If you’ve bought any packaged foods lately you already know what this column is about. There’s less in the box – but the price has gone up.
It’s a similar situation under the hood.
This week, I’m test-driving a 2024 Lexus GX550 – which is a slightly larger, luxury-badged iteration of the rebooted Toyota LandCruiser I test drove a few weeks back. If you read my review (here) of the new LC you already know it no longer comes standard with the V8 you used to get in the old LC. Instead, it comes standard with a turbocharged four cylinder engine.
If you want a V6, you can get one in the Lexus GX550.
In italics to make a point of the fact that a V6 engine is now pretty much a luxury item – available to the few who can afford a luxury-badged vehicle. There is no longer a single vehicle of any type you can buy for less than $35,000 that has more than a four cylinder engine under the hood. To get a V6, it is necessary to spend closer to $40,000. And even at that price there are only a handful of vehicles still available that have more than a four under their hoods. Some of the few include the Kia Telluride and its Hyundai Palisade sibling, but probably not for much longer. Both of those two crossovers date back to the Before Time of 2020 – the time before the federal government’s regulatory apparat got really vicious about “savings gas” and “reducing emissions” . . . especially of the dread gas CO2, that isn’t a pollutant.
How did it come to pass that the federal government became the arbiter of how much gas the vehicles we choose to buy are allowed to use? Shouldn’t that be our choice? Especially when there were choices available before the government got into the illegitimate business of decreeing that all vehicles must be “fuel efficient” – no matter how much it cost us.
There is this silly idea that had the government not gotten into the business of mandating “fuel efficient” vehicles, the only vehicles that would be available would be fuel-inefficient ones. This is like saying there would only be $6 cups of Starbucks coffee if the government didn’t mandate $2 cups of McDonald’s coffee. Of course, the government hasn’t mandated that a cup of coffee cost $2. People are free to buy a $6 cup if they want that. And other people are free to buy the $2 cup, which sells because many people don’t want to spend $6 on a cup of Starbucks coffee.
This is called “the free market.”
Similarly, people who wanted a car that used less gas – back in the days before government began mandating that every car use less gas, no matter what it cost – were able to buy such cars. The thing that could not be abided, apparently, was that people were still free to choose cars that used more gas. Like big American cars with big V8 engines that working and middle class Americans used to commonly drive because that’s what they wanted ot drive and because they were once-upon-a-time able to afford to drive them.
The regs have been used to deny them that choice. Big cars with V8 engines became a luxury choice for the few people who could still afford them. But even that wasn’t enough. Next came the regs that insisted on ever-lower “emissions” – now redefined to encompass carbon dioxide as an “emission,” for the same ultimate reason.
That being to make anything more than a four a luxury item – by pricing anything larger than a four out of most people’s reach. By making it too expensive to put anything more than a four in anything that costs less than $40,000.
The costs are hidden – but we’re all paying them. And getting less for what we’re paying.
In the Before Time, a V6 was a commonplace engine. Most mass-market cars that came standard with a four offered a V6 – including nothing-special family cars such as Chevy Malibus and Toyota Camrys and also small crossovers such as the Toyota RAV4 and Honda CRV, among many others.
They’re all gone now.
Well, the V6 engines they used to offer are all gone now. Every model that used to offer a V6 no longer does – including the Camry and every other mid-sized family sedan such as the Honda Accord.
The V6 is becoming what the V12 was in the Before Time, when if you wanted to have an engine that was a step up over the V8s that still (at that time) pretty common, if you could afford to spend the six figures it took to get a V12.
Now you might get a V8 if you’re able to spend six figures.
And if you want a V6, you pretty much have to be able to spend what a V8 used to cost.
It’s a lot like buying a package of Pepperidge Farm Milano cookies at the grovery store today for $5 and discovering that the Milanos inside are a third the size they used to be – back when a package of Pepperidge Farm Milanos cost $3.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
In the real world, non-turbocharged V6/I6 and V8 engines actually are more efficient than turbocharged four bangers and sixes because they’re under less pressure and stress.
For one thing, they don’t have to work as hard. Because they produce more power, particularly more low end torque, you don’t have to ride the gas pedal all the time, particularly when climbing hills or hauling a load.
Also, turbocharged engines are engines under higher pressure, and thus are more stressed by that. Those engines are already stressed from having to work harder, and turbocharging adds more stress. If the engine’s components are designed and built to handle the stress, but if the engine wasn’t originally designed and built to handle it, well, you’re looking at a new engine.
yes Sir Bryce,
amps=torque/volts=horsepower
One comment up above notes losing a turbocharger is a minor thing.. not really. the bearings that come off of the turbo at its end-end up eating all the rest of the engine to bits..
10 years from now, MOBILITY will be a “luxury”.
Even Mao let his people ride their bikes!
The very fact that we AMERICANS discuss our over-reaching “Gubmint” permitting or not ANYTHING is the de facto admission that we’re no longer free.
I’ve recently gotten my first 4.0HO jeep short wheelbase circa 92′. The biggest problem is the gays and people waving. WTH was wrong with the V8… That’s gay that V8’s wern’t standard in later jeeps.
*Sigh* I remember when 4 liters was the norm for a 6-cylinder gas engine, with Ford’s 300 (4.9L) being among the largest.
The jeep had a straight 6 more akin to a semi engine….but didnt chevy have some huge 5.0 v6 back in the 60s or something before small diesel engines were a thing?
You’re thinking of either the Chevy 4.3 liter V6 (which was a Chevy 350 with two fewer cylinders) or the GMC 305 V6, which was the basic GMC truck engine in the 60s.
Larger V6 engines were used in medium and heavy duty GMC trucks, while Chevy used I6 and small/big block V8s
GMC even had a 702 cubic inch V12 which was basically two conjoined 351 V6 engines.
> didnt chevy have some huge 5.0 v6 back in the 60s or something
It was GMC, with V6s up to 478 ci:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_V6_engine
A 637 V8 and 702 V12 were also part of the family.
I enjoy the 6-cylinder engine in my Avalon…an improved experience over the 4-cylinder Camry I previously drove.
Though I wouldn’t mind doubling my city mpg via a used Camry hybrid, if I can get it as cheaply as I got the Avalon.
Or just grab an Avalon hybrid, it’s the same engine as in the Camry with same fuel efficiency ratings; but with higher quality interior/trim.
My one of “these modern turbocharged engines,” the turbo benefits from its own water pump for cooling has its own oil cooler. It’s a “sewing machine” three-cylinder, so larger bearing surfaces, more surface area for cylinder cooling, fewer moving parts up top, than a four of the same displacement. (That one cylinder in the middle suffers far less than the two in the middle of a four; just ask Triumph and Yamaha.) It is engineered from the valve cover to the oil pan to be a turbo-triple as are, tho not as good, small modern four bangers. Of course, this flies in the face of those who think makers pulled some late 1990’s engine off the shelf and slapped a turbo on it. Engine cooling is excellent, temp gauge center pegged in big city 115° rush-hour stop-n-go traffic. HVAC fully cranked up. The radiator is bigger than the one in my ’67 GTO.
Joe’s dumb AF comment is below.
First comment above by Joe, and his “wizard of OZ” dad, is dumb AF.
Nissan makes a great normally aspirated 6 cylinder that has been around for decades and is reliable.
Hi Scooter,
Yup – so did Toyota and Honda. Emphasis on the past.
I will be running my 2011 RAV4 V6 for as long as she holds together. Just passed 160k so have plenty of time left with her.
Our 2011 Honda Pilot 4×4 with the V6 just passed 200,000 miles. The engine compartment still looks brand new. Modern engineering and materials are great. An old musclecar from the 70’s with 200,000 on the odometer was not a pretty sight.
Mechanic for over 60 years. No high revving small turbo engine is going to last like a normally aspirated 6 cylinder, period! Anyone who says so hasn’t worked on enough engines.
As much as I hate rhe “shrinkflation” were seeing everywhere, it is not true about engines. I myself am 53 and a very capable mechanic. I have a strong understanding of the physics and metallurgy involved. My father is 84 (although he looks and behaves like a 60 year old), and has far, far surpassed those who call themselves “master mechanics”. He now builds entire custom cars from scratch as a hobby and has won multiple national awards for his work.
We, and every professional mechanic we know, disagree with this article. The 4 cylinder engines of today are capable of delivering torque and horsepower to match, and even exceed traditional 6 cylinders. Advancements in technology have led to far stronger engine blocks with better heat dispersion properties. That means higher rpms and the ability to handle compression levels that would crack the block on a standard 6 cyl. Additionally, the 1-and-4 2-and-3.
cylinder firing sequence delivers the same amount of compression as the 1/6, 2/5, etc sequence of a 6. The Honda K24 engine found in many Civics and other vehicles of the 2000s can be pushed to produce over 1,000hp with a lighter weight to power ratio, higher torque, better longevity, and a dramatically reduced cost to manufacture.
Could we apply those same technologies to 6 cylinder engines and get similar increases in power? Yes. That is what powers NASCAR and almost all non top-fuel drag racing.
So the decision to move to supercharged or turbocharged 4 cylinder engines simply makes sense for automakers.
And, of course, disregard the longevity and easy repair and rebuild in the equation.
Yes. The same can be said of your surveillance-capitalist google/apple device, aka “phone.”
Sorry bud, 4 cylinder will never run as smooth as a V8. Adding turbo = adding complexity. Great on them for better mfg tech in the blocks as you’ll need something to get that over stressed 4 banger to live a useful life. I worked mfg engineering in aerospace for 35 years, complexity is a no no when it can be avoided.
Kids are on vacation so I’m car sitting. Drove the 4 cylinder 2015 Mazda model 6 on Friday. I like Mazdas, they are well made and a nice driver. However, you can’t get past that 4 cylinder idle shake in gear (auto trans, worse cold some what OK warmed up) and the sorry sound of a 4 cylinder launch from stop.
Last night, took the 2004 V8 Land Rover for a 20 minute spin. Smooth idle, smooth launch, smooth cruising – can’t be beat! My daily driver in the working years was a 1979 Pontiac with a 301 V8. Idled so smooth passengers would say at a stop “I think your engine died”, at 200k miles no less.
There is more to life than gas mileage, and there is no substitute for cubic inches and I’ll add cylinder count to that “no substitute” list!
Hi Sparkey!
Yup – and: Thee turbo fours don’t get that much better mileage than the naturally aspirated sixes they’re replacing; just as the turbo sixxes don’t get that much better mileage than the V8s. Typically about 5 or so MPG on paper. But when you drive them on boost – which is necessary to get any power out of them – the gas mileage difference is negligible.
They are compliance engines.
Yep, real life up and down hills, stop and start. On paper and in a steady state level road the mileage will be better with the little engine. Try pulling the I90 Vantage WA grade westbound and see how it does. My 05 V8 Grand Cherokee would pull that at 75 with trans in top gear torque converter locked. The 18 GC V6 downshifts and has to pull at least 3K RPM to maintain the same speed.
You really should look at the Honda K24 engine line. It might challenge some of your beliefs.
Hi Jack,
Yes, but why?
Why are the fours replacing the sixes? And why are sixes replacing V8s? It has little do with torque and everything to do with compliance. In theory – on paper – the four burns (and “emits”) less gas than a larger engine. But to make power, it needs to be boosted – and that vitiates most of the “savings.” At the cost of much greater complexity and cost. Inarguable.
As far as reliability: Yes, it is possible to make the engine and its peripherals stronger. But eventually, the turbo will fail and when it does, the cost to replace it will likely be prohibitive. Meanwhile a naturally aspirated six with fewer parts is less complex and less stressed. Fewer potential failure points and much less expensive to buy and maintain over the years.
‘Additionally, the 1-and-4 2-and-3. cylinder firing sequence delivers the same amount of compression as the 1/6, 2/5, etc sequence of a 6.’ — Joe
You may have a point, but it is not stated coherently enough for me to understand it.
Compression is a function of cylinder volume with the piston at the bottom of its stroke, versus cylinder volume with the piston at the top of its stroke. It has nothing to do with firing order. The same definition of compression applies to a one-cylinder thumper.
However, an I-6 delivers a power pulse every 120 degrees of crankshaft rotation, versus every 180 degrees for an inline four. This makes for a difference in smoothness which can be felt and heard.
By the way, the typical firing order of an inline four is 1-3-4-2, not 1-4-2-3, which would produce some ugly torsional moments around the transverse axis.
You are correct about the cylinder firing sequence. I was sans coffee when I wrote that this morning. On the subject of compression, my point was that some current inline 4cyls can have cylinder volumes equal to traditional V6s. As a result, the force delivered per cyl is comparable and it’s being exerted against a smaller, lighter crank. My mentioning of firing sequence was to point out that regardless of the number of cylinders, the engine can only fire one at a time. So you don’t gain an advantage on the force applied by adding cylinders.
Further, my point here was not that 4 cylinders are equal to or better than a v6. I’m a fan of both. I’m also a fan of a v8 under certain circumstances. I’m just disagreeing with the authors premise that it’s some sort of conspiracy by auto makers to deprive us of engine power. Like all businesses, they make all their decisions based on cost/benefit ratio. They also know that the vast majority of car owners will sell the car and buy a newer one before any sort of serious issues rear their ugly head. So producing smaller, lighter, more cost effective engines that can still produce v6-like power makes sense.
On a side note. I can easily built a 4cyl Honda B or K series engine that will go to to toe with most v6s. And contrary to popular belief, they will go 200k or even 300k or more without the need for any serious maintenance. All you ha e to do is replace a few of the cheap plastic parts with metal aftermarket. But that’s also true of modern v6s and v8s.
Joe,
I never said – as you’ve written here – that “it’s some sort of conspiracy by auto makers to deprive us of engine power.” I have said it is a result of regulatory pressure that is meant to ultimately get rid of engines, especially those that are larger than small fours. The putting of turbo fours in 5,000 pound SUVs such as the ’24 LandCruiser I reviewed recently would never have happened absent the regs. These are compliance engines.
The issue isn’t engineering, it’s CHOICE. If I want a slow-turning 400 CID Mopar B-block V8, fed gasoline by a Carter Thermoquad, powering a ’73 Chrysler Newport, Gott-damn-it, Mon, that’s WHAT I’ll drive. Who the HELL is ANYONE to dictate otherwise?
Boy I can relate to this. Right now I am driving a great little SUV: 2008 Suzuki Grand Vitara X-sport with a 187 HP V-6. I’ve had it for 12 years and am itching now to get a newer car.
And what is omitted from this story is the other end of the spectrum. All the 4 cylinders are disappearing too. In favor of tiny turbo engines. 1.3 litre turbos.
This is what I expect, cost conscious consumers in about three years are going to pay the back-end cost of having a turbo engine…when those turbos blow out at 80K miles and you are facing $8K bill for a now $10K seven year old car. You spent 25-30K for your car and unless you take it to mechanic 3 or 4 times a year to do perfect maintenance…ouch.
Are you talking about the turbos or the engine? I’ve had many vehicles with turbos and have had exactly zero failures. I had a Volvo with 150K that was still strong as hell. Ditto several VWs and an Audi.
I had an old Tahoe with the 5.3 and that was, admittedly, a cheap workhorse. And were I to try to keep a vehicle on the road for 400K miles, it would be on my short list. But to act like these turbo charged motors grenade at 100K is just silly. And turbo rebuilds aren’t a big deal.
I have a 1994 Land Cruiser with (get this) 300.000 + miles 6cyl with no turbo.
Only parts I have had to replace is breaks, tire, oil and sorry to say the plastic radiator.
Dumb move Toyota.
Other then that…. I will own this thing till I die.
Datsun B210 – my very first (almost new). car! No AC, standard 5 speed transmission, hand crank windows, AM only radio, no tape deck, vinyl seats. A spray bottle of water provided cooling on 100 degree days. That car ran perfectly just replaced oil and tires. Between that and the Yamaha moped I had cheap reliable transportation. That orange hatchback that people made fun of drove tirelessly on long and short trips and would bet that sucker might still run!
The irony of the coffee example is single use K-cups. Their little plastic shells generate lotsa non-biodegradable trash for landfills. Yet, unlike single use cutlery, haven’t earned the wrath of the Biden thing & his lefty fools.
Hi Eric, I love your writing and insights! Thank you!
Thanks for the kind words, John! I’m glad to have you here with us as well.
Ask any mechanic, a turbo charger will greatly shorten the life of an engine. Why? Because it is an engine oil heater! I will never buy a passenger car or truck with a turbo on it. Just give me a used 2015 Toyota V6. And I can run it above 300K miles. There is no way a 4 cylinder engine with a turbo will get to 300K miles.
Indeed, Tim –
Also, most of these modern turbocharged engines are small engines. They have smaller bearing surfaces that must absorb more load. Plus the heat.
Hence, no thanks!
Not all do. Some performance blocks now use the same bearings as 6cyl. Plus the blocks utilize some newer tech to disperse that heat. Direct oiling the crank and using an oil cooler for instance.
That’s not really true anymore. The modern 4cyls we have today are not like the ones from the 90s. Back then they just bolted a turbo on a minimally modified 4cyl, as a result they had a high failure rate. But by 2000 they had that pretty well licked. The B and K series engines were redesigned from the ground up to integrate a supercharger or turbo without introducing problems.
Turbos on 4cyls got a well deserved bad reputation in the beginning. But times have changed.
Hi Joe,
There’s no denying that a four with a turbo (and peripherals such as an intercooler) is a an engine with more parts and so more potential failure points. It is a more expensive engine – both to sell and maintain. What are the advantages vs. a naturally aspirated six that makes about the same power? A modest, mostly on-paper reduction in gas consumption and “emissions.” As if the latter were a meaningful issue anymore. In othe words, this whole regime is fundamentally about compliance.
And it won’t stop with turbo fours, either. The will soon be unable to comply, too. The end-goal is no engines – at all.
Well, I think we’re talking about two different subjects here. I disagree about the reliability of a property built 4cyl turbo vs a v6. There are turbo K Series 4cyls on the road right now that have gone 250K with proper servicing. Yes its more complex but great engineering goes a long way in neutralizing that. However, that’s just us being two motorheads have a debate that could go on forever.
I do not disagree about the aims of the government and the powers that be. There is no doubt that they are hell bent on depriving us of our freedom of movement.
Roger that, Joe!
I have a column on deck that will get into this some more as you’ve made me realize it’s important to explain the why in addition to the here-it-is.
You might also want to look at the latest trend in 4cyl performance – individual throttle bodies with no turbo or supercharging. I’m finding myself highly tempted by it.
You’re also pressurizing the engine—which isn’t good for longevity.
Only if the block, pistons, and crank aren’t engineered to handle that pressure without degradation. There are properly serviced turbo 4cyls on the road today with over 250K on them and still going strong. Every discussion about this is contaminated by the experiences people had with the early versions that weren’t properly engineered. Those first 2 or 3 generations were garbage. But everything made after that has been a quantum leap forward and it’s continuing to improve. I would encourage you to take a very close look at the current generation of those engines. You will be surprised.
Awww, com-on-man. Most of us know the smaller engine means less carbon,,,, that dangerous so called emission that governments say is causing the non-existent climate change that only they can stop and then only if we give up all our modern conveniences and wealth that ,,,like in past periods of human misery,,, they think only they (the elite as we stupidly call them) should have.
Then for the big carbon kahuna (us) they came up with the fake covid and the kill shot. Even though this shot has killed, maimed, disabled millions,,, it is still given to the addled and children. The children will likely be sterilized or too sick to have children. They are testing several other diseases for their fear factor. No,,, they are not done with us yet. And using our money to fund it all! Can’t beat that for stupid.
Hear about the arrest of the Telegraph CEO? Yeah,,, those loving governments are pissed because he won’t give the “””Authorities””” the key to Telegrams encryption so they can spy on us.
Did you know several countries will be ‘testing’ vaxx passports this year…. No,,, they haven’t given up on that or any other devious plan(s) they have.
They never stop,,, at best they might slow down a little.
Vax passports, carbon credits, all evil incarnate.
Of course, the government hasn’t mandated that a cup of coffee cost $2. People are free to buy a $6 cup if they want that. And other people are free to buy the $2 cup, which sells because many people don’t want to spend $6 on a cup of Starbucks coffee
Thing is, there’s an incredible range of coffee prices and ways to acquire a cup. This morning’s blend is from Costco, whole beans in a 2lb bag. Grind, brew and drink at home. Costs around $0.40/cup. And still higher quality than Starbucks or McDonalds. And a thousand other ways to get your morning cup, if you so desire, from gas stations, to machines, to independent shops, to Amazon.*
Now, building engines is in a whole other league as far as complexity, but I have to think the process is probably automated enough that a well equipped machine shop could manufacture boutique engines. Multiply that by 10,000 and you’ve got some real competition for LS crate engines, and possibly Mopar Hemis. It used to be this way, before Henry made labor into automatons. But now it is accepted as fact that to build a car you need thousands of people and millions of acres under roof for your factories. Maybe I’m missing something, but the fact is “desktop CNC” and 3D printing tech keeps getting better while that factory just keeps on depreciating year after year.
What will happen when people start driving these hand crafted machines? Will they only be permitted to drive them in nations that don’t have emissions rules, while we Americans and Europeans are forced to live with the Starbucks/McDonalds choice of today?
*I’m reminded of that old “if operating systems were airlines…” meme that went around the Internet back in the 90s. The punchline for Linux Air was “All your friend can say is ‘You had to do what with the seat?'”
https://fossbytes.com/what-if-operating-systems-were-airlines/
My ’05 4Runner only has 180k miles on it. I take care of that truck because it has a powerful engine, is crazy reliable, is easy to work on, and doesn’t spy on me. I neither need nor want a new car or truck and paying $50,000 for a piece of garbage that will tell the government and insurance companies EVERYTHING about me and my driving habits is insanity. I refuse to comply and participate.
Amen, Dragon!
I love my ’02 Nissan Frontier for the same reasons. It doesn’t even harass me for not “buckling up.” Imagine that!
I can just “hear” the Gubmint control freaks and snoops “saying”…ok, “Dragon”, what do you have to HIDE? That’s the sort of tyrant mentality that pervades the District of Criminals these days.
It was during the “oil crisis” of the 1970s that the gov’t stuck its nose in our business WRT cars. It was during this time that the 55 mph speed limit was introduced. It was also the time when CAFE standards came into being. As is the case with the gov’t, they never let a crisis go to waste…
“As is the case with the gov’t, they never let a crisis go to waste…”
Yep. Especially the ones that THEY create!
I have two old Land Cruisers (96 & 97) that I bought “used” in 2002 & 2006. They both still run great and neither has left me or my wife stranded in that time. They’re easy to maintain and repair myself. (good thing since none of the “auto repair” places around here will work on them because they won’t accept a vehicle over 15 years old)
Where do you live. Wherever I want to stay away. The average age of vehicles where I live is probably 12 years.
Hi Ian,
I have been lusting after a ’91 LC with the diesel and right-hand drive… if only I could afford the thing!
I was advised by the Old Man to “buy” my four-wheeled rides USED and my two-legged, two-tittied ones NEW. Life got complicated when I did the OPPOSITE.
Since GM announced last year that they were going to produce a new design V-8 in a new facility, does that mean that it is only for the “upper crust” and government use only? As for the rest of us, a .75 liter 2-cylinder engine will be forced on us in the near future before Detroit closes up shop permanently. If only a giant sink hole would open up under DC and leave a foot of the Washington monument exposed!
Hi Allen,
I think so, yes. Now that Camaro is gone, the only vehicles GM sells that have V8s are large trucks and SUVs that all cost south of $40k even in base trim; the Corvette still has a V8 but it comes with a near-exotic price; only affluent people can afford it. I anticipate GM will cancel the V8 in the Tahoe and Silverado; maybe the six figure Escalade will still have one. And that’ll be about it.
“If only a giant sink hole would open up under DC and leave a foot of the Washington monument exposed!”
DC is only a decoy. These vermin are scattered across the globe.
One Ohio-Class SSBN could take out Tel Aviv, Haifa, Dimona, and Elath with, at most, three Trident II D5 SLBMs and END all that shit.
As Dale Earnheart said “Tubochargers are for engines without enough cylinders”
Hi Southern Yankee,
Exactly right! Turbos used to be used as power adders used chiefly in performance cars. They are now being used to maintain the performance of under-engined cars.
I became so discouraged and disgusted with new car shopping that I just bought a pristine 2006 BMW E46 M3 convertible with its 6 cylinder naturally aspirated engine. A joy to drive and without any of the bull—- crap that all the new cars have. It took a big bite out of my retirement savings but it is worth every penny!
Really nice car.
Amen, Albert –
I wish I had the dinero available to snap up that ’91 Land Cruiser diesel I wrote about a few weeks ago. But instead I have to pay taxes on the property I used to think I owned – and “contribute” to Social Security.
Yes, no matter whether some Bank(ster) claims title to YOUR real estate, even if in fact, you actually OWN it, fee simple, the County is the landlord of last resort. As for Social Security TAXES being a “contribution”…nope, the SCOTUS has ruled that they’re TAXES, just like any other, and the US Government has NO legal nor contract obligation to pay one thin dime of benefits to ANYONE. If anyone else pulled that kind of shit in selling securities, they’d be in for one long stay, next to Bernie Madoff, and they’d better hope they get “white collar Federal prison” instead of “Federal ‘pound them in the ASS’ prison”!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBzvMLW0ii4
Wait until you have to start fixing it.
As with everything, if FedGov touches it, they will always screw it up. Always.
After all, its “profit” margin is determined by how much they can steal from us.
Incompetence amplified by evil intent. Can’t vote it away, because all the candidates are in on it.
The point of no return kicked in when they crossed the line of more automatic transmission gears than were cylinders in the engine.
I agree, Checkstoop –
The automatic enabled and encouraged people who can’t drive to drive; it fostered Safetysim. Passivity. Learned helplessness. Mind, I don’t object to the automatic, per se. And most of not all of the problems associated with them would go away if people had to demonstrate proficiency with a manual in order to obtain a license to drive (if we have to have such things).
Automatics are fine for large, heavy vehicles…hell, they became standard in TANKS before US civilian automobiles, simple because too many kids, even those that already could drive a farm tractor, kept burning out clutches and stripping gears on M4 Medium tanks in “Dubya-Dubya Two, Da Big One” (I refuse to say “Sherman” with that otherwise fine armored fighting vehicle, which was the name the LIMEYS gave it, to honor that US Army WAR CRIMINAL, William Tecumseh Sherman). Just imagine how it’d have been with the 52 tons on both the M48 and M60 “Pattons”, or the 70-ton M1A2 Abrams. Automatics go with the big boats we USED to buy and, if not pay cash outright, pay off in 2-3 years, and even old ladies could effortlessly drive them.
The old fashioned “standard shift”, even “three-on-the-tree”, though, was PERFECT for subcompacts and compacts. However, the automakers had to sell these vehicles to GIRLS as well, and the concept of matching gear selection to road speed and working both gas and clutch pedal at the same time is just too much for them, I suppose.
Forgot to mention…the zenith of manual gearboxes in production cars was that Mitsubishi “Twin Stick” you could get on Dodge/Plymouth Colts…nothing more than mating a cheap four-speed gearbox to a two-speed differential in the transaxle. Yes, some of the gears overlapped, but that was the IDEA…you picked the LOW range for slow, CITY driving, and the HIGH for the HIGHway. Not a difficult concept, and the car was good on gas.
‘The point of no return kicked in when they crossed the line of more automatic transmission gears than were cylinders in the engine.’ — check stoop
This is an excellent combination of disparate metrics, which lends itself to a simple ratio of cylinders / speeds. Example:
Eric’s vintage Firebird: 8 cylinders / 4 speeds = 2.0 — GOOD
2024 Toyota Tacoma: 4 cylinders / 8 speeds = 0.5 — BAD
A C/S ratio lower than 1.0 is a firm REJECT. One can could go even farther and call it an affront to nature; an abomination in the eyes of the Deity.
Jim and Eric, the first two gears of that eight speed auto trans should be called granny 1 and 2. They don’t cure but help make up the difference for lack of torque
in the 4 banger.
On a road trip full of mountains will that poor tranny ever find a gear its comfortable with? check
Automatics became popular once they could out shift you. I have a ZF 8 speed and it can shift gears in 3ms. No human could do that.
Yawn
“I have a ZF 8 speed…”
Best transmission I’ve owned. Always in the correct gear and, as noted, super fast shifts. German made. Also used in Dodge Hemi’s.
There were popular, Daniel, LONG before the huge number of gear selections and Power Control Modules (PCMs). The famous GM Turbo-Hydramatic debuted with the Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight in 1939, and was more or less unchanged for about FORTY years. Chrysler was a latecomer to the game, having come up with such monstrosities as that 1948 “Vac-O-Matic”, but their 1957 Torqueflite is considered about the most bulletproof automatic tranny ever mass-produced. Three speeds, like then then-ubiquitous “Three-on-the-tree” standard shift, was considered to be enough for the slow-turning, low-end torquey engines of the time, in a “fifty mph” world that was most of the USA west of the Mississippi river. Even then, overdrives, usually added on, were employed for situations where a lot of high-speed highway driving was anticipated. I had a ’68 Rambler with the 3-speed OD, and even with that 199 cube six, all 120 ponies of it, it cruised effortless at 70 mph on the freeway…of course, being that was during the “Malaise Era” edict of “I cant drive…Fifty-Five!”, going 70 was “daring” and ILLEGAL. Today, you get angry, impatient motorists if you go that speed in the MIDDLE lane where posted at 65!
Some days I wonder if the reason they are forcing under sized engines into cars is so that gas vehicles are as unreliable and disposable as the EVs’ they think we should be driving.
Funny thing is that you used to be able to buy a F250 with a straight 6, heck you used to be able to buy a one ton truck with a flat head 6 and they lasted but now they come with a double turbocharged 4 cylinder engine and they don’t last now. As Mr. Spock would have said: “Fascinating”.
As for that $6 cup of StarSchmucks’ coffee just wait until Special K’s price controls come in and everyone is charging $8 for a cup.
‘a V6 engine is now pretty much a luxury item’ — eric
Yesterday I was treated by the owner of a 2007 Toyota Tacoma to a lengthy encomium to its excellent 4.0 liter V6. It now has 86,000 miles, leading the local auto repair shop to declare it ‘almost broken in.’
He uses it locally to tow a trailer and mini-excavator which together weigh 5,500 lbs. The V6 is totally unfazed by the weight … whereas the trailer, lacking its own brakes, would be a hazard on mountain roads, potentially overwhelming the truck’s brakes.
The overworked, turbocharged 2.4-liter four now standard in the Tacoma is simply not going to offer the longevity of the brawny V6, which is no longer available at any price.
Pay more, get less: ol’ Sam Walton would have recognized this as anathema. But it’s music to the ears of twisted, dictatorial Uncle Sam of the DC usurper regime, spewing its unbearable yankee superciliousness.
“86,000 miles, leading the local auto repair shop to declare it ‘almost broken in.”
Indeed, not so many years ago, a new car did not reach its peak MPG until 50 or 60K.
Because it WASN’T broken in until then.