Engine Question

[pawprint]

The Juke: 1.6-liter Direct Injection Gasoline (DIG™) DOHC 16-valve turbocharged 4-cylinder engine
Horsepower – 188 hp @ 5,600 rpm
Torque – 177 lb-ft @ 2,000 – 5,200 rpm

The Rogue: 2.5-liter DOHC 16-valve 4-cylinder engine
Horsepower – 170 hp @ 6,000 rpm
Torque – 175 lb-ft @ 4,400 rpm

Does anyone think the Rogue will offer a turbocharged engine in 2013 for the redesign? Personally, I would like to see a turbocharged 2.5! I don't need a V-6, but would like a bit more power.

[kerrton]

Here is my opinion, feel free to disagree:

I would bet a lot of money that the Rogue will NEVER get a large turbocharged 4-cylinder (ex. 2.5 L). Things have changed a lot over the past few years, we're not in 1992 anymore. People are starting to realize that large gas guzzler vehicles are not only irresponsible but unaffordable and impractical, and this trend will not only continue but will intensify over the future decades as fossil fuel resources dwindle and global demand continues to increase. The days of the race for more horsepower are long gone, but with amazing new 4-cylinder engine technology this is a good thing.

With the priority on fuel efficiency and decent performance, I think it's a win-win for everybody. The current Rogue is a great example, it's got ample horsepower, in fact much more than many of the V6 engines of the past. My 1984 300ZX for example had a 3.0 V6 and was touted as a pretty sporty powerful machine with around 150 hp, but my current 4-cylinder outperforms it and provides vastly superior efficiency.

With modern engine technology I feel the old opinion that "more cylinders is better" is now very incorrect and should be left in the '90s. Current 4-cylinders have come a long way even since the '90s and can do everything the old V6 can and much more.

As for the future Rogue, one possibility might be a small displacement turbo 4-cylinder such as the 1.6 or a 1.8 as indicated by a recent press release by Nissan expressing a committment to super low displacement turbo powertrains combined with next generation CVT technology which will provide all the power and performance that people expect with vastly superior fuel efficiency. Further down the line I wouldn't be surprised to see a hybrid powertrain and possibly a plug-in hybrid Rogue to compete with similar planned offerings from Toyota, GM, Mitsubishi (recently announced a hybrid Outlander for 2013), and likely all major automakers.

Now this is what I call exciting.

Technology seems to be at a point where we can get the best of both worlds - power and efficiency. For this fact I feel we're very lucky, all we have to do is be smart enough to let go of our old pre-conceived notions and embrace current solutions to real problems.

[philipa_240sx]

Keep in mind the new CAFE fuel economy requirements start in MY2012. By 2016, they will be at 35.5mpg or an increase of about 8mpg. A lot of things are going to change is 5 years to meet those requirements...

I could easily see a smaller motor (The Dualis (Japan) and Qashqai (Europe) are 'brothers' to the Rogue use 1.6l and 2.0l motors), a DSI turbo motor like the Juke, or even a hybrid.

So if you want a horsepower fix, now is the time. The bell is already starting to toll for big displacement motors...

[casperfun]

I don't think there will be a turbo. But it can be done as seen in the Mazda CX-7 which I test drove before buying the Rogue. They were around the same price range and I liked the Mazda's front styling.

But I chose the Nissan because I realy liked the indigo blue paint job and car like feel stood out. The better mileage and no requirement for (EXPENSIVE premium fuel)

[Pescakl1]

Pawprint, you forgot something in your equation: Rogue weighs 1504kg, the Juke 1323kg. You have 2 extra persons to haul everytime you move from a dead start. For that, you need a torquey engine (torque at low RPM).

Another thing is that in NA, people don't accept that the next generation of engine in a car to have less than the previous one. As an example, the Hyundai Sonata where almost everybody cried because there was no V6 option, and barely accepted it because the I4 delivered more HP than the V6. Rogue had a rough start because there was no V6 option (look in the archive here).

Another thing to remember is there is no energy crisis in NA in the mind of a lot of people, so they still want their 0-60 time (and better at every new generation) and still don't care about the EPA ratings. So don't expect to see diesel engines soon in NA (except in expensive cars), and don't expect smaller engines either.
Do you think they will sell a lot of 1,6l engines doing 0-60 in about 13s or more? They already complain the Rogue is not fast enough with the 2.5l and it is doing it in 8.6s, as "it is dangerous sometimes while merging".

Pawprint, I wish they will soon offer smaller engines (better fuel economy) in our cars, but I stopped believing in Santa Claus long time ago too.

[kerrton]

I agree human perceptions are often the biggest barrier and harder to overcome than any real-world physical problem.

I've read that comment too that the Rogue can "dangerous when merging into highway traffic due to a slight lack of power". That statement just floors me, it is so ignorant and downright incorrect. The Rogue already has a larger engine than it's European and Japanese counterparts as Philip pointed out, and I'm sure they aren't worried about the dangers of merging or accelerating. We put a larger engine in the NA Rogue to satisfy our ridiculous need for power and still we get complaints of the vehicle being underpowered - unbelievable!

Nissan does claim that the 1.8 turbo will give power and performance of the regular 2.5 but with superior fuel efficiency gains so it sounds like a winner (however I'm unsure if it will require premium fuel which is a big consideration), but again ignorant human perceptions will probably kill the idea because 1.8 L seems small....

[harryg]

I agree human perceptions are often the biggest barrier and harder to overcome than any real-world physical problem.

I've read that comment too that the Rogue can "dangerous when merging into highway traffic due to a slight lack of power". That statement just floors me, it is so ignorant and downright incorrect. The Rogue already has a larger engine than it's European and Japanese counterparts as Philip pointed out, and I'm sure they aren't worried about the dangers of merging or accelerating. We put a larger engine in the NA Rogue to satisfy our ridiculous need for power and still we get complaints of the vehicle being underpowered - unbelievable!

Nissan does claim that the 1.8 turbo will give power and performance of the regular 2.5 but with superior fuel efficiency gains so it sounds like a winner (however I'm unsure if it will require premium fuel which is a big consideration), but again ignorant human perceptions will probably kill the idea because 1.8 L seems small....

It will definitely require premium fuel like all engines with turbos on them, but I still wouldnt mind if the new engine has more power, even though the Rogue has adequate power for merging and regular driving
I was looking at the acura RDX prior to the rogue and loved its power but it was just too costly

[Nick 568]

As for the premium fuel concern, lets say the Rogue gets a combined MPG of 23. (quick Google search brought me that combined number)
Lets say you do 12,000 miles of driving per year. (I do much less, and I know some do more)
Premium is what, $0.20 more per gallon?

So,

12,000 miles/23 MPG = 521.7 gallons per year
521.7 gallons * $0.20 extra per gallon of premium= ~$104.35 extra you'd pay per year.

So really, $100 extra per year isn't bad at all. And the fact that a smaller displacement turbo motor would likely get better fuel economy, could cancel out that extra $100 you'd pay.
I know personally, I'd pay $100 extra per year just for the added fun of a turbo. :P

Though, there is that added long-term maintenance bill that turbo'ed cars usually have too, so that's something to take into consideration...

HarryG, I'm right there with you on the RDX. I really would love to have one of the turbo'ed RDX'es, but it was out of my price range too.

[philipa_240sx]

You see, this is what gets me...

Turbo's are great, but they are not exactly fuel misers when on boost. Drive them hard and you'll be sucking back the gas just the same. Just do a quick scan on True Delta's real world fuel economy numbers for CUV's with small turbo motors like the Mazda CX-7 (2.3l), VW Tiguan (2.0l), and Acura RDX (2.3l). When city driven, they are well below 20mpg.

http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php

It will be interesting to see how these engines fare with North American driving habits... we aren't exactly 'light' on the right pedal.

Although I have never driven in Europe nor driven a Euro spec car, I understand many are geared much higher than our North American vehicles and the emphasis is on fuel economy and higher highway cruising speeds.

I would love to see something like the iCON system (Like the Juke) and ecoPedal in my next Nissan. Features that will allow you to drive more economically when you want, but can be switched to 'sport' mode when you want to drive that favorite twisty road

[Pescakl1]

It will be interesting to see how these engines fare with North American driving habits... we aren't exactly 'light' on the right pedal.

Although I have never driven in Europe nor driven a Euro spec car, I understand many are geared much higher than our North American vehicles and the emphasis is on fuel economy and higher highway cruising speeds.

North Americans use the right pedal as an on/off switch, no modulation. No cruising either, on the gas or on the brake, never coasting. It is no true for EVERY North American, I know.

Europeans can be not that easy on the gas pedal either (I am looking at you, brother), but they still keep an eye on the fuel gauge, so at the end, they modulate a little bit more their way to drive. They also need to keep the momentum as, with smaller engines, they don't accelerate as fast as V8s.

From what I read on BITOG, as for now, Direct injection and turbo, even if they are the way to the future, are not synonym with long term reliability. So, I am not sure if I want to be the manufacturers' guinea pig.