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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,260,275 times
Reputation: 57826
We went from a 3.7 V6 210 hp to a 1.6 turbo 178 hp and being also lighter, the 1.6 drives with a lot more spunk than than the larger V6 but with about
30% better gas mileage.
Not quite the same as your situation, but to answer the question posed in your title, I just traded in a 2012 Jaguar with a 5.0 V8 and 385hp for a 2014 3.0 supercharged V6 with 340hp and haven't really noticed any change. That may also be a result of the V6 having an 8-speed tranny vs. the V8's 6-speed.
can you guys make the regression to a 4 cyclinder or a turbocharged 4 or do you need to stay at the 6.
A turbo 4 isn't necessarily a step down in power. My 2.0L turbo 4 has more horsepower than that, and more notably, gobs more low-end torque. There are turbo 4s on the market these days putting out as much as 350HP bone-stock.
However, going from a V6 to a naturally aspirated 4-cylinder will almost certainly mean a step down in power, and most notably, torque. It's been 8 years since I owned a car with a N/A 4-cylinder, and I don't intend to do it again any time soon unless maybe it's in a very light sports car. But seeing how your LHS is kind of a boat and only has a 4-speed transmission, the cars you seem to be looking at (Accord, Camry, etc.) may well perform just as well with a 4-cylinder as your LHS does with a V6.
can you guys make the regression to a 4 cyclinder or a turbocharged 4 or do you need to stay at the 6.
Chances are you'll be pleasantly surprised by a modern car with a turbocharged four as it will likely perform better than what you're getting with that naturally aspirated V6.
It takes a pretty good power deficiency to really notice a lack of horsepower and torque, ie the "seat of the pants" feeling. Probably about 30 hp, 30 torque, realistically, is about the minimum to notice a difference on your average sedan type car, unless you're timing with a stopwatch or something.
Also look at percentage of power. Going from 200hp to 180 (10% decrease) isn't going to be that noticeable, but to 160? You'd definitely notice that.
Just taking one number (whether it be HP or torque) doesn't tell the whole picture. 100 HP accelerating a 2,000 lb car should, all else being equal, be just as fast as 200 HP accelerating a 4,000 lb car.
Of course, there are many other variables, too. Traction, ærodynamics, gear ratios, driver skill, &c. that can make one car faster than another. HP is only one of those variables.
In other words, a downgrade in HP can be worth it if the improvement in the other variables makes up for it.
How often are you using 100% of that 220 HP? Maybe 0.1% of your driving time?
I went from a v8 to a V6 about 10 years ago. 5 years ago I went from a v6 to an I4. I don't really miss the power (partly because I have grown up quite a bit) but I love the gas mileage of the 4 cylinder.
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.
