Four-bangers on the rise, sixes and eights start to slide
.jpg)
As fuel prices continue on their upward trajectory, more and more evidence is coming to light that American drivers are making adjustments. Sales of mid-sized SUVs have completely tanked in the last few years, and now J.D. Power and Associates has compiled sales data on the relative market shares for different engine types. Since 2003, market penetration for both eight and six cylinder engines has dropped while four cylinders are on the rise, a trend likely to accelerate in the coming years.
Over the intervening years, four cylinder engines have gone from 31.1 percent to 37.9 percent of the U.S. market. Six cylinders retain the lead (for now!) with 39.8 percent while V-8s have dipped to only 20.4 percent of all installations. That trend is a big part of why GM recently chose to cancel a new premium V-8 engine program. At the Detroit Auto Show, Ford announced their EcoBoost engines that would be migrating into many of their cars in the next few years. The EcoBoost engines use reduced displacement along with direct injection and turbocharging. EcoBoost V-6s will replace V-8s while fours will replace V-6s. Similarly GM is going to downsized turbocharged fours as well as adding their second generation mild hybrid system to replace larger engines.
[Source: Winding Road]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rgseidl 11:34AM (3/28/2008)
In Europe, naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engine will be replaced by (sequentially) turbocharged threes (VW, Opel, Mahle) and twos (Fiat) with inertial compensation elements, all for the sake of improved fuel economy and reduced GHG emissions.
High fuel prices do work!
Reply
The Luigiian 3:15PM (3/28/2008)
I still think using turbochargers to improve fuel economy is silly. It doesn't work very well, and it's expensive.
How about just making the vehicle lighter and then stick in the smaller engine, without turbocharger? Do we really need four-seat cars to get to work in the morning? Hell, most people seat two to get to work in the morning, at most. Why not just eliminate the two seats for the commuter? Most families already have two or three cars, how about one of those that is really, truly fuel efficient?
Reply
MikeW 3:20PM (3/28/2008)
2.5 liters is enough for me.
I just want as many cylinders as I can get for 2.5 liters.
Come on Nissan, VQ25HR V6 + 7 speed automatic for the next base Z.
I'd much rather have that engine than the QR25 I4
Reply
Throwback 4:25PM (3/28/2008)
Making a lighter vehicle is also expensive. We expect a certain amount of room in our cars especially us Americans. To make those cars lighter means light weight materials. As for a 2 seat commuter, sounds good, unless you have to drop your kids at school in the morning.
Reply
Steve_S 9:11AM (3/31/2008)
I agree I'd be happier with a lighter car. Solves so many issues with fuel economy.
Reply
Mike Kaluza 9:11AM (4/01/2008)
Ford's EcoBoost V6 engines ? The all new 2009 F150 is V8 only NO base V6, because the V6 and the V8 get the same gas mileage. Talking about Two seaters, The 1808 lb Smart gets 40 mpg Hwy, with a 70 HP 1.0L 3cyl, The 2295 lb Toyota yaris 2dr gets 36 mpg Hwy with a 106 HP 4cyl, And the road tests say its hard to get 40 mph in the Smart, Because you have to push The go pedal down hard on the highway.
Reply
Holden Miecranc 11:52AM (3/31/2008)
I want a car that seats six, gets 50 MPG (City), is emission free, surpasses the most stringent safety standards, is stylish, does 0-60 in under 3 seconds and costs less than $15,000. I know the only reason manufacturers refuse to build these kinds of vehicles is because they're in bed with the evil oil companies.
Reply