Follow this blog:
RSS

At GM, the V-6 is dead. Long live the inline-four

By | September 3, 2010, 11:50 AM PDT

The argument not so many years ago used to go a little something like this:

“You drive a Honda? One of those tin-can econobox Asian cars with no power?”

“Sure do. I get 50 miles to the gallon and can fit into pretty much any parking space.”

“When you’re ready to be a man, call me and I’ll sell you my Ford pickup.”

“Well, when you burn through all your gas before you get here, call me and I’ll pick you up in my Honda.”

For sure, the conversation above often had a nationalistic edge to it. (USA vs. Japan! Jobs! Industry domination!) But there was also a different kind of culture war at play — one between power and efficiency.

Since the 1950s, Americans have prided themselves on big vehicles with big engines that could post incredibly small 0 to 60 mile-per-hour times on a straight track.

Meanwhile, Europeans competed on engineering, top speed and curvy roads. And Asian marques prioritized price and fuel efficiency.

But the reckoning that threatened to come quickly after the 1970s energy crisis has finally materialized in the States: according to a report on GM Inside News, General Motors is going all in on Ecotec, favoring four-cylinder engines over the V-6 models in future mid-size models.

Nick Saporito writes:

Our sources tell us that the real fruit of this movement will be noticed most in the next-generation Chevrolet Malibu, which is slated to launch in late 2011. The new Malibu will sport only four-cylinder engines in North America. It is unclear which four-cylinder mills GM will place in the Malibu, but the direct injected 2.4-liter from the Equinox is a likely contender. GM is currently working on several new four-cylinder engines—both turbo and naturally aspirated—including a non-turbo 2.5-liter.

Like all automakers, GM is under mandate by the U.S. government (specifically the EPA) to transition its fleet to reflect better fuel economy and fewer carbon emissions; specifically, it must achieve a fleet average of 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016 for light-duty vehicles, which includes cars, pickup trucks, crossovers, sport-utility vehicles and vans.

If true, this is GM’s big move to meet those targets, as mid-size sedans are the vehicle of choice for most American families.

What GM and other automakers are betting on is that volatile oil prices — and thus prices at the pump — have consumers thinking about downsizing, too.

Will they miss the extra cylinders? If the end of V-8 supremacy in the ’80s and ’90s is any indication, I think not.

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
9
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: At GM, the V-6 is dead. Long live the inline-four
Is there any difference between inline, V-4 or flat-4 (like in the BMW motorcycles)? of course, this is only a stop gag between new tech for more efficient hybrid, fuel cell and full electric vehicles.
Posted by Stephen-Engard
7th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: At GM, the V-6 is dead. Long live the inline-four
The 2002 Altima 2.5 my wife and I drove for 7 years was as quick to 60 (about 8 seconds) as the 1972 Pontiac Grand Prix I drove in 1980, with a 6.6 liter V8 (over 2.5 times as large). Some people still consider those the "good old days", yet today's 4-cylinder engines give up little to the V8s of 30+ years ago, and better than the V8 engined cars of the late 70s in terms of quickness, while getting far superior mileage. If the fours of today best the eights of the past, it's no surprise that GM no longer believes they need sixes in this class of automobile.
Posted by AlanLaRue
7th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: At GM, the V-6 is dead. Long live the inline-four
There's still a need work work trucks (pickups) in Texas that can haul heavy loads. We have more trucks than cars here. While the V-6 is a passenger-car dinosaur, there are some jobs for which a V-8 is the best answer.

People switch to Toyota because Toyotas are seen as reliable and dependable, not because of top speeds and curvy roads, or even 0-60 times.

Even the Toyotas here have V-8s.
Posted by bb_apptix
7th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: At GM, the V-6 is dead. Long live the inline-four
@Stephen-Engard
There are differences. V-4s don't work well due to balancing
considerations. You can force them to work using things like
oversized balancing cams, but there is really no point.

Inline-4s are easier to balance and also offer better packaging for
most cars, easier intake and exhaust tract design, familiar layout
(its one bank of a V-8).

Horizontally opposed or flat-4s have a lot of advantages like
being easy to work on, lots of room for things like dual ignition,
good balance characteristics. They aren't always easy to
package in cars, aren't very familiar to mechanics, and the intake
and exhaust plumbing is somewhat harder.


@bb_apptix
Really, work trucks should have big 4 or 6 cylinder diesels with
lots of torque, and not 8 cylinder gas engines. Just like cars,
trucks in America (and Texas) are over horsepowered for the
jobs they do.
Posted by colinnwn
7th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: At GM, the V-6 is dead. Long live the inline-four
There's no difference between a 2.5L V6 and a 2.5L straight 4...except that the 4 cylinder needs to work much harder and therefore fail sooner than a V6 with the same displacement.
My 4,000+ pound Chrysler Sebring convertible with the 2.5L V6 regularly gets 23mpg city and 29mpg highway (if I keep it below 70mph) and it does this in extreme comfort and luxury! My knee doesn't end up in the passenger side of the car, my head doesn't smack on the roof and 2 full grown adults can sit comfortably in the back seat! Try *THAT* in one of those econo-boxes? Not likely! No, give me my V6 which at 80 MPH is barely spinning at 3,500 RPM!
Posted by tech_ed@...
7th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: At GM, the V-6 is dead. Long live the inline-four
The 5.7L V-8 in the Chrysler 300C has over twice the rated hp of the 3.5L V-6 of the base model while having nearly as good fuel economy - 4 cylinders idle while the car is cruising & engage while accelerating. The Accord Hybrid did the same thing with batteries. The public hasn't embraced these advances in engine tech but my take on that is that there hasn't been much marketing behind them.
I don't see what what's to be impressed by the Sebring engine. The 4-banger in my 11 year old Honda also revs 3500 at 80. The real question is, does it makes sense for an individual to bring 2 tons of metal, plastics, etc with them to get from place to place?
Posted by hoodedswan
8th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: At GM, the V-6 is dead. Long live the inline-four
@tech_ed

There's so much inaccurate information in your post that I don't
know where to start.

A nominally designed, equal displacement, I4 will have more
torque at lower engine RPM than a V6. If your Sebring did 3500
RPM at 80, then a 2.5L I4 would probably be able to do 3200
RPM at 80.

An I4 will also tend to have less internal friction losses and
therefore slightly better fuel efficiency at the same power output,
due to the smaller swept area of cylinder wall required for each
engine revolution, and normally lower necessary engine RPM.

23mpg city and 29mpg highway is average to weak for a
somewhat modern mid-sized family car. My 1990 Nissan Maxima
with a 3.0L V6 got 26 city and 32 highway.
Posted by colinnwn
9th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Points You're Missing
Recent advances in turbo technology, increasing reliability and decreasing lag, mean that turbo fours aren't just for performance cars - they can bring the torque and power of a much larger engine with a lot less fuel usage.
Secondly, it's key that the WHOLE range will now run smaller engines - for every model which is available with a V6 or V8 as an option, the whole range has to have an engine compartment which is larger than the four-pots need. By deleting the V6/8 option, the manufacturer gets packaging benefits across the range.
The "I need a V8" crowd need to stop thinking "econo-box" and start thinking "same power, smarter solution".
Posted by steve_jonesuk@...
24th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: At GM, the V-6 is dead. Long live the inline-four
GM started on the path to killing Saab with a V-6. They replaced the lighter, more powerful and more fuel efficient Saab turbo 4 with some piece of crap. The "reasoning" was that the car was too nice and too expensive for a 4 cylinder. GM never understood the why of the Svenskerwagen.

Now, years later, the light goes on???
Posted by mswift@...
12th Jan 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!