krash wrote:But proving that it is better and more cost efficient at the same time is probably the main issue in the conference rooms.
This is certainly true. More parts, more complex assembly. But I think that "conference room thinking" is exactly the problem. Do you want to build a product? Or do you want to build a SUPERIOR product? Once you've put in the resources, the greater costs of the more complex powertrain begin to level out. If you're using the same engine everywhere, it's not as much of a drain.
And, anyway, aren't automakers everywhere racing to cram more gears into their transmissions? If THAT increased complexity is okay in board rooms, why not this? They compliment each other.
You can either build another Corolla, or you can build something with bragging rights. Those bragging rights don't have to be lots of power. But refinement, economy, and moderate power in the same package are honestly EXACTLY what the midsize and compact markets need these days. We've been making ~260hp for well over a decade. That's great. We don't necessarily need more power. But lets work on getting the other ducks in a row. Engines that don't feel/sound/respond like marbles in a blender. Engines that scale from superb cruise economy to usable power instantly. Engines that don't make themselves known through the things they do POORLY.
Cobalt SS/SRT4/Focus RS...people pay $30k plus for these cars. You can't tell me there's no justification for "more complex" powertrains in cars like this. Put a 2.5 liter TT V8 in those. Offer the best and people will want it. Offer more of the same and people will forget about it.
So far the only legitimate argument I've heard against small V8s is cost. Which tells me EVERY SINGLE AUTOMAKER ON EARTH IS RUN BY COWARDLY MORONS. Except McLaren and Maserati. And Audi (who cram 4.2 V8s into everything in sight as though it's the most straightforward thing in the world). Stop bitching about cost and start EARNING YOUR MONEY. By making superior products. With superior powertrains.
I want a Fusion with 3 liters of twin turbo V8 heaven. I promise you it will do better than 16 pathetic miles-per-gallon. Hell, a few years ago Ford was gluing extra cylinders onto Duratecs (NOT WHAT I AM ASKING FOR, PLEASE MAKE THE DURATEC GO AWAY) to make tiny 3.4 liter "Yamaha" V8s for the SHO. Where'd that mentality go?!
alphapig wrote:I think i6 is a neglected sweet spot.
I6 is arguably a better arrangement than the V8 in many ways. There's no other engine arrangement that has better innate balance. The problem with I6s is packaging. They're too big to fit in the cars they'd be most beneficial to. Cars too small for normal-size V8s are too small for I6s, too. And cars big enough for I6s tend to have plenty of room for V8s. Which is why you don't see much use of the format anymore. GM used them in its sadly-deceased midsize trucks for a while, and they still saw the need to chop off one or two pots to fit the engine into more trucks (they didn't offer the 6 in the Canyon/Colorado/H3--only the 5). Even BMW has ditched them for V6s for packaging reasons.
There have been some amazing straight sixes throughout history, though. The GM Stovebolt/Blue Flame. The Nissan L-motor. The BMW S50. The Jaguar XK. But all of them were superceded by V6s and V8s (and even V12s!) for the same reasons: you can fit the same V6 in more cars than the I6. Which is the same trait that makes the V8 so scalable. It can be compact enough to fit in compact cars just like an I4.
love it
. The Mazda's Skyactiv engine is still untested for longevity's sake, but we can definitely argue that it is a much more sophisticated motor than even the VTECs of old, and it likely employs much more tech than a pushrod GM V8.
I agree there is an argument though.