V-8s likely preferred diesels for U.S.

I can understand what you mean but we Americans Love to see that "V8" on the engine and car even if it goes against common sense--I am guilty of it too although sometimes I know another setup would be just as good if not favorable

— CarFreak (View Profile)

Posted on 2/8/2007 9:57:39 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

the i6 has long been accepted by american buyers. even most luxury cars have used this setup until v6 were used. there are way more 6 cylinders on our roads than 8 cylinders (not including trucks).

just don't expect americans to embrace 2.0 liter engines in a midsize.

— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/8/2007 10:30:18 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

I would be thrilled to see BMW's 3.0-litre twin-turbo inline six in this counrty! The thought puts a smile on my face.

— johannas (View Profile)

Posted on 2/8/2007 1:29:45 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

A V6 diesel will do fine with most cars. The V8 is nice but not very necessary. A 2.0 diesel does fine as well.

— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/8/2007 7:24:36 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Oh god, just what we don't need.

Well, Chrysler's feeling the pain of bringing out a bunch of V8s in sedans (what we don't need).

Who's going to be the first to take the poison pill of offering the next product nobody wants?

Torque is great for pulling. "Throw you into the back of your seat" kick caused by torque doesn't mean faster acceleration. The Jetta TDI takes nearly 11 seconds to hit 100km/h.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/8/2007 10:00:05 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

I'll take an A8L 4.2TDI.

"Chauffer, please, let's ride to the nearest Neiman Marcus. I'm picking up my girlf-- err, wife."

— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 2/8/2007 10:15:36 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

Man this is going against conventional wisdom...I thought the idea of using diesel engines was to improve economy. Also the fact that you could get more torque out of a smaller td than the equivalent sized gasoline engine. I honestly don't see the need for the v-8 diesels in main stream everyday run about vehicles because they will be less economical. A 3 ltr diesel can get you over and above 300 pound ft of torque and a combined economy of 28 - 30 mpg (or around 24 - 26 mpg us gallons) combined. Also a 2 ltr td will give you torque greater than a 2.5 ltr gasoline engine, but more economical. So i cannot understand why you would want to make it much bigger (and less efficient). Will this just now switch appetites from big uneconomical v8s (gasoline)...to big v8 diesels?? Why not reduce the size of the engines to smaller diesels that have the torque equivalent to or greater than the v-8s as well as achieving greater economy??

— kurtismac (View Profile)

Posted on 2/9/2007 3:55:56 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Diesels have evolved very much.For example:Back in 2001 when BMW launched it's 745i they offered 333HP and 450NM with a 15L/100km urban fuel consumption.Now BMW makes the 745D with 330HP and 750NM!!! with a 13.5L/100KM urban fuel consumption.I drove both models and i am telling you the 745D is awesome.The huge amount of torque is showing.
Anyway,in my opinion the 3.0 V6 or In-Line 6 Diesel is perfect.Best 3.0D engines in the world are made by Audi and BMW.They're very powerfull,silent,and most of all very economic.

— Kostin (View Profile)

Posted on 2/9/2007 4:45:53 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

btw, 18-wheelers are only V8s (16 litre displacement). Maybe VW can offer a Touareg with one of those, or wait, they almost have.

So much for reducing our dependence on oil.

K and K,
True, but there's a limit on how much torque you need. Why have 700ft.lbs when you can save fuel and by getting 200ft.lb that you'll actually use?

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/9/2007 6:39:24 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1