Yikes! Turbo 3 banger?

Nissan Rogue forum - Includes Nissan Qashqai and Nissan Dualis as well.
datechboss101
Posts: 934
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:01 pm
Car: 2016 Nissan Rogue SL -- RIP
2018 Nissan Kicks SR -- RIP
2019 Nissan Rogue SV w/ Prem. Pack
Location: Orlando, FL

Post

Where in the world is Nissan going with the idea of shoving a turbo 3 banger into the 2021 Rogue? The QR25DE is reliable engine and not sure why would Nissan shove a 3 banger into the big Rogue. It would totally make sense if they done that with the Rogue Sport and with the Kicks.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3583 ... bo-engine/

From my experience, the 2.5L is perfect for the Rogue and is very fuel efficient (thing can go 520 miles on a single tank).


Lone Wolff
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:41 pm
Car: 2015 Nissan Rogue SL AWD
2010 Ford F150 Lariat 4x4 5.4L
2010 Ford Fusion SEL
Location: Nebraska

Post

If 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.

datechboss101
Posts: 934
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:01 pm
Car: 2016 Nissan Rogue SL -- RIP
2018 Nissan Kicks SR -- RIP
2019 Nissan Rogue SV w/ Prem. Pack
Location: Orlando, FL

Post

Lone Wolff wrote:
Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:20 am
If 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.
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.

User avatar
VStar650CL
Technical Expert
Posts: 8291
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:25 pm
Car: 2013 Nissan Altima 2.5 SL
2004 Nissan Altima 2.5 S

Post

Don't sell an I-3 short, it has some substantial advantages over an I-4 in terms of inherent balance. The only major imbalances in a 120 deg I-3 are primary and secondary rotating-plane imbalances (side-to-side motion in counter-moving parts). The plane of reciprocation for an I-3 is inherently balanced (reciprocating imbalance is when motion occurs without a cancelling counter-motion). Compare that to an I-4, which has both primary and secondary reciprocating plane imbalances, and has the highest rotational plane imbalances of any cylinder arrangement. The upshot is, even though an I-3 lacks overlapping power strokes like a V-6 or V-8, it will generally have the smoothest idle of all small engines without counterweights, and will generally out-rev any 2 or 4 cylinder design. Since turbos in general are more effective the higher the engine revs, an I-3 is actually a superior choice in that displacement range.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

DTB, 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.

datechboss101
Posts: 934
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:01 pm
Car: 2016 Nissan Rogue SL -- RIP
2018 Nissan Kicks SR -- RIP
2019 Nissan Rogue SV w/ Prem. Pack
Location: Orlando, FL

Post

AZhitman wrote:
Sat Mar 20, 2021 10:31 am
DTB, 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.
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.

Well, cars is a passion, regardless if its a soccer mommy mobile or a full blown racecar.

User avatar
VStar650CL
Technical Expert
Posts: 8291
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:25 pm
Car: 2013 Nissan Altima 2.5 SL
2004 Nissan Altima 2.5 S

Post

datechboss101 wrote:
Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:14 pm
Well, cars is a passion, regardless if its a soccer mommy mobile or a full blown racecar.
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.

User avatar
VStar650CL
Technical Expert
Posts: 8291
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:25 pm
Car: 2013 Nissan Altima 2.5 SL
2004 Nissan Altima 2.5 S

Post

PS - I know, I know, but I'm not passionately chauvinistic. :rotfl :rotfl

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 18383
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

Lone Wolff wrote:
Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:20 am
t 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.
I also like unrefueled range like datechboss.
Its a legit date point IMO about a vehicle. :)

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

datechboss101 wrote:
Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:14 pm

Yeah, that's the issue. A Rogue is too big for a turbo 3 banger.
It's not a logical statement. If it made 600hp, then what difference does the cylinder layout make?

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.

datechboss101
Posts: 934
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:01 pm
Car: 2016 Nissan Rogue SL -- RIP
2018 Nissan Kicks SR -- RIP
2019 Nissan Rogue SV w/ Prem. Pack
Location: Orlando, FL

Post

AZhitman wrote:
Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:22 pm
datechboss101 wrote:
Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:14 pm

Yeah, that's the issue. A Rogue is too big for a turbo 3 banger.
It's not a logical statement. If it made 600hp, then what difference does the cylinder layout make?

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.
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 paces :rotfl

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

I don't know if 'notorious' is the right word, but OK. ;)


Return to “Rogue Forum”