Four-Cylinders Dominate Market

Energy concerns are on the front burner of the American psyche lately. While politicians and automakers bicker over the right direction for the nation’s energy policy, consumers have decided with their wallets. For the first time, vehicles equipped with four-cylinder powertrains have captured more than half (51%) of the overall market, according to Power Information Network, an affiliate of J.D. Power and Associates. This is in stark contrast to just last year, when six-cylinders were king of the hill, accounting for 39% of the market; four-cylinders comprised 38%.

The biggest loser in all of this is the V-8 engine, which was once the mark of luxury and status. Automakers are beginning to redistribute their funding to engine programs according to changing consumer tastes. Ford’s EcoBoost and GM’s “family zero” lineup, which use direct injection and turbocharging, are examples of new high-output/low-displacement engines that sacrifice little in terms of performance but gain greatly in fuel efficiency. In the meantime, GM has cut back on V-8 development with the cancellation of GM’s Northstar replacement.

All of this has reduced the V-8 from a quarter of the market in 2006 to 13% today, PIN said. According to USA Today, automakers are “confining [V-8s] to trailer-towing trucks and a few premium cars or high-performance sports models.” So in an era of high gas prices and environmental concerns, V-8s are looking like an endangered species. Given time, maybe even the V-6 will become an even smaller minority.

More car buyers say: I shouldn't have a V-8 (USA Today)

Comments

In the days when you can get 201 hp out of a NA I4, who even "needs" a V6? Even with the Accord, I'm seeing a lot of 190 hp 4cyl models around and very few 271 hp V6s. Considering only a few generations ago the V6 Accord "only" made 200 hp why jump for the 271 hp new model when you can get the more efficient cheaper 4 banger making 190 hp. Of course there is still a staggering difference on tq production between 4 and 6 cyl, but thats what turbos are for :)

CJ,
Good comment.
A lot of V6s now get 270 though. A lot. Heck even a camry puts out 268! There's a pretty big difference in 190 and 250 IMHO. Now, you're talking to a guy who bought a four cylinder subaru so you definitely don't need a v6 I agree. but there is a big difference in the driving experience.

I will say there is much less difference in driving a 240 hp turbo 4 vs a 270 V6 though!

Engine displacement has been growing every generation as well. The original Honda V6 was 2.7L and now it's 3.5L. Nissan went from 3.0L to 3.5L and now to 3.7L for Infiniti. Toyota went from 3.0L to 3.5L. Mazda went from 3.0L to 3.7L. Ford went from 3.0L to 3.5L and now to 3.7L for Lincoln. 4 cylinders have also grown with the norm being 2.3 to 2.5L now.

I really don't have a point to this...just thought it be food for thought.

Good points about the increased size and output of today's V6 engines.

With automakers streamlining their production techniques, most V6s are designed for use in crossovers. They really are bigger and more powerful than necessary for most cars. Also new engines are so much more technologically sophisticated that the difference in price between 4 and 6 cylinders is greater than it used to be.

Its amazing what gas at $4 has done, a couple of years ago you would often be hard pressed to even find a cars mileage in road tests, now its all you read about. And what ever happened to Detroit's whining about Cafe Standards?

The wife and I took a good long look at the Accord with the V6 last month when we were buying her a new car. All of about ten seconds.
The 2.5 four cylinder in her EX-L does the job with more than enough power and averages 26.5 mpg per tank in city only driving.

With the engine size scale down, will we see smaller Trucks, SUVs and Crossovers too?

I just think people got smarter.
No matter how many horsepower your car's engine makes, it still takes you from point A to point B. Plus, no matter how powerful the engine is, you still cannot outrun the red light's timing sequence.

Some engines have gotten more efficient when you are looking at smaller cars' categoty.
For example, the Civic was 1.5L to 1.6L to 1.7L and now 1.8L.
It makes more power, but achieves about the same if not better mpg.

I have to point out that contrary to this posting, the four cylinder trend is not a new phenomena, and this is NOT the first time that four bangers have dominated sales. Does anyone remember the Ford Model T? They built 15 million of them and every one had a four cylinder engine. It's safe to say that during the decades that the tin lizzy was putting the world on wheels that four cylinders had a majority of the market. Fours also dominated the 1970s during our first go round with OPEC, with penalty boxes like the Vega, Pinto and various Datsuns and Toyotas and the horrible Audi 100LS, VW Dasher and other stinkmobiles selling like hotcakes while V8s languished on the lots.

J is right. What we are seeing is not unusual. Fuel prices increased and the demand for V8s decline. Once the prices settle again V8s will be back in business. This is just basic supply and demand economics.
Also, 4 cylinders must be the most popular engines in the world.

As usual the herd moves in the wrong direction. The best deals going are V6 Camry and Accords as they can be had for the same price as the 4 cylinder versions. There is not much difference in mileage yet the driving experience is much better. It's always better to have a 6 cylinder because you'll want the power for when you run A/C and/or carry additional passengers. Best of all you can run both V6's on regular. Now is the time to get a great deal on a V6 Camry or Accord.

thomas. but as shown, today's four cyclinder is as good as yesterday's v6.

GM seems to have been a little opposite of the trend on the V6 displacement. In the 80's and 90's the 3.8L was one of their top choice engines for their larger sedans. Now for their larger cars the 3.5L is doing the same job with more power then 3.8 offered.

City/commuting we have been getting 26.5 to 27 out of our 3.5 V6 Impala. Highway/trips getting 31 to 32mpg. For a large sedan with a V6 and numbers like that I cannot say I have been tempted into a smaller 4 cyl car for maybe a few more mpgs, it would have to be a bigger difference to be worth it. Our other car is a 4 cylinder with only slightly better mpgs. Granted the HP of the V6 is not a lot better then the top 4 cyls but it does have V6 torque and runs on regular. We have had the 3.9L as a rental cannot see why anyone would need to upgrade over the 3.5. We climbed 10K ft mountain with ease and a full load of people, gear and bikes in Hawaii with another 3.5 rental, it does not get too much more demanding then that.

I drive a 2007 VW Passat 2.0 that has the power and feel of a six cyl.auto but 20% better gas mpg. It is a no brainer!!

The reason people would purchase the 3.9 liter V6 over the 3.5 liter Impala is gearing.
The axle ratio of the 3.9 V6 is 3.29, the 3.5 V6 is 2.86.
15% difference is huge.
Where you were operating the 3.5 V6 in 2nd gear, you would be operating the 3.9 V6 in 3rd (and the SS in 4th gear)

I'd get a Camry V6 in a heartbeat until Toyota upgrades the 4 cylinder engine/transmission combination.

Where are the new 2.5 & 2.7 inline 4 engines?
Where is the 6 speed automatic?

Until Toyota fixes that, the 2gr-fe V6 & mid-grade fuel (it is designed for European mid-grade 95RON, look at the 10.8:1 compression ratio) is the best choice.

The SE trim has a manumatic interface, and good handling.