It could be CAFE, it could be gas prices, it could be the everpresent chatter on all things green, it could be that it's just so bloody hot on Earth nowadays, it could be all those folks in California begging for clean air. But according to recent data and a study by Edmunds.com, V8's simply aren't in vogue anymore, with overall uptake among new car buyers dropping four percent over the last two years.
Along with the decline in SUV purchases, those who are still buying SUV's are shunning V8's twice as quickly, with a nine-percent decline over the last two years. Among full-size sedan and coupe buyers, seven-percent fewer checked the "Big V8" box on the options checklist.
The only place V8's aren't sliding down the mountain is in the full-size pickup market, where four-percent more buyers are still going for stump-pulling power. The theory is that "casual" pickup buyers are opting for something less thirsty, leaving more of those folks who actually haul things to buy pickup trucks powered as God intended. But with even full-size pickups feeling the sales pinch, it looks like the march toward 35-MPG has begun.
[Source: Inside Line]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
A&W @ Feb 14th 2008 5:35PM
It could be that the people buying V8s are getting them used instead.
Tyo @ Feb 14th 2008 5:36PM
I disagree.
I just purchased a 2004 H.O. V8 Grand Cherokee to replace my aging GMC Jimmy.The Jeep is larger on the inside, much faster, better towing/off road/snow performance, and gets the same city MPG and noticeably better MPG Highway.
I love power and usefulness of the torque.
now 35MPG aint gonna happen. But the concept of a big I-6 TurboDiesel as a V8 Replacement i really like. Come to think of it, My 4.7 has very diesel 6-like numbers. 265hp, 325 lb-ft. Keep the hp, increase the torque and mpg and you have a winner.
Look people, theres something to be said for ENJOYING what you drive. You don't spend money to save money, drive what suits your needs and what makes you smile, life is too short.
Mercury Mountaineer 06 @ Feb 14th 2008 5:38PM
My V8 powered Mountaineer gets an average of 23 MPG on the highway (long trips only) which is not great but I think it's pretty good for an SUV.
Tyo @ Feb 14th 2008 5:39PM
YUP.
23-24MPG Highway from the Quadra-Trac Jeep 4.7HO Here
13-15 City at best. 15.1sec 1/4mi though, love to scare the ricers off
Mercury Mountaineer 06 @ Feb 14th 2008 5:43PM
Yeah I average about 14MPG city like you said (at best).
Tyo @ Feb 14th 2008 5:46PM
Yeah but its worth every penny to drive what you want. Am i wrong?
Owain Ozymandias Buck @ Feb 14th 2008 5:46PM
Why do they suppose that "serious" truck buyers go for the bigger engine? Most fleet trucks and a big number of business trucks that I've seen have the base engine in them. The folks who need to haul backhoes, tractors that weigh four or five tons, etc. will of course get the diesel. But how many plumbers, lawn service, and other businesses really check a bunch of options for their work truck?
I'd like to see the numbers in a survey of small businesses that need pickups.
Derek @ Feb 14th 2008 6:20PM
Not to sound down on the guys, but since when have lawn services and plumbers been considered "serious" truck buyers? Most plumbers I see drive vans anyways, and lawn services are fairly split trucks/vans. It's not like these guys are hauling much weight around.
I think the article is referring to landscaping companies, construction companies, agricultural companies, and so forth.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 14th 2008 5:51PM
Maybe 4% fewer pickup truck buyers are opting for the Dodge and Ford V10s than before and instead getting V8s.
That One Person @ Feb 16th 2008 3:32PM
Dodge doesn't offer a V-10 anymore. Ford is the only one. We have a couple F-350 dump bodies with V-10s in our fleet. One is a 99 (too weak for it's own good) and the two others are 06s. Good engine. And the mileage is a tad better than the diesels we have (except our four new F-550s with 6.4Ls...the V-10s are about equal). I always liked the later Ford V-10s. They always seemed to have a lot more power off the line compared to their diesels. While they may not tow as much, for the daily driver/weekend hauler, it would be more than enough...plus, you may save a few pennies at the pump (seeing as gas is a buttload cheaper than diesel).
Brent @ Feb 14th 2008 5:55PM
@ why not the LS2/LS7?
So Dodge Viper buyers are switching to Dodge Rams?
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 14th 2008 9:35PM
Dodge sold the Viper V10 in trucks, I think even before it was sold in Vipers. Ford sells the Triton V10 in trucks.
Richard @ Feb 14th 2008 5:56PM
And as far as cars go, maybe its because pushing 300HP in a relatively small V6 is readily available, and seeing 250HP as a starting point is downright commonplace?
Remember, the number of cylinders only affects how smooth the engine is (more detonations per revolution), not inherently how powerful it is. And as power-per-liter goes up, liters can go down as well.
j_diesel @ Feb 15th 2008 3:18AM
i have to agree. my aurora has 250hp and 260ft-lbs. barely enough to hang with modern V-6 power today. i'd bet my V-8 is a bit smoother but i'd give up some smooth to break into the 20's with fuel economy. i average 17-18 in summer and a wallet ripping 15 in winter. taking transit a couple of times a week keeps costs down but many people don't have this option.
Tagg @ Feb 14th 2008 6:26PM
I find interesting that this trend is being realized now. Remember a few months ago when Lincoln said they would not offer a V8 in the MKS and everyone from industry "insiders" to posters here blasted them for that desicion?
Looks like they may have been right after all.
David Wiles @ Feb 14th 2008 6:28PM
I'm thinking gas prices. After four years of being able to walk to work and having a car that gets 32mpg highway, I now have a ninety mile round trip commute. My next car needs to handle,steer, stop and ride well, and carry what I need it to, but with gas at $2.90-$3 or more in my area, I also want 45mpg minimum next time around.
PJ @ Feb 14th 2008 6:29PM
With engines like Nissan's VQ, GM's DI 3.6, and Honda's and Toyota's respective 3.5s, there's really very little reason to use a V8 in a car application. All of the above are very smooth, very powerful, and pack a fat punch of torque at the low end.
The only remaining rationales I can see--in a sports or sport-luxury car, anyway--are whatever prestige or "manhood" one attaches to a greater number of cylinders.
That said, I can't imagine a 'Vette without a V8. Nor do I look forward to the loss of that distinctive woofly exhaust note. But outside of HD trucks, I think the V8's days are (relatively) numbered. Same thing happened to the V12 when improved V8 technology rendered the twelve's added thirst and complexity pointless.
Justin @ Feb 14th 2008 8:07PM
The problem is that those v6's you mentioned are basically as big as a similarly powered ls v8 (ls4) and get basically the same mpg (Malibu 3.6 vs. Monte SS, both get 16/26 by 2008 ratings, particularly if we consider the non-e85 version of the ls4. And this is with a 2 gear advantage to the v6).
They get a pass because they trade displacement for overhead cams that end up doing the same thing.
MikeW @ Feb 15th 2008 12:26PM
That misrepresents the history of the V12.
When inline6 engines were made, way back over 100 years ago, the metallurgy was such that torsional oscillations were just accepted-sometimes to the detriment of the transmission.
Some even sold that as a feature, the 'power rattle'
One solution was to double the inline6 and make a V12. That isn't complexity, just a multiplicity of parts.
This resulted in net positive torque, and 'power rattle' be gone. This was very compatible with the contemporary vehicles design. The V12 engine wasn't any longer than inline6, nor any taller, and only slightly wider, a perfect fit for the engine bay.
http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-PistonExcit.htm
Another solution was to take two inline4 cylinder engines and make a flat plane crank V8. The flat plane crank V8 came first, then the cross plane crank came later.
The results of a shorter crankshaft and net positive also eliminating the 'power rattle'
Mark Ryan @ Feb 14th 2008 6:30PM
Just the same, the number of cylinders doesn't always reflect the MPG. My 8 cylinder Goat gets about the same mileage as a four-banger Evo or STi, maybe even better on the highway (real-world, I got 24MPG from SF to LA and made it with no gas stops between). Hight strung V6s outputting the power of small V8s won't be getting much better mileage if better at all.