http://wardsauto.com/ar/best_engines_2009_081205/

My gripes:

1) Why the Hemi and not any of the GM GenIV engines?
2) No truck diesels?
3) Why the Audi 2.0L TFSI and not the GM LNF?
4) Hyundai's 4.6L "Tau" V8 isn't spectacular - it's only who makes it
5) No Nissan V6?

I have mixed feelings about the inclusion of Ford's HEV powertrain as an "engine". It's not that I have anything against hybrids - it's just that this is a list of great engines, and not powertrains. Maybe Ward's should revise the list to reflect the latter, because so often it's the combination of engine and transmission that pleases or displeases the customer. Since we're not manufacturing industrial generators or agricultural water pumps, the engine by itself isn't that useful.

 

I've never quite understood their thought process on some of their selections.

What's not impressive about the Tau 4.6?

I say it's impressive by nature due to the fact that it's a level of power, refinement, and economy you don't get until a much higher price range with other manufacturers.

But I don't know much about the engineering side of it. I think Hyundai said they spend something like 300 million developing it.

 

finally the 3.6 made it on the list.

 

QUOTE=Eric Bryant;5727937http://wardsauto.com/ar/best_engines_2009_081205/
My gripes:

1) Why the Hemi and not any of the GM GenIV engines?
Cylinder deactivation, variable valve timing, an active intake manifold that uses 2 profiles depending on power need, getting nearly 380 horsepower and over 400 lbs/ft of torque out of a 345 cubic inch engine while getting high fuel economy... this is the NEW revised Hemi engine, not the version you might be used to.... it makes the current GM LS engines look like a throwback to the stone age.

2) No truck diesels?
I can't name any that's on the same level as VDub's or BMW's diesels mentioned in Ward's awards.

3) Why the Audi 2.0L TFSI and not the GM LNF?
The addition of variable intake manifold (similar to the Hemi's), and refinement likely had something to do with it

4) Hyundai's 4.6L "Tau" V8 isn't spectacular - it's only who makes it
Actually, it is quite impressive, perhaps on the same level as Mercedes. At the same displacement (even in cubic inches) as Ford's 4.6, it makes 375 horsepower, has variable induction, variable timing, evidently engineered very well and is certainly unusually smooth.

5) No Nissan V6?
GM's 3.6 DI V6 is better. It does everything Nissan's V6 does, has a couple more features, and runs on regular gas!

 

Just to be clear, the '09 Challenger R/T's factory rating is 372 horsepower. Call that "nearly 380" if you want, but let's not get mixed up with approximations.

GM's L76 (Commodore, G8 GT, 2007+ Suburban/Avalanche/Silverado/Sierra/Yukon XL) has cylinder deactivation and cam phasing (aka VVT). L99 does too.

I think that, if one engine has an active intake manifold, and another doesn't, and otherwise they are more or less the same, it's a bit excessive to say that the one without looks "like a throwback to the stone age", especially when the one without has been on the market for at least two years.

L99 beats the Hemi's power output and matches the torque. It makes 7% more power from a 5% increase in displacement. Throw an active intake manifold on the L99 and what do you think would happen?

The new, revised Hemi is a nice improvement over the old one, but let's not overstate things here.

 

JakeRobb covered the facts on the Hemi vs. GenIV fairly well. It's not that I think that the Hemi is a bad engine, but I've got a difficult time saying that it's a better engine than GM's L76 and L99. If GM had a knack for giving their engines catchy names, I suspect they'd have more luck on lists like this.

Once again, the Tau engine is special mainly because it's built by Hyundai. I'm not saying that it's a bad engine, and it definitely makes great power, but I'm not sure that it's deserving of 10 Best status. Maybe I'm missing something here.

The truck diesels deserve credit for their durability, power, economy, and emissions. Come on - something that can put out 360 HP for a half-million miles and gets 20 MPG in a 7,000 lb truck deserves recognition as an outstanding powerplant. If someone wants to get a chubby for tech specs, then pick the 6.4L Powerstroke - it's something else (sequential turbos with variable vane geometry on one, piezo injectors, more catalysts and heat exchangers than a coal electrical generation plant).

If the Audi's variable intake manifold is so special, then where is its power advantage over the LNF?

The omission of the Nissan V6 isn't so remarkable from the standpoint of the engine's merits as it is from its history on this particular list. If I'm not mistaken, it had an unbroken run on the list up until this year.

 

Just to be clear the '09 Ram R/T's factor rating is 390 horsepower. That is above the 380 claim (I guess it is an average of the two measures).

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4279138.html

 

Thats all been done before, years ago.

Maybe Wards just learned of it though.

 

Interesting. Thanks. I checked Charger (368), Challenger (372), and 300C (360), but I didn't think to check Ram (390, as you said), Ram 2500/3500 (380), Grand Cherokee/Commander (389) or Durango/Aspen (376). Interesting that the same engine has so many variants. The average of all of those figures is 378, so I guess "nearly 380" was appropriate after all.

Dodge's site says that the Ram's version of the Hemi has two spark plugs per cylinder, but I didn't see that during a quick check of either Charger or Challenger. I didn't bother to look on all of the other Hemi models, but based on the power numbers, I think it's safe to assume that GC/Commander use that version too.

Interesting that they'd put something like that on the Ram/GC/Commander but not on the rest. At first I was thinking that building two different heads (one with provisions for one spark plug per cylinder, and another with two) and two correspondingly different build processes would be cost prohibitive, but when you take into account the additional coils (assuming one coil per plug), wires, and control hardware, that might be offset. Anyway, this has me curious about the cost-benefit breakdown of having the two different setups, especially when it's only adding a handful of horsepower, which they very likely could have matched simply by using a slightly more aggressive camshaft, or any number of other small changes.

 

Corect - the Nissan VQ series has been, until this list, on the list since that list was first published. However, there have been subtle changes/improvements most if not every year...I don't believe the engine has been changed for this year (as compared to last year).

 

Isn't the VQ37 new for 2008?

 

The award is for the new Hemi engine, not the Dodge Challenger.

In the Challenger and Charger with Automatic, it's 370. With manual, it's 375. In the Ram, it's 390. I picked 380 as a median. If I wanted, I could have simply came out with the 390 figure.

If GM made an engine that has all those features, then there would be a great point in wondering why GM's V8 was excluded. But GM doesn't have an engine that has it all in the same engine for some reason or another. Next to all the features the new Hemi has, the L99, L92, LS3, all look alot less advanced than the new 5.7 Hemi. Given a choice betwen the Hemi2 & a GM LS engine, there really is no contest. It certainly isn't anti-GM bias on Ward's part. Northstar was on the list for some time.



Yes, and if I put a Ferrari engine in my B4C, it would sound better to, but "coulda, woulda, and shoulda" engines weren't tested because they don't exist.

It's like a internet remake of the movie "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" whenever the subject is comparing the LSx engine to another V8, displacement differences seem to be completely overlooked. It's as if simply because an engine has eight cylinders arranged in a "V", it's all that's needed. That's how we end up with 281 engines put up against at 376 ci. engines ignoring 325 engines or even 5.4 engines against 5.3s.

The Chrysler Hemi engine is 345ci.
The GM L99 is 376 cubic inches.
That's 30 cubic inches smaller.

Thats a bigger difference in size than exists between the Impala's LS4 (325ci) and the Camaro's LS1 (20 ci) and the LS1 vs the LS2 (20ci).

There is roughly a 30 horse difference between the LS4 and LS1.
There is a roughly 50 horse difference between the LS1 and LS2.

There is a 13 horse difference between the 376 ci L99 and the 345 Hemi.

Hemi has 12 lbs/ft more torque, despite being 31ci smaller.

Imagine a new revised, LS1 having only 13 less horsepower than the LS3 (about 410hp) despite being 30-40 ci smaller yet still having 12 more lbs/ft of torque and getting slightly better mileage. I suspect we'd both be all over the thing praising it, and there would be no doubt about what was the better engine.

Attach such an engine to a different brand, and everything changes.



The 6.1 Hemi is a the counterpart to the LS3.

LS3 is 376ci, 422 horsepower, & 408 lbs/ft of torque.
The 6.1 is 372 ci, 425 horsepower and 425 lbs/ft of torque.
Plus side: the Hemi can take more abuse.
Negative side: the fuel economy of this version.


I'm not taking away from GM's LS engines. Despite a abnormal thirst for oil, and clanking like a diesel about to destroy itself when it's cold, GM's LS engines are durable and put out good power. I now have 185,000 miles on mine if there's any doubt about the LS1's long term durability with regular maintence.

The point is there are other engines out there that in many ways top the LS engines the way the LS engines top other engines in certin catagories.

The thing is that as in any enterprize that involves competition, nothing maintains clear superiority forever. Doesn't mean something is bad.

Just means that someone did it better.... until they in return, outdo the other fellow.

 

See posts #7 and #9. We already have this cleared up. Thanks.

Ah, and now it becomes clear that you've missed my point. I was debating your statement that LS engines "look like a throwback to the stone age," not claiming that any particular LSx should have made the list. The LS3/L99 and the 5.7/6.1 Hemis are very close to each other in pretty much every respect, but I do admit that the Hemi has a couple tech advancements that the LSx does not.

Statements like that really dig at your credibility.

Why, pray tell, are you comparing engines released in 1997 and 2005 to engines just coming out today? What's the relevance? You know that they changed more than just the displacement on the LS2 and LS4 when compared to the LS1, right?

I agree that the 6.1 and the LS3 are a good match for each other, but what makes you say the Hemi can take more abuse? The LS3's block is the same casting as that of the LS9, meaning that it can take the beating of 638 supercharged horsepower -- that's a heck of a lot of abuse if you ask me.

 

If your going to quote the most power that the 6.1L Hemi delivers then quote the most power the LS3 delivers. That would be in the Corvette and not the manual trans 2010 Camaro.

6.2L Base/exhaust upgrade 430/436hp and 424/428 ft/lbs torque
Advantage LS3.
Fuel economy is hard to determine because until the LS3 is put between the fenders of the Camaro it's hard to rate it against the 6.1L Hemi in the Challenger SRT8 because of the weight and aero difference in the C6.

As for abuse that's a stretch to say the Hemi is more durable. Where and who told you that?
Granted the new Hemi has not been in motorsports for as long as the LS series of engines and they have done well. But the LS engine has really put up some impressive runs and times for the sportsman ranks and seem to be able to take a lot of spray or boost.

Interesting side note about the piston slap. When I got my '02 Z she started to slap pretty good at cold start up in MI winters. A co-worker who builds race engines as a side job came over and asked if my car was stock. At the time it was. He commented that he had no idea GM built them so loose. I didn't like the sound but to him that was a small sign of a good running engine. It wasn't until I got to the track that I was able to agree with him.

 

I don't know if they go by model year or calendar year (or if that even makes a difference)???

The engine received some major changes (including of course the bump in displacement) for the '08 G37 but the G37 was introduced in 2007 (the engine was on that year's list).

The 2009 370Z of course has the VQ3.7 but it won't be on sale until about February 2009 and it's only with some minor tweeks to allow a bit more HP.

I don't know much about Ward's criteria...but I am beginning to think that most "lists" (10 Best anything; COTY, etc. etc.) are published mostly to give internet forum members something to argue about.