[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

I never met many vehicles that could match my AWD turbo for power and efficiency at the same time.

I still disagree on the fuel efficiency of a turbo. Adding a turbo forces a reduction in compression ratio, which lowers efficiency. Taking a 4-cylinder and adding a turbo will reduce its economy compared to the original NA 4-cylinder. And compared to a NA engine of similar power, there is generally not much if any real world gain.

You say not much can match your combo of efficiency and power. You say you're at about 280-300hp...Just curious what your mileage numbers are. For comparison, a 3.6L V6 Camaro, which is a bigger car, is good for low 30s on the highway. My 412hp V8 does about 28-29 mpg on the interstate.

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

And of course, if you're dealing with high altitude(Flagstaff, White Mountains, Colorado, etc)...well, lets just agree that a turbo makes a huge amount of sense

I will agree with you there. FI shines best at high altitude.

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

My big V8 camaro on the other hand doesn't do so well on that climb.

Understood, but you are kinda comparing apples to oranges. The Camaro is heavier, so it takes more move it up the hill. It also runs at about 1800-1900 RPM at 75 in 6th, where as you indicate your turbo runs at 2800-3000RPM. That is a big difference.

Also, the way I look at it, 13 psi of boost at that altitude effectively makes your engine at least a 4.0L, if you really think about it. Turbocharging is just a special form of displacement. The engine may measure 2.0L, but at that level of boost, you are forcing ~4L of air through it.

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

I had a friend a few months back drive a rental Focus up from Phoenix, she said it was plenty adequate for getting up that hill.

I never said those cars were underpowered. (And to cover all my bases, I never said a turboed 4 couldn't make serious power). I'm talking about a 3700 lb SUV. The NA 4-cylinders you mention do just fine moving those small, light cars. In a larger SUV, not so much.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Another big difference between cars of today & those of 10 or 20 years ago is that 6 speed transmissions are pretty much the norm these days. By having more gear options, the engine can stay in its optimal RPM range better for the current situation.

Those transmissions can be a two edged sword, though. With car makers clawing for CAFE averages, too many of them try to keep the car in a super tall overdrives as slow as possible, and up to as heavy of a load as possible. So in theory, you can stay in your power band better, but in practice, they end up lugging them even slower in most normal driving situations despite having less torque down there than the larger engines they are replacing. To actually get a downshift, you really have to step down on the gas, so when the downshifts finally do occur, the power comes on suddenly, not smoothly. As a driver, I find this very irritating.

Admittedly, this is more a failure of transmission programming than the engines. Also, my main experience with 6-speed autos is with Ford, since that is what my family has been buying lately. Ford, at least, has done a very poor job of making their engines and transmissions get along. Maybe GM and others have done better, and it's not as big of problem as I think.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Because when you were driving them, chances are you weren't using their 300 hp. Same with the 300 horse V8s from the late 90s. You were probably more likely to encounter their mid-range, moderate to heavy throttle power

That's kinda the point I was trying to make. Horsepower is for racing. For just driving around normally on public roads, what you really need is torque. They can keep their 170 hp Ecotec. I'd rather have my Alero's 170 hp 3.4L. Its power curve is flatter, wider, and lower in the rev range, which is exactly what I'm looking for in a daily driver. I don't run at 7000RPM just driving from point A to B, so why would I want an engine that only makes power there?

A great example....A couple of months ago, my mother was looking to replace her Ford Edge, originally with another Edge. I recommended a VW wagon diesel, and ultimately, she took my advice. Now, having had some good seat time driving both, I can tell you that 140hp VW is much better. The Edge had no torque and always wanted to run below 2000 RPM anyway. Despite having 125 more horsepower than the VW, it felt like a total dog, whereas the VW feels surprisingly athletic.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

So its pretty clear to me that the overwhelming majority of buyers are just fine with their underpowered CUVs.

Just because it is selling doesn't necessarily make it a good vehicle. You know how many Mustang IIs Ford sold, or how many Vegas GM sold? I'm certainly not comparing those cars to the Equinox, just making a point.

The average "motorist" is not a "driver" if that makes sense. I'm looking at it strictly from the point of view of someone who really enjoys driving, and is not just interested in transportation.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

If things were the other way around, sports cars would be more efficient than sub compacts. And I'm not even talking about say a Z06 vs a Corolla. How about a Mazda 2 vs Miata?

Mazda 2 and Miata are more different than you think. The Miata is actually heavier, and probably less aerodynamic. Miata's also have crazy low gearing, certainly has higher rolling resistance tires, and an engine with about 60% more power than a Mazda 2.

I'm not sure if that was at me or a different post, but I'm not saying that smaller displacement isn't more efficient than large displacement. However, the efficiency benefit of small engine vs. large engine is larger the smaller the car, and diminishes as the vehicle gets larger, and the need for power increases. Eventually, there is a point of diminishing returns where the power you give up no longer nets enough of an efficiency improvement to be worth it.