Those 4 cylinder Sonomas you mentioned . . . by chance, were they stick shift?
All of Mazda’s engines in the US are now normally aspirated four cylinders, with the exception of the CX9 (running a turbo charged 2.5 liter four cylinder). They all get great gas mileage without using hybrid trickery and they are all a blast to drive with very good acceleration due to Skyactiv technology. While nothing will equal the “pin you to your seat” acceleration of a big six cylinder, the reality is that acceleration of that nature is almost never needed in the real world unless you are trying to impress your friends.
My 2.5 liter, four cylinder, Mazda6 generates 184 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque while delivering close to 40mpg on the open highway. It cruises all too effortlessly at speeds over 90 mph and easily accelerates on the highway, or back country roads, to pass slower traffic. In over 92,000 miles of ownership I have NEVER found myself saying “I wish my car had a V6”, especially when replacing spark-plugs at $36 each!
A friend had to get new head gaskets in his Subaru, the dealer offered an upgrade to turbo head gaskets, so my guess the turbos have better head gaskets.
I have driven non-turbo Subaru H-4s, and I found the power to be…adequate…just…adequate.
Yes, certainly more powerful than…let’s say…a 1960 Falcon, but not up to my standards for a modern vehicle.
2 Likes
That has not been a problem with their H-4s since somewhere around the 2007 model year.
Don’t forget that the large displacement engine will be sending its power through the 10 speed with a 5:1 first gear ratio. This is the current trend of propulsion. Combine a high power small engine and augments its torque with a ultra short first gear
? The site I saw said both Accord engines use CVTs.
Edit - nope, you’re right, 10 speed with the 2L.
I seem to remember people saying the same thing years ago, except it was about ‘acceleration of a big V8’ at the time…
Yes. That was at a time when a car weighed 2 to 3 tons, or more. Now a midsize sedan like my Mazda6 weighs less than half of what those old cars weighed. A four cylinder with good power can be quite sprightly and a six is downright muscular. Plus my car’s drag coefficient is probable a fraction of what a car in the 50’s and 60’s had. Low weight and low drag makes a modern car much easier to power with smaller motors.
1 Like
I’ll be sad to see the V6 Accord go. I owned two, a 2003 and 2006 EX-L in both cases. Fast cars with 0-60 MPH times in the mid to high 5-second range. I got 30 MPG on regular unleaded on many highway trips. Those that want a powerful V6 in a midsize affordable car will still find it in the Camry. The news released today, in fact, is that the V6 returns for the new generation in 2018 with 301 HP and Atkinson cycle capability to increase mileage. I have to also add I have road-tested all of Honda’s new engines and the 1.5-liter turbo in the Civic an CR-V is a gem. If Honda offers a slightly larger one for the Accord I would keep an open mind.
After WW II, most manufacturers were increasing the number of cylinders in their offerings. However, one manufacturer reduced the number of cylinders in its 1949 models from its 1948 models. The answer might surprise you. It was Lincoln. The 1948 and earlier Lincolns had V-10 engines. The 1949 Lincoln had a V-8 engine. Losing two cylinders is nothing new.
I believe that the Lincoln engine prior to 1949 was a V-12.
IIRC, Ford didn’t start producing V-10 engines until the last decade or so, mostly for trucks.
Is a V6 needed? We owned 2 Accords (87 and 96)…both 4-cylinders and both had plenty of power.
Our 07 Lexus is a V6 (3.5L), and it has more power then the Accords…but we rarely use it. I does get the same MPG as our 96 Accord.
Toyota 4Runner dropped their V8 a few years ago. The V6 had very close numbers in HP…so why have a V8 line.
I’m not a big fan of Turbo’s though.
for a minute i thought story was about the demise of my accord. whew.
@VDCdriver. You are rigjt. The Lincolns before.1949 were V-12 and not V-10. I remember as a kid thinking that the Lincoln V-12 had twice the number of cylinders as my Dad’s 1939 Chevy, so it should go twice as fast.
I understand your point.
And I suspect one day, some electric motors will leave people saying the same thing about ‘acceleration of a big 4 cylinder’…
I may be wrong but I always understood it was not the size or the horsepower of the engine but the gearrig for speed or power whichever you need.
There are many factors. Gearing and Torque are probably the biggest factors in acceleration. HP is a product of Torque and RPM.
1 Like
Good news on the Toyota front if you don’t want a turbo - they’re coming out with new 2.5L and 3.5L engines for the 2018 Camry, no turbos:
"While the industry is largely trending towards turbos, Toyota is sticking with naturally aspirated four and six cylinder motors. The newly developed 2.5 liter four-cylinder and 3.5-liter V6 are now mated to eight-speed automatic transmissions.
The all new 2.5 liter Dynamic Force Engine, now pumps out 206 horsepower and 186 lb-ft of torque, a healthy jump over the previous motor that managed 176 hp and 163 lb-ft. The base engine will also get an EPA estimated 29 MPG in the city and 41 MPG on the highway. Toyota says that is a 26 percent improvement in efficiency over the outgoing car.
There was a time when if you wanted a mighty 200 horsepower in your Camry you had to step up to the V6. Now that power is available on the base model, and the new V6 cranks out a whopping 301 horsepower and 267 lb-ft of torque. The previous V6 had only 268 hp.’