Supercharged V8 , Twin Turbo V6 or highly modded 6 potter??
-
- Stock
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 01:01
inline 6 is obvious for me, in a bmw of course.... most other cars i would prefer a V6 TT over a V8 s/c (nothing against V8's though, especially the 4,4 and 5 litre ones bmw has), simply for mother natures sake... besides the turbo lag could be pretty much taken away with 1small turbo and 1 bigger...
- steelsnake00
- Professional
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 28 Aug 2005, 17:54
- Location: Cirencester, UK
-
- Ricer
- Posts: 43
- Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:20
- Location: Canada
Inline 6 for me cuz its lighter and v8 is heavyand ill put a quad turbo like the veyron 16/4 and superchargers duntmake the sound ppppssss when it shifts
i mean blow off valve
i mean blow off valve
Last edited by Li1_aZn_k1d on 04 Sep 2005, 22:46, edited 1 time in total.
- boganbusman
- Unbeatable
- Posts: 5142
- Joined: 03 Sep 2004, 12:09
- Location: Mute City
- Contact:
- WhereIsTheNsx
- Drift King
- Posts: 743
- Joined: 29 Jul 2005, 01:21
- Location: Brooklyn NYC
supercharged v8 for me. gives you power all through the revs, it may rob a little but it gives you quite a bit back. the only reason rice-boy's perform so well with inline 6's and v6s is because they odn't weigh a lot. but you take a tt 3.9L v6 mustang lx and a 5.7L s/c v8 mustang gt and race them, the gt will beat the lx's ass bad!
so i'm for the s/c v8
so i'm for the s/c v8
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1279
- Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 22:34
- Grez~Supra_RZ-S
- Valued Member
- Posts: 3092
- Joined: 02 Dec 2003, 21:46
- Location: Hair Salon
Worst cause for argument ever?Sweet-16 wrote:supercharged v8 for me. gives you power all through the revs, it may rob a little but it gives you quite a bit back. the only reason rice-boy's perform so well with inline 6's and v6s is because they odn't weigh a lot. but you take a tt 3.9L v6 mustang lx and a 5.7L s/c v8 mustang gt and race them, the gt will beat the lx's ass bad!
so i'm for the s/c v8
Those ''rice boys'' with their V6s, you wouldnt happen to be referring to the likes of the Skyline/Supra/3000GT etc, would you?
Lets look at a big, manly V8.
1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
-5700cc V8
-A whopping 275bhp (bahahahahahaha)
-An awesome quarter mile of 14.7 seconds at 97mph (BWAHAHAHAHAHA)
Another car from 1993
1993 Toyota Supra RZ
2998cc ''rice boy'' straight 6, twin sequential turbochargers
-326bhp
-13.6 @ 106mph
That, ladies and gentleman, concludes our discussion on broad sweeping statements for today. If you too would like to avoid being made to look like a jackass, then remove your head from your anus now, and receive instant enlightenment!
*sig removed for being too big. limitations are 550x120px & 50kb*
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1279
- Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 22:34
- steelsnake00
- Professional
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 28 Aug 2005, 17:54
- Location: Cirencester, UK
- steelsnake00
- Professional
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 28 Aug 2005, 17:54
- Location: Cirencester, UK
Wow, you must've read Jeremy Clarkson's review of the '05 Mustang or something like that, seems to take the same tone towards traditional muscle cars.Grez~Supra_RZ-S wrote:Worst cause for argument ever?Sweet-16 wrote:supercharged v8 for me. gives you power all through the revs, it may rob a little but it gives you quite a bit back. the only reason rice-boy's perform so well with inline 6's and v6s is because they odn't weigh a lot. but you take a tt 3.9L v6 mustang lx and a 5.7L s/c v8 mustang gt and race them, the gt will beat the lx's ass bad!
so i'm for the s/c v8
Those ''rice boys'' with their V6s, you wouldnt happen to be referring to the likes of the Skyline/Supra/3000GT etc, would you?
Lets look at a big, manly V8.
1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
-5700cc V8
-A whopping 275bhp (bahahahahahaha)
-An awesome quarter mile of 14.7 seconds at 97mph (BWAHAHAHAHAHA)
Another car from 1993
1993 Toyota Supra RZ
2998cc ''rice boy'' straight 6, twin sequential turbochargers
-326bhp
-13.6 @ 106mph
That, ladies and gentleman, concludes our discussion on broad sweeping statements for today. If you too would like to avoid being made to look like a jackass, then remove your head from your anus now, and receive instant enlightenment!
Let's start off with the most basic fact; the Supra is expensive. Over twice as expensive as the Camaro was (at least in North America). And you clearly got what you paid for, in a faster, better handling, more refined car. However, say you took that Camaro, and put in the money it would've taken to upgrade to the Supra, and where are you? Suddenly, you've got yourself a faster car with a worse interior (not gonna lie, from what I've heard, it's pretty cheap inside).
Furthermore, how is the Camaro geared in comparison to the Supra? I wouldn't doubt it if Chevy deliberately geared the Camaro so that it got acceptable fuel economy, which slows it up a bit.
Then there's the issue of power curves, which sweet-16 almost touched on. Yes, the small-block Chev is inefficient, but think of how the power is distributed. It's a very easy-going motor. As far as I'm concerned, that's the true meaning behind the phrase "there's no replacement for displacement." Technology and forced induction can do some fantastic things, but think of the occational cost to regular use (I think back to that Top Gear drag race between the Evo FQ400 and the Fiat). If you're driving so that you're always in the car's power band anyways, it doesn't matter so much. But then with a larger engine, you're more likely to have a wider power band.
And, for what little it's worth, the EPA claims that the Camaro and Supra have roughly the same fuel economy (17/26 for the Camaro and 19/23 for the Supra), although I imagine that the Camaro will run fine on the cheapest swill you can shove in its tank.
- Grez~Supra_RZ-S
- Valued Member
- Posts: 3092
- Joined: 02 Dec 2003, 21:46
- Location: Hair Salon
- Grez~Supra_RZ-S
- Valued Member
- Posts: 3092
- Joined: 02 Dec 2003, 21:46
- Location: Hair Salon