Ward's Auto declares Ten Best Engines of 2009
12-08-2008, 02:04 PM
#1
Void Where Prohibited
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mineola, TX
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ward's Auto declares Ten Best Engines of 2009
Ward's Auto has released its annual list of Ten Best Engines for the new year, and our first assessment is that it's just as interesting for what isn't present as for what is. First of all, let's get the official list out of the way:
* Audi AG: 2.0L TFSI turbocharged DOHC I-4 (A4 Avant)
* BMW AG: 3.0L turbocharged DOHC I-6 (135i Coupe)
* BMW AG: 3.0L DOHC I-6 Turbodiesel (335d)
* Chrysler LLC: 5.7L Hemi OHV V-8 (Dodge Ram/Challenger R/T)
* Ford Motor Co.: 2.5L DOHC I-4 HEV (Escape Hybrid)
* General Motors Corp.: 3.6L DOHC V-6 (Cadillac CTS)
* Honda Motor Co. Ltd.: 3.5L SOHC V-6 (Accord Coupe)
* Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd.: 4.6L DOHC V-8 (Genesis)
* Toyota Motor Corp.: 3.5L DOHC V-6 (Lexus IS 350)
* Volkswagen AG: 2.0L SOHC I-4 Turbodiesel (Jetta TDI)
Take a good look. Nissan's ubiquitous VQ, which up to this point, was the only engine series that had made Ward's Ten Best ever since the list's inception in 1995, is conspicuously absent. That's a big deal. We also note a couple of turbodiesel engines, one in BMW's favored inline-six configuration and one that powers VW's Jetta TDI. Ford's updated 2.5L hybrid four cylinder is also recognized, rounding out this year's trio of green powerplants. We also note that there's only one American V8 engine, the redesigned HEMI from Chrysler. More snubs? How'd they miss the amazing powerplants that sit under the hoods of the Corvette ZR1 and the Nissan GT-R? Update: Thanks goes to our commentators, who point out that the ZR1 and GT-R are too expensive to make the list.
http://www.autoblog.com/page/3/
* Audi AG: 2.0L TFSI turbocharged DOHC I-4 (A4 Avant)
* BMW AG: 3.0L turbocharged DOHC I-6 (135i Coupe)
* BMW AG: 3.0L DOHC I-6 Turbodiesel (335d)
* Chrysler LLC: 5.7L Hemi OHV V-8 (Dodge Ram/Challenger R/T)
* Ford Motor Co.: 2.5L DOHC I-4 HEV (Escape Hybrid)
* General Motors Corp.: 3.6L DOHC V-6 (Cadillac CTS)
* Honda Motor Co. Ltd.: 3.5L SOHC V-6 (Accord Coupe)
* Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd.: 4.6L DOHC V-8 (Genesis)
* Toyota Motor Corp.: 3.5L DOHC V-6 (Lexus IS 350)
* Volkswagen AG: 2.0L SOHC I-4 Turbodiesel (Jetta TDI)
Take a good look. Nissan's ubiquitous VQ, which up to this point, was the only engine series that had made Ward's Ten Best ever since the list's inception in 1995, is conspicuously absent. That's a big deal. We also note a couple of turbodiesel engines, one in BMW's favored inline-six configuration and one that powers VW's Jetta TDI. Ford's updated 2.5L hybrid four cylinder is also recognized, rounding out this year's trio of green powerplants. We also note that there's only one American V8 engine, the redesigned HEMI from Chrysler. More snubs? How'd they miss the amazing powerplants that sit under the hoods of the Corvette ZR1 and the Nissan GT-R? Update: Thanks goes to our commentators, who point out that the ZR1 and GT-R are too expensive to make the list.
http://www.autoblog.com/page/3/
12-08-2008, 03:23 PM
#4
Void Where Prohibited
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mineola, TX
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-09-2008, 09:08 AM
#9
12-09-2008, 09:14 AM
#10
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it does. For some years, Wards gave the VQ a reputation it didn't deserve. The engine is not that good. For example, the Honda SOHC V6 is better and smoother.
12-09-2008, 09:28 AM
#11
The Prototype
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hondas J series really didn't start getting interesting till the 02 CL/TL Type S were introduced. There fine motors , to bad Honda mated them with a suck *** transmissions that would take a dump on you under WOT from going 2nd to 3rd in shifting.
My problem with the Vq when i owned my 2002 Maxima Se, it drunk oil worse than my RX-8. During the same commute everyday 110 miles round trip , I would have to use two quarts of oil every week compared to 1 quart of oil twice a month in my RX-8. The Vq was very thirsty for oil, and my engine wasn't broke, its just how Nissan designed the 3.5 liter VQ, to consume alot of oil.
Smooth, the Vq was not IMO, not as smooth as the VG. The VQ made better bottom end torque and power , but with the sacrafice of being smooth.
12-09-2008, 09:54 AM
#12
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right, but throughout the years the VQ has done a exceptional job of putting out adequate HP and Torque and not to mention has been very reliable since its beginning in the mid 90's when Nissan stopped using the silky smooth VG motor found in Z32 cars, older Maxima and Infinity J30.
Hondas J series really didn't start getting interesting till the 02 CL/TL Type S were introduced. There fine motors , to bad Honda mated them with a suck *** transmissions that would take a dump on you under WOT from going 2nd to 3rd in shifting.
My problem with the Vq when i owned my 2002 Maxima Se, it drunk oil worse than my RX-8. During the same commute everyday 110 miles round trip , I would have to use two quarts of oil every week compared to 1 quart of oil twice a month in my RX-8. The Vq was very thirsty for oil, and my engine wasn't broke, its just how Nissan designed the 3.5 liter VQ, to consume alot of oil.
Smooth, the Vq was not IMO, not as smooth as the VG. The VQ made better bottom end torque and power , but with the sacrafice of being smooth.
Hondas J series really didn't start getting interesting till the 02 CL/TL Type S were introduced. There fine motors , to bad Honda mated them with a suck *** transmissions that would take a dump on you under WOT from going 2nd to 3rd in shifting.
My problem with the Vq when i owned my 2002 Maxima Se, it drunk oil worse than my RX-8. During the same commute everyday 110 miles round trip , I would have to use two quarts of oil every week compared to 1 quart of oil twice a month in my RX-8. The Vq was very thirsty for oil, and my engine wasn't broke, its just how Nissan designed the 3.5 liter VQ, to consume alot of oil.
Smooth, the Vq was not IMO, not as smooth as the VG. The VQ made better bottom end torque and power , but with the sacrafice of being smooth.
I could not find the original technical article and I don't remember the exact change it stated. Was the block design changed? Was it something to do with counterbalancing? What were the changes going from the VG to the VQ? Do you know?
I want to shut these VQ monkeys up. Facts are facts. Allowing yourself to be manipulated by marketing and jumping on the bandwagon is just dumb.
12-09-2008, 11:03 AM
#13
The Prototype
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, you're the first person in here saying the same things I reported in another thread about Nissan reducing the complexity and cost when they went from the VG to the VQ, and the result was reduced smoothness and lower redline capability. I actually read it a couple of years ago and every time I mention it, VQ fanbois on this site try to call me out.
I could not find the original technical article and I don't remember the exact change it stated. Was the block design changed? Was it something to do with counterbalancing? What were the changes going from the VG to the VQ? Do you know?
I want to shut these VQ monkeys up. Facts are facts. Allowing yourself to be manipulated by marketing and jumping on the bandwagon is just dumb.
I could not find the original technical article and I don't remember the exact change it stated. Was the block design changed? Was it something to do with counterbalancing? What were the changes going from the VG to the VQ? Do you know?
I want to shut these VQ monkeys up. Facts are facts. Allowing yourself to be manipulated by marketing and jumping on the bandwagon is just dumb.
12-09-2008, 11:43 AM
#14
The problem is, you're mixing facts with your opinion. So lets say the VQ is rougher than the VG, so what? It makes more power, more torque, is more green, and is more economical. You maintain that it's a crappy engine because it's not as smooth though. Ridiculous.
You know what my least favourite part of the rotary engine is? it's too smooth. Smooth to a point of boredom.
The VQ is a fine engine and it shows in the success it's had.
12-09-2008, 11:48 AM
#15
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, I never said it was crappy. And I stated this explicitly in the other thread. In addition, I stated in the other thread that natural progressions in engine development can not be used to argue that the VQ is superior to the VG. If Nissan had stuck with the VG instead of saving cost and complexity by going to the VQ, what I'm saying is it is probably safe (based on what I have read) to conclude the VG with all the same developments that the VQ received over the years would make more HP by utilizing a higher redline and remaining smoother in the midst of displacement increases.
Why do I have to repeat myself with you?
Why do I have to repeat myself with you?
12-09-2008, 01:46 PM
#16
The Prototype
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well from my findings, the VQ has a "smoother" power band than the VG, where the VG operates smoother, redlines smoother, etc. So as far as a output of smoother power delivery, it would come from the VQ...i hope this makes sense.
If we had to mod the two, the hat would go off to the VG, its internals could handle up to 400-500HP, where as the VQ would need extensive modification to the internals to handle such power.
Both are good motors, but IMO and from my experience, the VQ is quote on quote harsh to me, especially in the upper rev band. Its down right nasty with the brash sound coming from the motor.
If we had to mod the two, the hat would go off to the VG, its internals could handle up to 400-500HP, where as the VQ would need extensive modification to the internals to handle such power.
Both are good motors, but IMO and from my experience, the VQ is quote on quote harsh to me, especially in the upper rev band. Its down right nasty with the brash sound coming from the motor.
12-09-2008, 04:21 PM
#18
Because I keep trying to understand you.
You talk about facts, then present none. When facts are presented to you, you say things like "the natural progression in engine development does not mean it's superior". Then you delve into the worlds of what if, and what could have been. You arguments make no sense. You like the VG better, that's all there is to this.
You talk about facts, then present none. When facts are presented to you, you say things like "the natural progression in engine development does not mean it's superior". Then you delve into the worlds of what if, and what could have been. You arguments make no sense. You like the VG better, that's all there is to this.
12-09-2008, 05:17 PM
#19
w8nkel
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dallas
Posts: 2,317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well from my findings, the VQ has a "smoother" power band than the VG, where the VG operates smoother, redlines smoother, etc. So as far as a output of smoother power delivery, it would come from the VQ...i hope this makes sense.
If we had to mod the two, the hat would go off to the VG, its internals could handle up to 400-500HP, where as the VQ would need extensive modification to the internals to handle such power.
Both are good motors, but IMO and from my experience, the VQ is quote on quote harsh to me, especially in the upper rev band. Its down right nasty with the brash sound coming from the motor.
If we had to mod the two, the hat would go off to the VG, its internals could handle up to 400-500HP, where as the VQ would need extensive modification to the internals to handle such power.
Both are good motors, but IMO and from my experience, the VQ is quote on quote harsh to me, especially in the upper rev band. Its down right nasty with the brash sound coming from the motor.
And to stay somewhat on topic, yes, this list is very interesting!
12-09-2008, 05:28 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because I keep trying to understand you.
You talk about facts, then present none. When facts are presented to you, you say things like "the natural progression in engine development does not mean it's superior". Then you delve into the worlds of what if, and what could have been. You arguments make no sense. You like the VG better, that's all there is to this.
You talk about facts, then present none. When facts are presented to you, you say things like "the natural progression in engine development does not mean it's superior". Then you delve into the worlds of what if, and what could have been. You arguments make no sense. You like the VG better, that's all there is to this.
I have indeed presented facts. What you and others want is the source, the online article. You have to get that straight first of all.
The bulk of what I have said is in 2 relatively short posts in the 370z thread. What I've said makes good sense and is simple to understand. The fact that I can't produce the online article really doesn't weaken what I say, at least not from my point of view or DailyDriver's or many others who have known about the FACTS for many years. What we've said is old news. I've been busting my ***** over the last few years trying to get VQ fanbois to listen to the facts.
Where is your factual evidence other than that the VQ has made the list for all those years in a row? Making the list has little to do with one engine being designed to be less complex in order to reduce cost which results in decreased smoothness and reduced redline capability (fact). Making the list has little to do with one engine being superior to another engine (opinion based on fact).
Last edited by Potentiated; 12-09-2008 at 05:36 PM.
12-09-2008, 05:42 PM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well from my findings, the VQ has a "smoother" power band than the VG, where the VG operates smoother, redlines smoother, etc. So as far as a output of smoother power delivery, it would come from the VQ...i hope this makes sense.
If we had to mod the two, the hat would go off to the VG, its internals could handle up to 400-500HP, where as the VQ would need extensive modification to the internals to handle such power.
Both are good motors, but IMO and from my experience, the VQ is quote on quote harsh to me, especially in the upper rev band. Its down right nasty with the brash sound coming from the motor.
If we had to mod the two, the hat would go off to the VG, its internals could handle up to 400-500HP, where as the VQ would need extensive modification to the internals to handle such power.
Both are good motors, but IMO and from my experience, the VQ is quote on quote harsh to me, especially in the upper rev band. Its down right nasty with the brash sound coming from the motor.
I'd like to comment that the VQ has received extensive cam and valve work for each iteration over the years to improve the powerband. If the VG were continued, it too would have received those improvements.
12-09-2008, 07:23 PM
#22
Registered
I think it's because they are out of the specified price range, no?
12-09-2008, 07:25 PM
#24
Registered