I’m always pleased to receive a Nissan Murano as a rental vehicle. Beyond that, I don’t usually think much about it. However, after taking the new 2026 model for a spin, I developed stronger feelings than I anticipated. In fact, I found myself yearning for the old V6.
I don’t have an issue with four-cylinder engines in theory. There are many turbocharged versions that perform admirably. Additionally, Nissan’s variable-compression turbo technology is quite impressive. In today’s overly uniform market, it’s rare to encounter vehicles that actually operate differently, even if those distinctions don’t add anything substantial to the experience. It’s distinctive, no doubt, but I can’t claim it’s necessarily superior for that.
Hey, I’m no expert. Perhaps this design is marginally more efficient than a standard turbo-four. The engine’s variable compression feature certainly made sense during Nissan’s phase of outfitting everything with front-wheel drive and a CVT. It’s akin to Algebra II: the more variables, the better. Or something like that. Middle school was three decades ago, alright?
But here’s my contention: As impressively complex as the variable compression/variable ratio combination may be, none of that actually added positively to the driving experience. It debuted in the Infiniti QX50 back in 2016—a thoroughly acceptable engine paired with a rather “meh” transmission; the smaller variant also performs adequately in the Rogue.
But here’s the reality: the Murano isn’t a Rogue. Sure, it’s a two-row, similar to the Rogue, but it’s built on a broader platform and is aimed at a buyer willing to invest over $40k in a two-row SUV. It’s bulkier than its compact counterpart, just like the Honda Passport and Subaru Outback it goes up against. That’s why previous models easily housed the V6; there has always been ample space under the hood.
For its part, Honda still clings to the V6. Subaru eliminated the flat-six in the Outback years back, and the wagon now comes with a robust 2.4-liter turbo-4. Even though it’s still paired with a continuously variable transmission, it feels considerably more lively than the 2.0-turbo in the Murano. Our friends at Car and Driver confirmed my assessment; they clocked the Subaru reaching 60 mph a full second faster than the Murano.
The sheer acceleration isn’t the crux here; a Murano doesn’t need to rush to 60 as fast as a sport compact. But around town, the Murano’s engine simply feels small in a way its V6 predecessor did not. It’s not quicker (or slower) than the V6 in terms of outright performance (our buddies at C/D once again have the data); it’s just more efficient for emissions—at least per the way regulators assess it.
If you ask Nissan, they’ll argue that the Murano’s ideal customer isn’t necessarily missing the V6. I’m not shocked; this vehicle has always centered more on the overall package than pure performance, and the latest model, with its sharp, futuristic design, is every bit as innovative as the original was over 20 years ago.
As the spirited and confidence-boosting Outback demonstrates, this isn’t simply about cylinder count. Nissan states it will maintain the V6 in its body-on-frame models simply because consumers desire them. Reading between the lines, one could infer that customers aren’t looking for a turbocharged four-cylinder.
Would they still feel that way if Nissan had a better offering? I mentioned Subaru already, but it’s not the only one. Consider Mopar’s new Hurricane I4, or Toyota’s 2.4-liter turbo. Each has its drawbacks, but they’re still far better suited for “SUV” duties than the VC-Turbo.
In the context of the Xterra, the situation is further complicated by the fact that Nissan lacks a rear-wheel-drive four-cylinder engine entirely. The Frontier has eliminated the I4 with its recent update; only the 3.8-liter V6 is available. Climb the ranks to the Armada, and you’re looking at a turbocharged V6 built on the same framework.
In essence, before Nissan could even consider introducing a turbocharged four-cylinder in any of its trucks, it would first need to develop one—either from scratch or by modifying the VC-Turbo to meet the standards required of Nissan’s trucks. I won’t hazard a guess as to which would ultimately be pricier for Nissan. The V6, on the other hand, is right there.
And look, it works—even if it does seem like a concession to traditionalists who are simply wary of what has become the new standard. And a fair warning to that crowd: This isn’t a Stellantis scenario. Nissan is already outlining plans for hybrid truck powertrains.
But if you’re cash-strapped Nissan, the logical decision to make at this moment is glaringly clear.
So in the end, maybe I don’t truly miss the V6 as much as I long for a time when it felt like Nissan was genuinely enjoying the process. Recall the Supercharged Xterra? What about the 3.5-liter V6 that turned the Altima into a stoplight dominator long before every other midsize caught up?
Nissan’s on a mission to streamline its lineup and simply retain “the good stuff.” That’s a step forward. However, let’s not overlook what’s on the horizon. There’s still a lot of excitement to be had.
Have a news tip? Reach out to us at [email protected]!
### Nissan’s Turbocharged 4-Cylinder Engine: Limitations and Challenges
Nissan has achieved notable advancements in automotive engineering, particularly with its turbocharged 4-cylinder engines, which provide a combination of performance and efficiency. Yet, these engines also face a set of limitations and challenges that influence their overall effectiveness and attractiveness.
#### Performance Limitations
1. **Power Output**: Although turbocharging boosts power output, a 4-cylinder engine’s performance can still fall short compared to larger displacement engines, notably V6 or V8 configurations. This could lead to a less thrilling driving experience for enthusiasts seeking significant horsepower and torque.
2. **Turbo Lag**: Turbocharged engines frequently encounter a delay in power delivery, commonly referred to as turbo lag. This happens when the driver accelerates, and there’s a short pause before the turbocharger activates to supply additional power. This can impact responsiveness, particularly in scenarios that demand quick acceleration.
3. **Heat Management**: Turbocharged engines produce more heat than naturally aspirated ones. Effectively managing this heat is vital for sustaining performance and reliability. Overheating can result in engine knock, decreased efficiency, and potential engine damage if not properly managed.
#### Fuel Efficiency Challenges
1. **Fuel Quality Sensitivity**: Turbocharged engines may necessitate higher octane fuel for optimal performance. Utilizing lower-grade fuel can lead to knocking and diminished performance, which can be an obstacle for consumers seeking cost-effective fueling alternatives.
2. **Real-World Efficiency**: While turbocharged engines are engineered to enhance fuel efficiency, real-world driving conditions can reduce these benefits. Aggressive driving or frequent acceleration can lead to higher fuel consumption than anticipated, counteracting intended efficiency gains.
#### Reliability Concerns
1. **Complexity of Design**: Turbocharged engines are inherently more intricate than their naturally aspirated counterparts. The additional components, such as the turbocharger, intercooler, and related plumbing, can elevate the risk of mechanical failures and maintenance difficulties.
2. **Oil Consumption**: Turbocharged engines may exhibit higher oil consumption due to increased heat and pressure. This can necessitate more frequent oil changes and potential engine wear if not carefully monitored.
3. **Long-Term Durability**: The durability of turbocharged 4-cylinder engines can be a concern. While many modern engines are designed for longevity, the added stress of turbocharging can lead to early wear on components, especially if the engine is not maintained properly.
#### Market Competition
1. **Consumer Preferences**: The automotive market is increasingly leaning towards hybrid and electric powertrains. As consumers shift their attention towards sustainability, the allure of turbocharged 4-cylinder engines may wane, presenting a challenge for Nissan in retaining market share.
2. **Alternative Technologies**: Competing manufacturers are investigating alternative technologies, such as electric motors and hydrogen fuel cells, which might deliver better performance and efficiency without the limitations tied to turbocharged internal combustion engines.
#### Conclusion
Nissan’s turbocharged 4-cylinder engines signify a considerable leap in automotive technology, offering a balance of performance and efficiency. Nonetheless, limitations such as power output, turbo lag, heat management, fuel quality sensitivity, and reliability concerns present hurdles that Nissan must navigate. As the automotive landscape shifts, the company will need to innovate and adapt to fulfill consumer expectations and remain competitive in a rapidly evolving market.