride. Once you go to AWD, then the Telluride falls behind the EV9 and on the highway even at speed does not have the get up and go that the EV9 has. Both are solid SUVs, but Kia has taken into account the torque and HP of the electric and it surpasses the ICE Telluride.

Something that has less hp and less tq and also weighs ~1000lb more just isn't going to be as quick. I know the instantaneous nature of an EV has its advantages, but they only go so far. Per any test review, the telluride is quicker to 60 than a Light and especially a Light Long Range and I'm sure the advantage only grows surpassing 60mph, because, again, EVs acceleration always taper off at higher speeds, highway speeds. 

i'm not saying the EV9 Light/Long Range are going to be bothersome or bad around town. I'm just saying that there is no advantage at their base prices, like Drew said. The 10-15k EV premium at their base prices does not yield a quicker or more powerful vehicle. That is factual. 

Per MT's test of a FWD Telluride it went 0-60 in 6.9 seconds and stopped from 60 in 113ft

Per Kia's media site the Light RWD goes 0-60 in 7.7 seconds and stops in 128ft (62mph-0)

Per Kia's media site the Light Long Range RWD goes 0-60 in 8.8 seconds and stops in 128ft (62mph-0)

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Something that has less hp and less tq and also weighs ~1000lb more just isn't going to be as quick. I know the instantaneous nature of an EV has its advantages, but they only go so far. Per any test review, the telluride is quicker to 60 than a Light and especially a Light Long Range and I'm sure the advantage only grows surpassing 60mph, because, again, EVs acceleration always taper off at higher speeds, highway speeds. 

i'm not saying the EV9 Light/Long Range are going to be bothersome or bad around town. I'm just saying that there is no advantage at their base prices, like Drew said. The 10-15k EV premium at their base prices does not yield a quicker or more powerful vehicle. That is factual. 

Per MT's test of a FWD Telluride it went 0-60 in 6.9 seconds and stopped from 60 in 113ft

Per Kia's media site the Light RWD goes 0-60 in 7.7 seconds and stops in 128ft (62mph-0)

Per Kia's media site the Light Long Range RWD goes 0-60 in 8.8 seconds and stops in 128ft (62mph-0)

Again, horsepower is nearly meaningless for EVs because it is a function of RPM. Spin it fast enough and the horsepower will keep climbing. An EV can have an RPM in the 30,000 rpm range while a DOHC V6 tops out somewhere around 7,000.  As you correctly point out, it's the real world performance that matters, but even that is a matter of programming in an EV. They have to limit the output of the motors electronically so you're not draining the batteries in 100 miles. 

I routinely compare the EV9 to the Tahoe rather than the Telluride because while on the outside, the EV9 and Telluride fit the same silhouette, the EV9 feels a lot roomier and closer to the Tahoe in every dimension besides width. And the Tahoe 5.3 LT (not Z71) has a 0-60 of 7.5 seconds. The Tahoe with the 3.0 Diesel (let's call this the "long-range") is 7.8 seconds. People are still buying Tahoes like crazy, so none of those 0-60 numbers seem out of line for the EV9. Especially when the EV9 GT can do 4.5s, which is ridiculous for a family hauler.  

But in any case, these aren't drag-strip cars.  The low-end torque of being an EV makes them feel effortless around town the same way my Avalanche feels effortless around town without even cresting 2,500 rpm. 

[G. David Felt]

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Something that has less hp and less tq and also weighs ~1000lb more just isn't going to be as quick. I know the instantaneous nature of an EV has its advantages, but they only go so far. Per any test review, the telluride is quicker to 60 than a Light and especially a Light Long Range and I'm sure the advantage only grows surpassing 60mph, because, again, EVs acceleration always taper off at higher speeds, highway speeds. 

i'm not saying the EV9 Light/Long Range are going to be bothersome or bad around town. I'm just saying that there is no advantage at their base prices, like Drew said. The 10-15k EV premium at their base prices does not yield a quicker or more powerful vehicle. That is factual. 

Per MT's test of a FWD Telluride it went 0-60 in 6.9 seconds and stopped from 60 in 113ft

Per Kia's media site the Light RWD goes 0-60 in 7.7 seconds and stops in 128ft (62mph-0)

Per Kia's media site the Light Long Range RWD goes 0-60 in 8.8 seconds and stops in 128ft (62mph-0)

I also think Kia is understating the actual Torque and HP of their EVs. My own roadtrips in my EV9 have pretty much shown me that I think it is more powerfull than they are advertising.

[Drew Dowdell]

2 minutes ago, G. David Felt said:

I also think Kia is understating the actual Torque and HP of their EVs. My own roadtrips in my EV9 have pretty much shown me that I think it is more powerfull than they are advertising.

You have an AWD Long-Range, you have a lot more power than the RWD models. 

[G. David Felt]

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You have an AWD Long-Range, you have a lot more power than the RWD models. 

Even when I test drove a Long Range RWD it was clearly spirited in Sport mode but still had plenty of go in Normal mode. Eco mode even in mine is pathetic and I see no reason to have that mode imho.

[ccap41]

23 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Again, horsepower is nearly meaningless for EVs because it is a function of RPM. Spin it fast enough and the horsepower will keep climbing. An EV can have an RPM in the 30,000 rpm range while a DOHC V6 tops out somewhere around 7,000.  As you correctly point out, it's the real world performance that matters, but even that is a matter of programming in an EV. They have to limit the output of the motors electronically so you're not draining the batteries in 100 miles. 

I routinely compare the EV9 to the Tahoe rather than the Telluride because while on the outside, the EV9 and Telluride fit the same silhouette, the EV9 feels a lot roomier and closer to the Tahoe in every dimension besides width. And the Tahoe 5.3 LT (not Z71) has a 0-60 of 7.5 seconds. The Tahoe with the 3.0 Diesel (let's call this the "long-range") is 7.8 seconds. People are still buying Tahoes like crazy, so none of those 0-60 numbers seem out of line for the EV9. Especially when the EV9 GT can do 4.5s, which is ridiculous for a family hauler.  

But in any case, these aren't drag-strip cars.  The low-end torque of being an EV makes them feel effortless around town the same way my Avalanche feels effortless around town without even cresting 2,500 rpm. 

I wasn't the one who said you get "more power" from a base EV9. I wasn't trying to say it was slow or cumbersome. I merely stated the pretty damn big price difference, and you tried telling me that you get more, which power was listed, from a base EV9. You do not get more power, and you do get a slightly slower vehicle, much slower if you get the Long Range. 

On 8/21/2024 at 11:58 AM, Drew Dowdell said:

But that's base for base. A base EV9 has more standard features than a Telluride on top of more power.  That's where making direct comparisons becomes difficult. The 4-series v. I4 is the most glaring of this. They are super close in price but the I4 has a lot more vigorous acceleration and that disparity only grows as you get to the higher spec units.  The Mach-E v. Ford Edge is no comparison in terms of power and a base Edge isn't anything special while a base Mach-E is quite nice. When the Edge was still around, it was only a couple grand difference out the door to get a Mach-E instead.

 

22 hours ago, G. David Felt said:

I also think Kia is understating the actual Torque and HP of their EVs. My own roadtrips in my EV9 have pretty much shown me that I think it is more powerfull than they are advertising.

I doubt that. Since when has Kia/Hyundai ever underrated anything? You're just feeling the instantaneous torque of an electric vehicle. 

[Drew Dowdell]

41 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I wasn't the one who said you get "more power" from a base EV9. I wasn't trying to say it was slow or cumbersome. I merely stated the pretty damn big price difference, and you tried telling me that you get more, which power was listed, from a base EV9. You do not get more power, and you do get a slightly slower vehicle, much slower if you get the Long Range.

It's a challenging thing to quantify. 0-60 doesn't really measure real-world feel, does it?  How frequently are you flooring it all the time?  The EVs feel more powerful because the acceleration is so effortless. It's why people burn through tires on EVs so much faster.  Even the base EV9 will accelerate up to highway speeds, smoothly, and with gusto while the Telluride has to slap through 8 gears. 

Maybe it's not something measurable with numbers, but the difference in feel is there.  Just curious, have you driven a non-high-end EV yet? I know you had the loaner Benz, but something like a Bolt EV, Kia EV6, or base Mach-E?  The Bolt EV is such a dorky looking car, but it will scoot through the mountains just as skillfully as a VW GTI.

[G. David Felt]

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I doubt that. Since when has Kia/Hyundai ever underrated anything? You're just feeling the instantaneous torque of an electric vehicle. 

Hopefully reviewers will figure out how to test and verify the numbers from the OEM.

Yet looking at the specification page, the light and long range light are both faster than my past SS ownership in 0 to 60 and at higher RPMs seem to sustain the HP/Torque better than the SS V8 I had.
2024 Kia EV9 Specifications (kiamedia.com)

[ccap41]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It's a challenging thing to quantify. 0-60 doesn't really measure real-world feel, does it?  How frequently are you flooring it all the time?

It depends how underpowered a vehicle is. I'm sure we all have horrible on-ramps where a 200hp, 5000lb SUV would need to be floored or very close to it to merge. But at the same time, a 500hp 5000lb vehicle may only need 50% throttle to achieve the same thing.

 

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The EVs feel more powerful because the acceleration is so effortless.

EVs feel effortless because there's no noise from an engine. That doesn't mean it's effortless for the motors point of view. 

 

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It's why people burn through tires on EVs so much faster. 

I've read way more things saying their overly heavy weight effects this than people's heavy right foot. 

 

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Even the base EV9 will accelerate up to highway speeds, smoothly, and with gusto while the Telluride has to slap through 8 gears. 

Yet, still slower. 

 

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Maybe it's not something measurable with numbers, but the difference in feel is there.  Just curious, have you driven a non-high-end EV yet? I know you had the loaner Benz, but something like a Bolt EV, Kia EV6, or base Mach-E?  The Bolt EV is such a dorky looking car, but it will scoot through the mountains just as skillfully as a VW GTI.

I have not driven a PEASANT electric vehicle.

*sarcasm*

But really, I have not. 

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, ccap41 said:

It depends how underpowered a vehicle is. I'm sure we all have horrible on-ramps where a 200hp, 5000lb SUV would need to be floored or very close to it to merge. But at the same time, a 500hp 5000lb vehicle may only need 50% throttle to achieve the same thing.

See, this is where you're getting tripped up and why horsepower is really irrelevant to EVs.  Horsepower is measured as a function of RPM. An EV can have 1,000 ft-lb of torque but 0 horsepower because the motor isn't moving (lets pretend the parts between the motor and the ground won't snap or spin for now).  Most naturally aspirated V6es don't make their peak horsepower until high in the RPM band. The engine has to be screaming at 6000 or 7000 rpm to get that horsepower.  EVs start their max torque at ZERO rpm and eventually the torque rating backs off.

Take a look at the EV9 link @G. David Felt posted.  The torque rating for the EV9 base model is 258 lb-ft from 0 - 4000 rpm, after 4000 rpm it likely tapers off.  The 3.8 liter makes 262 lb-ft, only a 4 lb-ft difference, but it doesn't make it until 5,200 rpm. That means that from every point from 0 - just about 5,000 rpm, the EV9 is producing more torque.  Also remember that there is no spin-up delay for more torque in an EV, if you want more torque, it is instant.  They actually have to soften the pedal reaction times significantly because people are used to driving gassers and the on-off power abilities of EVs are too sudden. 

If you ever get behind the wheel of a Lucid Air GT or Model-S Plaids and put it into whatever the highest sport mode setting is, you'll see the difference in pedal responsiveness and how much they have to really dial it back for the peasant models. 

29 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

EVs feel effortless because there's no noise from an engine. That doesn't mean it's effortless for the motors point of view.

An EV motor doesn't need to spin faster to make more torque, a gas engine does.

 

31 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Yet, still slower.

Who's racing 3-row crossovers?  The EV will be a more pleasant and satisfying acceleration experience.

23 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I've read way more things saying their overly heavy weight effects this than people's heavy right foot.

People make way too much noise about EV weights as if vehicle weight hasn't been ballooning for 20 years. I'm going to sneer at a Model Y's weight, but does an X5 or Ford Explorer Limited 4-cylinder weigh the same? A Model-3 LR weighs 200 lbs less than my Chrysler 300C AWD, and I manage to get a normal amount of life out of my tires. It's the heavy right feet in the EVs. 

32 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I have not driven a PEASANT electric vehicle.

*sarcasm*

But really, I have not. 

I know you have a lot of other things on your plate, but if you ever get free time to go test drive something, take it.

[G. David Felt]

I will say that in having played with the various modes on my EV9, the pedal response from eco to normal to sport to the various off-road modes are very noticeable. 

[G. David Felt]

@ccap41 Here is the chart from the link I posted above. You can clearly see that HP is made at the higher RPMs which would allow for even the Light model to move right along.

As @Drew Dowdell points out and we have had this discussion about GM V8's that produce a ton of torque between 1,000 and 1,500 rpm, That Torque is what motivates the auto at first, HP later on comes into play to allow at speed to move fast and continue and that is very clear in an EV.

[ccap41]

On 8/23/2024 at 3:41 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

See, this is where you're getting tripped up and why horsepower is really irrelevant to EVs.  Horsepower is measured as a function of RPM. An EV can have 1,000 ft-lb of torque but 0 horsepower because the motor isn't moving (lets pretend the parts between the motor and the ground won't snap or spin for now).  Most naturally aspirated V6es don't make their peak horsepower until high in the RPM band. The engine has to be screaming at 6000 or 7000 rpm to get that horsepower.  EVs start their max torque at ZERO rpm and eventually the torque rating backs off.

Take a look at the EV9 link @G. David Felt posted.  The torque rating for the EV9 base model is 258 lb-ft from 0 - 4000 rpm, after 4000 rpm it likely tapers off.  The 3.8 liter makes 262 lb-ft, only a 4 lb-ft difference, but it doesn't make it until 5,200 rpm. That means that from every point from 0 - just about 5,000 rpm, the EV9 is producing more torque.  Also remember that there is no spin-up delay for more torque in an EV, if you want more torque, it is instant.  They actually have to soften the pedal reaction times significantly because people are used to driving gassers and the on-off power abilities of EVs are too sudden. 

Yes, understand all of this. My point still stands that it isn't "more powerful" or quicker. That was literally all I was stating. 

On 8/23/2024 at 3:41 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

I know you have a lot of other things on your plate, but if you ever get free time to go test drive something, take it.

I certainly plan to. I have zero issues with EVs outside of their prices. 

On 8/23/2024 at 3:41 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Who's racing 3-row crossovers?  The EV will be a more pleasant and satisfying acceleration experience.

8.8 seconds to 60mph, you're racing every time pulling onto an onramp. That's slow. That's not just "not very quick", it's slow. 

 

On 8/23/2024 at 7:20 PM, G. David Felt said:

As @Drew Dowdell points out and we have had this discussion about GM V8's that produce a ton of torque between 1,000 and 1,500 rpm,

What GM V8 makes "a ton of torque" at 1000-1500rpm? I understand the bottom of the rev range but 1000rpm is nearly idle. Unless you're talking about a diesel, I just don't believe you. 

[Drew Dowdell]

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

8.8 seconds to 60mph, you're racing every time pulling onto an onramp. That's slow. That's not just "not very quick", it's slow. 

I don't know how I've survived all these years with the 8.7 0-60 I have in my Avalanche. But I will say I rarely ever have to race it to get on the highway.

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

What GM V8 makes "a ton of torque" at 1000-1500rpm? I understand the bottom of the rev range but 1000rpm is nearly idle. Unless you're talking about a diesel, I just don't believe you. 

It was more true back in the old days than today, but yeah, that's a benefit of pushrod over DOHC.  The GM Pushrods engines, even the V6es, made really good torque at low RPM but ran out of breath at high RPM.

 

 

It's a really unfortunate side effect that the boy-racer craze from the 1990s robbed us of some perfectly good engine designs because enthusiasts wanted engines that rev to eleventy even though the typical family hauler would be more efficient and more relaxed with a torquey pushrod. It's why the first few generations of GM 3-row crossovers (Traverse, Outlook, Acadia) are all absolute pigs on highway MPG.  They constantly have to shift out of top gear to spin up when torque is needed, while pushrod wouldn't have needed to as much.  It's telling that a Tahoe and a Traverse were capable of similar highway MPGs

 

I don't know if the 4.3 V6 would have physically fit in the Traverse, but I bet it would have had better efficiency and similar real-world performance to the 3.6

 

Way back in the day when GM was putting out the giant 6, 7, and 8 liter engines, those were the ones that were all torque at low RPM. Even my weezy old 307 puts out most of its 250 lb-ft from 1,000 - 3,000 rpm.  Red line was 5,000 rpm. It's not fast, but it will glide effortlessly up to 60 right along at traffic's pace only using 3 gears.

[G. David Felt]

7 hours ago, ccap41 said:

What GM V8 makes "a ton of torque" at 1000-1500rpm? I understand the bottom of the rev range but 1000rpm is nearly idle. Unless you're talking about a diesel, I just don't believe you. 

My 2008 Trailblazer SS made a ton of torque at 1000 rpm, about 350 ft-lbs before hitting it's max @ 4000rpm. That is allot of torque for a pushrod V8. It had no problem getting off the line.

[ccap41]

20 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I don't know how I've survived all these years with the 8.7 0-60 I have in my Avalanche. But I will say I rarely ever have to race it to get on the highway.

That's a truck and a larger vehicle. You know that's not exactly the same. People don't expect trucks to be very quick (yet they've gotten damn quick over the last 10 years). People love to say how quick EVs are. 

 

20 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It was more true back in the old days than today, but yeah, that's a benefit of pushrod over DOHC.  The GM Pushrods engines, even the V6es, made really good torque at low RPM but ran out of breath at high RPM.

I'd bet some of that transition was due to transmissions having many more gears. Those old 3-4spd autos NEEDED a much wider powerband. When you have 6-10 forward ratios, your powerband can be smaller as the transmission will keep you where you need to be. 

And yes, that's why I'm not a fan of any N/A V6. No bottom end and very little midrange. 

[G. David Felt]

Seems the last Nissan Infinity car is dead after this year.
Nissan-owned brand discontinues its very last car model after only 10 years - but gas version could be replaced by an EV | The US Sun (the-sun.com)

Q50 car is dead, if you want one, you have this year or till stock is all sold to get this car.

[regfootball]

On 8/19/2024 at 1:18 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Eh, they're getting much closer these days.  A Model-Y and BMW X3/5 overlap in price quite a bit.  Even inside BMW, an i4 beats the performance of the 4-series sedan for just about the same money.

There should be a third option.  Third-party companies like ChargePoint or IONNA should partner with these developers to manage the charging station installs.

Nothing wrong with that idea. 

[Drew Dowdell]

On 8/27/2024 at 9:26 AM, ccap41 said:

I'd bet some of that transition was due to transmissions having many more gears. Those old 3-4spd autos NEEDED a much wider powerband. When you have 6-10 forward ratios, your powerband can be smaller as the transmission will keep you where you need to be. 

And yes, that's why I'm not a fan of any N/A V6. No bottom end and very little midrange. 

That is exactly correct. With broad, flat torque curves, it was less necessary to have a bunch of gears. That's why, except for the Taycan, EVs don't have multi-speed transmissions.  Having 9-speeds or 10-speeds is what allows manufacturers to put these dinky little 1.3 and 1.5 liter engines in and still have them be driveable even though it really isn't a pleasant experience.  It's why Cadillac was able to lower the horsepower on the 2.0T in favor of low-end torque while still keeping acceleration in the acceptable range. More low-end torque makes for a more relaxed and pleasant driving experience. The insistence by the boy-racers and @smk4565 that all vehicles have high revving, high horsepower, and DOHC with poor low-end torque got us where we are today. 

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That is exactly correct. With broad, flat torque curves, it was less necessary to have a bunch of gears. That's why, except for the Taycan, EVs don't have multi-speed transmissions.  Having 9-speeds or 10-speeds is what allows manufacturers to put these dinky little 1.3 and 1.5 liter engines in and still have them be driveable even though it really isn't a pleasant experience.  It's why Cadillac was able to lower the horsepower on the 2.0T in favor of low-end torque while still keeping acceleration in the acceptable range. More low-end torque makes for a more relaxed and pleasant driving experience. The insistence by the boy-racers and @smk4565 that all vehicles have high revving, high horsepower, and DOHC with poor low-end torque got us where we are today. 

You don't have to have a high revving DOHC cam engine, DOHC engines can still make torque, mine makes 391 lb-ft form 2800-5000 rpm.  The new E450 has 369 lb-ft from 1,800-5,800 so it is flatter, but a lower peak too from the smaller engine.  But it is all brands, the 2025 Equinox/Terrain have a 175 hp turbo 4 and 10 years ago they had a 182 hp NA 4-cylinder or a 301 hp V6.  Every car brand is taking power away in the name of fuel economy and emissions.  Which is good to have better economy and emissions.  But I think what might push people to EV's faster is that gas cars will all be electrified or hybrid and be super heavy and super complex to work on like the new C63, and they will be expensive to buy and expensive to maintain.  

[Drew Dowdell]

35 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

You don't have to have a high revving DOHC cam engine, DOHC engines can still make torque, mine makes 391 lb-ft form 2800-5000 rpm.

The 2019 GM 6.2 makes 320 lb-ft at 1700 rpm, eventually increasing to 366 at 4,000 rpm.  That torque curve at 1,000 rpm lower makes for easier and calmer driving.  I don't know which engine you have, but if that torque curve is flat,  you're also running turbos, which isn't what we're talking about here. In normal suburban driving around the city, the 5.3 liter in my truck shifts right below 2,000 rpm and I keep up with traffic just fine. 

35 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

The new E450 has 369 lb-ft from 1,800-5,800 so it is flatter, but a lower peak too from the smaller engine.

Also a turbo, and not what we're discussing.

35 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

But it is all brands, the 2025 Equinox/Terrain have a 175 hp turbo 4 and 10 years ago they had a 182 hp NA 4-cylinder

Yes, and the only way they could get away with that is with turbos and three additional gears, but it hasn't improved drivability.  A 3.4-liter variable displacement pushrod V6 paired with the current 8-speed auto would have been nearly as efficient while offering better around-town feel. 

 

35 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

But I think what might push people to EV's faster is that gas cars will all be electrified or hybrid and be super heavy and super complex to work

I do think you're right on this one. Putting an advanced DOHC turbo with a 9-speed in a budget auto just isn't feasible in the long term. People buying in that market don't typically maintain their cars as well. The first to market with a budget EV that can charge anywhere and doesn't look like a dorky egg (Bolt, LEAF) could do very well. 

[smk4565]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The 2019 GM 6.2 makes 320 lb-ft at 1700 rpm, eventually increasing to 366 at 4,000 rpm.  That torque curve at 1,000 rpm lower makes for easier and calmer driving.  I don't know which engine you have, but if that torque curve is flat,  you're also running turbos, which isn't what we're talking about here. In normal suburban driving around the city, the 5.3 liter in my truck shifts right below 2,000 rpm and I keep up with traffic just fine. 

Also a turbo, and not what we're discussing.

Yes, and the only way they could get away with that is with turbos and three additional gears, but it hasn't improved drivability.  A 3.4-liter variable displacement pushrod V6 paired with the current 8-speed auto would have been nearly as efficient while offering better around-town feel. 

 

I do think you're right on this one. Putting an advanced DOHC turbo with a 9-speed in a budget auto just isn't feasible in the long term. People buying in that market don't typically maintain their cars as well. The first to market with a budget EV that can charge anywhere and doesn't look like a dorky egg (Bolt, LEAF) could do very well. 

My car has the M272 5.5 liter V8.  But my point was the V8s and V6s are going away a being replaced by 2 liter or smaller turbo 4's with electrification.  A third of Toyotas were hybrid last year, I bet half their sales in 2025 are hybrid because most of their models you are forced to get a hybrid.  

And 10 years ago you could get a 301 hp 3.6 V6 in an Equinox, even a couple years ago a 250 hp turbo 4, now it is just a 175 hp turbo 4.  And maybe that is by design, if you want more than 175 hp you buy the Equinox EV.  A 2007 Mercedes E350 had a 268 hp V6, a 2025 E350 has a 255 hp turbo 4.  Soon they'll do this with pick up trucks, and you'll see 2 liter turbos in full size trucks to power the front axle and a 100 hp electric motor to power the rear axle.  

Agree that a $30-35k EV could clean up, because a Camry is now hybrid only and starts at $30k.  I bet the next-gen Rav4 becomes hybrid only, and Hyundai has 1.6 liter turbo 4's with hybrid.  They are creating complexity and maintenance costs for these new cars, and I don't think consumers realize it yet, but in a few years they'll probably want to jump ship from this and go to EV and not have to worry about plugging in a car, and putting gas in, and changing oil, and changing CVT transmission fluid every 20,000 miles, etc.

[Drew Dowdell]

2 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

My car has the M272 5.5 liter V8.  But my point was the V8s and V6s are going away a being replaced by 2 liter or smaller turbo 4's with electrification.  A third of Toyotas were hybrid last year, I bet half their sales in 2025 are hybrid because most of their models you are forced to get a hybrid.  

And 10 years ago you could get a 301 hp 3.6 V6 in an Equinox, even a couple years ago a 250 hp turbo 4, now it is just a 175 hp turbo 4.  And maybe that is by design, if you want more than 175 hp you buy the Equinox EV.  A 2007 Mercedes E350 had a 268 hp V6, a 2025 E350 has a 255 hp turbo 4.  Soon they'll do this with pick up trucks, and you'll see 2 liter turbos in full size trucks to power the front axle and a 100 hp electric motor to power the rear axle.  

Agree that a $30-35k EV could clean up, because a Camry is now hybrid only and starts at $30k.  I bet the next-gen Rav4 becomes hybrid only, and Hyundai has 1.6 liter turbo 4's with hybrid.  They are creating complexity and maintenance costs for these new cars, and I don't think consumers realize it yet, but in a few years they'll probably want to jump ship from this and go to EV and not have to worry about plugging in a car, and putting gas in, and changing oil, and changing CVT transmission fluid every 20,000 miles, etc.

Sure, but none of that is what we're talking about.  This started because EVs have the best low-end torque curve, with maximum torque at zero RPM.  It also means that peak horsepower is now an irrelevant measurement for 99.9999999% of EV buyers. 250 lb-ft @ 0 RPM = 0 horsepower.  The base Kia EV9 has 258 lb-ft of torque at 0 rpm which means it moves along nicely as city speeds.

[G. David Felt]

Yes Drivability in ICE versus EV was based on this starting point.

A traditional Pushrod V8, V6 all had better drivability due to the flat torque curve than the torque curve of Turbos and they are all beaten by EVs that give superior Torque from zero.