Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
The climb up 17 is a monster climb and hard on any auto, especially in the summer. I've always had cars that can climb it with ease, but it's not an easy climb for most. I disagree that you'd "have to get the V6". That's just american ignorance, that every car should be able to cruise at 130mph regardless of the grade. If you can make it up that grade with the 4cyl and keep the speed limit, it shouldn't have any trouble. The only real thing you'd want is a turbo for the 4cyl to harness more power and not waste fuel like the V6.
|
I climbed that about 3 years ago in early March in a Ford Edge, and its 265hp V6 was breathing pretty hard (about 70-80% throttle and around 4500 RPM). 4-cylinder SUV in summer Arizona heat must have been wide open and nearly red-lined the whole way. Sounds like less a recipe for efficiency than a recipe for short engine life.
Disagree on the V6 is a waste of fuel argument. Yes, in a small car, or at low speeds in city traffic, a 4-cyl is more efficient than a V6. But as the need for power increases, and the load on the engines increase, the efficiency gain gets smaller and you run into a point of diminishing returns. Once you're at the point of having to run the little 4-cyl almost constantly in lower gears just to cruise, you'd probably be better off efficiency wise with a V6 that can handle higher gears.
And turbocharging isn't the answer either. Small turbo engines of similar power of a larger NA engine really don't have an efficiency advantage (Maybe a little on the EPA cycle, but not really in the real world). And in a heavy load situation like the above where the turbo would be constantly spooled, a turbo 4 would probably be thirstier than a NA V6 of similar power. Turbo = lower compression ratio = lower thermodynamic efficiency.