Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2004 year 2.4L, 160HP, 224Nm @ 4000rpm, 4 speed auto
2014 year 1.6T, 201HP, 265Nm @ 1750-4000rpm, 6 speed auto
Both are sedans,
On paper the former should be superior in every situation.. however, my theory is that due to the way most modern vehicles are tuned, barring most Japanese - the former vehicle actually excels in offering a smoother, stronger and more consistent acceleration, very ideal for day to day scenarios.
For example - low end torque, gliding in gear and none of those awful downshift that contribute to a jerky, uncomfortable, sluggish and less fuel efficient ride.
In the 2004 vehicle I'm able to drive while feathering the throttle and maintain below 2000rpm at all times. The same style of drive applied with to the 2014 vehicle will result in the vehicle rolling backward.
Sure the 2014 does offer superior mid and top end power.. but i don't think its worth all the sacrifce at the low end.
So my question is why are these new vehicles tuned this way?
If you buy a vehicle with a 1.6L motor, you need a manual trans and you need to keep that baby wound up in the upper end of the tach if you want to get anywhere.
If you buy a vehicle with a 1.6L motor, you need a manual trans and you need to keep that baby wound up in the upper end of the tach if you want to get anywhere.
The manufactures went to these little tiny motors with a turbo in order to meet government mandated fuel economy requirements. Hopefully the new Environmental Protection Agency will reduce these ridiculous requirements and we can get back to decent engines.
That depends on whether the Califorina Air Resources Board still manages to keep the EPA subservient to them or not.
Except the majority of these 'tiny motors' absolutely destroy the majority of large common place engines from even just a decade ago while still returning solid fuel economy. I'd love to know what your definition of 'decent engine' is. Considering a four cylinder Camry out muscles Mustangs from 20 years ago, I'm not sure we are exactly going backwards.
Really? I have 4 cars that are from 15-90 years ago, and I don't fear a lot of cars, especially Camrys, at red lights. I love it when some ricer gets brave and thinks they have something hot. Hell, even my Cadillac daily driver can smoke most of them, and has.
Really? I have 4 cars that are from 15-90 years ago, and I don't fear a lot of cars, especially Camrys, at red lights. I love it when some ricer gets brave and thinks they have something hot. Hell, even my Cadillac daily driver can smoke most of them, and has.
But, ok, I will give you the gas mileage thing.
Unless that Camry is a sleeper with the 3.5 V6, then it’ll blow your Caddy’s doors off.
I had a 2015 Kia Forte5 with a 6 speed manual, sounds like you're talking about the same/similar power plant. 201hp and 195 ft-lbs @ 1500-4500 rpms thanks to the twin scroll turbo. Having all the torque available at just 1500 rpms made for a great around town driving experience and it was able to crawl in 1st gear in traffic really well. Much better experience than say my old 200hp Acura RSX which had to be revved up to 7400rpm for full power.
Really? I have 4 cars that are from 15-90 years ago, and I don't fear a lot of cars, especially Camrys, at red lights. I love it when some ricer gets brave and thinks they have something hot. Hell, even my Cadillac daily driver can smoke most of them, and has.
But, ok, I will give you the gas mileage thing.
What are the cars? Are they stock? While I was picking on Mustangs, the intent was really to address the belief that regular cars needed "real engines" again. I love older cars, but anyone who believes that older cars performed better than newer car, class for class, is simply biased.
Yeah, most of those 1.6 turbo engines have no top end. They're all low to mid end. If you're talking something with a naturally aspirated 1.6, more likely. But how many naturally aspirated 1.6 liter engines are there? There's the Corolla, which is a 1.8, but again no real top end on Corollas. Small, high-reving engines are pretty much bygones. Civic Si is a 1.5T. Peak torque at under 2,000, peak horsepower at 5,700. That's not a peaky engine. The Civic Si for years now has made due with larger, less peaky engines before going the turbo route. You have to go back to the B16 era in the '90s. They had very little torque and peak power was in the 7,000-8,000 range depending on which version you were talking about. The K20 engine in the RSX Type S was pretty high reving, but it was basically a four cylinder Accord engine. It drove like a four cylinder Accord until you got it up over 5,500. You didn't have to rev the snot out of it. It just drove like a four cylinder Accord if you didn't. The K24 in the last Civic Si was much less radical than the standard K24. Slightly higher compression, slightly more aggressive cam profiles. You're only talking about a 200 rpm difference between peak numbers on a K24Z7 (Civic Si) than K24Z2 (base Accord).
Last edited by Malloric; 06-15-2018 at 10:58 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love it when some ricer gets brave and thinks they have something hot. Hell, even my Cadillac daily driver can smoke most of them, and has.
