I will take that old, tried and true naturally aspirated, over engineered 3.5 l V6 engine (like Toyota 2GR-FE for example) with its port injection, bulletproof reliability, smoothness and quietness over all those tiny but loud turbocharged direct injection engines with their carbon deposits and oil consumption any time.
According to Honda, oil dilution and carbon build-up is a feature of their direct injection turbo engines. You just have to change your oil every 5000km and have the intake manifold clamed every 30,000km. So all the fuel you save will be spent on additional servicing. Honda wins.
@@abaj006 I purchased a 2006 VW GLI 2.0 Turbo with 60 K miles and after 160 K miles, I have had zero carbon intake issues. I do change my oil every 5,000 miles. Still getting 28 mpg highway, 22 mpg city. I do drive aggressively, as I have been told it helps with carbon build up.
@@jefferysurratt5650 You are not quite there yet. I had a 2010 Tiguan. Loved the engine until issues came up. First, max 207 ft-lb torque at mere 2200 rpm was awesome. Offline acceleration was excellent, especially for a SUV. Really it was a tall GTI. @ 80k miles engine light came on, carbon built up. $800 dollar for a clean up job. I just accepted as maintenance, as I still loved the car. Later, engine light lit up again, lack turbo boost. Replaced blow valve, solve it for a while, then again. Leak in turbo again. Turbo replacement recommended $2200. At 130k, i felt that’s it for the engine. In China where mechanic services are cheap, and most mechanics are well trained on VW; this Tiguan could’ve lived for at least another 5-10 years, but in the States; mechanics are not only lazy, but also crooked mostly. It’s just better option to buy a new car than paying their mortgage.
that's a Buick. originally the 231ci and then they shifted to metric nomenclature ( 3.8L or 4.1L and subsequently the 3800 ). as such, it's related to the Rover 3.5L and 4.6L, which an Aussie might find useful to know.
Having lived decades with inline 4s and V6s, I would prefer a V6 with displacement any day any time in terms of smoothness and the curve of power delivery over the current trend of turboing lawnmower engines.
@@viliusr.8792 I would sincerely disagree with that. Many of the best 6 cylinder engines are V6s, like the GM 3800 which is considered indestructible; the Toyota GR, the Nissan VQ and the Honda J series. Racing engines prefer Vs for compactness and a short tight crankshaft for extremely high revolutions, hence you see V6s in Formula One. Inline sixes are not used on extreme high revving applications due to the torsional twist of a long crankshaft.
I have a 3.5 VQ engine in my 2002 Maxima. Has been a great engine. Still amazes me with how much power it has. It’s not bad down low, but it does love to rev to really get down the road! 180,000 miles… paint is shot, leather is torn, no modern gizmos… but I love it!
@@wheely90 go speak to a taxi driver one day and they'll tell you they often spin post 1,000,000kms without opening it up. I would install one in my 80s courier but it don't fit..
I own a 2010 Kluger KX-S (3.5 V6 - 9.2 BMEP) and a 2010 Mercedes E250 CGI (1.8 I4 Turbo - 15.2 BMEP) and I now which one will last longer. I am all for advancements in technology, but complexity just brings problems. Kluger does without high pressure fuel pump, turbo, direct injectors etc and does the job perfectly fine without any strain. If I wanted to, I could use E10 in Kluger, but E250 requires premuim petrol. Keep it simple and reliable. The Toyota recipe!
My dad had a VP commodore V6 , 340K km , on dual fuel, engine oil went in golden, came out the same after 5000kms. He spent only $425 on it in repairs over 20 years....till mum wrote it off!
They were solid except for the intake manifold gasket problems. Also the plastic 90° heater hose pipe that connects to the head (just change to steel When it breaks) and it's all good.
If you run it mainly on LPG, the oil will stay clean because there are not many contaminents in LPG, i had a LPG dedicated 4.2 V8 in my HX 1 Tonne ute. It ended up @ 973,000 klm, it was still running but need an un interupted run @ hills :( @@georgekem
Port injection engines are so much quieter than direct injected. I have a 2011 Mercedes V6 M272 engine and when Mercedes upgrated to direct injection it did bump up the HP from 268 to 302. However they lost thir quietness and in addtion....port injection can keep the valves cleaner longer. Both have plus and minuses.
So are Nissan's VQ35 engines, the Mitsubishi 6G72, and the legendary Buick 3800 V6. The current crop of DOHC multivalve 3.3, 3.5 and 3.6 liter V6s used by Ford, GM and Chrysler, Ecotec, Ecoboost and Pentastar are not so bad too.
Can't agree John. Having limited experience compared to many, I've driven a few enough to know that turbo 4's suck. My driving style is mostly gentle without being tardy, with few accelerator excursions past 1/2 throttle. Experiencing mostly the I4T in BMW 330i & Mazda CX-5 2.5T, but several loan cars of the small sedan/hatch nature. Most have trick new transmissions and go like stink, relatively, when pushed hard. But none of those engine are as nice drive as V6 mitsi 6g74 3.5,, the 3.5 V6 200kW Toyota rav4 or the newer VQ35 V6 on the Pathfinder r52 (which we own currently - yes, it ticked more boxes than anything else). These engines are more responsive at low revs and throttle input, seem to pull easily without surging at low throttle inputs, and with all these I can match or better the rated fuel economy. I can't get within +1L/100 of the turbos, and generally much worse. But it's the turbo spooling up and down on light throttle that is most annoying. Try to maintain a speed up a hill that requires a bit more throttle, then the turbo spools up and next you're doing 20 over with no additional input. Drop the throttle a little to compensate, and your 10km under again... The turbo fuel economy is a fallacy. When pushed normally, they use easily as much as NA cars. I'm convinced most of the fuel economy bonuses are coming from the trick new gearboxes that are lightyears ahead of a decade or so ago. Stick a spanking new 8sp/10sp behind an "old" V6 and I'm betting real world tests would lean to V6 way compared to I4T.
@@jamesrichardson645 yeah, gearbox technology is winning! Why a well driven manual normally came out in front too, until they stopped developing them sometime last century... And yeah all the i4T I've driven recently have been stock. Not tuned at all which makes many differences. The fuel economy of the stock ones have been horrible (relatively) on anything except the ideal 80km zones, of which I've read makes up the bulk of the regulation test criteria. For eg. Did about a regular route of 300km (mixed 80kmh, 100kmh and a couple of small towns) the other day in a 3cyl 1L Turbo loan car. Got about 6.9L/100 according to it's trip meter. For comparison. My old 3.5v6 magna would do that trip about 7.5l/100, the old pulsar 1.6L NA about 6L or less, the np300 Navara i4T about 9 (so far from it's extra-ubran rating) the behemoth Pathfinder V6 about 8L/100. Absolutely no benefit having the pint sized 3cyl...
I have a V6 Merc CLK which I purchased 16 years and it is bullet proof, easy to service, cheap to run with all the power I need. 250K on the clock and runs like new. I very much doubt a turbo 4 would have served me so well over that time.
My one daughter has got a vw 1.2 turbo Polo at 150 000 km using oil. My Hyundai Getz with similar km using no oil at all and is known for getting 300 000 km on a engine. Turbo work well ,, but don't last and start using oil when the km start getting high.
My 2006 Toyota Kluger is emphatically GOOD. Okay, it's only got 150,000kms but it's only let me down once - alternator. It has loads of acceleration, carries seven (five adults, plus two littlies in the dickie seat), has air-con like a fridge, runs quiet as a Rolls, holds the road due to constant 4WD, and is just a comfy, well-made car. Bought in 2008 with only 30,000 kms, it is by far the longest I have ever had a car. Previous cars for a few months to two years. If the engine blows up or transmission explodes, I'll get something else. Until then, happy Klugering for me.
Hi John, thanks for another great video - very helpful and interesting, but you didn't mention reliability. Aren't the older V6 designs generally going to have better reliability/longevity than more modern 4 cylinder engines which have turbos generating more pressure and heat etc?
V6's never made much sense to me compared to I6's, an inline six has half the heads, camshafts and exhaust manifolds and is inherently balanced as an engine and far easier to work on, the only advantage i can think of for v6's is that they can fit better in fwd cars and may be a bit lighter.
I6 has more complex heads. Its incredibly intensive machining work on single part and camshafts are very long, engine itself is very long. Working on it similarily intesive, its kust that in V6 its split. Also say hello to H6 and shush about balance, because H6 is even better balanced shorter and lower in the car. Legacy/Liberty 3.0R Spec B is superior out of all these. Also main crux of his video is that na engine is not as powerful as turbo which is a moot point. Turbo the 6 cylinder snd you get better BMEP than a 4 banger. New Nissan Z has 15.5 BMEP out of 3.0L turbo.
I'm on my third Toyota V6, I used to think of them the same way as Remy, having started with the 3VZ-FE, then moving to the 5VZ-FE, they really needed to be worked to give their best. I assumed it was just the way V6's were. However, I now have the 1GR-FE, and it has a brilliant torque curve, coming in at low revs and staying almost flat through the whole rev range.
I have 2 new 1GR-FE 4Runners and we love them. We live at 6800 ft. I had a Tacoma with the 2GR-FKS and it was gutless compared to the 4.0. I got rid of the Truck solely because of this. 2k Rpm just running around not in a hurry and it’s brilliant.
Blah blah V6 compact,punchy,reasonable economy,maintained and used properly.A good design is the key,some are good some aren't,forget all the techno babble this guy endlessly spouts.
Hi John , always a big fan of your videos . Just a tiny comment regarding Mazdas 2.5T 4cyl, (I own one). It’s 170kw with 91, and 186kw with 95/98octane. Been driving it for nearly six years and the torque is always enough for such a big car (cx9). So this engine is all about low end torque vs power that like u mentioned no one bothers reviving.
In actual daily driving I tend to find 4 cylinders to be high reving and loud. Whereas my cars, v6s, drive in the low end of their RPM range and don't have the noise / vibration that I'd get with a flat 4 for whatever reason. So I really hope I can get another v6 in 10 years. If I can't maybe I'll look for a v8.
Modern turbo fours with direct injection don’t need big revs. My daily is an FG Mk2 Ecoboost Falcon with the 2.0L Ecoboost engine and it is not high revving unless I floor it. In normal traffic flow, it stays under 3000rpm during acceleration and cruises at around 1200-1500rpm most of the time.
Vibration with a flat four? they have perfect primary balance with only a minor rocking couple. You can balance a nickle on edge on a Subarus hood. My Subaru flat six idles like an electric motor and accelerates like a turbine.
As long as you changed the cambelt and tensioners regularly the Alfa V6 Busso was rock solid, rarely suffering from crank failure or head gasket failure. 2.5 V6s always lack torque but at 3 or 3.2 litres the Alfa V6 was excellent. The 12 valve was arguably the nicer drive, but the 24 Valve was superb between 4500 and 6500 rpm, and just wanted more throttle no matter how hard you drove it. There has been nothing quite like it unless you buy a supercar.
Straight 6 has more pulling power/ torque at lower rpm than a V6.V6 rely more on hi rpm for power/torque.Why 18 wheelers use straight 6 cyl diesel engine
@@enriqueoliva6988 No reason at all why a V6 can't make plenty of low down torque. The characteristics of any engine are defined by head design, porting, bore & stroke, and camshaft. The British Essex V6 is a fine example of a low speed torque monster. BMW make some straight sixes with power and tourque bands at high speeds. 18 wheelers have almost universally straight six diesels is down to production costs, and they are designed to be easily maintained to make interplanetary mileage. No need to make a compact engine to fit into a small engine bay.
I own Ford Sapphire GLX with 3 litre V6. British Essex uprated V6. Big torque on lower rev. Brilliant motor. Sounds great. Many other V6s can't match the torque in low rev against British Essex V6
Well, there's a shock. Turbo engines outperform normally aspirated. Agree they burn brighter but certainly don't last longer. My new RX350 pulls very well from low revs. In fact not far off the Turbo Diesel Euro motor I replaced it with. The Lexus does like to rev but power delivery is strong all the way up the rev range. I will still buy a normally aspirated V6 over a tinnie Turbo any day. It will still be running in 200k unlike most Euro Turbo powered crap.
My 2.0 turbo wrx was great for top end power but I hated the turbo lag and it guzzled premium. My 3.5 V6 Camry lacked just a little bit at the low end and almost used as much fuel as a V8. Last 5 years I've been driving a V8 Holden Calais wagon with direct injection LPG. Absolutely love the corvette sound when exhaust valves are open and a rear wheel drive V8 is just a lot of fun. It's a torque monster, can tow a mountain, rips away from others at the lights without even going over 2000rpm, top end puts out 300KW and I still use around 10 litres per 100Km like the Camry on highways but LPG is 1/2 the price of petrol. I love how LPG burns so clean, the oil looks fresh even at 15,000KM service intervals. One more thing, this car has almost double in value since I bought it, feels good driving an appreciating asset.
Hey John I'm sure everything you mentioned is technically dead on the money however perhaps it's one of those situations where the physics written down on paper add up perfectly but when applied to the everyday practical drivability and pleasure derived from driving the vehicle it doesn't stack up emotionally. I have a 3.5 Aurion which I bought new its got 225,000 ks on it never missed a beat. Some years ago whilst in the UK I bought a new Audi A4 1.8 turbo sport. At the time it was the most refined and fulfilling car I had ever owned, but no word of a lie the Aurion gives me more driving pleasure. I am a very reasonable driver, not a rev head and there's just something about a large engine that feels so smooth, quiet and muscular. I guess its a bit like comparing a Bentley with a Ferrari there just a different animal but both lovely machines.
I think in comparing, the flat roads can give you a similar experience in both albeit a smoother one in the V6 but where it is really nerve-wracking to drive the little inline 4 is in a series of hills on a highway. You have no choice but downshift again and again to get up hills in the 4 while the V6 usually will not have to. So it will he louder and much more nervous highway trip in that 4. It will be like rooting for the "little train that could" again and again ad nauseum!
Had a Toyota V6 camry in manual went really well and just sipped the fuel. Similarly my old 3.8lt V6 in the Mitsubishi 380 was brilliant to drive, smooth, quiet and very good on fuel
The V6 engine in our 2019 KIA Sorento is 3.3L direct injection that produces 290 hp at 6,400 rpm and 252 lb.-ft. of torque at 5,200 rpm. We've enjoyed 40,000+ trouble-free miles in most Arizona-California driving.
@@barbecuetechtips6024 Now 55,000 miles and still smilin'. KIA & Hyundai cars are covered by such a fabulous warranty: It's even better that, in our case at least, the cars have been such delights to operate.
Respectively disagree. I’ve seen high miles on many small engines, Honda Goldwing 1.8L flat 6 that had done 500,000 miles, yes miles and was running perfectly. Also it’s common to see the VFR750/800s do 150+ thousand miles, that bike has a singing V4 spinning up to 12,500 rpm red line and hums along at 100km/hr doing 5000rpm. The other day I took an Uber, a small Hyundai rocked up with 400,000kms on the clock and the engine was quiet!
Had an ex cab with 1.4mil ks Ford eb sedan on LPG at the time a full tank cost 25 bucks and got me to work for the week, was a slug but fuck it was reliable
I've been more than impressed by the old folks Ford Ecoboost 2.0 (17 on the Cadogan scale :) ) vs my Ford 6.2 V8 in my F-250 (8.05 on the Cadogan) scale. The problem is that the little turbo 4 simply isn't capable of standing up to the long term physical demand of running a working heavy duty pickup so Ford sacrificed efficiency for long term durability under heavy usage (400+K mile life expectancy for the engine). I agree that too many engines out there are antiquated zombies but sometimes there's more to the equation to retain a less efficient but far physically stronger engine.
@@vburke1 Ok. It helps your temperatures are not too frigid. In Norway they like electrics because it can take 20 minutes to warm up an engine or it never even warms up. 1/2 million on a V8 is very good. Thats Toyota-Lexus territory there. The most miles I had were 330k miles in 1.8 turbo VW and it still had compression but burned oil. I was timely on oil changes but the VW sprung weird leaks out of nowhere or maybe built up crankcase pressure not properly reduced via PCV so a few times it ran low. I started it many times in frigid conditions. Always Motul oil. Iron block. I am hoping I can take my Honda to high miles. The direct injection is just an issue making me change oil faster. So far 100k miles and perfect power. Cheers
The major issue with scalability v's RPM is generally maximum piston sliding speed with piston / liner lubrication stability beaking down faster than the centrufugal and inertia force limit. In marine diesel engine practice, the trunk engine design is abandoned for a crosshead design (think steam locomotive pistons here) which allows stroke to bore ratios of up to 3:1 before the thermodynamic benefits of lowering the blowdown pressure (exhaust pressure) are reduced to the practical limit. In my experience as a seagoing engineer with engines of 900mm bore and 2.5m stroke, I'm firmly of the opinion that an engine that does more than 100 RPM is just plain unnatural.
a friend I met on phone studied marine at Maine Maritime and he told me about these engines. He said there these big V16's and also the newest being 3 stories tall and less cylinders and pretty slow rotation. I was amazed.
Hi John I have been telling people for years just one fact that V6 engines are the worst for being unbalanced unlike a i4 and i6 are naturally balanced except i4 isn't naturally balanced but can be easily refined without counter balancing shafts but you said it wayyy more in depth but I have retired from the automotive industry and since then moved to IT but I understand exactly what you are saying and it is very true
Id happily have a v6 petrol Toyota prado over a 4 cyl diesel turbo. Sure it may drink more but maintenance of the diesel cost shit loads more than a petrol
As an American I'm offended that you mentioned we like large engines. I've got a couple cars with the little 5.0 v8 in it, and my pickup gets by with an 8.1L v8. He'll my wife's little puddle jumper has an Itty bitty 2.5L 4 cyl. Based on that who says we don't buy small engines in cars.
The terrible Toyota V6 engine in my 2011 Avalon continues to run perfectly after 267,000 miles. Performance remains completely satisfactory on the American highways where I drive. My terrible V6 has required very little maintenance. If my terrible engine hangs in for another 100,000 miles I'll not be surprised.
Out of curiosity I’ve applied your formula to a typical version of the fabled Merlin 27L V12, both with and without the blower, at its peak power RPM of 3000 and it’s pretty good! The power output ranges from around 962Kw to 1178kw.
Mercedes Benz M112 ,,,2.4l to 3.7l V6's from the late 90's to 2000's were and still are great engines. Very efficient , low maintenance and extremely reliable. All alloy , three valves ,two spark plugs per cyclinder. Single overhead cams , roller rockers and a strong timing chain , one of the best designs ever.
Why rev the guts out of a donk just to get a bit extra grunt.Happy with my V6 Commondore 2013 that now got nearly 240k on dial yet will still happily cruise at hiway speed at less then 2000 rpm and still get 900km to a tank with excellent oil consumption.Short engine life in many turbos show that nothing free and those few extra kw going to wear the engine out quicker then a non turbo one so tell me which technology better for power and long life.May be old fashioned but prefer the older style v6 as more reliable even if not as efficient.
a friend who was a senior engineer for a well known manufactuer hated v6s because of the three cylinders per bank generarting imbalance in the firing cycle
I think the problem was when manufactures needed to "improve" the L/100 figures of 6 cylinder engines they decreased the size so that improved the highway efficiency, and then put quad cam heads on them so they could rev to infinity and get the "on paper" power figures they needed to make the engine sound competitive on paper. I definitely preferred the single cam sixes of 30 years ago for every day drivability over anything modern; they were built for real world situations instead of needing to meet L/100 demands on paper. In saying that the EF Falcon 4.0L would get 7.8L/100 on the highway if driven sensibly.
John touched on that a bit regarding Murica, and Murican's. The Aussie bogan element is not far removed from the Murican love for big engines. Along with the uneducated idea that small 4's work too hard in big cars, so we (yes, I include myself) have tended to look more favourably on the 6 cylinder option. Car makers are in the business of making money.
We always get the leftovers we one of the smallest markets in the world the same reason Subaru stopped making the brumby Ute oorstailiah was the only place they sold in any numbers sadly
@@brettpowter6010 you guys are awesome!!! I just wish I could still buy Old Australia Stout for drinking in the west Texas outback. My favorite beer ever!
I know an exemption, the GM 4.3L V6, one took me for 1/4 million+ miles w/o ever having opened it for any repairs. I hauled a 19ft camper in the mountains w/it so it got well used. BTW, the TH700R4 trany also made it w/o a problem. I finally retired the truck.
I love my nissan elgrand V6 engine. It's a 3.5L. I believe it's the same as the nissan 350z yeah it averages about 12L per 100km. Apart from fuel consumption.I have no complaints.
Thanks John. Love the mongrel engineering for us ordinary folk. We have a 20 year old 3 litre (2.95) V6 auto Peugeot and get the whole inefficiency thing. It knocks out 152Kw at 6000 so comes in a bit over 8. However, it is relatively economical (8 l/100kms,) is super smooth and delightful to drive, and has the old genuine leather upholstery that has always smelt like real leather. When we check out new cars, we come away dissatisfied. My wife is not interested in changing it anytime soon and I have come to the conclusion that we'll just keep it going until it stops, or we stop, or it is just too expensive or impossible to fix. Sometimes, there are more important things than efficiency.
Even though he got the MATH wrong ? and thus his conclusions were also wrong ? 2.5turbo........turbo is important 1 Bar of boost ( 14.7psi), from a turbo, DOUBLES the capacity of a motor ! ie it FLOWS 5.0 litres of fuel/air mixture....same as a 5.0v8..... standard turbo motors run at half a Bar ( 6-8psi) so it increases flow by 50% or turns a 2.5litre into a 3.725litre motor by flow of fuel/air thru the motor....compared to an "atmo" or " normally aspirated " motor
@@Marc_Remillard anyone who uses 'math' instead of 'maths' sorta gets ignored, because it means that you're American, and the rest of the world has stopped taking anything that comes from America seriously. Sorry, but you might want to pretend to be from somewhere else.
@@numbereightyseven and I don't care if you ignore what I was talking about....YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER BUT..... Believe his BS,I don't care what you think......you sound American.....believe what you will, ignore facts, Verry American......wanna buy a bridge ? .....looks like a coathanger....kangaroos cross it at 4pm everyday to get to Hyde Park.......
I love my V6 in my Aurion. It has great torque, and is quicker than most cars off the line. It has 215k+ on the odometer and still going great. It's economy is also very good for what it is with a combined fuel economy of around 9l/100km.
I love my Aurion 273,000km on the clock (only had to replace alternator). Heaps of torque at low revs and whilst it isn’t the quickest off the line, it glides past them very quickly; all whilst being smooth. A little slow sometimes to change down, but the torque means that’s not an issue. Mine sits at 8.4L mixed driving and today driving 1100km was sitting at 7.3L. (Normal 91 fuel)
The Prado 4 cylinders are good, many of them make it to 600+ thousand kms if maintained correctly, but agree the FJ V6 is a good engine even of its thirsty
I would answer Remy on why V6s are inherently high revving. Most V6s, not all, but most, have a short stroke crankshaft, which lends itself to high revving. At the dame time, short stroke engines tend to have large bores, which increase valve sizes and greatly expands breathing. Large valves and passages, along with short stroke, lends to lower power produced at low RPM but higher power at high RPM. This is why V6s are used for racing engines. There are long stroke V6 engines, the most notable being Honda's J series like in the Honda Pilot, Ridgeline, and Passport.
I drive a Nissan Altima 3.5 V6 here in Australia, and I love it - most other Aussies didn't buy this car for some reason and it was discontinued in this country several years ago.
Our kluger 2008 3.5L has done 500,000km gone around Australia a few times even towing a 1.5ton caravan parachute. No leaks no smoke. Seriously a wonderful engine. Uses a lot of fuel but no probs!
Enjoyed this video but I'm wondering about engine longevity. Is it a correct assumption to say the V6 will out last the turbo4 and future maintenance would be cheaper on the V6?
Depends on the V6 and the I4T - it's perfectly possible to engineer a I4T that'll last hundreds of thousands of kilometers with no issues, just like it's perfectly possible to engineer a V6 that's a boat anchor once the warranty expires. Also maintenance intervals play a huge part. But yeah, if you are looking at a really good V6 like one of the later 2GR series 3.5 litres from Toyota with direct and port injection, it'll probably well outlast any mass producted I4T.
as with all engines, maintenance is the key, the advantage of modern turbo petrol engines are that they don't need massive revs to get boost, and what boost there is is very low pressure, it's just enough to maintain torque production over a wide rev band, lets say from 2,000 to 4,500rpm right in the mid range.
@@351tgv That's true - but even low boost is going to be say, 6-8lb, which adds quite a lot of stress to the rotating assembly, head gasket and so on - not a problem if they are engineered to cope with it long term of course... but I do wonder how many corners are cut on some of the newer turbo i4's to save money, and how they will fair after 5, 10, 15 years? I doubt the manufacturers care much past the warranty period.
I've read that it's a good measure to expect great longevity if an engine produces less than 100 H.P. per 1 Liter of its displacement. For example Toyota 2GR-FE V6 3.5 L engine produces 268 H.P. or 268:3.5=77 H.P. per 1 liter. That is way less than 100 off course, hence this engine is so reliable, it always works 'underloaded' so to speak. That's why they use it on everything (with some tweaks, like direct/port injection combination 2GR-FKS) , from Toyotas like Camry, Highlander, Sienna van etc to Lexus with '350' in model name (ES350, GS350, IS350 )....I own 2017 V6 XLE Camry and it's a pleasure to drive, the engine is barely purring while pulling the car like crazy, which BTW is the lightest among all of this engine applications, which off course makes its job even easier than with any other car using it.
As far as us Americans not embracing diesels, there's a few major obstacles that have inhibited implementation and wider adoption. For one, the EPA has very strict emission regulations for diesel engines that go into anything rated for under 8500lbs GVWR (just under 4K kilos). VW's Dieselgate is still fresh in so many minds, which doesn't help either. The other reason is how taxes on diesel vs gasoline are basically the opposite of what almost everyplace else in the world has.
Thankyou for a very entertaining vid, as yours always are. I have a 2010 Audi S5 & according to your calculations my beer garden calculation for mine is 15.4. The newer version is 16.04 & they use that type of V6 in many vehicles in their range of many cars.........Or am I missing something? All the best......
We have a Toyota Kluger 360,000 ks, it's reliable, revving is fun and they go well overall, actually quite pokey off the mark and with legs in the rev range BECAUSE it is revvy... (A good mix of gearing to suit the powerband the 3.5 has) Puts commodores and falcons to shame in the real world and it's an SUV. For the price, an awesome car for long trips and daily use. Afterall it's a Kluger, not a Supra, or a stinger. I like my cars fit for purpose not a jack of all trades, so in my opinion, who cares about the rest.
@@davothegreat9990 Toyotas are generally really tough vehicles be it a bit basic, how do you think the gov fleet of tdi / turbo petrol bmw, Mercedes and vws are holding up. I'd have a kluger etc any day over a euro shitbix.
P drive on RUclips times the 2017 Kluger @ 8.8 seconds 0-100km, and the 2014 commodore sv6 @ 6.8 seconds... Not sure what you mean by "real world". If your talking refinement, I would agree the Toyota V6 is a smoother unit.
I've had 2 V-6's . First was a 3.3 Chrysler & now a 2.7 Hyundia. They've both been awesome . How do you figure they're lousy . The only engines I had that were absolutely garbage were hondas
I’ll take a normally aspirated, pushrod, understressed V8 or Inline 4, 5, or 6 cylinder any day. Simple reliable and long life. There is a reason my 1950 Ferguson 4 cylinder engined tractor is still running on the original engine. Simple design offers less opportunity to break.
I loved my 120 Prado with the V6 4L. Awesome engine. I mean, it downed the fuel like champagne at the Melbourne cup, didn't pull as well the 3.2D Pajero that has replaced it, but it is Toyota reliability. Actually - maybe it was the joy of driving a manual that I enjoyed with the Prado. Think I read somewhere that one reason they went to V6 configuration because it gave them more room for safety/crumble zone etc , where as now they are going back to inline 6 (if going a 6) as there are other advancements in safety design. Also better for hanging things off the head like turbos etc. as well as buliding modular engines so they can develop between inline 4 and inline 6 (from memory - the article i read was referring to BMW development).
My 1grfe is bullet proof and smooth. So is my 2grfks, which gets 8lt/100km on the hwy. Not bad. My previous 2lt turbo NX was a terrible engine, and not that much more fuel efficient. In the end, the driveability of the engine needs to be considered as well as the numbers.
I should mention that with my 370GT, the 7sp auto has very short gear ratios. 55kph in 1st at 7500rpm. 85kph in 2nd at 7500rpm. So it does get back it's torque disadvantage with aggressive gearing. 0-100kph in 5.3 doesn't lie. Pdrive got 5.4s.(badged as G37 coupe)
Best motor I ever had was a Toyota 5VZ-FE 3.4L v6 .......... was working perfectly when I sold it at almost a half a million kilometers!........oil stayed clean, change after change, quiet smooth and trouble free.
Just add a supercharger...fixes any V6 deficiencies easily...our JLR/Ford V6 3L AJ SC 250kw is a beatifully smooth and torquey engine. I would not go back to an overstressed rattly 4cyl turbo dpf/egr hand grenade diesel for quids.
@@andyfreeze4072 petrol has been cheaper than diesel for some time now...and diesels are more spendy to maintain esp when towing 3.5t which we do regularily. Btw..our V6 petrol uses less fuel towing 3.5t than my mates LC200s V8 diesel..17 vs 23l/100klms. So what's you're point?
@@ericjohnson6802 my diesel gets 6.5l/100km at 100km/hr, so what are you saying? Your not exactly in a position to be a pinup boy on engines, now are you. Sure we all tow 3t, everyday of the week. Like i said, pay all the tax you want.
@@andyfreeze4072 not sure what you mean re pin up boy..we have several cars here inc 3 turbo diesels plus machinery with diesels (fuel rebate applies to them) plus 2 petrol cars that do @5.5l/100klms. Cars can't tow a heavy float tho..but are good for trips to the shop etc. Still don't get you're point re tax etc...anyhow have a good day☺
So my mid 90s Mitsubishi v6 is turbo charged, but it is port injected (batch fired at that) and wasted spark and only runs .5 bar of boost. And its ghetto BMEP is 14.98 shitting on the modern Mazda with the same displacement. With the Mazdas insane compression,direct injection, variable valve timing and modern turbo chargers my dinosaur v6 would be an absolute marvel, however meeting emissions targets is where the real magic happens and in that respect modern engines are amazing.
I do love the vq37 engine in my 370GT. Probably one of the few good NA V6 engines out there. I love that it's peak power is at 7000rpm. It's fun to drive around ringing it out to the 7500rpm rev limit. It's midrange is still decent. Obviously the vq37 engine probably doesn't suit most people's driving style
I am 78 years old and I have bought many cars in my life. The best engine I have ever owned is the 3.6 litre V6 in my current vehicle. It is a 2016 Holden Commodore VF SSV6. If this is the worst there is, I still consider myself fortunate.
@@AutoExpertJC I think that your mother might have been frightened at your birth by a V6. Please reveal what make and model she was conveyed in to the maternity hospital?
Holden really nailed it with the VF Graeme. Ive owned quite a few V6 commodores and cant say the eco-tech or early alloy-techs were very good at all. I own a 2017 VF (and love it!) so I wont be too rude, as it will be listening and go poopy in it pants to get me back.
@@joshlegg8600 Before I bought my two Commodores, firstly a VE 2006 and then the 2016 VF previously mentioned, I had a Ford Fairlane 98 5 litre V8. I loved that too, but it liked a lot more food to eat. I consider the onset of the V6 configuration to be the perfect engine between the V8 and four cylinders. It is still smoother than any four and the later engine in the VF was the best ever.
I drove a new V6 FWD Santa Fe as a courtesy car. It definitely has power at lower rpm. But it really should be an AWD. The wheels just loose traction too easily on dry road. My last 3 cars have been diesel... There is no way I'd want a car averaging 12-14 litres on fuel around town. I drove it nicely and the best I got was 12 litres. The perception that because it's a bigger engine it will last longer isn't valid. There are heaps of high mileage 4 cylinder petrols on our roads that just keep on going.
V6 are generally smoother, last longer, and require less maintenance than a turbo, direct injection, inline 4. But they are less efficient. Best engines are the inline 6.
I am sure you have simplified for the youTube audience The scalability of engines are generally based on bearing/journal speed first, piston speed second. Comparing Naturally Aspirated to Supercharged (including Turbo) is moot, (Simplified - all a supercharger does is trick the motor into thinking it is bigger than it is 2 litre, plus 1 bar = 4 litre, real world you take motor VE and heat expansion and pressure drop, but the basics are that inside the cylinder) Lower turbo costs and off-boost efficiency dictate the move to straight 3/4/6 cyl motors, now cheaper to produce than the older NA. Direct Injection has no effect on peak power, it does effect efficiency, especially ultra=lean knock control. Most 4 valve production engines (before supercharging) cap out at about early-90's ft/lbs per litre (10% more than a 2 valve) - it has been the same since the 60's - where you make it is up to you, 4 valves will usually rev high because they can, the supercharger can change the dynamic of that delivery, but the physics are the same
"Direct Injection has no effect on peak power, it does effect efficiency" The second part of your statement appears to negate the first part. DI most def DOES increase power, because efficiency is improved. Because the fuel is direct injected, latent heat of vaporisation is optimised, compression or boost can increase, and ignition timing can be bumped closer to MBT. Ever wondered how motors these days are running 10.5:1 compression AND a turbo? How does Mazda get away with 13:1 compression and running on 91 RON? Direct Injection! DI is a champ with ultra lean, but not because of knock control. DI can inject multiple discreet charges. For instance, the main body of the fuel charge on compression stroke and then the remaining 5 or 10 % right near spark time. Take a look at a Mazda Skyactiv piston to see the combustion bowl in the piston where the rich fuel charge is admitted just prior to ignition, which then ignites the main body of lean charge. These motors run 100% CLC. And BTW, lean is not hot. The hottest temps are at stoich. Lean of stoich cools the burn, and the heads and valves - a principle well known to pilots of piston aircraft. Rich of stoich is also cool, and makes best power.
So I’m guessing you are without saying it, implying that the new 300 series land cruiser will have an old tech inferior engine Hmmm 🤔 that won’t be popular with the fan boys.
I have a 2005 Audi TT Quattro with the 3.2 L 6. It’s been bombproof. 250 naturally aspirated hp. Timing chain so no serpentine belt to mess up. And Lots of torque. Coupled with the second year Dual Shift Gearbox, that has gone 140k without the slightest issue. 16 years of daily driver ownership and its never needed any work on the engine or transmission. Just normal maintenance. And it still goes like a bat out of hell when I need it to.
I have a V6 C43 AMG and it's very impressive. My "daily" is a V6 Audi Q7 and it is amazing. The engineers should be applauded for what they accomplished. Smooth, quiet, powerful, responsive, and simply a delight as a choice to power both cars. These are two of the best powerplants I've experienced in my extensive history of car ownership. All the various calculations don't mean shit.
The 3.0 V6 in the C43 AMG is twin turbocharged... and thus has nothing to do with this video. The 3.0 V6 in the Audi Q7 is supercharged or turbo charged... and thus has nothing to do with this video. But congratulations on your "extensive history of car ownership".
@@BatCaveOz The point being equal performance to my Tesla EV and other gas powered cars. Just comparing apples to apples in terms of motive force. Evidently you're not capable of grasping that.
@@BatCaveOz... exactly...boomer muppets should be banned from making comments on any content that requires any semblance of familiarity with engine design
Do the split crank pins in V6 engines mean the crank is inherently weaker, requiring a lower torque higher revving engine than other configurations for the same power output?
Is a V8 Lesser than a "straight 8" ? Is the vr38tt Nissan( GODZILLA) lesser than the 2j or RB26dett ....no...no.... And definately not ! He is generalising so badly he made a fool of himself...."most v6's" and then referenced only "shit" motors..how about Skyline V6, jaguar Cosworth V6, ford Mustang ecoboost V6 280kw 3.7litres....makes the 2.5t look tame at 180kw and HARD ON FUEL !!
The crankpins are the surfaces that run against the big ends of the conrods. 'split' crankpins are used when the engine V-angle doesn't match the crank rotation angle needed for even firing. E.g. a V-6 should fire every 120 degrees of crankshaft rotation, but usually they have a V-angle of 60 or 90 degrees. If each pair of cylinders shared a crankpin (like in a V-8) the engine would not have an even firing order, leading to excessive vibration. The solution is to 'split' the crankpin into two halves, and offset one of them by the right amount to correct for the bank angle, e.g. a 60 degree V-6 would have 60 degree offset crank pins, 60 degrees bank plus 60 degrees offset equals 120, the correct angle for even firing.
Surely you're talking about flat-plane crank configurations versus cross-plane crank configurations? 'Split crank pins' only occur when an engine explodes!😄
In the '80s I ran diesel Citroen CX's and the 2.5. turbo intercooled engine produced 120 bhp at 3600 rpm which gave a 0-60 mph time of around 10 seconds and a top speed of 120 mph. Quite remarkable for the time.
Wife has owned two of these. 10 years in Kia Carnival V6 3.8l then into a 3.5l v6 Sorento for five years. Both cars bought new. Both engines have been rock solid- maybe they are built of rock? Granite probably. They chew gas but go and go with hardly anything spent on maintenance. Compare that with a high compression turbo charged four. You probably don't want to own one of them after five years.
A friend of mine had a turbo 4 car with dual clutch transmission, engine popped after 5 years and transmission started playing up. He got rid of the car pretty soon after that
@@RennieAsh Ford made a little 1.0l ecoboost engine. If you google ford ecoboost problems you will see the whole sad story of little engines pushed past their limits. A big engine that doesn't work hard will last.
@@tellthemborissentyou na little engines last too. They probably put too much boost on the turbo engine for the little parts to handle it for an extended period.
I'm watching out for Stellantis' new 3.0l twin turbocharged I6 that's coming to market later this year. 22.6 psi/1.5 atmosphere of boost and direct injected, it seems like it wouldn't last much beyond the warranty period.
Did John actually explain why peak power occur at higher revs in a V6 than other configurations? Whilst I pretty much understood the entirety of the video, nothing stood out as for the explanation.
He did. It's more or less an atmo vs turbo thing. Naturally aspirated engines have to rev fast to produce lots of power, turbo engines can instead add boost and achieve the same power at lower rpm.
But thats comparing apples with oranges: atmo vs turbo and atmo vs diesel. I was expecting apples vs apples: comparisons with other atmo engines - maybe inline 6 or whatever other (atmo) reasons to justify their "terribleness"? Btw why not a turbo V6?
@@wizzard5442 for sure you can have a turbo, direct injection V6 (see the Ford Ecoboost V6 for example). They're just as 'good' as a turbo I4. But if you apply those technologies to a V6 you get an engine with more power than is needed for a typical small SUV or mid size sedan, the Ecoboost V6 is found in F-150 utes and the Mustang for example.
The only logic I can generate is that smaller pistons, generally, are able to rev more easily. So really it's not that a V6 needs to rev to make power, it's that it CAN rev to make even more power than a 4 cylinder of the same displacement. Both being NAs.
Got to say I was astonished at the fuel economy my sons 04 HSV with a six speed manual. Not saying his fuel consumption is worth speaking about, but when I drove it I couldn't believe it could use so little fuel.
Hi John I have an old es300 V6 Lexus, have to say its been bulletproof and still has plenty of get up and go for a twenty year old car. Saying that, best I drive one of the new 4 cylinders to see what I am missing. Enjoy your videos 👍
That engine is pretty bulletproof, my mum had an RX300 I'm guessing with the same 1MZ-FE engine as your ES300. The engine hardly gave any issues, it was the transmission that was a pain in the ass. The engine note was rather beautiful too since all other cars our family ever had only came with 4 or 3 cylinders.
@@akmalyang5996 Hi Akmal, transmission is ok so far, the car runs like new, no rattles, no oil burning. Have meant to sell it so many times but can't part with it. I guess it will die at some stage 😃
Amen. My first car was a Gtv 3 litre V6. Throttle response was great and oh the sound. Amazing. I have been an Alfaholic ever since. Now Proud owner of a Guilia Quattrroformagio. Arguably the best twin turbo V6 on the market.
Some of these highly engineered 4 pots seem great. However, in practice when I have been in the market for highway driving car, I always gravitated to the V8 Holdens because its a lot of car, comfortable, and I could always get excellent deals and they had dealer support. Even now that Holden is officially dead, there is GM support, and its still going ok, and most of the parts are available...the only thing starting to get a bit tricky is the remotes. The only dealer support in my area was Toyota, Nissan, Isuzu Ute, Holden, Merc, and Chrysler Jeep. That was it (to my knowledge). So maybe Subaru, Mazda, Ford, Kia/Hyundai etc couldve brought something really good out, but youd have to run the risk of a computer issue and needing it towed 600km or more to one of their dealers. Thats not an option for my cars and needing them for work. Back in the 20 teens, I drove aussie made 4 pot camrys a few times, and the fuel consumption was similar to the holden SV6, it revved its tits off, and it wasnt nice to drive. It was a 6.5/10 car. The 6.2L LS3 redline with brembos, of which I own two, is pretty much the sweet spot. Costs more, but had the correct balance of power and braking for frequent highway driving, overtaking, and dealing with cows and roos. When they were in production i could get near new ones for ~$55k...now as 2nd hand private cars with sub 50,000km they go for 70k+, and it seems like Stinger is already getting cancelled, and I never seriously considered it because there is no service/dealer support in my area...on their website it says to contact the dealer like 1000km away. Needless to say high population northern hemisphere countries tend to have little clue about distances. If its Sydney they understand, the rest of the country may as well not exist.
when i was looking for a replacement for my old Toyota (1973) there were a lot of petrol V6 utes for sale. The dealer said that a lot of young guys purchased them because of the V6 but they had to sell them because they couldn't afford the petrol. I did buy a Mazda B2600.
One thing you didn’t touch on was reliability. Ye olde V6, being somewhat simpler than a 4T and under less stress may be more likely to clock up the kms. Currently have a 2007 v6 Tarago with 250k and feel like it still has a lot of life left (with regular oil changes!) so I do have some bias though ;). And yes, the engine packaging is a nightmare in these so any repairs require you to be made out of rubber…
The Toyota 2GR engine is amazingly reliable, and can be tuned upwards of 800HP with a turbo. It's somewhat popular in the US, not so much here in Australia though.
One of the best engines Mercedes ever made was the 3.2l V6 M112...from around the year 2000 , All alloy ,SOHC, 3 valves per cylinder , widely recognised as 'bullet proof' reliability , economical and 160Kw/ 310 Nm. Smooth and quiet.
I'm a little confused. The CVT in my 2015 Honda Fit (Jazz) convinces the car's little 4-banger ICE to rev up very quickly 6400 to 6600 rpms every time I decide to merge the vehicle onto a crowded limited access highway, or pass a truck on such a highway. 6600 is where its max power is. According to John that is a about the same high rpm that a high-revving V6 needs to rev to, in order to produce power when power is needed. According to John 4-bangers produce the same power as a V6, but at lower rpm? So I'm a little confused. So the specs and the operation of my engine don't seem to conform to what John was saying here. By the way, the Fit's (Jazz's) spec for max rpm is 6800. North American version of the Jazz (Fit) has only one engine available. It has 1.5 liters of displacement, injects injects gasoline (petrol) directly into each cylinder, compression ratio of 11.5 /1, produces 130 horse power at 6600 rpm - and I can see that it requires that high rpm to get merging power, passing power. Since the CVT gets the engine up to that high rpm very quickly, the lack of power at lower rpms doesn't seem to be much of a disability.
Let's not forget that inline engines are inherently smoother than V engines since they have virtually no reciprocating mass and rotational plane imbalances.
I get that the math says V6s are crap BUT all the ones I've owned have performed great. Even the maliligned GM 2.8 did well in my truck, even with massive overloads in the bed. It did so well that later after the truck got rear ended at a stoplight I moved the whole drive train into a 1979 MGB (Along with most of the wiring harness since Lucas electrics is just another name for 'Made by Satan' and needed to GO AWAY) and drove that car for almost 200K. Three other V6s in different mfg vehicles and they did the job without complaints. Actually, the Toyota was outstanding.
Had a Holden Commodore 3.6 L Buick engine , would last for 400,000 K's at least. Why do we have this attraction to build "Racing engines "to put in family engines for cars. Reliability and long life should be the criteria for family cars.
The Buick v6 is a 3.8L, they have their issues and are hard to diagnose. But a very good unit I've had three. The GM 3.6 is a great engine with bad timing chains.
I will take that old, tried and true naturally aspirated, over engineered 3.5 l V6 engine (like Toyota 2GR-FE for example) with its port injection, bulletproof reliability, smoothness and quietness over all those tiny but loud turbocharged direct injection engines with their carbon deposits and oil consumption any time.
Listen to any Evora reviews to hear how good the 2GR-FE can sound. It's a tremendous unit.
Thanks! Actually, I can hear it any time I want to, my 2017 XLE V6 Camry has it and it does sound great 👍
According to Honda, oil dilution and carbon build-up is a feature of their direct injection turbo engines. You just have to change your oil every 5000km and have the intake manifold clamed every 30,000km. So all the fuel you save will be spent on additional servicing. Honda wins.
@@abaj006 I purchased a 2006 VW GLI 2.0 Turbo with 60 K miles and after 160 K miles, I have had zero carbon intake issues. I do change my oil every 5,000 miles. Still getting 28 mpg highway, 22 mpg city. I do drive aggressively, as I have been told it helps with carbon build up.
@@jefferysurratt5650
You are not quite there yet. I had a 2010 Tiguan. Loved the engine until issues came up. First, max 207 ft-lb torque at mere 2200 rpm was awesome. Offline acceleration was excellent, especially for a SUV. Really it was a tall GTI. @ 80k miles engine light came on, carbon built up. $800 dollar for a clean up job. I just accepted as maintenance, as I still loved the car. Later, engine light lit up again, lack turbo boost. Replaced blow valve, solve it for a while, then again. Leak in turbo again. Turbo replacement recommended $2200. At 130k, i felt that’s it for the engine. In China where mechanic services are cheap, and most mechanics are well trained on VW; this Tiguan could’ve lived for at least another 5-10 years, but in the States; mechanics are not only lazy, but also crooked mostly. It’s just better option to buy a new car than paying their mortgage.
Long live the GM 3800 engine
Totally agree. possibly the biggest selling GM engine after the small block Chevy.
that's a Buick. originally the 231ci and then they shifted to metric nomenclature ( 3.8L or 4.1L and subsequently the 3800 ). as such, it's related to the Rover 3.5L and 4.6L, which an Aussie might find useful to know.
Got two 20+year old 3.8's they're totally dependable.
Prolly the easiest most reliable V6 engine to work on
@@alancastecka1478 indeed
Having lived decades with inline 4s and V6s, I would prefer a V6 with displacement any day any time in terms of smoothness and the curve of power delivery over the current trend of turboing lawnmower engines.
Unfortunately the turbo lawnmowers still smokes all V6’s a fact.
there is big reason why best 6 cylinder engines are I6 and not V6, this is why I go with I4 since I cannot afford I6 yet.
@@viliusr.8792 I would sincerely disagree with that. Many of the best 6 cylinder engines are V6s, like the GM 3800 which is considered indestructible; the Toyota GR, the Nissan VQ and the Honda J series. Racing engines prefer Vs for compactness and a short tight crankshaft for extremely high revolutions, hence you see V6s in Formula One. Inline sixes are not used on extreme high revving applications due to the torsional twist of a long crankshaft.
@@ChrisRobato good points, thanks, Ill be less biased now :)
I have a 3.5 VQ engine in my 2002 Maxima. Has been a great engine. Still amazes me with how much power it has. It’s not bad down low, but it does love to rev to really get down the road! 180,000 miles… paint is shot, leather is torn, no modern gizmos… but I love it!
Got 454k kms out of one of those, still going strong when it was sold!
@@Slavic_Boer facts! Wish we had the quality now that we had then. NO JATCO CVT’s!
I have a skyline with VQ37. doing the cals is 9.3./ liter. love the car and it has some low rpm torquearound the 1700rpm
That is why the Barra engine is so good straight 6 way to go.
ive driven one up to and over 300k amazing engine, currently have a g6e turbo with close to 250k and still strong
@@wheely90 go speak to a taxi driver one day and they'll tell you they often spin post 1,000,000kms without opening it up. I would install one in my 80s courier but it don't fit..
@@marty3469 oh i know how many k's they do
The best engine I ever had straight six ford Barra.
Unfortunately the Barras' ability to survive is dependant on avoiding the failure of their hydraulic tensioned timing chain.
I own a 2010 Kluger KX-S (3.5 V6 - 9.2 BMEP) and a 2010 Mercedes E250 CGI (1.8 I4 Turbo - 15.2 BMEP) and I now which one will last longer. I am all for advancements in technology, but complexity just brings problems. Kluger does without high pressure fuel pump, turbo, direct injectors etc and does the job perfectly fine without any strain. If I wanted to, I could use E10 in Kluger, but E250 requires premuim petrol. Keep it simple and reliable. The Toyota recipe!
The 3.8 V6 Series 2 GM used to make were indestructible. Sadly, they changed to something worse.
ahem Alloyturd
@@abstract0014 Correct. Alloyturds are terrible.
My dad had a VP commodore V6 , 340K km , on dual fuel, engine oil went in golden, came out the same after 5000kms. He spent only $425 on it in repairs over 20 years....till mum wrote it off!
They were solid except for the intake manifold gasket problems.
Also the plastic 90° heater hose pipe that connects to the head (just change to steel When it breaks) and it's all good.
If you run it mainly on LPG, the oil will stay clean because there are not many contaminents in LPG, i had a LPG dedicated 4.2 V8 in my HX 1 Tonne ute. It ended up @ 973,000 klm, it was still running but need an un interupted run @ hills :( @@georgekem
Toyota's 3.5L V6 is wonderful
Very happy with the V6 in my Aurion. I bet it will outlast any turbo'd pissy 4 cylinder.
So are the Honda iVTEC V6s. Amazing engines that’s why they still use them.
Will take the Toyota and Honda V6 over any turbo 4
@@jerrymyahzcat Except for those with timing belt instead of chain. The latest versions are all with the chains though,
Lotus put it in their Exige ,Evora and Emira and supercharge it.
I have driven one,pulls well and sounds great!
Port injection engines are so much quieter than direct injected. I have a 2011 Mercedes V6 M272 engine and when Mercedes upgrated to direct injection it did bump up the HP from 268 to 302. However they lost thir quietness and in addtion....port injection can keep the valves cleaner longer. Both have plus and minuses.
Toyota's 1GR and 2GR and Honda's J35 engines are all legendary.
So are Nissan's VQ35 engines, the Mitsubishi 6G72, and the legendary Buick 3800 V6. The current crop of DOHC multivalve 3.3, 3.5 and 3.6 liter V6s used by Ford, GM and Chrysler, Ecotec, Ecoboost and Pentastar are not so bad too.
Can't agree John. Having limited experience compared to many, I've driven a few enough to know that turbo 4's suck. My driving style is mostly gentle without being tardy, with few accelerator excursions past 1/2 throttle.
Experiencing mostly the I4T in BMW 330i & Mazda CX-5 2.5T, but several loan cars of the small sedan/hatch nature. Most have trick new transmissions and go like stink, relatively, when pushed hard.
But none of those engine are as nice drive as V6 mitsi 6g74 3.5,, the 3.5 V6 200kW Toyota rav4 or the newer VQ35 V6 on the Pathfinder r52 (which we own currently - yes, it ticked more boxes than anything else). These engines are more responsive at low revs and throttle input, seem to pull easily without surging at low throttle inputs, and with all these I can match or better the rated fuel economy. I can't get within +1L/100 of the turbos, and generally much worse. But it's the turbo spooling up and down on light throttle that is most annoying. Try to maintain a speed up a hill that requires a bit more throttle, then the turbo spools up and next you're doing 20 over with no additional input. Drop the throttle a little to compensate, and your 10km under again...
The turbo fuel economy is a fallacy. When pushed normally, they use easily as much as NA cars. I'm convinced most of the fuel economy bonuses are coming from the trick new gearboxes that are lightyears ahead of a decade or so ago. Stick a spanking new 8sp/10sp behind an "old" V6 and I'm betting real world tests would lean to V6 way compared to I4T.
My cousin has a 5.4L v8 G8 Fairlane. It gets 12km/l in the city, and
@@jamesrichardson645 yeah, gearbox technology is winning! Why a well driven manual normally came out in front too, until they stopped developing them sometime last century...
And yeah all the i4T I've driven recently have been stock. Not tuned at all which makes many differences. The fuel economy of the stock ones have been horrible (relatively) on anything except the ideal 80km zones, of which I've read makes up the bulk of the regulation test criteria.
For eg. Did about a regular route of 300km (mixed 80kmh, 100kmh and a couple of small towns) the other day in a 3cyl 1L Turbo loan car. Got about 6.9L/100 according to it's trip meter. For comparison. My old 3.5v6 magna would do that trip about 7.5l/100, the old pulsar 1.6L NA about 6L or less, the np300 Navara i4T about 9 (so far from it's extra-ubran rating) the behemoth Pathfinder V6 about 8L/100. Absolutely no benefit having the pint sized 3cyl...
I have a V6 Merc CLK which I purchased 16 years and it is bullet proof, easy to service, cheap to run with all the power I need. 250K on the clock and runs like new. I very much doubt a turbo 4 would have served me so well over that time.
My one daughter has got a vw 1.2 turbo Polo at 150 000 km using oil.
My Hyundai Getz with similar km using no oil at all and is known for getting 300 000 km on a engine.
Turbo work well ,, but don't last and start using oil when the km start getting high.
My 2006 Toyota Kluger is emphatically GOOD. Okay, it's only got 150,000kms but it's only let me down once - alternator. It has loads of acceleration, carries seven (five adults, plus two littlies in the dickie seat), has air-con like a fridge, runs quiet as a Rolls, holds the road due to constant 4WD, and is just a comfy, well-made car. Bought in 2008 with only 30,000 kms, it is by far the longest I have ever had a car. Previous cars for a few months to two years. If the engine blows up or transmission explodes, I'll get something else. Until then, happy Klugering for me.
450000 on my 5vzfe.,and runs beautifully. Regular oil changes and I'll have 300000 left to go. Great engine...just thirsty
Hi John, thanks for another great video - very helpful and interesting, but you didn't mention reliability. Aren't the older V6 designs generally going to have better reliability/longevity than more modern 4 cylinder engines which have turbos generating more pressure and heat etc?
V6's never made much sense to me compared to I6's, an inline six has half the heads, camshafts and exhaust manifolds and is inherently balanced as an engine and far easier to work on, the only advantage i can think of for v6's is that they can fit better in fwd cars and may be a bit lighter.
Yeah, I think that's why they became so popular, they will fit so many more applications, including transverse mounted fwd's
GTR says hello.
I6 has more complex heads. Its incredibly intensive machining work on single part and camshafts are very long, engine itself is very long.
Working on it similarily intesive, its kust that in V6 its split. Also say hello to H6 and shush about balance, because H6 is even better balanced shorter and lower in the car.
Legacy/Liberty 3.0R Spec B is superior out of all these. Also main crux of his video is that na engine is not as powerful as turbo which is a moot point.
Turbo the 6 cylinder snd you get better BMEP than a 4 banger. New Nissan Z has 15.5 BMEP out of 3.0L turbo.
I'm on my third Toyota V6, I used to think of them the same way as Remy, having started with the 3VZ-FE, then moving to the 5VZ-FE, they really needed to be worked to give their best. I assumed it was just the way V6's were. However, I now have the 1GR-FE, and it has a brilliant torque curve, coming in at low revs and staying almost flat through the whole rev range.
I have 2 new 1GR-FE 4Runners and we love them. We live at 6800 ft. I had a Tacoma with the 2GR-FKS and it was gutless compared to the 4.0. I got rid of the Truck solely because of this. 2k Rpm just running around not in a hurry and it’s brilliant.
My 5vzfe baby is still running like clockwork after 500;000 KLM...regular oil / filter changes..that's it. Not rocket science
Blah blah V6 compact,punchy,reasonable economy,maintained and used properly.A good design is the key,some are good some aren't,forget all the techno babble this guy endlessly spouts.
Hi John , always a big fan of your videos . Just a tiny comment regarding Mazdas 2.5T 4cyl, (I own one). It’s 170kw with 91, and 186kw with 95/98octane. Been driving it for nearly six years and the torque is always enough for such a big car (cx9). So this engine is all about low end torque vs power that like u mentioned no one bothers reviving.
In actual daily driving I tend to find 4 cylinders to be high reving and loud. Whereas my cars, v6s, drive in the low end of their RPM range and don't have the noise / vibration that I'd get with a flat 4 for whatever reason.
So I really hope I can get another v6 in 10 years. If I can't maybe I'll look for a v8.
Modern turbo fours with direct injection don’t need big revs. My daily is an FG Mk2 Ecoboost Falcon with the 2.0L Ecoboost engine and it is not high revving unless I floor it. In normal traffic flow, it stays under 3000rpm during acceleration and cruises at around 1200-1500rpm most of the time.
@@kelvinhill9874 I'm envious of you! My 1.5 liter 4 needs at least 1800 RPM and generally needs more RPM when cruising
Vibration with a flat four? they have perfect primary balance with only a minor rocking couple.
You can balance a nickle on edge on a Subarus hood.
My Subaru flat six idles like an electric motor and accelerates like a turbine.
As long as you changed the cambelt and tensioners regularly the Alfa V6 Busso was rock solid, rarely suffering from crank failure or head gasket failure. 2.5 V6s always lack torque but at 3 or 3.2 litres the Alfa V6 was excellent. The 12 valve was arguably the nicer drive, but the 24 Valve was superb between 4500 and 6500 rpm, and just wanted more throttle no matter how hard you drove it. There has been nothing quite like it unless you buy a supercar.
Ford showed for years why 6s should be straight in the Falcon
Straight 6 has more pulling power/ torque at lower rpm than a V6.V6 rely more on hi rpm for power/torque.Why 18 wheelers use straight 6 cyl diesel engine
@@enriqueoliva6988 No reason at all why a V6 can't make plenty of low down torque. The characteristics of any engine are defined by head design, porting, bore & stroke, and camshaft. The British Essex V6 is a fine example of a low speed torque monster. BMW make some straight sixes with power and tourque bands at high speeds. 18 wheelers have almost universally straight six diesels is down to production costs, and they are designed to be easily maintained to make interplanetary mileage. No need to make a compact engine to fit into a small engine bay.
I own Ford Sapphire GLX with 3 litre V6. British Essex uprated V6. Big torque on lower rev. Brilliant motor. Sounds great. Many other V6s can't match the torque in low rev against British Essex V6
Well, there's a shock. Turbo engines outperform normally aspirated. Agree they burn brighter but certainly don't last longer. My new RX350 pulls very well from low revs. In fact not far off the Turbo Diesel Euro motor I replaced it with. The Lexus does like to rev but power delivery is strong all the way up the rev range. I will still buy a normally aspirated V6 over a tinnie Turbo any day. It will still be running in 200k unlike most Euro Turbo powered crap.
My 2.0 turbo wrx was great for top end power but I hated the turbo lag and it guzzled premium. My 3.5 V6 Camry lacked just a little bit at the low end and almost used as much fuel as a V8. Last 5 years I've been driving a V8 Holden Calais wagon with direct injection LPG. Absolutely love the corvette sound when exhaust valves are open and a rear wheel drive V8 is just a lot of fun. It's a torque monster, can tow a mountain, rips away from others at the lights without even going over 2000rpm, top end puts out 300KW and I still use around 10 litres per 100Km like the Camry on highways but LPG is 1/2 the price of petrol. I love how LPG burns so clean, the oil looks fresh even at 15,000KM service intervals. One more thing, this car has almost double in value since I bought it, feels good driving an appreciating asset.
Hey John I'm sure everything you mentioned is technically dead on the money however perhaps it's one of those situations where the physics written down on paper add up perfectly but when applied to the everyday practical drivability and pleasure derived from driving the vehicle it doesn't stack up emotionally. I have a 3.5 Aurion which I bought new its got 225,000 ks on it never missed a beat. Some years ago whilst in the UK I bought a new Audi A4 1.8 turbo sport. At the time it was the most refined and fulfilling car I had ever owned, but no word of a lie the Aurion gives me more driving pleasure. I am a very reasonable driver, not a rev head and there's just something about a large engine that feels so smooth, quiet and muscular.
I guess its a bit like comparing a Bentley with a Ferrari there just a different animal but both lovely machines.
I totally agree! I have owned a few cars over the years and the 2 Aurion Presara’s I have owned have been absolutely bulletproof and silky smooth!
I think in comparing, the flat roads can give you a similar experience in both albeit a smoother one in the V6 but where it is really nerve-wracking to drive the little inline 4 is in a series of hills on a highway. You have no choice but downshift again and again to get up hills in the 4 while the V6 usually will not have to. So it will he louder and much more nervous highway trip in that 4. It will be like rooting for the "little train that could" again and again ad nauseum!
Had a Toyota V6 camry in manual went really well and just sipped the fuel. Similarly my old 3.8lt V6 in the Mitsubishi 380 was brilliant to drive, smooth, quiet and very good on fuel
I've had 3 V6 engine cars and the first thing I noticed was how smooth, quiet and vibration free they are.
The V6 engine in our 2019 KIA Sorento is 3.3L direct injection that produces 290 hp at 6,400 rpm and 252 lb.-ft. of torque at 5,200 rpm. We've enjoyed 40,000+ trouble-free miles in most Arizona-California driving.
That's not a lot of miles lol
@@barbecuetechtips6024 Now 55,000 miles and still smilin'. KIA & Hyundai cars are covered by such a fabulous warranty: It's even better that, in our case at least, the cars have been such delights to operate.
Inline engines have fair less wear as mileage goes on. Hence why taxi companies loved the loss-stressed Ford Falcon Inline-6.
Respectively disagree. I’ve seen high miles on many small engines, Honda Goldwing 1.8L flat 6 that had done 500,000 miles, yes miles and was running perfectly. Also it’s common to see the VFR750/800s do 150+ thousand miles, that bike has a singing V4 spinning up to 12,500 rpm red line and hums along at 100km/hr doing 5000rpm. The other day I took an Uber, a small Hyundai rocked up with 400,000kms on the clock and the engine was quiet!
Had an ex cab with 1.4mil ks Ford eb sedan on LPG at the time a full tank cost 25 bucks and got me to work for the week, was a slug but fuck it was reliable
My Falcon EcoLpi Barra is cheap to run and very reliable.
I've been more than impressed by the old folks Ford Ecoboost 2.0 (17 on the Cadogan scale :) ) vs my Ford 6.2 V8 in my F-250 (8.05 on the Cadogan) scale. The problem is that the little turbo 4 simply isn't capable of standing up to the long term physical demand of running a working heavy duty pickup so Ford sacrificed efficiency for long term durability under heavy usage (400+K mile life expectancy for the engine). I agree that too many engines out there are antiquated zombies but sometimes there's more to the equation to retain a less efficient but far physically stronger engine.
does the V8 you mention have 400k life expectancy too?
@@jamesmedina2062 "If you treat your truck right and routinely service it, your 6.2-liter can last up to 500,000 miles."
@@vburke1 Ok. It helps your temperatures are not too frigid. In Norway they like electrics because it can take 20 minutes to warm up an engine or it never even warms up. 1/2 million on a V8 is very good. Thats Toyota-Lexus territory there. The most miles I had were 330k miles in 1.8 turbo VW and it still had compression but burned oil. I was timely on oil changes but the VW sprung weird leaks out of nowhere or maybe built up crankcase pressure not properly reduced via PCV so a few times it ran low. I started it many times in frigid conditions. Always Motul oil. Iron block. I am hoping I can take my Honda to high miles. The direct injection is just an issue making me change oil faster. So far 100k miles and perfect power. Cheers
3.8lt Commo/Buick. Deserves a honorable mention.
Oldschool V6 engines can be quite nice. Yes, they need to rev a bit for their max HP. But that has it charms too. Loved my Xedos V6 engine (1998).
The major issue with scalability v's RPM is generally maximum piston sliding speed with piston / liner lubrication stability beaking down faster than the centrufugal and inertia force limit. In marine diesel engine practice, the trunk engine design is abandoned for a crosshead design (think steam locomotive pistons here) which allows stroke to bore ratios of up to 3:1 before the thermodynamic benefits of lowering the blowdown pressure (exhaust pressure) are reduced to the practical limit. In my experience as a seagoing engineer with engines of 900mm bore and 2.5m stroke, I'm firmly of the opinion that an engine that does more than 100 RPM is just plain unnatural.
a friend I met on phone studied marine at Maine Maritime and he told me about these engines. He said there these big V16's and also the newest being 3 stories tall and less cylinders and pretty slow rotation. I was amazed.
I was impressed with the Kluger V6
Hi John I have been telling people for years just one fact that V6 engines are the worst for being unbalanced unlike a i4 and i6 are naturally balanced except i4 isn't naturally balanced but can be easily refined without counter balancing shafts but you said it wayyy more in depth but I have retired from the automotive industry and since then moved to IT but I understand exactly what you are saying and it is very true
What a word salad. "I4 is naturally balance except it isn't naturally balanced". Pure poetry.
Weird flex... but OK.
Id happily have a v6 petrol Toyota prado over a 4 cyl diesel turbo. Sure it may drink more but maintenance of the diesel cost shit loads more than a petrol
As an American I'm offended that you mentioned we like large engines. I've got a couple cars with the little 5.0 v8 in it, and my pickup gets by with an 8.1L v8. He'll my wife's little puddle jumper has an Itty bitty 2.5L 4 cyl. Based on that who says we don't buy small engines in cars.
V6 in a 2 stoke outboard is just perfect
Yamaha tops.
The terrible Toyota V6 engine in my 2011 Avalon continues to run perfectly after 267,000 miles. Performance remains completely satisfactory on the American highways where I drive. My terrible V6 has required very little maintenance. If my terrible engine hangs in for another 100,000 miles I'll not be surprised.
Those Avalon's are fantastic. Gutsy motor. I've burnt an auto in them but that was my fault not changing the fluid.
Out of curiosity I’ve applied your formula to a typical version of the fabled Merlin 27L V12, both with and without the blower, at its peak power RPM of 3000 and it’s pretty good! The power output ranges from around 962Kw to 1178kw.
I’ve had a Toyota V6 Klugar since 2007. Still going strong, over 300K kms. Never had an issue. Only listen to people who have one
Mercedes Benz M112 ,,,2.4l to 3.7l V6's from the late 90's to 2000's were and still are great engines. Very efficient , low maintenance and extremely reliable.
All alloy , three valves ,two spark plugs per cyclinder. Single overhead cams , roller rockers and a strong timing chain , one of the best designs ever.
I'm thoroughly enjoying my 2007 Toyota Blade Master. 206kW V6 pushed into a Corolla body.
Those sound like a blast to drive.
One of the best sleepers!
Why rev the guts out of a donk just to get a bit extra grunt.Happy with my V6 Commondore 2013 that now got nearly 240k on dial yet will still happily cruise at hiway speed at less then 2000 rpm and still get 900km to a tank with excellent oil consumption.Short engine life in many turbos show that nothing free and those few extra kw going to wear the engine out quicker then a non turbo one so tell me which technology better for power and long life.May be old fashioned but prefer the older style v6 as more reliable even if not as efficient.
a friend who was a senior engineer for a well known manufactuer hated v6s because of the three cylinders per bank generarting imbalance in the firing cycle
I think the problem was when manufactures needed to "improve" the L/100 figures of 6 cylinder engines they decreased the size so that improved the highway efficiency, and then put quad cam heads on them so they could rev to infinity and get the "on paper" power figures they needed to make the engine sound competitive on paper. I definitely preferred the single cam sixes of 30 years ago for every day drivability over anything modern; they were built for real world situations instead of needing to meet L/100 demands on paper.
In saying that the EF Falcon 4.0L would get 7.8L/100 on the highway if driven sensibly.
You might want to explain why Hyundai-Kia Australia is still selling the V6s (instead of the 2.5T sold in the home market).
John touched on that a bit regarding Murica, and Murican's. The Aussie bogan element is not far removed from the Murican love for big engines. Along with the uneducated idea that small 4's work too hard in big cars, so we (yes, I include myself) have tended to look more favourably on the 6 cylinder option. Car makers are in the business of making money.
We always get the leftovers we one of the smallest markets in the world the same reason Subaru stopped making the brumby Ute oorstailiah was the only place they sold in any numbers sadly
@@brettpowter6010 you guys are awesome!!! I just wish I could still buy Old Australia Stout for drinking in the west Texas outback. My favorite beer ever!
I know an exemption, the GM 4.3L V6, one took me for 1/4 million+ miles w/o ever having opened it for any repairs. I hauled a 19ft camper in the mountains w/it so it got well used. BTW, the TH700R4 trany also made it w/o a problem. I finally retired the truck.
Used in Yale/Hyster forklifts 7000lb up to 12000lb capacity.
What about the differences in reliability and smoothness between V6 and 4 cylinder engines?
John, I cant believe it but after all these years of watching, BASTARDISED not BASARDISED Yeeeesssss. Cheers for all the great content.
Beat me to it - by that much!
Spelling, so challenging I know
I love my nissan elgrand V6 engine. It's a 3.5L. I believe it's the same as the nissan 350z yeah it averages about 12L per 100km. Apart from fuel consumption.I have no complaints.
Another thing that hurts most v6s is lack of awd systems it's a bit like Holden ss tonner plenty of power but when you stomp it just brakes loose
Yes breaking loose is the intention
Thanks John. Love the mongrel engineering for us ordinary folk. We have a 20 year old 3 litre (2.95) V6 auto Peugeot and get the whole inefficiency thing. It knocks out 152Kw at 6000 so comes in a bit over 8. However, it is relatively economical (8 l/100kms,) is super smooth and delightful to drive, and has the old genuine leather upholstery that has always smelt like real leather. When we check out new cars, we come away dissatisfied. My wife is not interested in changing it anytime soon and I have come to the conclusion that we'll just keep it going until it stops, or we stop, or it is just too expensive or impossible to fix. Sometimes, there are more important things than efficiency.
An intellectual discussion. This pleases me.
Even though he got the MATH wrong ? and thus his conclusions were also wrong ?
2.5turbo........turbo is important
1 Bar of boost ( 14.7psi), from a turbo, DOUBLES the capacity of a motor ! ie it FLOWS 5.0 litres of fuel/air mixture....same as a 5.0v8..... standard turbo motors run at half a Bar ( 6-8psi) so it increases flow by 50% or turns a 2.5litre into a 3.725litre motor by flow of fuel/air thru the motor....compared to an "atmo" or " normally aspirated " motor
... and said like an intellectual who is pleased. Nice
@@Marc_Remillard anyone who uses 'math' instead of 'maths' sorta gets ignored, because it means that you're American, and the rest of the world has stopped taking anything that comes from America seriously. Sorry, but you might want to pretend to be from somewhere else.
@@numbereightyseven and I don't care if you ignore what I was talking about....YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER BUT..... Believe his BS,I don't care what you think......you sound American.....believe what you will, ignore facts, Verry American......wanna buy a bridge ? .....looks like a coathanger....kangaroos cross it at 4pm everyday to get to Hyde Park.......
I love my V6 in my Aurion. It has great torque, and is quicker than most cars off the line. It has 215k+ on the odometer and still going great. It's economy is also very good for what it is with a combined fuel economy of around 9l/100km.
I love my Aurion 273,000km on the clock (only had to replace alternator). Heaps of torque at low revs and whilst it isn’t the quickest off the line, it glides past them very quickly; all whilst being smooth. A little slow sometimes to change down, but the torque means that’s not an issue. Mine sits at 8.4L mixed driving and today driving 1100km was sitting at 7.3L. (Normal 91 fuel)
Wouldn't swap my FJ Cruiser 4.0l V6 for anything, especially a modern diesel, and I've owned diesels for 30 years. Far too highly strung now.
The Prado 4 cylinders are good, many of them make it to 600+ thousand kms if maintained correctly, but agree the FJ V6 is a good engine even of its thirsty
I would answer Remy on why V6s are inherently high revving. Most V6s, not all, but most, have a short stroke crankshaft, which lends itself to high revving. At the dame time, short stroke engines tend to have large bores, which increase valve sizes and greatly expands breathing. Large valves and passages, along with short stroke, lends to lower power produced at low RPM but higher power at high RPM. This is why V6s are used for racing engines. There are long stroke V6 engines, the most notable being Honda's J series like in the Honda Pilot, Ridgeline, and Passport.
I drive a Nissan Altima 3.5 V6 here in Australia, and I love it - most other Aussies didn't buy this car for some reason and it was discontinued in this country several years ago.
Our kluger 2008 3.5L has done 500,000km gone around Australia a few times even towing a 1.5ton caravan parachute. No leaks no smoke. Seriously a wonderful engine. Uses a lot of fuel but no probs!
Enjoyed this video but I'm wondering about engine longevity. Is it a correct assumption to say the V6 will out last the turbo4 and future maintenance would be cheaper on the V6?
Depends on the V6 and the I4T - it's perfectly possible to engineer a I4T that'll last hundreds of thousands of kilometers with no issues, just like it's perfectly possible to engineer a V6 that's a boat anchor once the warranty expires. Also maintenance intervals play a huge part. But yeah, if you are looking at a really good V6 like one of the later 2GR series 3.5 litres from Toyota with direct and port injection, it'll probably well outlast any mass producted I4T.
as with all engines, maintenance is the key, the advantage of modern turbo petrol engines are that they don't need massive revs to get boost, and what boost there is is very low pressure, it's just enough to maintain torque production over a wide rev band, lets say from 2,000 to 4,500rpm right in the mid range.
I think a good v6 engine will definitely outlast a smaller engine with turbo. That's how it is assumed and I think there's data to corroborate it.
@@351tgv That's true - but even low boost is going to be say, 6-8lb, which adds quite a lot of stress to the rotating assembly, head gasket and so on - not a problem if they are engineered to cope with it long term of course... but I do wonder how many corners are cut on some of the newer turbo i4's to save money, and how they will fair after 5, 10, 15 years? I doubt the manufacturers care much past the warranty period.
I've read that it's a good measure to expect great longevity if an engine produces less than 100 H.P. per 1 Liter of its displacement. For example Toyota 2GR-FE V6 3.5 L engine produces 268 H.P. or 268:3.5=77 H.P. per 1 liter. That is way less than 100 off course, hence this engine is so reliable, it always works 'underloaded' so to speak. That's why they use it on everything (with some tweaks, like direct/port injection combination 2GR-FKS) , from Toyotas like Camry, Highlander, Sienna van etc to Lexus with '350' in model name (ES350, GS350, IS350 )....I own 2017 V6 XLE Camry and it's a pleasure to drive, the engine is barely purring while pulling the car like crazy, which BTW is the lightest among all of this engine applications, which off course makes its job even easier than with any other car using it.
As far as us Americans not embracing diesels, there's a few major obstacles that have inhibited implementation and wider adoption. For one, the EPA has very strict emission regulations for diesel engines that go into anything rated for under 8500lbs GVWR (just under 4K kilos). VW's Dieselgate is still fresh in so many minds, which doesn't help either. The other reason is how taxes on diesel vs gasoline are basically the opposite of what almost everyplace else in the world has.
Being basardised is the worst kind of bastardisation...
Thankyou for a very entertaining vid, as yours always are. I have a 2010 Audi S5 & according to your calculations my beer garden calculation for mine is 15.4. The newer version is 16.04 & they use that type of V6 in many vehicles in their range of many cars.........Or am I missing something? All the best......
We have a Toyota Kluger 360,000 ks, it's reliable, revving is fun and they go well overall, actually quite pokey off the mark and with legs in the rev range BECAUSE it is revvy... (A good mix of gearing to suit the powerband the 3.5 has) Puts commodores and falcons to shame in the real world and it's an SUV. For the price, an awesome car for long trips and daily use. Afterall it's a Kluger, not a Supra, or a stinger. I like my cars fit for purpose not a jack of all trades, so in my opinion, who cares about the rest.
Aren't that quick. My fiesta st blows klugers away easier than commodores!
So I think you're talking rubbish...
There's a very good reason police, ambos, news reporters and first responders use the kluger it's very solid , reliable and they do go very well.
@@ceterisparabus it's called government contracts and deals. Has nothing to do with reliability. Stop being so gullible!
@@davothegreat9990 Toyotas are generally really tough vehicles be it a bit basic, how do you think the gov fleet of tdi / turbo petrol bmw, Mercedes and vws are holding up. I'd have a kluger etc any day over a euro shitbix.
P drive on RUclips times the 2017 Kluger @ 8.8 seconds 0-100km, and the 2014 commodore sv6 @ 6.8 seconds... Not sure what you mean by "real world". If your talking refinement, I would agree the Toyota V6 is a smoother unit.
I've had 2 V-6's . First was a 3.3 Chrysler & now a 2.7 Hyundia. They've both been awesome . How do you figure they're lousy . The only engines I had that were absolutely garbage were hondas
I’ll take a normally aspirated, pushrod, understressed V8 or Inline 4, 5, or 6 cylinder any day. Simple reliable and long life.
There is a reason my 1950 Ferguson 4 cylinder engined tractor is still running on the original engine.
Simple design offers less opportunity to break.
I loved my 120 Prado with the V6 4L. Awesome engine. I mean, it downed the fuel like champagne at the Melbourne cup, didn't pull as well the 3.2D Pajero that has replaced it, but it is Toyota reliability. Actually - maybe it was the joy of driving a manual that I enjoyed with the Prado.
Think I read somewhere that one reason they went to V6 configuration because it gave them more room for safety/crumble zone etc , where as now they are going back to inline 6 (if going a 6) as there are other advancements in safety design. Also better for hanging things off the head like turbos etc. as well as buliding modular engines so they can develop between inline 4 and inline 6 (from memory - the article i read was referring to BMW development).
My 1grfe is bullet proof and smooth. So is my 2grfks, which gets 8lt/100km on the hwy. Not bad. My previous 2lt turbo NX was a terrible engine, and not that much more fuel efficient. In the end, the driveability of the engine needs to be considered as well as the numbers.
It’s cool to see you get the same motors we get up in the US. I love my 1GR in my 2 4Runners. I had to trade the 2GRFKS due to the altitude I live at.
I should mention that with my 370GT, the 7sp auto has very short gear ratios. 55kph in 1st at 7500rpm. 85kph in 2nd at 7500rpm. So it does get back it's torque disadvantage with aggressive gearing. 0-100kph in 5.3 doesn't lie. Pdrive got 5.4s.(badged as G37 coupe)
Best motor I ever had was a Toyota 5VZ-FE 3.4L v6 .......... was working perfectly when I sold it at almost a half a million kilometers!........oil stayed clean, change after change, quiet smooth and trouble free.
My Mercedes years ago had a petrol 3.2 V6 and it ran 200k miles (over 320,000 km). It was a great car sadly hit by an uninsured driver.
Just add a supercharger...fixes any V6 deficiencies easily...our JLR/Ford V6 3L AJ SC 250kw is a beatifully smooth and torquey engine. I would not go back to an overstressed rattly 4cyl turbo dpf/egr hand grenade diesel for quids.
when the price of petrol goes through the roof, you can be the country's biggest tax payer. I and many others will gladly hand that title to you, lol.
@@andyfreeze4072 petrol has been cheaper than diesel for some time now...and diesels are more spendy to maintain esp when towing 3.5t which we do regularily. Btw..our V6 petrol uses less fuel towing 3.5t than my mates LC200s V8 diesel..17 vs 23l/100klms. So what's you're point?
@@ericjohnson6802 my diesel gets 6.5l/100km at 100km/hr, so what are you saying? Your not exactly in a position to be a pinup boy on engines, now are you. Sure we all tow 3t, everyday of the week. Like i said, pay all the tax you want.
@@andyfreeze4072 not sure what you mean re pin up boy..we have several cars here inc 3 turbo diesels plus machinery with diesels (fuel rebate applies to them) plus 2 petrol cars that do @5.5l/100klms. Cars can't tow a heavy float tho..but are good for trips to the shop etc. Still don't get you're point re tax etc...anyhow have a good day☺
@@andyfreeze4072 so does my 3.0v6 petrol...6.8l/100km actually but I have 180kw(240hp) and 250km/h
( 155mph) speed limiter...
Excellent video, most illuminating indeed.
So my mid 90s Mitsubishi v6 is turbo charged, but it is port injected (batch fired at that) and wasted spark and only runs .5 bar of boost. And its ghetto BMEP is 14.98 shitting on the modern Mazda with the same displacement.
With the Mazdas insane compression,direct injection, variable valve timing and modern turbo chargers my dinosaur v6 would be an absolute marvel, however meeting emissions targets is where the real magic happens and in that respect modern engines are amazing.
I do love the vq37 engine in my 370GT. Probably one of the few good NA V6 engines out there. I love that it's peak power is at 7000rpm. It's fun to drive around ringing it out to the 7500rpm rev limit. It's midrange is still decent. Obviously the vq37 engine probably doesn't suit most people's driving style
I am 78 years old and I have bought many cars in my life. The best engine I have ever owned is the 3.6 litre V6 in my current vehicle. It is a 2016 Holden Commodore VF SSV6. If this is the worst there is, I still consider myself fortunate.
Thing is: a 3.6-litre engine should go nearly as well as a V8. But we are talking about a 6yo car with 10yo tech... And GM...
@@AutoExpertJC I think that your mother might have been frightened at your birth by a V6.
Please reveal what make and model she was conveyed in to the maternity hospital?
Holden really nailed it with the VF Graeme. Ive owned quite a few V6 commodores and cant say the eco-tech or early alloy-techs were very good at all.
I own a 2017 VF (and love it!) so I wont be too rude, as it will be listening and go poopy in it pants to get me back.
@@joshlegg8600
Before I bought my two Commodores, firstly a VE 2006 and then the 2016 VF previously mentioned, I had a Ford Fairlane 98 5 litre V8.
I loved that too, but it liked a lot more food to eat. I consider the onset of the V6 configuration to be the perfect engine between the V8 and four cylinders.
It is still smoother than any four and the later engine in the VF was the best ever.
Are you joking, those GM HFV6s were rough an horrible. Obviously never driven a silky Japanese V6.
I drove a new V6 FWD Santa Fe as a courtesy car. It definitely has power at lower rpm. But it really should be an AWD. The wheels just loose traction too easily on dry road.
My last 3 cars have been diesel... There is no way I'd want a car averaging 12-14 litres on fuel around town. I drove it nicely and the best I got was 12 litres.
The perception that because it's a bigger engine it will last longer isn't valid. There are heaps of high mileage 4 cylinder petrols on our roads that just keep on going.
V6 are generally smoother, last longer, and require less maintenance than a turbo, direct injection, inline 4. But they are less efficient. Best engines are the inline 6.
I am sure you have simplified for the youTube audience The scalability of engines are generally based on bearing/journal speed first, piston speed second. Comparing Naturally Aspirated to Supercharged (including Turbo) is moot, (Simplified - all a supercharger does is trick the motor into thinking it is bigger than it is 2 litre, plus 1 bar = 4 litre, real world you take motor VE and heat expansion and pressure drop, but the basics are that inside the cylinder) Lower turbo costs and off-boost efficiency dictate the move to straight 3/4/6 cyl motors, now cheaper to produce than the older NA. Direct Injection has no effect on peak power, it does effect efficiency, especially ultra=lean knock control. Most 4 valve production engines (before supercharging) cap out at about early-90's ft/lbs per litre (10% more than a 2 valve) - it has been the same since the 60's - where you make it is up to you, 4 valves will usually rev high because they can, the supercharger can change the dynamic of that delivery, but the physics are the same
"Direct Injection has no effect on peak power, it does effect efficiency"
The second part of your statement appears to negate the first part.
DI most def DOES increase power, because efficiency is improved. Because the fuel is direct injected, latent heat of vaporisation is optimised, compression or boost can increase, and ignition timing can be bumped closer to MBT.
Ever wondered how motors these days are running 10.5:1 compression AND a turbo? How does Mazda get away with 13:1 compression and running on 91 RON? Direct Injection!
DI is a champ with ultra lean, but not because of knock control. DI can inject multiple discreet charges. For instance, the main body of the fuel charge on compression stroke and then the remaining 5 or 10 % right near spark time. Take a look at a Mazda Skyactiv piston to see the combustion bowl in the piston where the rich fuel charge is admitted just prior to ignition, which then ignites the main body of lean charge. These motors run 100% CLC. And BTW, lean is not hot. The hottest temps are at stoich. Lean of stoich cools the burn, and the heads and valves - a principle well known to pilots of piston aircraft. Rich of stoich is also cool, and makes best power.
So I’m guessing you are without saying it, implying that the new 300 series land cruiser will have an old tech inferior engine Hmmm 🤔 that won’t be popular with the fan boys.
Overall there not that good
I have a 2005 Audi TT Quattro with the 3.2 L 6. It’s been bombproof. 250 naturally aspirated hp. Timing chain so no serpentine belt to mess up. And Lots of torque. Coupled with the second year Dual Shift Gearbox, that has gone 140k without the slightest issue. 16 years of daily driver ownership and its never needed any work on the engine or transmission. Just normal maintenance. And it still goes like a bat out of hell when I need it to.
I have a V6 C43 AMG and it's very impressive. My "daily" is a V6 Audi Q7 and it is amazing. The engineers should be applauded for what they accomplished. Smooth, quiet, powerful, responsive, and simply a delight as a choice to power both cars. These are two of the best powerplants I've experienced in my extensive history of car ownership. All the various calculations don't mean shit.
The 3.0 V6 in the C43 AMG is twin turbocharged... and thus has nothing to do with this video.
The 3.0 V6 in the Audi Q7 is supercharged or turbo charged... and thus has nothing to do with this video.
But congratulations on your "extensive history of car ownership".
@@BatCaveOz The point being equal performance to my Tesla EV and other gas powered cars. Just comparing apples to apples in terms of motive force. Evidently you're not capable of grasping that.
@@BatCaveOz Did you not read the title of the video?
@@BatCaveOz... exactly...boomer muppets should be banned from making comments on any content that requires any semblance of familiarity with engine design
I’ve owned both 6 cylinder Falcons and Commodores, the straight 6 was always a much better engine.
Straight six has better balance characteristics
Sounds better than a v6 too.
Do the split crank pins in V6 engines mean the crank is inherently weaker, requiring a lower torque higher revving engine than other configurations for the same power output?
Is a V8 Lesser than a "straight 8" ? Is the vr38tt Nissan( GODZILLA) lesser than the 2j or RB26dett ....no...no.... And definately not ! He is generalising so badly he made a fool of himself...."most v6's"
and then referenced only "shit" motors..how about Skyline V6, jaguar Cosworth V6, ford Mustang ecoboost V6 280kw 3.7litres....makes the 2.5t look tame at 180kw and HARD ON FUEL !!
What is a split crank pin? I know of gudgeon pin.
The crankpins are the surfaces that run against the big ends of the conrods. 'split' crankpins are used when the engine V-angle doesn't match the crank rotation angle needed for even firing. E.g. a V-6 should fire every 120 degrees of crankshaft rotation, but usually they have a V-angle of 60 or 90 degrees. If each pair of cylinders shared a crankpin (like in a V-8) the engine would not have an even firing order, leading to excessive vibration. The solution is to 'split' the crankpin into two halves, and offset one of them by the right amount to correct for the bank angle, e.g. a 60 degree V-6 would have 60 degree offset crank pins, 60 degrees bank plus 60 degrees offset equals 120, the correct angle for even firing.
Surely you're talking about flat-plane crank configurations versus cross-plane crank configurations? 'Split crank pins' only occur when an engine explodes!😄
In the '80s I ran diesel Citroen CX's and the 2.5. turbo intercooled engine produced 120 bhp at 3600 rpm which gave a 0-60 mph time of around 10 seconds and a top speed of 120 mph. Quite remarkable for the time.
Wife has owned two of these. 10 years in Kia Carnival V6 3.8l then into a 3.5l v6 Sorento for five years. Both cars bought new. Both engines have been rock solid- maybe they are built of rock? Granite probably. They chew gas but go and go with hardly anything spent on maintenance. Compare that with a high compression turbo charged four. You probably don't want to own one of them after five years.
A friend of mine had a turbo 4 car with dual clutch transmission, engine popped after 5 years and transmission started playing up.
He got rid of the car pretty soon after that
@@RennieAsh Ford made a little 1.0l ecoboost engine. If you google ford ecoboost problems you will see the whole sad story of little engines pushed past their limits. A big engine that doesn't work hard will last.
@@tellthemborissentyou na little engines last too. They probably put too much boost on the turbo engine for the little parts to handle it for an extended period.
I'm watching out for Stellantis' new 3.0l twin turbocharged I6 that's coming to market later this year. 22.6 psi/1.5 atmosphere of boost and direct injected, it seems like it wouldn't last much beyond the warranty period.
I like this guy's content, pity he carries on like a pork chop.
It’s called character and comes with an increased intellect !
@@TonyWhite22351 The great character is still there, but this time I think he left his intellect at the front door.
Did John actually explain why peak power occur at higher revs in a V6 than other configurations?
Whilst I pretty much understood the entirety of the video, nothing stood out as for the explanation.
He did. It's more or less an atmo vs turbo thing. Naturally aspirated engines have to rev fast to produce lots of power, turbo engines can instead add boost and achieve the same power at lower rpm.
3:12
But thats comparing apples with oranges: atmo vs turbo and atmo vs diesel.
I was expecting apples vs apples: comparisons with other atmo engines - maybe inline 6 or whatever other (atmo) reasons to justify their "terribleness"?
Btw why not a turbo V6?
@@wizzard5442 for sure you can have a turbo, direct injection V6 (see the Ford Ecoboost V6 for example). They're just as 'good' as a turbo I4. But if you apply those technologies to a V6 you get an engine with more power than is needed for a typical small SUV or mid size sedan, the Ecoboost V6 is found in F-150 utes and the Mustang for example.
The only logic I can generate is that smaller pistons, generally, are able to rev more easily. So really it's not that a V6 needs to rev to make power, it's that it CAN rev to make even more power than a 4 cylinder of the same displacement. Both being NAs.
Got to say I was astonished at the fuel economy my sons 04 HSV with a six speed manual. Not saying his fuel consumption is worth speaking about, but when I drove it I couldn't believe it could use so little fuel.
Hearing this makes the J35y2 v6 Sohc from Honda that much more special.
Hi John I have an old es300 V6 Lexus, have to say its been bulletproof and still has plenty of get up and go for a twenty year old car.
Saying that, best I drive one of the new 4 cylinders to see what I am missing. Enjoy your videos 👍
That engine is pretty bulletproof, my mum had an RX300 I'm guessing with the same 1MZ-FE engine as your ES300. The engine hardly gave any issues, it was the transmission that was a pain in the ass. The engine note was rather beautiful too since all other cars our family ever had only came with 4 or 3 cylinders.
@@akmalyang5996 Hi Akmal, transmission is ok so far, the car runs like new, no rattles, no oil burning. Have meant to sell it so many times but can't part with it. I guess it will die at some stage 😃
Yeah the new 2.5l 4 cylinders engine is also great with both port and direct injection what I like about toyota.
The Busso is clearly an exception here :) Glorious engine.
I suspect many readers wouldn’t know the Busso designed Alfa Romeo engine
@@sergeanthorvath
ruclips.net/video/RN15lZl3pYA/видео.html
Stelvio Pass: Busso V6 early one morning....
@@sergeanthorvath That’s their loss…
@@JohnSmith-yv6eq Lovely 🥰
Amen.
My first car was a Gtv 3 litre V6. Throttle response was great and oh the sound. Amazing. I have been an Alfaholic ever since.
Now Proud owner of a Guilia Quattrroformagio. Arguably the best twin turbo V6 on the market.
Some of these highly engineered 4 pots seem great. However, in practice when I have been in the market for highway driving car, I always gravitated to the V8 Holdens because its a lot of car, comfortable, and I could always get excellent deals and they had dealer support. Even now that Holden is officially dead, there is GM support, and its still going ok, and most of the parts are available...the only thing starting to get a bit tricky is the remotes.
The only dealer support in my area was Toyota, Nissan, Isuzu Ute, Holden, Merc, and Chrysler Jeep. That was it (to my knowledge). So maybe Subaru, Mazda, Ford, Kia/Hyundai etc couldve brought something really good out, but youd have to run the risk of a computer issue and needing it towed 600km or more to one of their dealers. Thats not an option for my cars and needing them for work.
Back in the 20 teens, I drove aussie made 4 pot camrys a few times, and the fuel consumption was similar to the holden SV6, it revved its tits off, and it wasnt nice to drive. It was a 6.5/10 car.
The 6.2L LS3 redline with brembos, of which I own two, is pretty much the sweet spot. Costs more, but had the correct balance of power and braking for frequent highway driving, overtaking, and dealing with cows and roos. When they were in production i could get near new ones for ~$55k...now as 2nd hand private cars with sub 50,000km they go for 70k+, and it seems like Stinger is already getting cancelled, and I never seriously considered it because there is no service/dealer support in my area...on their website it says to contact the dealer like 1000km away.
Needless to say high population northern hemisphere countries tend to have little clue about distances. If its Sydney they understand, the rest of the country may as well not exist.
when i was looking for a replacement for my old Toyota (1973) there were a lot of petrol V6 utes for sale. The dealer said that a lot of young guys purchased them because of the V6 but they had to sell them because they couldn't afford the petrol. I did buy a Mazda B2600.
2600 not famous for economy!
What? I love my Lexus 2GR-FSE V6 engine. Direct and port injection. 300hp. Reliable as almost anything else out there.
Is350 FTW! I’ve embarrassed many turbo 4s in my lexus. Seen someone with 350k miles on one with zero issues
It’s a Lexus.
More reliable than 4 cylinder turbo's with similar power output's I would have thought (and gets a lot closer to claimed fuel consumption).
One thing you didn’t touch on was reliability. Ye olde V6, being somewhat simpler than a 4T and under less stress may be more likely to clock up the kms. Currently have a 2007 v6 Tarago with 250k and feel like it still has a lot of life left (with regular oil changes!) so I do have some bias though ;). And yes, the engine packaging is a nightmare in these so any repairs require you to be made out of rubber…
An inline-6 is even more reliable, which is why Mercedes for instance is going back to those as replacement for the V-8's.
@@tjroelsma all heavy duty earthmoving equipment is straight 6. RELIABILITY
@@nordic5490 Barrrrrrrraaaaaaa mate
My LS3 at 250k OTOH is a complete pile of unreliable crap. Nice drive though - when it's working.
The Toyota 2GR engine is amazingly reliable, and can be tuned upwards of 800HP with a turbo. It's somewhat popular in the US, not so much here in Australia though.
One of the best engines Mercedes ever made was the 3.2l V6 M112...from around the year 2000 , All alloy ,SOHC, 3 valves per cylinder , widely recognised as 'bullet proof' reliability , economical and 160Kw/ 310 Nm. Smooth and quiet.
I'm a little confused. The CVT in my 2015 Honda Fit (Jazz) convinces the car's little 4-banger ICE to rev up very quickly 6400 to 6600 rpms every time I decide to merge the vehicle onto a crowded limited access highway, or pass a truck on such a highway. 6600 is where its max power is. According to John that is a about the same high rpm that a high-revving V6 needs to rev to, in order to produce power when power is needed. According to John 4-bangers produce the same power as a V6, but at lower rpm? So I'm a little confused. So the specs and the operation of my engine don't seem to conform to what John was saying here. By the way, the Fit's (Jazz's) spec for max rpm is 6800. North American version of the Jazz (Fit) has only one engine available. It has 1.5 liters of displacement, injects injects gasoline (petrol) directly into each cylinder, compression ratio of 11.5 /1, produces 130 horse power at 6600 rpm - and I can see that it requires that high rpm to get merging power, passing power. Since the CVT gets the engine up to that high rpm very quickly, the lack of power at lower rpms doesn't seem to be much of a disability.
Buick 3800 V6 for the win! The V6 that drives like a V8. Lot's of power at low RPMs
And the refinement of a bucket full of bolts
Let's not forget that inline engines are inherently smoother than V engines since they have virtually no reciprocating mass and rotational plane imbalances.
I get that the math says V6s are crap BUT all the ones I've owned have performed great. Even the maliligned GM 2.8 did well in my truck, even with massive overloads in the bed. It did so well that later after the truck got rear ended at a stoplight I moved the whole drive train into a 1979 MGB (Along with most of the wiring harness since Lucas electrics is just another name for 'Made by Satan' and needed to GO AWAY) and drove that car for almost 200K. Three other V6s in different mfg vehicles and they did the job without complaints. Actually, the Toyota was outstanding.
Had a Holden Commodore 3.6 L Buick engine , would last for 400,000 K's at least. Why do we have this attraction to build "Racing engines "to put in family engines for cars. Reliability and long life should be the criteria for family cars.
The Buick v6 is a 3.8L, they have their issues and are hard to diagnose. But a very good unit I've had three. The GM 3.6 is a great engine with bad timing chains.