Auto engines

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Post Reply
Topic Author
dawg
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:34 pm

Auto engines

Post by dawg »

2.4 liter engines Ok in Kia
new2bogle
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:05 pm

Re: Auto engines

Post by new2bogle »

2.4 (probably 4 cylinder?) seems like a weak engine. No direct experience though. Probably good for stop and go traffic.
alwi228
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:06 pm

Re: Auto engines

Post by alwi228 »

2.4 engine bad in anything
neilpilot
Posts: 3787
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:46 pm
Location: Memphis area

Re: Auto engines

Post by neilpilot »

My 2008 Saturn VUE has a 2.4L ecotec, and after 134k miles I'm still happy with the performance. If I towed or didn't live in an area with mostly flat terrain, I would have bought the optional 6 cylinder which I test drove as well.
niners9088
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Auto engines

Post by niners9088 »

That is a very vague question without knowing the details. For example a 2017 Nissan Altima has a 2.5L engine and makes 179 hp while a 2017 Ford Mustang has a 2.3L engine and makes 310hp. I have a 2006 Acura TSX with a 2.4L engine making 205hp. I think it's a great engine but it is probably very different then the one in the Kia.
User avatar
lthenderson
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:43 pm
Location: Iowa

Re: Auto engines

Post by lthenderson »

I was impressed with the 2.5L engine in the Rav4 especially in sport mode.
User avatar
F150HD
Posts: 3761
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:49 pm

Re: Auto engines

Post by F150HD »

dawg wrote:2.4 liter engines Ok in Kia
?
Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light.
dbr
Posts: 35933
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: Auto engines

Post by dbr »

rec7
Posts: 2369
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:22 pm

Re: Auto engines

Post by rec7 »

It is meant to compete against the corolla. In the old days it would be called a grocery getter. A corolla has a 1.8 engine.
Disclaimer: You might lose money doing anything I say. Although that was not my intent. | Favorite song: Sometimes He Whispers Jay Parrack
GulfCoast
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 3:06 pm

Re: Auto engines

Post by GulfCoast »

I think the 2.4L in the Kia Optima has around 200hp. Adequate, but not great. Their 2.0L Turbo is the one to get if you value performance. For most people the 2.4 is just fine.
User avatar
Smorgasbord
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:12 pm

Re: Auto engines

Post by Smorgasbord »

Way over-powered for my tastes...but I'm driving around with a 1.2L 3-cylinder engine that cranks out 74 HP.
Jack FFR1846
Posts: 13695
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:05 am
Location: 26 miles, 385 yards west of Copley Square

Re: Auto engines

Post by Jack FFR1846 »

Are you people all teenagers? In the early 80's, the standard Corvette V8 put out 165 hp. I captured 2 track records (Lime Rock and NHIS) in a 1990 BMW M3 with a stock 2.3L 4 cylinder engine and captured another, but lost it in the same event at Lime Rock in a 2004 Mazda 6i with a 2.3L 4 cyl. Mazda's Miata competes in weekend track events more than any other car and has never had an engine anywhere near 2.4L.
Bogle: Smart Beta is stupid
User avatar
jimb_fromATL
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:00 pm
Location: Atlanta area & Piedmont Triad NC and Interstate 85 in between.

Sounds like some folks are out of touch

Post by jimb_fromATL »

Times and technology have changed. Today's 4 cylinder engine in the range of 2.4 liters has more horsepower, and the cars have higher performance, than ordinary V8 passenger cars in the 50's through the 90's.

Many modern V6 engine cars often have more power and performance than a lot of the muscle cars of the 60s and 70s, too. Even the smaller econo-car 4 cylinder engines of today in the range of 1.5 to 2 liters put out more power for their size and weight than similar displacement racing engines of a few decades ago.

Not only will modern 4 cylinder cars out accelerate older V8 sedans, they'll outrun them on the top end too; and will outhandle them; stop far better; will be far safer in an accident; give less trouble and run hundreds of thousands of miles longer; and will get double to triple the gas mileage while polluting only a tiny fraction as much while they're doing it.

So ... yes 2.4 liters is adequate in a Kia ... or a Toyota ... or a Honda ... or anything else for normal driving.

jimb
N10sive
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 6:22 pm

Re: Auto engines

Post by N10sive »

I have driven around most sedans with 90-115hp. These are older cars, gutless when you have people in them but get me around easily and cheap. A 185hp engine would do fine in a sedan. SUV might vary. And also depends on if your always lugging around people or not and location. If I was in a higher elevation town, I would get a 6 cylinder minimum or 4 cylinder turbo.

The new 4 cylinders are quite more advanced than the days of old. I would enjoy to own a higher horsepower vehicle but I have my motorcycle with the same hp yet a fraction of the weight to ride around on.
jharkin
Posts: 2761
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:14 am
Location: Boston suburbs

Re: Auto engines

Post by jharkin »

What exactly is the question?

To emphasize on the above, the displacement or the number of cylinder alone tells you nothing. You you dont know the power, the torque, how big of a vehicle its moving, what the drivers expectations for performance, handling, NVH, reliability, etc are. And so on.

i.e. a 200hp naturally aspirated 2.4L I-4 in a Cadillac Escalade would drive feel like an overloaded 4 axle dump truck. The same engine in a Honda Fit would be like driving a shiftier cart :)


Small engines can be built to put out a LOT of power. As long ago as the 1950s, small displacement supercharged and turbocharged engines in Grand Prix race cars (predecessor of Formula 1) where putting out power levels of 500-600HP in engines less than 2L. Even the naturally aspirated race engines of the 60s where managing 200-300hp out of 2.5L. The thing they lacked was low end torque, smooth idle and long term reliability that todays modern variable valve timed, fuel injectected engines provide.
dbr
Posts: 35933
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: Auto engines

Post by dbr »

jharkin wrote:What exactly is the question?
I think the OP wants assurance that he is not making a mistake buying a Kia with that engine.

The thread as a whole would seem to say it is not a mistake though there are those who would prefer cars with more power.
User avatar
Kenkat
Posts: 7351
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:18 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Auto engines

Post by Kenkat »

Jack FFR1846 wrote:Are you people all teenagers? In the early 80's, the standard Corvette V8 put out 165 hp. I captured 2 track records (Lime Rock and NHIS) in a 1990 BMW M3 with a stock 2.3L 4 cylinder engine and captured another, but lost it in the same event at Lime Rock in a 2004 Mazda 6i with a 2.3L 4 cyl. Mazda's Miata competes in weekend track events more than any other car and has never had an engine anywhere near 2.4L.
Lol, my first new car that I bought was a 1987 Acura Integra - 113hp and yet still quite quick for its day; it would put a hurt in' to my wife's 1985 Nissan Sentra and its 68hp engine.

I'm still kind of a teenager when it comes to cars though...
takeshi
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:02 pm

Re: Auto engines

Post by takeshi »

dawg wrote:2.4 liter engines Ok in Kia
What are you specifically asking? Are you wondering about performance? Reliability? Something else?
friar1610
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: MA South Shore

Re: Auto engines

Post by friar1610 »

I have (and my wife mostly drives) a 2011 Buick Regal with the Ecotec 2.4 liter engine. This is probably the same GM engine mentioned by an earlier poster from a Saturn. The Regal is apparently a bit heavy for its size. So the combination of the weight and the engine means it is a bit sluggish on acceleration. (I am very careful pulling onto a highway where cars are going 55 and more.) If I were still young and crazy enough to challenge other cars from stop lights I suspect I'd be beaten most of the time. That said, I easily can go (and have gone) fast enough on the highway to get a speeding ticket. (It'll cruise along at 80 with no discernible strain.)

Buick also offered a 2.0 liter turbo for this car and, in retrospect, I shoulda sprung for it. But I'm not unhappy enough to get rid of the car.
Friar1610
gnujoe2001
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:21 am

Re: Auto engines

Post by gnujoe2001 »

dawg wrote:2.4 liter engines Ok in Kia
A Kia...what model?

No matter what, you'll have to actually drive the car to find out, the engine spec alone doesn't fill in the complete system with transmission, handling, NVH, etc. --I'm pretty happy with the 2.4L 4-cyl in our Camry with enough go when needed and good MPG all other times. A 2.4L in a rental of similar size car years ago felt underpowered.
jharkin
Posts: 2761
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:14 am
Location: Boston suburbs

Re: Auto engines

Post by jharkin »

Kenkat wrote:
Jack FFR1846 wrote:Are you people all teenagers? In the early 80's, the standard Corvette V8 put out 165 hp. I captured 2 track records (Lime Rock and NHIS) in a 1990 BMW M3 with a stock 2.3L 4 cylinder engine and captured another, but lost it in the same event at Lime Rock in a 2004 Mazda 6i with a 2.3L 4 cyl. Mazda's Miata competes in weekend track events more than any other car and has never had an engine anywhere near 2.4L.
Lol, my first new car that I bought was a 1987 Acura Integra - 113hp and yet still quite quick for its day; it would put a hurt in' to my wife's 1985 Nissan Sentra and its 68hp engine.

I'm still kind of a teenager when it comes to cars though...
Funny, my 3rd (used) car was an 87 Accord hatchback with a 110hp 1.8... Probably the same engine. Zippy enough for a college kid.

My first car was an 82 Accord sedan and that had a whopping 72hp. Not quick but could get up to 80on the freeway..eventually. Got mileage that would make a hybrid proud along the way way.

It helped that those old cars where very light. I think the 82 weighed <1800lb. Smaller than a modern subcompact.
Post Reply