I prefere the TARBO 4-cyl engines on these cars because it makes

>>14953055
Not really, they'll never sound as nice as something with a 302 or 351 though, but all is good.

File: squirrlegirl.jpg (202KB, 600x825px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 600x825px

How much lighter is the Turbo 4cyl vs the N/A 6cyl? It's not like the 6 cylinders are bad anymore.

>>14953055
Not at all. The issue is that they're big and heavy compared to cars in that market.

>>14953055
is that car not a bit large for that engine ?

>>14953055

Yes, it would be like getting a diet Coke with a 4000 calorie fast food meal, just get a fucking milkshake ffs.

Ger a Focus or Fiesta if you want a lightweight turbo 4 banger.

File: 1455531029157.png (273KB, 661x697px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 661x697px

>>14953055
>lighter

>econoboost
3532 lbs
>V6
3526 lbs
>GT
3705 lbs
>350R
3655 lbs

>>14953055
Its a negligible difference, the weight savings. If you cant afford the v8 thats cool, but don't lie about it because no one will believe you anyways.

>>14953119
shedding 150 lbs from an engine isn't bad. When your starting platform weighs more than 3400 lbs, thats bad.

>>14953055

I cant speak for the ferd but I wouldn't be surprised if the 4banger Camaro weighs the same if not more than the V8 version. Cylinders don't always correlate with weight.

File: 1455869066575.jpg (22KB, 378x273px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 378x273px

>>14953228
The Mustang could be a great car, I just don't understand why it's so fucking pigfat.

The fact it weighs more than the 300zx is amazing.

>>14953087

It's not 1995 anymore. Just about every car that competes with the mustang is pigfat now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvUdUgMkGpQ

>>14953251
>2003 Focus SVT 5 door
2,750 lbs
>2016 Focus ST 5 door
3,223 lbs

I mean, yea it's boosted but the fuck the rest of the weight come from.

>>14953289
>muh safety
>muh rollover standards
>muh CAFE
>muh PILLAURRRRRS

File: Unbenannt.png (91KB, 300x304px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 300x304px

>>14953182
I actually don't intend to buy either of these. But if I were too, I don't know if I would take the V8 versions.

Have you guys just now noticed that new cars are fat? I mean I don't have precise numbers in my head but I think similar non-hatch cars are just as fat.

>>14953055
yes you are a moron for sacrificing throttle response, engine note, and power potential for a few pounds you will barely notice

if you want to make the car handle better upgrade the suspension

>>14953092
Kinda, but clever gearing and no small amount of torque pretty much takes care of it.

>>14953448
Of course they're fat. They have to survive a brazillion-mile-per-hour impact with a brick wall OR a gaggle of obese women crossing the road in Rascal scooters. Also >>14953328

Cars from the glory days of non-fat didn't even need airbags, let alone two tons of crumple zones to keep millennials alive after they text their SUV through yet another wall, highway divider, and/or storefront.