Ecoboost killed the NA v6. Very few like toyota have a big six. Small turbos have been great for economy and power.

Ecoboost killed the NA v6. Very few like toyota have a big six. Small turbos have been great for economy and power.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    BigC

    I like the small turbo motors but I fear for their long term reliability

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You got to use a quality oil in them to get past a 5k interval.

      • 1 year ago
        BigC

        I know, I just had a really hard time finding VW 508 spec oil for the jetta, I went to autozone, O'Reilly, Napa, Walmart etc
        I had to drive like 150 miles to find the fricking oil that met VWs 508 spec and it cost 80 dollars for 5qt

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Try amsoil you might be surprised they have different specs.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Specs of oil that do the same job. They are good shipping too.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ecoturbos were the beginning of the end for cars to be honest. now you have people who dont even know what a nice NA motor was like. might as well be EVs. Also this shit is 80s tier under the hood.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong
      I've had plenty of nice NA motors, and I like them
      Got a twin turbo F150 and like it too, just different

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >wrong
        its a matter of opinion autist

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      atmo engines are inherently cucked though. Dont forget you can have the best engine in the world but its not shit unless its boosted.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >mclaren f1 and bmw s70/2 say "nani?"

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Ecoboost killed the NA v6.
        Cringe. I hate turbocharged engines, they are are unreliable and require too much expensive repairs and sometimes replacement. They require more advanced cooling, lubrication, emissions control systems than naturally aspirated engines. Not to mention turbolag that only applies to some engines, but no all engines.
        I rather pay more expensive fuel costs for the large displacement naturally aspirated engines.

        Thats not always true on modern naturally aspirated engines. Lets not forget that regardless to engine, sometimes transmissions are the real reason for car being slow and not the actual engine. CVT's, older torque converter transmissions often make car 1-3 seconds slower than dual clutch automatic transmissions, manual transmissions. In these modern times many naturally aspirated engine transmissions gear ratios are optimised for fuel economy rather than maximum performance. Some naturally aspirated engines performance are also factory detuned to pass emissions and noise limits.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You sound like you're writing a sales brochure dude

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I dont sell anything. If you search and compare all cars with similar engines from both automatic transmissions and manual transmissions from different years. You do see that there are differences in performance. Some cars are offered even with 2 different automatic transmissions and one manual transmission this is common with Volkswagen and its other brands. Modern transmissions literally shift gears faster and have lower loss of performance from engine to wheels than old transmissions.

            Sounds like you are one of those financially poor people who only drives 15+ year old shitboxes and you cant- or you purposely avoid driving below 10 year old cars. Modern naturally aspirated engines produce more power and torque at half amount of RPM's than naturally aspirated engines 15+ years ago.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Peak reliability

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't get the weird obsession with forced induction. I wish people would just stop.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >be me
      >drive c300 w205 2.0l turbo 7 speed
      >get 38mpg highway
      >get 25mpg when boosting stop light to light.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I don't really care. NA definitely feels better for performance driving. Its just more reliable in both senses of the word. You get your car, why can't I have mine?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You can, buy a Mustang GT, it revs to 7500 RPM

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            dickhead

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            lmao, do you want to just be mad?
            if the GR86 is more your speed they also rev that high, NA

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            i can read between the lines

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There's also the Mazda Miata

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I like both and wouldn't like any soulful NA like a coyote v8 or a highrev i4 NA. Sadly I think its becoming harder for the NA to survive epa regs.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >wouldn't like any soulful NA like a coyote v8 or a highrev i4 NA
            TOO BE DISCONTINUED... i don't want them to.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Air density is one hell of a drug, and it does multiplications.
      In fact boost pressure has been very stagnant and compound setups are still rare. Half of known motorsports deliberately limit boost pressure or require restrictor.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >twin turbo a 3.5l for 350hp
    Fricking. Pathetic.
    Could've got the same NA for the same cost and development.

    Turbos were fashionable due to a very weird period of supereco lobbying by know-nothing politicians. Using a turbo for powerband inherently uses more fuel during that high power output than without.
    The only reason turbs got marketshare was a high heat engine can be leaned out to replace CO2 with nOx, with your catty system (wearing itself out twice as fast as it should) dealing with the nitroxide for "reduced pollution".

    Fricking joke of a world we live in. Make it more complicated and expensive (re: if it takes more of your paycheck YOUR WORK NECESSARILY CONTRIBUTES TO MORE POLLUTION).

    If they could make an "outdated and shitty" late 90s GM V6 for $1000 today it would, due to the pollution effect of people's work, save more pollution than an $8000 superclean modern turbo.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      350hp and 420 ft.lbs at 2500rpm. No NA V6 that size is going to make that much torque which matters in a heavy vehicle.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This, and that was the early versions. Now the 3.5 makes even more. The 2.7 is 325 HP/400 Torque. I’d really like to see a 2.7L V6 without turbos that turns out that kind of power at that low of an RPM.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >muh 100hp at 2k rpm
        Frick does it even matter when modern gear boxes are so heavily multiplied that you're out of a turbo engines's extremely narrow true power for the efficiency for the pollution rpm range in less than a second?

        I guarantee you that this mid '10s to mid '20s turbo era will be looked at as an asinine mistake when you're an old grey boomer reminiscing over your 3.5L ecoboost.

        I'll take a solid 3.2L I6 putting 250 to the ground over any craptastic turbo'd 2 liter I4 anyday.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          keep in mind these 3.5tt engines are only going to used in things like heavy crossovers and trucks. You need torque AND power to move loads like that regardless of how many speeds you have in your troony. Otherwise you're going to have gutless piece of shit that does 4k rpm down the highway that needs a further re-gear to run 30'' tires. A ~300hp NA i6 would be a gutless pig in something like a F-150.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >only going to be used in heavy crossovers and trucks
            First debut of the ford 3.5TT was the 2010 Ford Taurus,
            You absolute nincompoop moron c**t of a "man".

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Which is still a pigfat 4000lbs...

            my old 3.4L V6 making 180HP does 80MPH at 2350 rpm and still gets 31mpg.

            A 4runner? You're not getting 31mph @ 80mph.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Impala base model. Confirmed 31+ MPH from a ~2150 mile drive.

            you're a goddamned idiot, lol 🙂

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >31+ MPH
            mpg*

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How is your gutless piece of shit relevant in this discussion about modern turbo engines that make twice the power?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Modern eco cars struggle to reach 32MPG at 75mph, yet my old rusted busted "piece of shit" can do it de facto?

            That's the point. Our entire argument chain.
            That you're wrong and unaware.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Does your shitbox make 350hp? Would your engine move a F-150 to 60 in under 6 like the 3.5tt can?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >is your 20 year old pushrod design as good as a modern direct injection DOHC 4-valve?
            No but unironically gets the same MPG so wrap your gay ass 4th gen Hispanic "I'm an american" head around that.
            🙂

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >drives an Impala
            >talks like a Black person
            Checks out

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            My turbo's 1.4L does that easily with 180 peak hp

            3.5L twin turbo is going to push alot more than that

            your moms are homosexuals

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            tell your tio to post bread on his f150

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why would you care about power in a A to B daily. Your moronic idea that cars need to be practical, powerful, large, sporty, yet economical has resulted in the average car purchase being 55k. These 55k leviathans are still highly compromised and do nothing very well.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Because it fricking sucks driving a slow shitbox. If you drive a 2 lane for 25 miles with only occasional spots to pass, its pretty nice to have some HP. Also, I happen to like quick acceleration in general. 90s cars we’re significantly quicker than 70s cars, this trend has continued.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            My turbo's 1.4L does that easily with 180 peak hp

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            my old 3.4L V6 making 180HP does 80MPH at 2350 rpm and still gets 31mpg.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            that same engine is in the Ford Explorer police interceptor which despite being capable of over 165 mph has trouble catching up with a V6 Challenger

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Most police interceptors have the naturally aspirated Cyclone V6.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes aero limited suv is beaten by sedan.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There is a very clear relation between the amount of weight needed to be moved and the sort of power the engine needs to put out.
            Just talking NA, a V6 in a midsize makes the same mpg as a V8 in a half-ton.
            You can cut out two cylinders and replace them with a TT but the power output still basically needs to be the same to move the weight, which still consumes as much fuel as the NA variants.

            The only main improvement is when you are downsizing cylinders and moving to diesel instead, where a TT makes the most sense.
            But gotta game the mpg ratings. That's the only thing engine advancements have done for the past two decades.

            tl;dr: You are fighting the energy capacity of the fuel and trying to get the same power out of it consumes the same amount of fuel regardless of how you're extracting it.

            NA V6s always sucked ass and had pathetic power ratings, name one factory v6 that made more than 92hp/L

            V6 in general are compromise engines.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You can put more fuel into the cylinders with than with an NA because you're putting denser air in. It's the entire point of forced induction

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You can put enough fuel to hydrolock an NA engine if you want to . What kind of idiocy is this?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You must be pretending to be this moronic

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What am I pretending about? Do you think hydrolocking is a joke or that it only happens when the engine is being blown rather than sucking?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You find me an engine built in the past 30 years capable of true hydrolock and I'll wire you a million dollars, and you get my b***h mother, moron sister and prostitute niece for free.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No I'm talking about the fuel air mix and the entire point of forced induction

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You use non-hydraulic fuel?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Good fricking god

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Not all of us drive propoane forklifts or other propane accessories.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You had me going there for awhile, Ill be honest

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >not driving a 6.2l on propane/cng

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Running engines on gasses is moronic. However I wouldn't mind a 6.7 Cummins with spark plugs in a truck, just running on gasoline.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Not for standby but I agree.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Of course you can feed endless amounts of fuel to any engine, but it will quickly get far too rich and just blubber and make no power at all. Atmospheric pressure can only fill cylinders so fast. If you have a turbo, suddenly you are no longer limited by atmospheric pressure, and somewhat less so if you have a supercharger. With a turbo the impeller will spin up as fast as it needs to in order to maintain pressure the wastegate is set at. Turbo lag becomes a bit more noticeable at altitude because of this.
            This is also why barometric pressure is something drag racers tend to pay attention to

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            NA is typically under vacuum except in rare conditions of WOT and intake charge momentum arising from resonant tuning. You're still limited by atmospheric pressure with a turbo. They aren't magic.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're being extremely pedantic. The whole reason why TT's work so much better is purely because they're compressing that atmospheric pressure naturally aspirated engines can't do anything about. If they're limited by anything its how fast the turbine can spin but thats hardly a bottleneck to atmospheric pressure as it is to a naturally aspirated engine which is explicitly limited by how fast it can displace that air.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No I'm not being pendantic. The pressure differential is what compels the intake charge into the cylinder. This is very basic. Engines are air pumps. Obviously fueling systems are not typically sized to be able to hydrolock them, but dump enough fuel in and you'll hydrolock it no matter whether it's NA or not. Nobody cares if you get a non-combustion event in one cylinder while the thing is spinning away it's trying to compress liquid instead of gas. That's a completely different problem.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yea but we aren't talking about some magical scenario where your MAF sensor or whatever measures your air shits its pants into thinking you have a ton of air when you don't and the engine floods the cylinder with fuel. We're talking specifically about why Turbocharged engines work so well regardless of the ambient temperature or pressure is.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody's talking about a malfunctioning sensor, buddy.

            So if you understand all these concepts why are you arguing? A turbo engine makes more power, period. Also in low throttle use cases such as cruising down the highway where you aren’t getting into the boost you can manage higher mpg assuming a smaller displacement motor.
            The idea that engines haven’t improved in 20 years or whatever is preposterous.

            A turbo engine does not necessarily make more power. Are you a benchracer?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No, I am not, I just happen to own a few vehicles currently and have owned a lot more in my past, see

            Then how is it that my 2.7 f150 consistently get over 20 mpg while hitting 60 under 6 seconds, yet my old 2001 5.4 F150 with the same exact body configuration could manage 16 mpg and took a good 8-8.5 seconds? The little turbo motor tows better too.

            I also have two naturally aspirated V8 vehicles and a supercharged four.
            One of my V8s definitely has more power than my truck’s engine but it’s nearly twice the displacement. Also, for a truck engine, having that surge of torque way down low from two turbos is really pretty nice.
            Any other questions?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            t. has never seen a stuck injector

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So if you understand all these concepts why are you arguing? A turbo engine makes more power, period. Also in low throttle use cases such as cruising down the highway where you aren’t getting into the boost you can manage higher mpg assuming a smaller displacement motor.
            The idea that engines haven’t improved in 20 years or whatever is preposterous.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Then how is it that my 2.7 f150 consistently get over 20 mpg while hitting 60 under 6 seconds, yet my old 2001 5.4 F150 with the same exact body configuration could manage 16 mpg and took a good 8-8.5 seconds? The little turbo motor tows better too.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      3.5L twin turbo is going to push alot more than that

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this is higher tow capacity than even the big 6.2 ls equipped silverados of yesteryear. sorry grandpa but we make wooosh noises now.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Not him but tow capacity isn't only determined by engine power or size. Just raw improvements to transmissions, suspension, and cooling have impressively increased towing capacity.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          they market towing capacity as a direct result of engine equipped

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yea I get that but it isn't the only determining factor. You don't really get transmission or suspension options on these trucks, only engine options, so you don't get to see how they've improved. My point is that trucks as a whole have improved immensely over the last 20 years such that if you had an equivalently powerful engine back in the day the new truck tows more because of these additional things. Its sort of why the tow package adds so much to tow capacity despite the engine not changing. The addition of a transmission cooler, brake controller, etc all help immensely.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            i agree but that's not how they're selling it. since the ancillaries to make the powertrain package fuction as intended aren't optional, you can deduce that it is powertrain specific. I would rather have a v8 in many occurrences but the 3.5tt is a monster of an engine.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They do this to artificially push you into a more expensive truck. There are actually 3 different frame thicknesses in Fords, the 2.7s don’t get into the heavy duty frame. It’s kind of shitty, but that’s the way it is

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            they don't? i haven't heard of this except in heavy trucks like volvos and freightliners. those get options for double thick frames like the volvo VHD line and VNX.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, they do. To get those higher tow ratings, the 3.5/5.0 trucks have what is called the HDPP frame (heavy duty payload package). This is any the in bed payload is rated higher. Also they come with the 9.75 diff, not the 8.8 diff the 2.7 comes with. It’s an artificially created restriction, with nothing to do with the power of the 2.7. The 2.7 has way more grunt than the old 5.4 which was even put into Super Duty models as a base engine for years.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      to be fair about the logic behind NOx, it's pretty evident that they're somewhat easier to deal with. Just let them pass through your cat and it's just harmless nitrogen gas. None of that overly complicated carbon capture bullshit.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Not all the NOx converts though which is why your EGR exists. The CO2 obviously doesn't convert but Soot is a real problem because of what Soot is. My issue isn't with the particulate filters but rather that the particulate filters aren't quick change, they're all integrated into the exhaust which makes them ridiculously difficult to service.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          EGR also exists to be able to run a leaner mixture at higher compression less risk of detonation vs. forcing in air. Unfortunately it's usually only implemented for emissions and MPGs so you just wind up with soot problems and not much else to show for it.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They are supposed to compete with NA V8s. And you should be comparing two engines in same price category.

    IDK I like the ecoblows, but would rather have a larger NA. I keep my cars way past 300k, one V6 (1MZ-FE) ran up to 490k now. Efficiency gains on them, I get when I drive like a Granny. Typical interstate speed here is 95, basically the speed at which you can still get a spending ticket dismissed.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nissan still out version of the VQ running around. The 3.8 in the newer frontiers seems ok. They did cuck and give it DI tho

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    My 2GR-FE is sex
    COME AND TAKE IT

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Past
    There's no replacement for displacement. Complexity. Turbo lag. Price. Sound. Reliability.
    >Present
    Every shitbox is turbocharged due to fuel economy and emissions. See picrel.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think you mean
      >Present
      Every shitbox is turbocharged due to completely faked fuel economy numbers and emitting things that literally do not matter at all

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, that would be more accurate lmao
        You can see in picrel 2.0 turbo engines saving barely any fuel compared to a 5.0 Coyote when driving as smooth as possible. It's all about playing regulations.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          How much does the 5.0 weigh compared to the 2.0?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Who cares? The relevant question is how much the entire vehicle weighs, unless you were thinking of pulling the engine off with your own two arms.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Well how much does the whole thing weigh? Or are you telling me a 5.0L engine is going to fit in the same sized bay as a 2.0L?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It depends. Packaging is also a concern, including how to plumb in the forced induction system. Are you a benchracer who only cares about a few numbers promoted by car rags, or are you an engineer?

            If you just like an hp/L contest for fun, then there's nothing wrong with that. Some people also like drag racing cars that nobody would ever buy to drag race vs. making a drag car.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Or are you telling me a 5.0L engine is going to fit in the same sized bay as a 2.0L?
            Why wouldn't it fit?. I4's are pigfat and take up a lot of space for their pathetic displacement.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i'm about to buy a bronco and i haven't decided on the ecoboost 4 banger or the v6, what do DA?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I like the v6 but have the issues with valves been sorted? I'd prob go with the 2.3 7 speed manual. But the 10speed 2.7 is fricking quick for a bronco.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I wouldn’t worry about the valve issue. It was a failure from a parts vendor with a bad batch. The 2.7 has been around since 2015 in the F150 and is generally very reliable

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like:
    >I’m a poor gay with an old shitbox impala that mom bought me so now I cope by hating more powerful vehicles with turbochargers
    The thread

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The problems I have with everything going to turbos is needless complexity and added cost.
      Manufacturing a 0.8L 4 banger costs the same as a 2.4L.
      Adding a turbo to the 0.8L so it makes the same amount of power as the 2.4L (while also using the same amount of fuel) is not evolutionary.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        In what applications has a .8L replaced a 2.4L? Sounds like an exaggeration. Turbos are not complex at all, and neither is the associated piping/intercooler. A turbo I4 has less moving parts than a V6. A turbo V6 has less moving parts than a DOHC V8. Turbo motors don’t have any cylinder deactivation frickery. Turbo motors are much more resistant to power loss at high altitude also. If you spend much time in a high altitude area you’ll really appreciate turbos.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >if you spend much time in a high altitude area you’ll really appreciate turbos.
          I do just fine without turbos.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >4000 feet
            Gee can you even breathe up there?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's pretty nice to hit the ski resort with.
            >Base Lodge Elevation: 8,660 ft.
            >Summit: 11,289 ft.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure it's fine, but youre probably losing like 30% power at the summit

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            This
            Of course NA works at higher altitude, turbos just work a hell of a lot better

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >v6
    Barra intech here who cares

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Who gives a shit? Either go full chad and get a v8 or go full manlet and get turbo 4 banger. V6 are cope and seethe poorgay motors for cucks who couldn’t afford the v8

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm swapping in a 3.5 Ecoboost once the 4.6 in my crown Vic takes a shit

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      5w20 or 5w30 in the 4.6l?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Buy the mountune crate engine you wuss

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That deck is sex.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Everything mountune makes is sex, at least as far as I've seen. I'm very tempted to get their 2.3L Ecoboost and build an open wheel track car. Tatuus already does that but they're euro and probably hard to get here

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Correction, radical makes the track car with the Ecoboost. Tatuus has an open wheel with the 1.4L abarth motor, which I have collecting dust at the moment

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Correction, radical makes the track car with the Ecoboost. Tatuus has an open wheel with the 1.4L abarth motor, which I have collecting dust at the moment

            Absolutely based. Ive been looking to give my ti vct 5 speed focus a lsd and 15:1 compression stage 3 cams.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >stage
            FAAAAAAAAAAAAGGOT

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Alittle arbitrary don't you think

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There’s always some homosexual talking about stages like it’s a music festival
            >yea dude I got the stage 3, 9:00pm-11:30pm cypress hill cams and a main stage Rage against the machine flywheel with a 15 minute intermission

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            There’s always some homosexual talking about stages like it’s a music festival
            >yea dude I got the stage 3, 9:00pm-11:30pm cypress hill cams and a main stage Rage against the machine flywheel with a 15 minute intermission

            Autistic niglet right here

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    NA V6s always sucked ass and had pathetic power ratings, name one factory v6 that made more than 92hp/L

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Who cares? Do you also care about how many likes you get? It's an utterly meaningless rating except as an engineering curiosity.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      modern eco-build turbojunk I4s are going to be practically worthless in 10 years.

      Power/displacement is stats wankery, as is volumetric efficiency.
      Tells you nothing about how well an engine is made, or how well it drives the car.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      VQ37VHR does 90/L and while it's built&tuned sort of to the edge, can easily be pushed to 400HP NA with custom cams, built up for a higher rev limit, headers+cat delete and a retune.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *