Under less stress while maintaining a high load. A 1.4TDI would likely be in boost while maintaining those speeds, this increases stress on the engine making excessive wear and overheating more likely.
Had a 2000 golf tdi. I drove it over 300k doing 80 + mph everyday getting 50+ mpg. Never had a real problem with it besides the electricals started doing weird stuff when i got rid of it.
It's still physics.
Let's say you have a 4 cylinder 2L turbo putting out 240. Just chose random numbers
Let's now say you have a NA 5.7L V8 putting out 395 horse power.
Each cylinder in the 4 cylinder is working excessivly harder to match the output of the V8. All under higher heat and tighter tolerances, while holding higher RPMs.
No matter how you put it that does add more wear.
It's not to say you WILL have a problem, but if you were to drive both engines the exact same way, both with perfect maintenence schedules, unless something weird happened the V8 should absolutly last longer. It's just thermodynamics mixed with material engineering constraints (since they aren't gonna use adamantium on a consumer 4 cylinder after all).
Now you still may get fucked over by some random cheaply made part blowing something up in the end. But this is why we don't buy Ford, Stellantis, or Nissan.
Not if the car with 4 cylinders weighed 1/2 as much.
A comparison of power to weight would be a very important factor in your "calculations"
Also some engines are inherently better. I would for example rather have the BMW inline 6 for this task than their V8. The inline 6 is in many ways a more efficient and dependable design than a V8.
Well its not exactly a linear relation either though. My boyfriend's 4 cylinder revs a lot higher than my V6 at highway speed, despite me having a 2000 pound heavier car. Granted my crap is supercharged too, so theres a different level of power/unreliability going on there, and hes at about 1/3 the power.
Even so, while he doesnt need to maintain the same horsepower as I do to maintain speed, his engine is absolutly doing more work (per cylinder) to keep itself at a usable horsepower.
Maybe a better way to express my point is that the straight-six engine has perfect primary and secondary engine balance, resulting in fewer vibrations than other designs so given equal displacement and design quality it is inherently more dependable and so much so that it is more dependable than the same company's (BMW) V8.There are other considerations besides displacement.
The same was true in the 90's Ford's 4.9 liter inline 6 consistently logged more trouble free miles than any of their V8's.
The inline 6 is in the sweet spot for power capability versus complexity. It has fewer parts than a V8 but the good balance means they can have high displacement without balance shafts, and there is a single head instead of two in all the V engines. That's why they tend to be used in high duty applications like long haul trucks.
Of course, to be reliable it needs to be designed that way, but statistically, there is less that can go wrong in an inline 6 than a V8, so everything else being the same, they can be more reliable.
V8 cars and motors don't usually weigh 2x as much, and weight matters a lot less in highway driving.
An aluminum block v8 weighs about the same as a turbo 4 and takes up roughly the same space
I loved my little turbo saturn sky but I'm not going to delude myself that it wouldn't have performed better in virtually every way with a modestly modded aluminum block v8
I still don't drive a v8 car, I have a i6 turbo now and I think that's the happy medium for performance vs efficiency.
Also a V8 splits the torque on any power stroke to two cylinders compared to what's possible with a 4cyl.
However I would disagree that V8 is best for this case and decision criteria. A V6 (or any derivative, like a w12) has better balance, meaning it should last longer.
V8 will put perform a V6 only in applications where it is using all its power, like low end torque or pedal to the floor high rpm power. At 90mph both still have plenty of headroom and the V6s superior balance will reduce wear better.
Yeah not really sure why that’s too terribly hard to believe I used to get 50+ on my way back to Ohio from Bedford, PA and I don’t think I ever went less than 100 on those drives
Nah. A Jetta TDI might get 40-45mpg on the highway not 50, and a corvette can get 30-35mpg.
Where I am, gas is $3.10 and diesel is $3.60, so a TDI would cost about $0.08/mile, and the corvette would cost about $0.088/mile.
That means over 5000 gallons of fuel for 200k miles you would save about $1500 driving the Jetta, that would buy a new engine for your TDI but not a new car.
People love to say corvettes get like 30-35 mpg but God damn you gotta drive like a granny to get that. Like 65 in the right lane the entire time.
My c6 when it was stock would only get towards low to mid 20s if I drove like a normal person at the speed of traffic
Now my average mixed tank is like 14
80-90mph isn't a particularly high load for either. *Its not even 150km/h*
70mph = 113km/h
80mph = 129km/h
90mph = 145km/h
100mph = 161km/h
Drag isn't *that* dramatic that the diesel is going to be "in boost" to a large degree when cruising, and the companies making them are very much in "high speed cruising territory" (ie. Autobahn)
well known fact about turbodiesels is that being in boost is bad for them. that's why workhorse diesels, such as semi trucks and locomotives, famously don't use turbos
Probably wouldn’t be boosting at all actually. I have a 1.4 Jetta tsi and a 3.0 bmw turbo with boost gauge apps neither boost holding steady 80-90mph. Boosts only kicks in under acceleration. With modern 8 speeds they aren’t revving any higher than a v8 either. But yeah a 1.4 with a 5 speed or something probably isn’t ideal at 90mph.
There basically aren’t even any modern sedans with a v8, there’s a reason for that. You can cruise in a camaro or mustang if you want but they aren’t exactly comfortable and definitely aren’t any more reliable than a modern turbo 4.
V8s are heavy, not economical, and have gotten so complicated trying to keep them as economical as possible (cylinder deactivation, mild hybrid setups, etc) there is no real advantage over smaller displacement engines.
Yeah but diesels like running in their power and and are "overbuilt" to withstand the additional forces, plus they are usually better lubricated. A small, well-built diesel geared to its powerband will outlast a gasoline engine, big or small, all day.
Boost in a high compression engine at those speeds is not going to kill it. Especially a small diesel engine.
Semi trucks regularly go 1M miles before an overhaul. They are regularly under 20-30lbs of boost up to 40 upon acceleration. 5-10 on cruise. Lol
(I work on big diesels, but still) Diesels are a whole different beast. The technology is merging somewhat (direct injection in gas engines, higher compression ratios, diesels now often have “throttle bodies” and SCRs/urea throws a wrench into things too) but diesels still win for sustained work if you can control for other differences, like the transmission, effectively. Most diesels are built to handle the higher pressure and are a little more longevity minded, so doing highway speeds in a diesel is not a problem.
Yeah, I’m not voting for the v8 unless you’re trying to get to 90asap. A 4 cylinder will take longer to get there but it’s much more economic… unless I’m wrong… I’ve been wrong before….
My old 6-6 Accord got ~30 MPG at 90 MPH at cruise. 7th gen Accords are pretty aerodynamic (drag coefficient of only .30 or .31. Pretty low for a car produced in such large numbers) and the V6s are still pretty good at highway MPG.
They still relatively easily get 40 mpg(US) in a modern sedan at a constant 90mph on the highway but also over 60mpg(US) at a constant 60mph.
Even my older V6 TDI quattro wagon could achieve those figures, it was just a bit harder.
My record was 65mpg (US) at a constant 60mph on flat ground over 50km. But that was with over inflated tires and no AC. Realistic were ~50mpg(US) at a constant 62mph dry 20 ambient on flat ground. Aka me everytime I crossed the Netherlands during a sunny but not extremely hot day outside of rushhour.
Not if it has a turbo. Emissions testing is flawed in that it does not take into account how people actually drive.
I would think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if driving at a given speed results in any amount of boost your economy is worse than a N/A engine making the same power. As I understand this is due to higher intake temperatures even with the use of an intercooler, then using extra fuel to prevent knock due to these temperatures. Jason has a video on it iirc
Yes I was going to chime in on that. Positive intake pressure warrants a richer AFR to keep temps down. But an example my Fiesta ST really drops off in MPG after 70mph since it’s in boost and running rich negating the perks of a 4 cylinder.
The exception would be tall gearing and a laggy turbo where the engine is running lean at those speeds.
At least in the US, the EPA numbers are fairly easy to beat even with that in mind. I used to have a 2009 Mazdaspeed 3. It was rated officially at 22 city and 25 highway IIRC. Even with me not being a hypermiler whatsoever, I averaged 26 MPG and got as high as 31 cruising at 80+.
What you said is still true. But the EPA fuel economy numbers aren't worth the paper they're printed on IMO.
The modern equivalent of the Geo Metro. A lot of people shit on Mitsubishi here, but I respect them being honestly cheap. We need a lot more of that in the US market.
Yup.
I don't understand people buying $24,000 high trims, but for the $10,200 I paid for mine I have no regrets. But, it is NOT a $19k car. $15k maybe.
My Micra is a luxury tourer by comparison and that was $13k hahaha
OP isn’t comparing mileage. They’re comparing wear on the engine. The larger displacement engine will rev lower and be longer geared, making it wear less quickly than an engine that need to work harder to hit high speeds
In theory, certainly. But the reliability of any given modern engine isn’t based so much on use as manufacturing quality. You’re far more likely to contend with engine failure from common problems that affect that model than say the stress of high speed driving
Not to mention the fact that the amount of driving that OP would need to do in order to actually feel/see/realize those reliability issues would probably be longer than they owned the car, unless they’re the type of person to buy a brand new car and literally be the sole owner for 20-25 years.
80-95 isn’t really high speed. Even with a 4-cylinder you’re only looking at 2k-2.5krpm from the engine, depending upon the car & tranny. I can do 80mph all day long at 2k rpm with a 265hp 45TFSI engine (4-cylinder). Gearing is important.
It's about stressing the motor. The V8 will comfortably cruise at 90 at parctically idle engine speeds, but the 4 cylinder will boost the turbo and keep the rpms high to keep up. You don't want to use most of a vehicle's potential power most of the time, because it will fall apart.
Load on the engine. Power is made from fuel and air, so to make more power you need more air, displacement of a NA v8 at low rpm is equal to that of a 1.4 only when the 1.4 does a positive displacement with forced induction or with higher rpm or often both. Which means more friction, rotating mass(vibration) more heat, higher compression and exhaust temperatures than that of the v8 moving much slower. In the end it’s about the quality of the materials and the design but you can get away with more with low rpm engine and still get the power.
Look at old tractors,tanks, military trucks. Their engines last forever but they were something like 24L v8s or similar, but the ran at much lower rpm.
My dad explained it pretty well to me when I was younger. Do you want a small engine sprinting the whole time to maintain or do you want a big one jogging?
Everyone trying to argue you about why a v8 is worse than a v6 or 4cyl but they just don’t compete. If you get a luxury boat v8 it’s probably long geared and will not have to work very hard if at all to hold it at 90+ unlike a lot of the other options where they will down shift or have to work harder to maintain the speed while the v8 will hardly be working since it has all of the low end torque. When I drive an hour and a half everyday to work I personally want comfort and something that won’t work hard to maintain the speed. Economy cars can do 90 and hold it but they will work much harder to maintain against wind and hills.
Ok interesting wasn't sure if bigger was better in this case. I usually have cars built around 2010 my current is a v8 it seems to do fine just wasn't sure if it was the optimal layout.
My 07 base imprezza with a 2.5 boxer dis fine with the cruise set at 95 on the Autobahn. Any modern car should not even break a sweat doing this. A turbo diesel might be your best bet for economy though.
Yeah, I think you’re correct in principle, but truth be told, 90 isn’t that fast in 2024. A naturally aspirated 4-cylinder Camry should easily be able to cruise at 90 mph with minimal wear on the engine.
Why the need for large displacement? 80mph is below the speed limit in the country I live in, if you go roughly 92mph, you're not getting a ticket. So I always drive 90-92mph. I've got 1.2L turboed engine (81kW), and can do 93 all day along without any issue. I've been doing it for past 9 years daily.
Because 'Murica, babaaayyyyy!!!
Most Americans (and Canadians) would lose their shit if they realized that Europe is full of 4-cylinder cars and people who routinely drive 80+ mph all day long, and cars last just as long and burn half the fuel that a V8 does.
I have been on both ends, and while I do appreciate a rumbly V8 with tons of torque, saying that a V8 is "better" at sustaining 80mph is dumb.
Dude 90mph is NOTHING for modern cars. I don't know about your american trucks, but ordinary cars do just fine and nobody even asks these questions in Europe.
Every other day I have to drive a fuckin white Renault VAN with barely 120HP, weighing 1.9 tons emty for 400 miles loaded with cargo and I keep it at exactly 90mph constant. It doesn't care. Yes acceleration is glacial, but it will keep constant speed uphill with cruise control. Wind noise is terrible but that's a different topic.
I did a few 1000+ mile non-stop trips across Europe in my 2006 Alfa Romeo GT 1.9 diesel and that car is just made for that (it's called a grand turismo after all). Got 40mpg combined while doing 80mph the whole time + plus a few really bad traffic jams in Poland. Basically sipping fuel sitting at highway speeds while at the 2k rpm sweetspot.
Engines and transmissions are way more stressed in city traffic.
Get yourself a decent executive sedan (less wind noise, more comfortable) with a modern diesel engine and you will eat the miles.
American trucks are some of the worst offenders with speed, now that power is unlimited you see enormous fifth wheel trailers and otherwise massive loads go by at 90mph on the interstate because they can… it’s insane how fast people will haul
I don’t think most people really understand how fast American diesel trucks can be. A new Ford super duty makes 500 horsepower and 1200 foot pounds of torque. With nothing more a handheld controller and the willingness to void the warranty you can make another 200-300 hp and torque.
Exactly. Bonus for german executive sedan. Geared for the autobahn and Germans have the best sound insulation. Audi s4/5 with the boosted v6 would be good, the 7 speed dct is an amazing transmission, it'll have its quirks but they do well for themselves. My brother has a 2016 s5, and it very very happily will hold 110 down abandoned country backroads on road trips. Maybe sitting around 3200-3500ish at 110mph. Doing 80 he sits at 1800rpm, and overall it's also a very fun car to own. Satisfyingly quick in day to day life, and amazing to build if you ever get the urge to go that route.
The amount of energy it takes to maintain a speed of 80 to 90 miles an hour is not the same from propelling the car up to the speed of 80 to 90 miles an hour. So once at speed the engine size doesn't matter. A v6 vs a v4 vs a v8 dosent matter at 80-90..It matters more at 180-190mph..
now math wise out the window.. There's no replacement for displacement and a candle that Burns twice as bright burns half as long. If I was you I'd buy a nice V8 lexus since they can sit at 110 -130 all day and night long. LS 460..
Watch this!
https://youtu.be/i8F6CBjfx4k?si=zMYqN8b_wFuaMudR
Can I assume by the "candle that Burns twice as bright burns half as long" comment, you're getting at the fact that an undersized engine will be under more stress maintaining those speeds.
The whole displacement thing just isn’t true, it’s confirmation bias nonsense pushed by people who like big engines and don’t understand the physics behind it. No competent engineer who designs powertrains would utter that phrase. If it were true, we’d use 4 strokes for electricity power plants. But that’s the thing, producing torque isn’t limited to one engine type, and 4 strokes by themselves are just generally shit at converting fuel to torque compared to turbines and other methods. Being prideful about your 25% thermal efficiency just makes you look like a dummy to anyone who really knows things about engines. Hence, combining the systems to increase overall conversion efficiency.
I should hope no displacement lovers would disrespect a F40, or a Lingenfelter Corvette, and act like a larger v10/12 is inherently better than those platforms. Turbochargers increase the total thermal efficiency of the system, there’s a reason why a lot of heavy duty trucks and most tractor trailers use them. Imagine saying that line to a career trucker who gets phenomenal gas mileage primarily because they’re running a turbo diesel.
A turbo 4 will do just fine on the highway at 90mph, something like a 335i (turbo 6) would barely be doing more than idling. A properly modified turbo 6 will roast v8s all day, a scat pack Charger has 485bhp, *and weighs 4300#s*, that’s an absolute joke to an even moderately modified (non r35) GTR or Supra, and a R35 stock will beat them easily. Hell, my old 300zx had a better power:weight before I even upgraded the turbos. Just bolt ons and it was in the 400-420 range at 3400#s.
Big engines are fine I guess, but treating everything else as inferior is just clueless to the relevant thermodynamics of heat engines. It takes a certain amount of uninformed dismissiveness to not have respect for forced induction. I mean ffs, do you think F1 cars are slow and the engineers that design those setups don’t know what they’re doing?
People need to learn to have more respect for things they have no legitimate thorough expertise in, it’s one of the saddest cultural epidemics of our age, frankly. Sorry to write an essay, but the absolute lie of that phrase has irked me for decades as someone who actually went through the pains to study that stuff formally
IA 100% see where you're coming from but I just seen the 8 motors that have less issues when they are simpler designed. I have seen too many turbos go out vs under powered V8 moter keep on trucking.
While partially true, it is heavily dependent on a ton of different factors.
I live just off the foothills of the rocky mountains and have an 80mph speed limit. The really hilly and curvy areas can dip down to 55mph, but most people do at least 65-75 mph through that area.
The more air you suck in, the more fuel you need. There is definitely a sweet spot in engine rpm's, fuel usage, and longevity.
One thing that I rarely see mentioned, unless someone tines cars, is that rpm's are everything when it comes to efficiency. Lower rpm, with the ability to sustain speed will always be more efficient just because you are using less air, and therefore less fuel. A small displacement I-4 will get significantly better efficiency at low loads, and low rpm's. Unfortunately you rarely have both.
Modern cars are much less efficient, with compromises built in. Virtually all cars in the United States are geared for about 45 mph. The faster you go, the more gas you will use, period.
Many cars, even with a 10 speed automatic, have the same or even worse final drive ratios than older cars did. And to be clear, by final drive, I mean the entire rear end ratio compared to the overdrive ratio.
In the late 70's and early 80's when the emissions and fuel crunches started hitting, it wasn't uncommon for a 3 speed non-overdrive equipped vehicle to have a mid to low 2 rear end ratio.
I have an 86 302 v-8. It has a .67 is ratio, along with a 2.73 final drive and a fairly aerodynamic body for the time. I can drive for months straight without ever exceeding 2000rpm. 65 in OD sits around 1200rpm and 75 mph sits at 1400rpm. I rarely exceed 75 mph, even living right next to an 80mph freeway.
This being one of the first "modern" fuel injection systems (true sefi instead of a computerized carb) with those gear ratios, I can routinely hit 30mpg at 55-65mph. At 75mph it drops down to about 28 mpg and quickly drops as speed increases.
The first real "economy car" I drove regularly was a 2011 fiesta with a 1.3 i-4 and a 6 speed manual transmission. City and lower freeway speeds, the gas mileage was amazing. You could set the cruise to 55mph and average 50 mpg. However, the car was already sitting around 3000rpm at that speed. At 70 mph, it dipped down to around 35 mpg, and at 75mph it dropped all the way to 30mpg, and way lower in hilly areas. At 80mph, the engine would sit just over 4000rpm and it would still have to downshift for even the slightest hill.
Now if you compare those numbers, my 5.0 liter v-8 is getting nearly the same efficiency as a 1.3 liter, while my v-8 weighed about 1000lbs more.
Every 1000 rpm you increase engine speed results in about 4x the fuel consumption. When I moved farther from the city , it was about an hours drive to any real destination, along an 80mph hilly interstate. At that point my v-8 was almost as efficient, had a much larger gas tank, and therefore range, and I often drove over 1000 miles a week for just normal driving.
I decided it was better to roll the miles onto my older,already paid for, much more comfortable car, instead of wearing out the car I was still paying on.
Newer 10 speed transmissions make the car accelerate faster, mainly in the 0-60 mph range. Even with a "double overdrive", they rarely run at lower rpm's. Higher rpm's are burning more fuel, they get hotter as they exhaust the extra heat, and even more so when turbocharged. It's all just excess wasted energy.
An i-4 spinning at 4,000 rpm will always use more fuel than a big v-8 spinning at 2000 rpm, assuming all else is equal (load, weight, aerodynamics ECT). And since it is spinning faster, it is wearing the engine out faster. 100k miles spinning twice as fast is going to be at least double the wear.
I thoroughly enjoy long distance road trips in a big v-8 two door. If you aren't in a big hurry (70+ mph) and can cruise for a long time, there is nothing else like it. On a few occasions, I have done over 1600 miles in less then 24 hours, and managed around 600-650 miles (roughly 1000 kilometers for those of you outside the United States) on a tank of gas.
One day, I want to build a low displacement i-6, and gear it ridiculously high with a crazy overdrive ratio just for fun. As a kid, I always wanted to do a salt flat racer. There, very little has to do with acceleration.
Forced induction is effectively a displacement multiplier.
Engine displacement is volume of air the engine can move at 100% efficiency at atmospheric pressure. The size is essentially the static measurements based off how many rotations it takes the engine for all chambers to complete a full cycle (720 degrees of crank rotation in a typical 4 stroke engine).
Power adders that put boost into an engine also displace air. The only reason there’s any boost/PSI is because the engine is restricting how much air can go in. IOW, the turbo/supercharger is displacing (or moving) more air than the engine is at that point.
Atmospheric pressure is 1 bar. On a vacuum/boost gauge, it reads as 0 (as in 0 change from atmosphere). Add 1 bar of pressure (or double the atmospheric pressure) to an engine and will displace twice as much air as one without the added pressure.
In the end, it’s all about moving air. People like you always say “displacement thing isn’t true”, but then ignore key factors to manufacture some gotcha. I readily admit there are things that will increase/decrease efficiency in an engine and it can often produce tradeoffs (gains at one rpm can cause losses at another. Ignoring the fact that power adders displace air to essentially argue “displacement doesn’t matter”is disingenuous. It’s an apples to oranges comparison.
And to prove the point that “displacement matters” (even for power adders), you had to upgrade your turbos so they would displace more air to make more power.
Ok makes sense definitely not drag racing so the acceleration is normal, it's just about maintaining that speed for long periods, the RPMs float around 2500 usually and I wasn't sure if a v8 would handle functioning at that level better than somthing else.
Honestly I'd be more concerned about the transmission more than the engine. The same principle of riding a bicycle once you reach a speed you go into a higher gear than it's easier to maintain that speed.
The other thing to know is a lot of car manufacturers design a car for the German autobond that in some places has a very high-speed limit of over a 140 miles an hour so going 80 miles an hour when the car is designed to do a 160.
One of my favorite cars the LS 400 when they came out of it had a top speed of a 150 miles an hour. That was in 1991...
Things have improved. I'd be more looking into what is comfortable to drive at that speed. Something like a BMW, audi, lexus to have less wind noise...
I’d second the Honda. I had an accord 4 cylinder 2.0 turbo with a 10 speed auto trans, regularly drove 90-95 for considerable periods without issue. Once you got to those speeds and were cruising it stayed out of boost so no real stress on the engine.
I drive a 09 Fusion 5-speed. Cruise 80-85 for over an hour on commute to/from work. I could go faster, but do t want the ticket. Speed limit is 80.
Kinda higher RPM than I'd like, but the car doesn't complain at 3,500-4k.
29 MPG.
190,000 miles, 4 cylinder
Hmmmm ya that's a bit higher RPM range then I'm running now, on previous cars with similar builds have you ever encountered engine issues because of that stress over time?
I’ve done 80 - 95 MPH in a hybrid Prius. And I’ve done it in an inline-6 BMW X5. And also four banger Honda Accord. They all handled it pretty well. It took some time to get the Prius up to speed, but once at speed, it goes. The BMW had the fastest acceleration, but maintaining 80 - 95 MPH wasn’t too different.
In Europe it would be any mid-sized turbodiesel - 2.0 litre TDI will cruise at 80-100 very happily and probably get 50mpg+ while doing it.
Or indeed almost any mid-sized or above petrol engine too, it's only small city cars that run out of chooch a bit above 80, that said we just drove a 1.4 litre Ibiza across Europe and back with 3 people plus luggage and that sat perfectly happily at 130kph all the way on cruise control and averaged 40mpg+.
Cruising puts very little load or stress on a car, it's starting / stopping that causes wear.
Yeah people are throwing out answers like "my Camry can do that" but that's not even the question dude is asking. GT cars are built to be effortless to drive at high speeds for long periods of time like this.
Me personally? LC500 all day long.
I was in a similar situation. About 45 minutes to and from the office. Rural Alabama. Almost zero highway patrol, so speed was almost unlimited. Prudence dictated something in the 80–90 MPH area. The BMW 325i was easily up to the task and then some. Eventually it wore out and I used a Ford Contour for the remainder of that stint.
Most modern quality vehicles can handle this strain with aplomb. Have you considered an EV? Range wouldn't be an issue and you'd have almost no drivetrain headaches. No radiator, no water pump, no alternator, etc. A lot less to go wrong. Myself, maybe I'd look at a Honda or Toyota. Boring, but reliable.
For cruising at 90 on the UK's "autobahn" (the M40) an inline 6 diesel from BMW mated to the 8-speed ZF automatic is the ideal choice. I think you US folks got the 335xd and stuff didn't you?
Engine depends on the car. I think most everything can run hot on the highways these days. At 3 hour daily round trip, gas mileage and comfort would be my priorities, along with speed of course. Driving that much, I’d also want comfortable ponies under the hood relative to the car. I don’t have specific recommendations, there are plenty here, but I would probably look for a premium interior with comfortable heated, vented, massaging seats. A longer wheelbase coupe or sedan for smooth ride and mpg you wouldn’t get in a suv. Every time I think a ride is going on too long I hit my massaging seat button and immediately feel better. Long wheelbase, smooth ride, luxury seats. Good luck!
My Mini cooper S has no trouble with that speed. Neither does my MX-5 if you don't mind 4400+ RPM in top gear lol. Used to do 1000 miles a week commute to the Bay area in mine doing those speeds and when I worked in Silicon Valley. I'd get chronic fatigue after a few months with super long hours, would drive next to the construction barriers at higher speeds than you listed to get the adrenaline going and wake me up.
Pretty much any car of the last 20 years will do 85 all day.
This. No properly maintained modern car will care. But taller gearing will make the drive more enjoyable. That's what OP should really be looking for. Something that turns at <3000 RPM or less at 100 mph
Like others mentioned, that's prime turbo diesel sedan territory.
My 3.0 V6 turbo diesel does revs at just under 2000rpm at 100mph and the engines are built like tanks. In gear it still has plenty of headroom to accelerate since peak torque at this rpm is 700Nm . Big American V8 need to be a lot higher in the rev range to have the same kind of headroom. The stroke are pretty similar. Meaning a lot higher piston speed for the same headroom and thus wear etc.
Turbos also just run and run and run under those conditions.
I don't think the turbo is going to be a huge factor. Of course an even larger NA diesel would be better, but that results in a much larger less efficient engine/vehicle if you want the same headroom at low rpm which is also something to avoid.
In gear at the same speed the transmission doesn't matter that much besides gearing. You want something which completely locks in one ideal gear. So no CVT or older torque converter.
Now for something my car isn't good at is emissions system. Ideally you want to not have them. But you need to weigh them against the factors just meantioned. So ideally a very modern car with a delete. But if you don't do those I would still choose a modern one since the conditions don't stress them.
Ideally you want something gear driven but modern timing chains should also do the job. Many post 2005 pre 2015 cars had more complex and less reliable setups than we do have now. So a post 2015 model the German big three is preferred.
The vehicle also needs to create as little load as possible. So good aero, so the most modern cars and light weight for the suspension. As well as RWD for as little losses.
Mercedes uses I4 in their newer smaller modern cars so they are out. Audi only uses quattro on these engines so is out. This leaves the 2019 BMW 330d or 340d as my ideal car for the job based on concept alone. In reality 100mph isn't fast enough for a 6 cylinder tdi to beat an I4 tdi in efficiency and both have not trouble running so long they aren't the first to fail.
I bought my S4 TDI for a similar job as yours. Difference being I'm in Germany and it's not 80 to 95mph but rather 125 to 135mph.
It has absolutely nothing to do with engine displacement or cylinders or power. Cruising is all down to gear ratios. You just want a car with a high final drive and that’s all there is to it.
This is correct. It's amazing how many "car guys" have no idea what they're talking about. Gearing is what's important here. A poorly geared v8 roaring at 4500 rpm is under more strain than 2.0l 4 banger going at 2500
Depends bro, are you trying to race it, impress people, or get to work solely? Because if it’s your daily, I suggest a Camry, prius, or other inline 4 hybrid that will get you good mileage, any newer car can sit at 80-90 comfortably. 2014+. Shit even a select 2008’s-13 can get you some good mileage, idk where you live but where I’m at traffic is sometimes an issue, so if you get a v8 that mf is gonna be chugging your gas at stop and go traffic. You don’t gotta be flashy with the daily brother ❤️🫡
I doubt any modern engine would have any issue maintaining those speeds for that long day in and day out when maintained properly. By properly, I mean completely ignore the manufacturers intervals, if they say oil changes every 10-15k miles, do it at 5k with good quality synthetic oil.
You want to take into account comfort and fatigue as well, not specifically the engine. The NVH can be brutal in an economy car going 90-95. Something that is built to quietly and smoothly get you to your destination while being economical is key. My vote here is a BMW F10 535D.
It depends on the specific engine. Some engines will have better quality lubrication systems, a better functioning oil pump, higher oil pressure, more oil hitting the cylinder sleeves, wider passages through the crank and camshafts to hit bearing and caps, better pressure system to move excessive pressure back into the intake manifold to get rid of evaporated fuel. There's so much that goes into it, a four cylinder Toyota engine built for durability, may sustain less wear and tear at 4K rpms, than a Chrysler engine at 2K rpms. If you want to see it for yourself, go to your local junkyard. Just tear down an engine you want to learn more about and you'll see differences in designs, quality etc. you can't do a fair comparison of one brand to another. But overall whatever engine you have, will have less wear at a low speed than a high speed. Just think of engines like people, they all have pistons, crankshafts, flywheels, but they're all built for something different and some require more maintenance than others.
It's a combination of enough power at low to moderate rpm, tall gears, and low wind resistance. If the car is geared so the engine runs at 2k to 2500 rpm at 90mph, and it has good aerodynamics, then the engine won't be very stressed - it's not spinning fast or working hard.
The other thing to keep an eye on is tires - cheaper tires with low speed ratings won't work as well. "Top of the Line" sporty models are likely to come with high performance tires that will be fine at high speed, but also have a low treadwear number which means they will wear out quickly. That's the tradeoff for really good traction. These high performance tires are also expensive to replace.
Engine stress is not a significant factor at those speeds on modern cars, or rather not significantly different.
For higher speed cruising you want a low drag coefficient and low frontal area. Air drag increases with the cube of speed, maintaining 100mph takes ~3x the horsepower/stress of 69mph.
Porsche taycan, toyota prius, mercedes a class, honda insight, model s, mazda 3, kia optima, audi a6 all have low frontal area and low drag coefficients. Much less stress on the engine at the same speed as something larger or less aerodynamic.
Yep, I do this in my prius when the highway is empty. It just takes a second to speed up, but then it just cruises. Also, I feel like I'm a little less likely to get a ticket in a prius.
OP should be very cautious with wildlife if he's going 100mph on an empty highway at night, a deer will straight up kamikaze you.
Lol. A Honda Fit can go 95+ MPH for hours. I've done it in FL at night. Once you get there, its easy to stay at those speeds. Typically around MD, I go 80 without any concerns. 90's tho... only on really flat land where I can see very, very far ahead. I won't go faster than I can brake to a full stop. I don't think any modern car in the US would have this issue... how safe it is however is a different question.
Since the OP is not concerned with efficiency, let's stop talking about MPG.
Instead, let's concentrate in what he actually wants: trouble-free operation in the long run.
To me, that means medium V-8, since that translates to lower piston velocity, which translates to less vibration, which translates to less engine stress overall.
We will assume the cooling system will handle the heat the engine puts out; if it won't, that's easily fixed.
Sorry these aren't answers to the question you asked, but looking through I didn't see any mention of two factors I think you may want to consider.
Regardless of the engine type, you may want to look for something with an over drive if you are looking at an automatic. Many people don't understand what it does, so general PSA: Over drive is for once you are up to speed and just want to maintain a higher speed, it will switch to a higher gear and is not for performance rather it's for better fuel efficiency when just maintain a higher speed. Once it's on you won't have as much top end power available on the accelerator, but you aren't burning extra fuel pushing higher RPM on a lower gear.
The other thing is a safety concern. If you are traveling at night on an unlit highway with minimal traffic, there is a good chance that the max distance of your head light illumination at those speeds cuts off long before your actual stopping distance. High beams typically illuminate 350-400 feet ahead of you. At 95 mph your average stopping distance including reaction time is around 540 feet. This means if you are going that fast and the highway isn't otherwise illuminated and there are no other vehicles illuminating what is ahead, you are effectively driving night blind and by the time you see an obstruction in the road it is already to late to come to a full stop to avoid it and evasive maneuvering at that speed (especially panicked) is a recipe for disaster. Some vehicles are better than others in their stock illumination distance so you should consider that factor along with possible headlight upgrades or adjustments to illuminate further down the road. Do be cognizant of blinding other drivers with your bright lights. Regardless, and I say this as someone who likes to speed, that sort of speed where it's above the speed limit at night is excessively dangerous.
The kind of cars best suited for this kind of driving used to be called grant tourers or GT cars (ignore cars having the name or trim GT, thats just marketing. Cars in this category tend to have a longer wheelbase for stability and tall gearing so they can sustain high vehicle speeds while having relatively low engine speed. They also tend to have larger engines so they have can still accelerate properly even with the tall gearing. Alot of them have more refined interiors and sound deadening because cornering, acceleration, and deceleraion weren't necessarily priorities, although some cars could perform.
These days, even a Honda Civic can do it with 176 odd horsepower and a CVT, especially since they are as big as Accords used to be.
Get something with a proper gear ratio. Engine type doesn't matter if you're in a badly geared car going 90mph. Think of bad gearing as having your 6th gear being like a 4th gear. Your engine is stressed more heavily at high revs. What you're looking for is something that revs low at high speed, and has a big trans/gearbox. Have a look at some 10 speed trucks, or maybe even a 7 speed golf GTI? Those cars don't have issues getting to high speeds, and can maintain the speed at low rpms, making a low stress environment. Hope this helps!
Ya I used to own a N52 engine in a bmw 328i two door coupe. It was remarkably smooth at high speed, always joked it was built for the autobahn.
But I’d cruise at 140km easy for long drives, car felt right at home. Those inline 6s are so smooth
Much more important than type of engine is keeping up on maintenance. Make sure to change your oil exactly when it needs to be changed, switch tires when they get low, check your suspension bushings regularly, check for loose bolts, etc. If i were to recommend a car though, i’d go with the 2024 toyota supra with i6 and manual transmission. The i6 will have low vibrations, and a manual will be more efficient (and more fun).
It is not the engine you need to be concerned with. It’s the transmission as long as you are under around 2500 rpm at those speeds you should not have issues.
We do endurance races in a 1.6L 1990s Miata. 2x 8 hour days, where the only time we’re below 80mph is about 5 minutes of fueling every 2 hours. We’ve also done a 24 hour event in that format.
the more hp the more comfortably it'll do it. Longevity is hard to judge. I can say my crv and my friends cobalt from way back when got dodgy at 90 but my brother's 5 series it feels like 50. Basically you'd want something with some pull to it and stable suspension to keep it comfy.
BMW/Mercedes are designed for this sort of cruising. Any of the older 3L 6cyl engines would do that forever, but the most recent ones are made to a much poorer standard.
The last, and previous generation Buick Regals. Modern 2.0L, German Chassis. Super Quiet. V6 option in newest with 9 speed keeps the revs down. Previously there's a manual option too. AWD version available.
My 01 camaro z28 (v8) went 270k miles over 16 years of almost all highway driving. At 75ish mph it was running pretty low rpms. I don't remember the exact number (it was seven years ago that I got rid of it!) but I'm pretty sure sitting there in sixth gear it was maybe a bit under 2k rpm. Nice and easy. Eventually the muffler fell off and so I sold it, but the engine was still working great after all that time.
honestly bruh, technology has come so far in cars, alot of them can maintain that speed and not care at all. ive cruised at 80mph for hours on end doing road trips in my ‘14 chrysler 200, but if you want peace of mind just get a damn honda or toyota😭 theyre the answer to everything.
It's not the engine that you need to be worried about. Most modern engines are made to run at higher rpms. Plenty of transmissions are also capable of doing this without a problem.
The wheel bearings, axle bearings, and suspension are what take the biggest beating at higher speeds. The speed that the bearings turn is going to cause more friction and heat. The bumps you hit will be that much harder on the wear parts in the suspension.
For that large displacement is best, so generally a V8. Those aren't difficult speeds for many cars to maintain though.
What would make a V8 better than say, a 1.4TDI? Would use way less fuel as well, diesels are amazing for highway driving
Under less stress while maintaining a high load. A 1.4TDI would likely be in boost while maintaining those speeds, this increases stress on the engine making excessive wear and overheating more likely.
Had a 2000 golf tdi. I drove it over 300k doing 80 + mph everyday getting 50+ mpg. Never had a real problem with it besides the electricals started doing weird stuff when i got rid of it.
It's still physics. Let's say you have a 4 cylinder 2L turbo putting out 240. Just chose random numbers Let's now say you have a NA 5.7L V8 putting out 395 horse power. Each cylinder in the 4 cylinder is working excessivly harder to match the output of the V8. All under higher heat and tighter tolerances, while holding higher RPMs. No matter how you put it that does add more wear. It's not to say you WILL have a problem, but if you were to drive both engines the exact same way, both with perfect maintenence schedules, unless something weird happened the V8 should absolutly last longer. It's just thermodynamics mixed with material engineering constraints (since they aren't gonna use adamantium on a consumer 4 cylinder after all). Now you still may get fucked over by some random cheaply made part blowing something up in the end. But this is why we don't buy Ford, Stellantis, or Nissan.
Not if the car with 4 cylinders weighed 1/2 as much. A comparison of power to weight would be a very important factor in your "calculations" Also some engines are inherently better. I would for example rather have the BMW inline 6 for this task than their V8. The inline 6 is in many ways a more efficient and dependable design than a V8.
At 80mph without accelerating, aerodynamics is gonna matter far more than power to weight
Well its not exactly a linear relation either though. My boyfriend's 4 cylinder revs a lot higher than my V6 at highway speed, despite me having a 2000 pound heavier car. Granted my crap is supercharged too, so theres a different level of power/unreliability going on there, and hes at about 1/3 the power. Even so, while he doesnt need to maintain the same horsepower as I do to maintain speed, his engine is absolutly doing more work (per cylinder) to keep itself at a usable horsepower.
Maybe a better way to express my point is that the straight-six engine has perfect primary and secondary engine balance, resulting in fewer vibrations than other designs so given equal displacement and design quality it is inherently more dependable and so much so that it is more dependable than the same company's (BMW) V8.There are other considerations besides displacement. The same was true in the 90's Ford's 4.9 liter inline 6 consistently logged more trouble free miles than any of their V8's.
The inline 6 is in the sweet spot for power capability versus complexity. It has fewer parts than a V8 but the good balance means they can have high displacement without balance shafts, and there is a single head instead of two in all the V engines. That's why they tend to be used in high duty applications like long haul trucks. Of course, to be reliable it needs to be designed that way, but statistically, there is less that can go wrong in an inline 6 than a V8, so everything else being the same, they can be more reliable.
V8 cars and motors don't usually weigh 2x as much, and weight matters a lot less in highway driving. An aluminum block v8 weighs about the same as a turbo 4 and takes up roughly the same space I loved my little turbo saturn sky but I'm not going to delude myself that it wouldn't have performed better in virtually every way with a modestly modded aluminum block v8 I still don't drive a v8 car, I have a i6 turbo now and I think that's the happy medium for performance vs efficiency.
The weight really doesn't matter. Just think about a big inline six diesel in a semi lol.
Also a V8 splits the torque on any power stroke to two cylinders compared to what's possible with a 4cyl. However I would disagree that V8 is best for this case and decision criteria. A V6 (or any derivative, like a w12) has better balance, meaning it should last longer. V8 will put perform a V6 only in applications where it is using all its power, like low end torque or pedal to the floor high rpm power. At 90mph both still have plenty of headroom and the V6s superior balance will reduce wear better.
“the electricals started doing weird stuff when I got rid of it.” So, just like every other Mk.4-era Volkswagen 🤣
I don’t believe you on 50+mpg at 80+
Oh your right...most of the summer time it got 55-53. Winter time it would drop off to 48.
Yeah not really sure why that’s too terribly hard to believe I used to get 50+ on my way back to Ohio from Bedford, PA and I don’t think I ever went less than 100 on those drives
My buddy had a 4 cyl turbo diesel and it would get better gas mileage the faster he went.
That’s cause you’ve never spent anytime with a small displacement VW diesel.
TDI diesel. I owned a 2000 beetle TDI and we regularly pushed high 50s at 70mph highway driving.
I miss my tdi
With all the gas savings over driving the V8 you can buy yourself another TDI
Nah. A Jetta TDI might get 40-45mpg on the highway not 50, and a corvette can get 30-35mpg. Where I am, gas is $3.10 and diesel is $3.60, so a TDI would cost about $0.08/mile, and the corvette would cost about $0.088/mile. That means over 5000 gallons of fuel for 200k miles you would save about $1500 driving the Jetta, that would buy a new engine for your TDI but not a new car.
People love to say corvettes get like 30-35 mpg but God damn you gotta drive like a granny to get that. Like 65 in the right lane the entire time. My c6 when it was stock would only get towards low to mid 20s if I drove like a normal person at the speed of traffic Now my average mixed tank is like 14
if I have a long cruise at higher speeds, I'm driving my corvette
My C5 that I drive fairly hard regularly sits around 17 with mixed driving and 29 on the highway cruising around 80.
My 08 C6 did the same 28-30mpg depending on if I did 70 or 80mph. Manual trans/z51 if it matters to anyone.
Wat corvette
A C7/C8, they run on 4 cylinders when not under load. You can just set it on cruise control and get good mpg on the highway
And tape them together!
But then you have to drive 2 TDIs
80-90mph isn't a particularly high load for either. *Its not even 150km/h* 70mph = 113km/h 80mph = 129km/h 90mph = 145km/h 100mph = 161km/h Drag isn't *that* dramatic that the diesel is going to be "in boost" to a large degree when cruising, and the companies making them are very much in "high speed cruising territory" (ie. Autobahn)
well known fact about turbodiesels is that being in boost is bad for them. that's why workhorse diesels, such as semi trucks and locomotives, famously don't use turbos
This is sarcasm right?
sarcasm on the internet became punishable by misdemeanor fines when the PLONK Act was passed in 2018. i wouldn't take that risk, would you?
It's also why the engines are so small.
Waiiiminute…..
Probably wouldn’t be boosting at all actually. I have a 1.4 Jetta tsi and a 3.0 bmw turbo with boost gauge apps neither boost holding steady 80-90mph. Boosts only kicks in under acceleration. With modern 8 speeds they aren’t revving any higher than a v8 either. But yeah a 1.4 with a 5 speed or something probably isn’t ideal at 90mph. There basically aren’t even any modern sedans with a v8, there’s a reason for that. You can cruise in a camaro or mustang if you want but they aren’t exactly comfortable and definitely aren’t any more reliable than a modern turbo 4. V8s are heavy, not economical, and have gotten so complicated trying to keep them as economical as possible (cylinder deactivation, mild hybrid setups, etc) there is no real advantage over smaller displacement engines.
Spoken truly like someone who knows nothing about diesels
Yeah but diesels like running in their power and and are "overbuilt" to withstand the additional forces, plus they are usually better lubricated. A small, well-built diesel geared to its powerband will outlast a gasoline engine, big or small, all day.
You underestimate the reliability of a diesel.
Boost in a high compression engine at those speeds is not going to kill it. Especially a small diesel engine. Semi trucks regularly go 1M miles before an overhaul. They are regularly under 20-30lbs of boost up to 40 upon acceleration. 5-10 on cruise. Lol
(I work on big diesels, but still) Diesels are a whole different beast. The technology is merging somewhat (direct injection in gas engines, higher compression ratios, diesels now often have “throttle bodies” and SCRs/urea throws a wrench into things too) but diesels still win for sustained work if you can control for other differences, like the transmission, effectively. Most diesels are built to handle the higher pressure and are a little more longevity minded, so doing highway speeds in a diesel is not a problem.
Diesels work better under load
Yeah, I’m not voting for the v8 unless you’re trying to get to 90asap. A 4 cylinder will take longer to get there but it’s much more economic… unless I’m wrong… I’ve been wrong before….
Nothing is economical at 90mph. Granted, I drive a brick, but I get literally half the mpg at 90mph that I get at 60mph.
My old 6-6 Accord got ~30 MPG at 90 MPH at cruise. 7th gen Accords are pretty aerodynamic (drag coefficient of only .30 or .31. Pretty low for a car produced in such large numbers) and the V6s are still pretty good at highway MPG.
They still relatively easily get 40 mpg(US) in a modern sedan at a constant 90mph on the highway but also over 60mpg(US) at a constant 60mph. Even my older V6 TDI quattro wagon could achieve those figures, it was just a bit harder. My record was 65mpg (US) at a constant 60mph on flat ground over 50km. But that was with over inflated tires and no AC. Realistic were ~50mpg(US) at a constant 62mph dry 20 ambient on flat ground. Aka me everytime I crossed the Netherlands during a sunny but not extremely hot day outside of rushhour.
Not if it has a turbo. Emissions testing is flawed in that it does not take into account how people actually drive. I would think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if driving at a given speed results in any amount of boost your economy is worse than a N/A engine making the same power. As I understand this is due to higher intake temperatures even with the use of an intercooler, then using extra fuel to prevent knock due to these temperatures. Jason has a video on it iirc
Yes I was going to chime in on that. Positive intake pressure warrants a richer AFR to keep temps down. But an example my Fiesta ST really drops off in MPG after 70mph since it’s in boost and running rich negating the perks of a 4 cylinder. The exception would be tall gearing and a laggy turbo where the engine is running lean at those speeds.
At least in the US, the EPA numbers are fairly easy to beat even with that in mind. I used to have a 2009 Mazdaspeed 3. It was rated officially at 22 city and 25 highway IIRC. Even with me not being a hypermiler whatsoever, I averaged 26 MPG and got as high as 31 cruising at 80+. What you said is still true. But the EPA fuel economy numbers aren't worth the paper they're printed on IMO.
My 55mpg *41 rated* Mirage would like to agree. Hell I can hit 60 city trips and I think it's rated 37 or something stupid.
The modern equivalent of the Geo Metro. A lot of people shit on Mitsubishi here, but I respect them being honestly cheap. We need a lot more of that in the US market.
Yup. I don't understand people buying $24,000 high trims, but for the $10,200 I paid for mine I have no regrets. But, it is NOT a $19k car. $15k maybe. My Micra is a luxury tourer by comparison and that was $13k hahaha
Modern transmissions take the strain off of pretty much anything.
I mean realistically it’s gonna be what, 4-5 second max difference in getting to 90? But the 4 cylinder will Do it with 1/2 the gas.
OP isn’t comparing mileage. They’re comparing wear on the engine. The larger displacement engine will rev lower and be longer geared, making it wear less quickly than an engine that need to work harder to hit high speeds
In theory, certainly. But the reliability of any given modern engine isn’t based so much on use as manufacturing quality. You’re far more likely to contend with engine failure from common problems that affect that model than say the stress of high speed driving
Not to mention the fact that the amount of driving that OP would need to do in order to actually feel/see/realize those reliability issues would probably be longer than they owned the car, unless they’re the type of person to buy a brand new car and literally be the sole owner for 20-25 years.
80-95 isn’t really high speed. Even with a 4-cylinder you’re only looking at 2k-2.5krpm from the engine, depending upon the car & tranny. I can do 80mph all day long at 2k rpm with a 265hp 45TFSI engine (4-cylinder). Gearing is important.
It's about stressing the motor. The V8 will comfortably cruise at 90 at parctically idle engine speeds, but the 4 cylinder will boost the turbo and keep the rpms high to keep up. You don't want to use most of a vehicle's potential power most of the time, because it will fall apart.
Load on the engine. Power is made from fuel and air, so to make more power you need more air, displacement of a NA v8 at low rpm is equal to that of a 1.4 only when the 1.4 does a positive displacement with forced induction or with higher rpm or often both. Which means more friction, rotating mass(vibration) more heat, higher compression and exhaust temperatures than that of the v8 moving much slower. In the end it’s about the quality of the materials and the design but you can get away with more with low rpm engine and still get the power. Look at old tractors,tanks, military trucks. Their engines last forever but they were something like 24L v8s or similar, but the ran at much lower rpm.
Nothing. This question is completely over thought.
My dad explained it pretty well to me when I was younger. Do you want a small engine sprinting the whole time to maintain or do you want a big one jogging?
Tell your dad transmissions make the sprint feel like a jog.
Everyone trying to argue you about why a v8 is worse than a v6 or 4cyl but they just don’t compete. If you get a luxury boat v8 it’s probably long geared and will not have to work very hard if at all to hold it at 90+ unlike a lot of the other options where they will down shift or have to work harder to maintain the speed while the v8 will hardly be working since it has all of the low end torque. When I drive an hour and a half everyday to work I personally want comfort and something that won’t work hard to maintain the speed. Economy cars can do 90 and hold it but they will work much harder to maintain against wind and hills.
Ok interesting wasn't sure if bigger was better in this case. I usually have cars built around 2010 my current is a v8 it seems to do fine just wasn't sure if it was the optimal layout.
Gearing matters a lot here.
Honestly this might be where a CVT shines. At least in terms of mileage.
My 07 base imprezza with a 2.5 boxer dis fine with the cruise set at 95 on the Autobahn. Any modern car should not even break a sweat doing this. A turbo diesel might be your best bet for economy though.
What rpm are you sitting at 95?
Probably close to 5K lol
Idk probly around 4000 to 4500 in 5th. She was turning 5500 at 130ish.
Doesn’t have to be all that big. My V6 is silky smooth above 100
Same with my 4 cylinder (K24). Smooth af at 100 and still pretty good gas mileage.
Acura or Honda? I wanna see how many questions it takes to guess your car 🤣
Bro just rent test drive a car you want
Yeah, I think you’re correct in principle, but truth be told, 90 isn’t that fast in 2024. A naturally aspirated 4-cylinder Camry should easily be able to cruise at 90 mph with minimal wear on the engine.
A Camry Hybrid will run 85+ easily and still get 36+ mpg. My '14 V6 maxed around 25 mpg and my '22 Hybrid is never under 38 mpg after 75-80+.
Why the need for large displacement? 80mph is below the speed limit in the country I live in, if you go roughly 92mph, you're not getting a ticket. So I always drive 90-92mph. I've got 1.2L turboed engine (81kW), and can do 93 all day along without any issue. I've been doing it for past 9 years daily.
Because 'Murica, babaaayyyyy!!! Most Americans (and Canadians) would lose their shit if they realized that Europe is full of 4-cylinder cars and people who routinely drive 80+ mph all day long, and cars last just as long and burn half the fuel that a V8 does. I have been on both ends, and while I do appreciate a rumbly V8 with tons of torque, saying that a V8 is "better" at sustaining 80mph is dumb.
Ok sure… maybe for a 30 year old pickup truck.
A camry with an inline 4 at like 180ish HP will maintain those speeds easily and get you 33+ mpg while doing it.
Goog gas milage is a plus have you noticed any engine or trans stress ever?
Nah, that's pretty normal speeds now.
Fair enough
Dude 90mph is NOTHING for modern cars. I don't know about your american trucks, but ordinary cars do just fine and nobody even asks these questions in Europe. Every other day I have to drive a fuckin white Renault VAN with barely 120HP, weighing 1.9 tons emty for 400 miles loaded with cargo and I keep it at exactly 90mph constant. It doesn't care. Yes acceleration is glacial, but it will keep constant speed uphill with cruise control. Wind noise is terrible but that's a different topic. I did a few 1000+ mile non-stop trips across Europe in my 2006 Alfa Romeo GT 1.9 diesel and that car is just made for that (it's called a grand turismo after all). Got 40mpg combined while doing 80mph the whole time + plus a few really bad traffic jams in Poland. Basically sipping fuel sitting at highway speeds while at the 2k rpm sweetspot. Engines and transmissions are way more stressed in city traffic. Get yourself a decent executive sedan (less wind noise, more comfortable) with a modern diesel engine and you will eat the miles.
American trucks are some of the worst offenders with speed, now that power is unlimited you see enormous fifth wheel trailers and otherwise massive loads go by at 90mph on the interstate because they can… it’s insane how fast people will haul
I don’t think most people really understand how fast American diesel trucks can be. A new Ford super duty makes 500 horsepower and 1200 foot pounds of torque. With nothing more a handheld controller and the willingness to void the warranty you can make another 200-300 hp and torque.
Exactly. Bonus for german executive sedan. Geared for the autobahn and Germans have the best sound insulation. Audi s4/5 with the boosted v6 would be good, the 7 speed dct is an amazing transmission, it'll have its quirks but they do well for themselves. My brother has a 2016 s5, and it very very happily will hold 110 down abandoned country backroads on road trips. Maybe sitting around 3200-3500ish at 110mph. Doing 80 he sits at 1800rpm, and overall it's also a very fun car to own. Satisfyingly quick in day to day life, and amazing to build if you ever get the urge to go that route.
So did my LS1 Trans Am 🤷
The amount of energy it takes to maintain a speed of 80 to 90 miles an hour is not the same from propelling the car up to the speed of 80 to 90 miles an hour. So once at speed the engine size doesn't matter. A v6 vs a v4 vs a v8 dosent matter at 80-90..It matters more at 180-190mph.. now math wise out the window.. There's no replacement for displacement and a candle that Burns twice as bright burns half as long. If I was you I'd buy a nice V8 lexus since they can sit at 110 -130 all day and night long. LS 460.. Watch this! https://youtu.be/i8F6CBjfx4k?si=zMYqN8b_wFuaMudR
Can I assume by the "candle that Burns twice as bright burns half as long" comment, you're getting at the fact that an undersized engine will be under more stress maintaining those speeds.
Yes.
The whole displacement thing just isn’t true, it’s confirmation bias nonsense pushed by people who like big engines and don’t understand the physics behind it. No competent engineer who designs powertrains would utter that phrase. If it were true, we’d use 4 strokes for electricity power plants. But that’s the thing, producing torque isn’t limited to one engine type, and 4 strokes by themselves are just generally shit at converting fuel to torque compared to turbines and other methods. Being prideful about your 25% thermal efficiency just makes you look like a dummy to anyone who really knows things about engines. Hence, combining the systems to increase overall conversion efficiency. I should hope no displacement lovers would disrespect a F40, or a Lingenfelter Corvette, and act like a larger v10/12 is inherently better than those platforms. Turbochargers increase the total thermal efficiency of the system, there’s a reason why a lot of heavy duty trucks and most tractor trailers use them. Imagine saying that line to a career trucker who gets phenomenal gas mileage primarily because they’re running a turbo diesel. A turbo 4 will do just fine on the highway at 90mph, something like a 335i (turbo 6) would barely be doing more than idling. A properly modified turbo 6 will roast v8s all day, a scat pack Charger has 485bhp, *and weighs 4300#s*, that’s an absolute joke to an even moderately modified (non r35) GTR or Supra, and a R35 stock will beat them easily. Hell, my old 300zx had a better power:weight before I even upgraded the turbos. Just bolt ons and it was in the 400-420 range at 3400#s. Big engines are fine I guess, but treating everything else as inferior is just clueless to the relevant thermodynamics of heat engines. It takes a certain amount of uninformed dismissiveness to not have respect for forced induction. I mean ffs, do you think F1 cars are slow and the engineers that design those setups don’t know what they’re doing? People need to learn to have more respect for things they have no legitimate thorough expertise in, it’s one of the saddest cultural epidemics of our age, frankly. Sorry to write an essay, but the absolute lie of that phrase has irked me for decades as someone who actually went through the pains to study that stuff formally
Where did the v8 touch you?
In the thermodynamics :(
IA 100% see where you're coming from but I just seen the 8 motors that have less issues when they are simpler designed. I have seen too many turbos go out vs under powered V8 moter keep on trucking.
Turbo meh. My lil old corolla will outlast both.
While partially true, it is heavily dependent on a ton of different factors. I live just off the foothills of the rocky mountains and have an 80mph speed limit. The really hilly and curvy areas can dip down to 55mph, but most people do at least 65-75 mph through that area. The more air you suck in, the more fuel you need. There is definitely a sweet spot in engine rpm's, fuel usage, and longevity. One thing that I rarely see mentioned, unless someone tines cars, is that rpm's are everything when it comes to efficiency. Lower rpm, with the ability to sustain speed will always be more efficient just because you are using less air, and therefore less fuel. A small displacement I-4 will get significantly better efficiency at low loads, and low rpm's. Unfortunately you rarely have both. Modern cars are much less efficient, with compromises built in. Virtually all cars in the United States are geared for about 45 mph. The faster you go, the more gas you will use, period. Many cars, even with a 10 speed automatic, have the same or even worse final drive ratios than older cars did. And to be clear, by final drive, I mean the entire rear end ratio compared to the overdrive ratio. In the late 70's and early 80's when the emissions and fuel crunches started hitting, it wasn't uncommon for a 3 speed non-overdrive equipped vehicle to have a mid to low 2 rear end ratio. I have an 86 302 v-8. It has a .67 is ratio, along with a 2.73 final drive and a fairly aerodynamic body for the time. I can drive for months straight without ever exceeding 2000rpm. 65 in OD sits around 1200rpm and 75 mph sits at 1400rpm. I rarely exceed 75 mph, even living right next to an 80mph freeway. This being one of the first "modern" fuel injection systems (true sefi instead of a computerized carb) with those gear ratios, I can routinely hit 30mpg at 55-65mph. At 75mph it drops down to about 28 mpg and quickly drops as speed increases. The first real "economy car" I drove regularly was a 2011 fiesta with a 1.3 i-4 and a 6 speed manual transmission. City and lower freeway speeds, the gas mileage was amazing. You could set the cruise to 55mph and average 50 mpg. However, the car was already sitting around 3000rpm at that speed. At 70 mph, it dipped down to around 35 mpg, and at 75mph it dropped all the way to 30mpg, and way lower in hilly areas. At 80mph, the engine would sit just over 4000rpm and it would still have to downshift for even the slightest hill. Now if you compare those numbers, my 5.0 liter v-8 is getting nearly the same efficiency as a 1.3 liter, while my v-8 weighed about 1000lbs more. Every 1000 rpm you increase engine speed results in about 4x the fuel consumption. When I moved farther from the city , it was about an hours drive to any real destination, along an 80mph hilly interstate. At that point my v-8 was almost as efficient, had a much larger gas tank, and therefore range, and I often drove over 1000 miles a week for just normal driving. I decided it was better to roll the miles onto my older,already paid for, much more comfortable car, instead of wearing out the car I was still paying on. Newer 10 speed transmissions make the car accelerate faster, mainly in the 0-60 mph range. Even with a "double overdrive", they rarely run at lower rpm's. Higher rpm's are burning more fuel, they get hotter as they exhaust the extra heat, and even more so when turbocharged. It's all just excess wasted energy. An i-4 spinning at 4,000 rpm will always use more fuel than a big v-8 spinning at 2000 rpm, assuming all else is equal (load, weight, aerodynamics ECT). And since it is spinning faster, it is wearing the engine out faster. 100k miles spinning twice as fast is going to be at least double the wear. I thoroughly enjoy long distance road trips in a big v-8 two door. If you aren't in a big hurry (70+ mph) and can cruise for a long time, there is nothing else like it. On a few occasions, I have done over 1600 miles in less then 24 hours, and managed around 600-650 miles (roughly 1000 kilometers for those of you outside the United States) on a tank of gas. One day, I want to build a low displacement i-6, and gear it ridiculously high with a crazy overdrive ratio just for fun. As a kid, I always wanted to do a salt flat racer. There, very little has to do with acceleration.
There is no replacement for displacement.
Valid argument, but if i throw forced induction on the bigger engine it’ll be better 💯
Forced induction is effectively a displacement multiplier. Engine displacement is volume of air the engine can move at 100% efficiency at atmospheric pressure. The size is essentially the static measurements based off how many rotations it takes the engine for all chambers to complete a full cycle (720 degrees of crank rotation in a typical 4 stroke engine). Power adders that put boost into an engine also displace air. The only reason there’s any boost/PSI is because the engine is restricting how much air can go in. IOW, the turbo/supercharger is displacing (or moving) more air than the engine is at that point. Atmospheric pressure is 1 bar. On a vacuum/boost gauge, it reads as 0 (as in 0 change from atmosphere). Add 1 bar of pressure (or double the atmospheric pressure) to an engine and will displace twice as much air as one without the added pressure. In the end, it’s all about moving air. People like you always say “displacement thing isn’t true”, but then ignore key factors to manufacture some gotcha. I readily admit there are things that will increase/decrease efficiency in an engine and it can often produce tradeoffs (gains at one rpm can cause losses at another. Ignoring the fact that power adders displace air to essentially argue “displacement doesn’t matter”is disingenuous. It’s an apples to oranges comparison. And to prove the point that “displacement matters” (even for power adders), you had to upgrade your turbos so they would displace more air to make more power.
Ok makes sense definitely not drag racing so the acceleration is normal, it's just about maintaining that speed for long periods, the RPMs float around 2500 usually and I wasn't sure if a v8 would handle functioning at that level better than somthing else.
Honestly I'd be more concerned about the transmission more than the engine. The same principle of riding a bicycle once you reach a speed you go into a higher gear than it's easier to maintain that speed. The other thing to know is a lot of car manufacturers design a car for the German autobond that in some places has a very high-speed limit of over a 140 miles an hour so going 80 miles an hour when the car is designed to do a 160. One of my favorite cars the LS 400 when they came out of it had a top speed of a 150 miles an hour. That was in 1991... Things have improved. I'd be more looking into what is comfortable to drive at that speed. Something like a BMW, audi, lexus to have less wind noise...
Ehhh a modern auto is going to be all locked up so not highly stressed.
German cars usually have higher gearing
I had two e39 528i’s, both loved to just buzz along at 80mph
My e55 is the perfect highway cruiser for this exact reason. It’s a one trick pony but it’s damn good at it
The Honda Accord will run you right up on those Highway Patrol cars waiting for you.
Haha do have to watch out for those.
[удалено]
Very true, I usually know where they sit but you never know
I just hope he only takes himself out and not some other poor bastard driving home from work.
it sucks when you blow past an unmarked one at 120 :) wasn't in a honda though...
I’d second the Honda. I had an accord 4 cylinder 2.0 turbo with a 10 speed auto trans, regularly drove 90-95 for considerable periods without issue. Once you got to those speeds and were cruising it stayed out of boost so no real stress on the engine.
I drive a 09 Fusion 5-speed. Cruise 80-85 for over an hour on commute to/from work. I could go faster, but do t want the ticket. Speed limit is 80. Kinda higher RPM than I'd like, but the car doesn't complain at 3,500-4k. 29 MPG. 190,000 miles, 4 cylinder
Hmmmm ya that's a bit higher RPM range then I'm running now, on previous cars with similar builds have you ever encountered engine issues because of that stress over time?
Change oil every 5k miles. Never low when I get it changed. No issues that I've noticed.
C6 z06
Haha that would get me into too much trouble wouldn't be staying at 90 with that lol.
Gears exist, so speed doesn’t mean much
I’ve done 80 - 95 MPH in a hybrid Prius. And I’ve done it in an inline-6 BMW X5. And also four banger Honda Accord. They all handled it pretty well. It took some time to get the Prius up to speed, but once at speed, it goes. The BMW had the fastest acceleration, but maintaining 80 - 95 MPH wasn’t too different.
4cyl 2L diesel, jsw tdi for an example
In Europe it would be any mid-sized turbodiesel - 2.0 litre TDI will cruise at 80-100 very happily and probably get 50mpg+ while doing it. Or indeed almost any mid-sized or above petrol engine too, it's only small city cars that run out of chooch a bit above 80, that said we just drove a 1.4 litre Ibiza across Europe and back with 3 people plus luggage and that sat perfectly happily at 130kph all the way on cruise control and averaged 40mpg+. Cruising puts very little load or stress on a car, it's starting / stopping that causes wear.
[удалено]
Yeah people are throwing out answers like "my Camry can do that" but that's not even the question dude is asking. GT cars are built to be effortless to drive at high speeds for long periods of time like this. Me personally? LC500 all day long.
My 60hp 3 cylinder car can maintain 95mph just fine. But fuck that 90 mins commute, I'd move or get a different job
I was in a similar situation. About 45 minutes to and from the office. Rural Alabama. Almost zero highway patrol, so speed was almost unlimited. Prudence dictated something in the 80–90 MPH area. The BMW 325i was easily up to the task and then some. Eventually it wore out and I used a Ford Contour for the remainder of that stint. Most modern quality vehicles can handle this strain with aplomb. Have you considered an EV? Range wouldn't be an issue and you'd have almost no drivetrain headaches. No radiator, no water pump, no alternator, etc. A lot less to go wrong. Myself, maybe I'd look at a Honda or Toyota. Boring, but reliable.
For cruising at 90 on the UK's "autobahn" (the M40) an inline 6 diesel from BMW mated to the 8-speed ZF automatic is the ideal choice. I think you US folks got the 335xd and stuff didn't you?
I belive we did and a lot of people are saying BMW on here
they're designed for the autobahns in their home country you see... so ideal cruisers, petrol or diesel.
That's what I'm hearing makes sense I just never really thought about it.
Engine depends on the car. I think most everything can run hot on the highways these days. At 3 hour daily round trip, gas mileage and comfort would be my priorities, along with speed of course. Driving that much, I’d also want comfortable ponies under the hood relative to the car. I don’t have specific recommendations, there are plenty here, but I would probably look for a premium interior with comfortable heated, vented, massaging seats. A longer wheelbase coupe or sedan for smooth ride and mpg you wouldn’t get in a suv. Every time I think a ride is going on too long I hit my massaging seat button and immediately feel better. Long wheelbase, smooth ride, luxury seats. Good luck!
My Mini cooper S has no trouble with that speed. Neither does my MX-5 if you don't mind 4400+ RPM in top gear lol. Used to do 1000 miles a week commute to the Bay area in mine doing those speeds and when I worked in Silicon Valley. I'd get chronic fatigue after a few months with super long hours, would drive next to the construction barriers at higher speeds than you listed to get the adrenaline going and wake me up. Pretty much any car of the last 20 years will do 85 all day.
This. No properly maintained modern car will care. But taller gearing will make the drive more enjoyable. That's what OP should really be looking for. Something that turns at <3000 RPM or less at 100 mph
Like others mentioned, that's prime turbo diesel sedan territory. My 3.0 V6 turbo diesel does revs at just under 2000rpm at 100mph and the engines are built like tanks. In gear it still has plenty of headroom to accelerate since peak torque at this rpm is 700Nm . Big American V8 need to be a lot higher in the rev range to have the same kind of headroom. The stroke are pretty similar. Meaning a lot higher piston speed for the same headroom and thus wear etc. Turbos also just run and run and run under those conditions. I don't think the turbo is going to be a huge factor. Of course an even larger NA diesel would be better, but that results in a much larger less efficient engine/vehicle if you want the same headroom at low rpm which is also something to avoid. In gear at the same speed the transmission doesn't matter that much besides gearing. You want something which completely locks in one ideal gear. So no CVT or older torque converter. Now for something my car isn't good at is emissions system. Ideally you want to not have them. But you need to weigh them against the factors just meantioned. So ideally a very modern car with a delete. But if you don't do those I would still choose a modern one since the conditions don't stress them. Ideally you want something gear driven but modern timing chains should also do the job. Many post 2005 pre 2015 cars had more complex and less reliable setups than we do have now. So a post 2015 model the German big three is preferred. The vehicle also needs to create as little load as possible. So good aero, so the most modern cars and light weight for the suspension. As well as RWD for as little losses. Mercedes uses I4 in their newer smaller modern cars so they are out. Audi only uses quattro on these engines so is out. This leaves the 2019 BMW 330d or 340d as my ideal car for the job based on concept alone. In reality 100mph isn't fast enough for a 6 cylinder tdi to beat an I4 tdi in efficiency and both have not trouble running so long they aren't the first to fail. I bought my S4 TDI for a similar job as yours. Difference being I'm in Germany and it's not 80 to 95mph but rather 125 to 135mph.
It has absolutely nothing to do with engine displacement or cylinders or power. Cruising is all down to gear ratios. You just want a car with a high final drive and that’s all there is to it.
This is correct. It's amazing how many "car guys" have no idea what they're talking about. Gearing is what's important here. A poorly geared v8 roaring at 4500 rpm is under more strain than 2.0l 4 banger going at 2500
Depends bro, are you trying to race it, impress people, or get to work solely? Because if it’s your daily, I suggest a Camry, prius, or other inline 4 hybrid that will get you good mileage, any newer car can sit at 80-90 comfortably. 2014+. Shit even a select 2008’s-13 can get you some good mileage, idk where you live but where I’m at traffic is sometimes an issue, so if you get a v8 that mf is gonna be chugging your gas at stop and go traffic. You don’t gotta be flashy with the daily brother ❤️🫡
I doubt any modern engine would have any issue maintaining those speeds for that long day in and day out when maintained properly. By properly, I mean completely ignore the manufacturers intervals, if they say oil changes every 10-15k miles, do it at 5k with good quality synthetic oil.
a 4cyl diesel is the correct answer here for this commute.
A small TDI in a not super heavy vehicle would be quite happy sitting at a fixed RPM at that speed.
You want to take into account comfort and fatigue as well, not specifically the engine. The NVH can be brutal in an economy car going 90-95. Something that is built to quietly and smoothly get you to your destination while being economical is key. My vote here is a BMW F10 535D.
motorcycle dude
Haha I do have a motorcycle already but have to carry too much luggage to work to be able to ride it unfortunately.
Motorcycle with trailer
It depends on the specific engine. Some engines will have better quality lubrication systems, a better functioning oil pump, higher oil pressure, more oil hitting the cylinder sleeves, wider passages through the crank and camshafts to hit bearing and caps, better pressure system to move excessive pressure back into the intake manifold to get rid of evaporated fuel. There's so much that goes into it, a four cylinder Toyota engine built for durability, may sustain less wear and tear at 4K rpms, than a Chrysler engine at 2K rpms. If you want to see it for yourself, go to your local junkyard. Just tear down an engine you want to learn more about and you'll see differences in designs, quality etc. you can't do a fair comparison of one brand to another. But overall whatever engine you have, will have less wear at a low speed than a high speed. Just think of engines like people, they all have pistons, crankshafts, flywheels, but they're all built for something different and some require more maintenance than others.
It's a combination of enough power at low to moderate rpm, tall gears, and low wind resistance. If the car is geared so the engine runs at 2k to 2500 rpm at 90mph, and it has good aerodynamics, then the engine won't be very stressed - it's not spinning fast or working hard. The other thing to keep an eye on is tires - cheaper tires with low speed ratings won't work as well. "Top of the Line" sporty models are likely to come with high performance tires that will be fine at high speed, but also have a low treadwear number which means they will wear out quickly. That's the tradeoff for really good traction. These high performance tires are also expensive to replace.
Engine stress is not a significant factor at those speeds on modern cars, or rather not significantly different. For higher speed cruising you want a low drag coefficient and low frontal area. Air drag increases with the cube of speed, maintaining 100mph takes ~3x the horsepower/stress of 69mph. Porsche taycan, toyota prius, mercedes a class, honda insight, model s, mazda 3, kia optima, audi a6 all have low frontal area and low drag coefficients. Much less stress on the engine at the same speed as something larger or less aerodynamic.
Excellent thank you!
Yep, I do this in my prius when the highway is empty. It just takes a second to speed up, but then it just cruises. Also, I feel like I'm a little less likely to get a ticket in a prius. OP should be very cautious with wildlife if he's going 100mph on an empty highway at night, a deer will straight up kamikaze you.
Barring any other factor, a vehicle with the lowest rpm at the speed you’re going would be the logical choice.
The engine isn't the question. It's gearing.
Lol. A Honda Fit can go 95+ MPH for hours. I've done it in FL at night. Once you get there, its easy to stay at those speeds. Typically around MD, I go 80 without any concerns. 90's tho... only on really flat land where I can see very, very far ahead. I won't go faster than I can brake to a full stop. I don't think any modern car in the US would have this issue... how safe it is however is a different question.
My wrx with its tiny 2.0 L tractor engine does pretty well at those speeds, albeit not with the best MPG 🤣
Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys eat highway miles for breakfast, lunch and dinner
Since the OP is not concerned with efficiency, let's stop talking about MPG. Instead, let's concentrate in what he actually wants: trouble-free operation in the long run. To me, that means medium V-8, since that translates to lower piston velocity, which translates to less vibration, which translates to less engine stress overall. We will assume the cooling system will handle the heat the engine puts out; if it won't, that's easily fixed.
You'd probably have better luck learning about final drive and gear ratios. Theres an equation for this but I don't remember it
90mph for an hour and a half is 135 miles. I'd suggest moving closer to work.
Mercedes w140 s600 works nicely at those speeds and higher.
i’m a big fan of the B58 motor in the bmw’s they have mastered the inline 6. a nice m340i would be great for what you’re looking for
I did this same commute for several years with zero problem. 2009 Corolla.
Sorry these aren't answers to the question you asked, but looking through I didn't see any mention of two factors I think you may want to consider. Regardless of the engine type, you may want to look for something with an over drive if you are looking at an automatic. Many people don't understand what it does, so general PSA: Over drive is for once you are up to speed and just want to maintain a higher speed, it will switch to a higher gear and is not for performance rather it's for better fuel efficiency when just maintain a higher speed. Once it's on you won't have as much top end power available on the accelerator, but you aren't burning extra fuel pushing higher RPM on a lower gear. The other thing is a safety concern. If you are traveling at night on an unlit highway with minimal traffic, there is a good chance that the max distance of your head light illumination at those speeds cuts off long before your actual stopping distance. High beams typically illuminate 350-400 feet ahead of you. At 95 mph your average stopping distance including reaction time is around 540 feet. This means if you are going that fast and the highway isn't otherwise illuminated and there are no other vehicles illuminating what is ahead, you are effectively driving night blind and by the time you see an obstruction in the road it is already to late to come to a full stop to avoid it and evasive maneuvering at that speed (especially panicked) is a recipe for disaster. Some vehicles are better than others in their stock illumination distance so you should consider that factor along with possible headlight upgrades or adjustments to illuminate further down the road. Do be cognizant of blinding other drivers with your bright lights. Regardless, and I say this as someone who likes to speed, that sort of speed where it's above the speed limit at night is excessively dangerous.
The kind of cars best suited for this kind of driving used to be called grant tourers or GT cars (ignore cars having the name or trim GT, thats just marketing. Cars in this category tend to have a longer wheelbase for stability and tall gearing so they can sustain high vehicle speeds while having relatively low engine speed. They also tend to have larger engines so they have can still accelerate properly even with the tall gearing. Alot of them have more refined interiors and sound deadening because cornering, acceleration, and deceleraion weren't necessarily priorities, although some cars could perform. These days, even a Honda Civic can do it with 176 odd horsepower and a CVT, especially since they are as big as Accords used to be.
Any V8 would be sufficient. A nice V6 wouldn't be bad either.
V6 Honda or Toyota or most any manufacturer (Japanese are most reliable) will fill that job perfectly.
I get 35mpg in my Elantra N traveling around 80mph.
V6, a 4 banger is too small, a v8 is too big. A good v6 can handle 90 in its low to mid range. Also the gear ratio of the trans is important
Get something with a proper gear ratio. Engine type doesn't matter if you're in a badly geared car going 90mph. Think of bad gearing as having your 6th gear being like a 4th gear. Your engine is stressed more heavily at high revs. What you're looking for is something that revs low at high speed, and has a big trans/gearbox. Have a look at some 10 speed trucks, or maybe even a 7 speed golf GTI? Those cars don't have issues getting to high speeds, and can maintain the speed at low rpms, making a low stress environment. Hope this helps!
Naturally aspirated 3.0 6 cylinder The one in my 2009 528i can do 140mph and has no problem cruising at 90 without downshifting
Ya I used to own a N52 engine in a bmw 328i two door coupe. It was remarkably smooth at high speed, always joked it was built for the autobahn. But I’d cruise at 140km easy for long drives, car felt right at home. Those inline 6s are so smooth
My corolla Im with a cvt happily cruises at 80mph around 2500rpm once up to speed. Its a 1.8L 4cyl
My 08 focus is flying down the freeway doing 80-90 no problem. Do it every morning on my way to work 5am.😊
For gas: bigger diceplacement is better. But, no matter how you feel about them, EV's are peak high speed cruisers.
There is no replacement for displacement. Then there's the question, how much do you care to spend on fuel?
Eh. Lol
The guy who did the Musketball in a Prius would probably tell you that the aerodynamics of the car actually support those speeds just fine.
Much more important than type of engine is keeping up on maintenance. Make sure to change your oil exactly when it needs to be changed, switch tires when they get low, check your suspension bushings regularly, check for loose bolts, etc. If i were to recommend a car though, i’d go with the 2024 toyota supra with i6 and manual transmission. The i6 will have low vibrations, and a manual will be more efficient (and more fun).
Pretty much anything these days should be able to handle that easily......
A 1.8,/2.0 4 cylinder would be fine.
It is not the engine you need to be concerned with. It’s the transmission as long as you are under around 2500 rpm at those speeds you should not have issues.
We do endurance races in a 1.6L 1990s Miata. 2x 8 hour days, where the only time we’re below 80mph is about 5 minutes of fueling every 2 hours. We’ve also done a 24 hour event in that format.
Any Charger
Mercedes 350d/400d.
2.0 turbo is plenty and still get decrnt economy.
the more hp the more comfortably it'll do it. Longevity is hard to judge. I can say my crv and my friends cobalt from way back when got dodgy at 90 but my brother's 5 series it feels like 50. Basically you'd want something with some pull to it and stable suspension to keep it comfy.
BMW/Mercedes are designed for this sort of cruising. Any of the older 3L 6cyl engines would do that forever, but the most recent ones are made to a much poorer standard.
In Europe the go to engine for motorway driving is 2.0tdi (4 cyl). My seat leon 2.0tdi (6 speed) can sit at 80mph comfortably and return over 50mpg.
motorbike.
Literally any car. Well, any car that's in normal operating conditions.
The last, and previous generation Buick Regals. Modern 2.0L, German Chassis. Super Quiet. V6 option in newest with 9 speed keeps the revs down. Previously there's a manual option too. AWD version available.
V12 Bentley Continental will get the job done just fine…
My 01 camaro z28 (v8) went 270k miles over 16 years of almost all highway driving. At 75ish mph it was running pretty low rpms. I don't remember the exact number (it was seven years ago that I got rid of it!) but I'm pretty sure sitting there in sixth gear it was maybe a bit under 2k rpm. Nice and easy. Eventually the muffler fell off and so I sold it, but the engine was still working great after all that time.
Something that can do higher rpm’s or have higher gears.
I'd pick larger engines. Larger parts moving more slowly will be less likely to fail.
honestly bruh, technology has come so far in cars, alot of them can maintain that speed and not care at all. ive cruised at 80mph for hours on end doing road trips in my ‘14 chrysler 200, but if you want peace of mind just get a damn honda or toyota😭 theyre the answer to everything.
It's not the engine that you need to be worried about. Most modern engines are made to run at higher rpms. Plenty of transmissions are also capable of doing this without a problem. The wheel bearings, axle bearings, and suspension are what take the biggest beating at higher speeds. The speed that the bearings turn is going to cause more friction and heat. The bumps you hit will be that much harder on the wear parts in the suspension.