Especially as EV production is ramping up, with a glut of new pretty-dang-quick bottom-spec cars, the base-spec engines on gas-powered economy cars are getting a lot of flak from auto journalists. Praise for Mazda, Subaru, and even Hyundai often carries the caveat that the base engine is painfully lethargic. The best example of this I’ve seen is the new Trax/Buick Envista: they totally punch above their class in absolutely everything but powertrain, where they’re left with a 137 horsepower 1.2 liter 3 banger. Getting to 60 takes more than 9 seconds, with the quarter mile taking 17.

Having experienced 138 Chevy-bred horses in the last econobox I owned (which was much lighter and had a stick), I think the engine completely talks me out of even recommending these cars to people who aren’t particularly concerned with power and enjoyment. Ditto for CVT-powered base Imprezas and Crosstreks. However, in economy-class cars pushing over 175, engine upgrades often feel frivolous to me (like the CX-5: the base engine just generally seems like a better value for most buyers). So, I guess I’d put my bottom line around 150 horsepower for small cars, 175 for compact SUVs, and for anything bigger than that, I just push for minivans, which haven’t been underpowered for quite some time.

That still seems pretty forgiving, so what about y’all?

  • markeydarkey2B
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It heavily depends on a bunch of other factors too, like power-curves and transmissions. Like an older Prius takes it’s time reaching 60mph but feels completely adequate because of how responsive & torquey the drivetrain is.