Lol.. I'm just saying the 2.5L can go 520 miles in a tank (basically eliminates the existence of the Prius). Nissan should have at least slapped their VQ or VR Turbo 2.0L 4banger for at least the SL and Platinum trims and detune the 2.5L to make it more fuel efficient. I still don't understand why manufacturers loves to slap a small block into a big and heavy vehicle. Pretty sure, sometime down the road the 1.5T 3banger will have some engine failures and turbo failures.Lone Wolff wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:20 amIf they really wanted better fuel efficiency as an OPTIONAL engine choice, put in a small bore, long stroke 2.0 NA I-4 with a 6-speed manual tranny. Granted it would be a bit of a slug regarding performance in a car like the Rogue with it's 3500-3600 curb weight & lack of aerodynamics, but it would be more fuel efficient than the 2.5 and it would have a far more reliable transmission than the CVT. Cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, and cheaper/simpler to maintain. I would think there would be some segment of the market that would want that. But I've been wrong before.
I miss the days when nearly all cars and trucks had a base engine that was designed for economy and then at least one or more optional engines depending on how much additional performance you wanted.
FYI - My F150 goes nearly 700 miles on a tank of fuel and my Yamaha goes about 150 miles per tank. Care to guess which one is more fuel efficient than the other? Stating a 'miles per tank' as a means to define fuel efficiency isn't the best method.
Yeah, that's the issue. A Rogue is too big for a turbo 3 banger. Just like the Explorer with the Ecoboost 4banger. Same can be said with the Q7.AZhitman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 10:31 amDTB, you're too young to be sounding like a boomer.
Who cares how many cylinders or displacement it has? If it gets the job done, it's the right powerplant.
It's going in a Rogue... not exactly the pinnacle of automotive excellence or technological advancement.
Hmm, most of the soccer mommies I know are only passionate about seatcovers and the car wash. Show me one who explains horsepower to the soccer team and I think you'll be showing me a racer in disguise.datechboss101 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:14 pmWell, cars is a passion, regardless if its a soccer mommy mobile or a full blown racecar.
I also like unrefueled range like datechboss.Lone Wolff wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:20 amt one or more optional engines depending on how much additional performance you wanted.
FYI - My F150 goes nearly 700 miles on a tank of fuel and my Yamaha goes about 150 miles per tank. Care to guess which one is more fuel efficient than the other? Stating a 'miles per tank' as a means to define fuel efficiency isn't the best method.
It's not a logical statement. If it made 600hp, then what difference does the cylinder layout make?datechboss101 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:14 pm
Yeah, that's the issue. A Rogue is too big for a turbo 3 banger.
I'd be glad to test out the Turbo 3banger Rogue myself IF Nissan can send me one to review, as ya'll know I am notorious with pushing the Rogues to their pacesAZhitman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:22 pmIt's not a logical statement. If it made 600hp, then what difference does the cylinder layout make?datechboss101 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:14 pm
Yeah, that's the issue. A Rogue is too big for a turbo 3 banger.
If you want to be taken seriously, then you could say, "XXX hp is insufficient for a x,xxx-lb vehicle." That would make sense.
I've been guilty of this myself when I was shopping for a truck... popped an F150 hood and could barely see the 2.7-liter V-6 in the vast engine bay. Almost didn't drive it. It's got 325 hp and twin-turbos. Didn't buy it, but that's almost as much horsepower as my 5.6 V8 truck.
True passion for cars means digging deeper and understanding more.