So people are touting Ecoboost L4s, turbo v6s, and N/A veeaites

>>15471090
Other MFG's do it with V12's as well.

But the idea is not just more power, it's less fuel use. A 1.8L engine is going to use less fuel than a 3.5L engine.

Well, in theory anyway.

>>15471090
Because smog and mpgs. Where are the supercharged/turbo (gas) v8 cars and trucks deserve.

>>15471102
Don't turbos increase an engines efficiency if it's not tuned for maximum performance like Ecoboost engines?

>>15471151
Last I checked hellcats are a special expensive highly limited edition trim level of a mass produced car

>>15471169
70k for one, like the hellcat it's a high trim level that few can afford to buy and fewer care to buy

>>15471140
Not like how you are thinking. If I have a 3 litre Na and a 3 litre turbo with both engines being roughly the same, the only thing being different is the turbo than no. They are using turbos because a 1.8 litre turbo, when on boost has similar power to a 3 litre NA engine. Off boost it has fuel economy similar to a 1.8 litre. They are using this as a way to have power when you need it, and less emissions/more mpg when you don't. Unless you have your foot on the floor all the time you are likely to see better fuel mileage in a smaller turbo engine then a larger NA engine. Also turbos tend to make more torque, which is good for trucks

File: 2011-cadillac-CTS-V-coupe-v-badge-close[1].jpg (38KB, 660x414px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 660x414px

>>15471167
>4000 2015s
>8000+ 2016s
I guess I don't understand your definition of "mass produced"

>>15471191
I must mass producing (you)s then by your definition

File: 1381951059621.jpg (233KB, 1280x782px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1280x782px

>>15471090

>>15471151
>>15471169
>>15471191
Could you at least post V8s that are lightweight to prove a point?

File: Attach21616_20160719_213633.jpg (323KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 960x1280px

>>15471191
>>15471206
>>15471169

>general disasters

OP means good cars here

File: rsh-421027_5503[1].jpg (17KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x333px

>>15471176
Performance cars are expensive, Dumbshit. What do you want? Between EPA taxes and the increased warranty costs it's expensive for the automakers to bring that shit to the public on brand new cars. If you want cheap forced induction V8s just slap a Roots on your shit or even cheaper, some nitrous. I literally don't understand your problem.

>>15471090
>ecoboost maymay
>literally a regular turbo attached to a regular 4 pot
>not even featuring electro hydraulic valve control

>>15471236
There is none you fucking autist I'm just wondering why induction is reserved for fucking expensive trims.

>>15471252
Because it's a luxury

>>15471090
>Why has no mass produced car done this?
GM has produced severl forced induction small blocks, most notably the LSA, LS9, and LT4. Mopar currently produces the Hellcat. Everybody and their mother (Ferrari, McLaren) are moving to twinturbo V8's in the low end supercar segment. The big German three all offer twinturbo V8's in their cars (RS6 and up, C63 and up, M5 and up).

>>15471167
>expensive
Lolno. 64K starting isn't expensive for 707hp.
>highly limited edition
The only limited is their production capacity vs. consumer demand, which is overwhelming.

>>15471219
Hellcat engines are still heavy due to their reliance on the 3rd gen Hemi's iron block. LSA's and LS9's however, are compact and light.

File: 898f5726aecd6e11c4ccbcdc1f5bc84e.jpg (46KB, 564x317px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 564x317px

>>15471320
>64K starting isn't expensive for 707hp.

It pains me because if it was in a lighter pony-car tier chassis like the Stang and Camaro it would be fucking nuclear. I get that the Charger/challenger aren't comparable in that regard but maybe they could release another that is (call it "Duster or whatever names of small muscle cars Chrysler still has under their hat and hasn't used yet)

The hellcat cars are already powerful despite their fat (heard people were out-gunning high performance sports-cars with them) and i imagine if they were more lightweight and (god forbid) had AWD versions they would probably be Viper ACR levels of insanity in a affordable stop-light racing package. Young americans would fucking love something like that, not that the Hellcat isn't already popular as it is but they are missing out are creating what would be a legendary throwback to some of the most powerful 50s and 60s era muscle cars fully modernized with the ability to stomp some very powerful super-cars (and maybe if boosted to 800+HP possibly hyper-cars as well) at the lights and be pretty good (chassis-wise) in the corners too like the others. (seems far fetched but that's what everyone thought about the ACR too).

>>15471320
>LSA's are light
[citation needed]

>>15471102

amg merc g

>>15471090
maserati, audi, bmw and merc all do this, those are just ottomh

>>15471532
FCA has the possibility of just stuffing it in the Giulia chassis, making a twodoor, and calling it the 'Cuda (which they renewed the copyrights on). Ford and GM would shit themselves. Also, there's still room left for improvement in that engine: direct injection, aluminium block, maybe even going to turbo's (which Fiat is really good at) and maybe even Multiair tech for some full VVT, which would help against the emissions it's currently struggles against, because of it's semi-hemi layout.

The current Hellcats shouldn't be considered ponycars though, that's the main thing. They're musclecars: overweight, powerful, almost a Grand Tourer.

Again, on the Giulia chassis (which is the size of a C-class, not the size of the Challengers E-class), it'd be a lot lighter. AWD wouldn't be possible, or desirable, there isn't a transmission in the world that would hold 700+hp AWD. The ZF8HP already struggles with Audi's RS6.

There are rumors of the Hellcat going to 750hp within some years. Aftermarket-wise, E85 tunes already exceed 800hp. Again, put the Hellcat in the Giulia chassis, and it'd handle.

>>15471550
They're pushrod and aluminium pretty much the lightest you can get.

File: 1406963360726.jpg (96KB, 441x417px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 441x417px

>>15471558
Post the LSA's weight, I guarantee it weighs more than 50 lbs more than a 3.5L Ecoboost V6.
>>15471556

>>15471563
accidentally quoted 15471556

File: thumb1280x1280_3154682702_5df2e048bd_o.jpg (339KB, 1280x876px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1280x876px

Lots o' Sneks had factory blowers

>>15471182
The legends are true, educative posts on /o/ exist. Thanks for that.

>>15471090
murrica has been doing that since the early 60's, studebaker golden hawks were s/c and the olds cutlass jetfire was t/c,

Smaller displacement has faster throttle response and can rev higher. They are also simpler.

All of those things are subject to taste but as such warrant their existence.

>>15472561
>faster throttle respons
So a small displacement, turbo 1L will respond better than a 2L n/a motor?
>rev higher
RPM isn't about displacement, it's about bore:stroke ratio.

>They are also simpler.
Size =/= complexity. If anything, a small engine can be more complicated and crowded.

>>15471563
EB35: 449lbs 380hp
LS9: 529lbs 640hp

>>15471090
>Why not just put forced induction on a v8 from the factory instead of putting it on smaller engines? Why has no mass produced car done this?
because plebs cant handle power and when they finally get it they whinge its too much and its not safe bla bla blah

basically
>its2fast4me
faggots all of them

500-700hp is nothing for these engines.

hell a ls with a blower on it gets 600 stock imagine what a factory twin turbo compound would get? Fact of the matter is downsizing is the new meme.

its like inverse 70's all over again

Aren't LS7s massively detuned from the factory? Even so, they're still putting out 505 hp.

>>15471219
>starts shitty thread about there being no FI V8s on the market.
>start saying NO I DONT LIKE THIS ONE SUGGEST ANOTHER ONE

Bitch, that's a high performance vehicle setup, an FI V8. Its typically only necessary in high limit cars, so don't be surprised if it's in an expensive, heavy vehicle. Hell, the M5 crate engine probably costs more than your car itself.

were you looking for something like the weight of a base C5 vette with a twin turbo v8 for like 30k new?

>>15472675
No, but it will respond better than a 2.0l turbo. I'd say it's easier all things being equal to make a smaller displacement rev higher.

>>15471252
Because it's expensive, it requires premium fuel, and it reduces reliability. Are you retarded?

>>15473633
>No, but it will respond better than a 2.0l turbo.
No. You'd just put a tiny turbo on the 2L to make identical power, but you'd have more exhaust flow for the similarly sized turbo, therefore creating less turbo lag.
>I'd say it's easier all things being equal to make a smaller displacement rev higher.
That's simply because you're reducing stroke, which, in fact, does not make all things equal.

>>15474081
That's a nice SAE net hp rating you've got there.

>>15471090
>Why has no mass produced car done this?
The idea is too good. It would tear a hole in the fabric of the universe.

File: 1429290316542.jpg (36KB, 511x509px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 511x509px

>>15474101
>this assmad
Ecoboost engines are lighter and make the same power.

>>15474115
>smug animu face
The most powerful Ford Ecoboost makes 380hp. That's not ''the same power'', it's significantly less.

File: ecoboost_coyote_twinturbo50.jpg (129KB, 685x512px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 685x512px

>>15471090
Speculation is it's going to be in the GT500 and possibly be an option for the Raptor.

>pic related

It was used in the 2013 Cobra Jet I believe.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1080169_ford-mustang-cobra-jet-gets-twin-turbos-sema-2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAl3UvngjDM

>>15474145
Again, nice SAE net hp rating you've got there. Those could be 600 British Tax horsepower for al we know.

>>15474167
6<8, that's just basic maths.

>>15474167
>getting this mad over engines
Full Blown Autism

>>15474197
>needing smug animu faces to troll

Turbo V6 < Turbo V8 (unless turbo=0 or V=0). Again, simple maths.

Pushrod engines are lighter than their DOHC counterparts though, all else being equal.

Again, nice SAE net hp rating to support your theory.

>>15474222
>all else being equal
A V6 is not equal to a V8.

>>15474227
>600hp
>$500/afternoon


No.

>>15474238
Sure that's why it has a power rating that actually exceeds the LT4's 640hp or the Hellcat's 707.

Oh, wait, it doesn't. Because it doesn't have a hp rating.

File: screen-46.jpg (906KB, 1331x951px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 1331x951px

Boosted V8s are the reason why I love cars.

Benz's new TT 4.0 V8 is pretty neat. It's got the turbos imposed right over the block, revs up to 7900, and reviewers say it's got almost no turbo lag, feels like a 7-liter. It's even got fucking rollers in the pistons like a G3 bolt.

It's too bad it's too expensive for tuners to ever really get to it and this thread has turned to shitposting, imaging being able to crank up the boost on an 8k-redline V8.

File: Worlds fastest car.jpg (144KB, 1123x381px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1123x381px

>>15474241
>doesn't know about $500 turbo evenings

/o/ this dum

>>15474247
A naturally aspirated LS has the same redline and makes more power without the turbo while weighing less.

>>15474280
>loses argument and gets banned

double kek

File: [URW]_Chuunibyou_demo_Koi_ga_Shitai!_-_12_[720p][577EE8E7].mkv_snapshot_05.01_[2012.12.21_10.41.18].jpg (60KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x720px

>>15474290
>V8 weighs more
>gets mad
lmao

>>15474300
>>15474227

>>15471140
I don't see how this follows:

A supercharger (turbos included) allows you to push more air into the engine thus allowing an increased amount of fuel to be burned in a given volume.

You could run lean I suppose but why?

>>15471090
>Ford will never remake the boss 429 mustang
>Modular 7 liter Ti-VCT with 10 psi blower
1000 HP reliably

>>15471191

The LSA in the 2011 CTS-V is supercharged. A TVS (similar to a roots style)-- not even close to a turbine impeller...

>>15474331
It weighs 446, lbs, liar.

>>15474393
It's forced induction. I swear, the goalposts have been moved all the way to the volleyball court.

>>15474421
It's really that heavy?
lmao

>>15474249
>getting a junkyard engine AND turbo for less than $1000

Yeah, it doesn't work like that. You could get away with $1200 or maybe $1500, but not $500 for all the shit you'd need.

>>15474374
Modular platform doesn't really support a V8 over ~6L though. You're better off with a Windsor 427 instead. Saleen did a twinturbo one with the S7, which was about 750hp iirc.

>>15474348

It's more that the turbo-supercharger makes use of the waste energy in the exhaust stream.

The velocity of the spent combustion gas, the temperature of the spent combustion gas, the volume and the pressure are all factors of Enthalpy. This potential energy is discharged from the exhaust tract in a naturally aspirated engine.

The turbo-supercharger increases the efficiency of the engine system thermally, volumetrically and chemically.

The turbo-supercharger makes use of this potential energy and converts it to work, providing power for a compressor. The compressor then raises the volumetric efficiency of the engine system. This means that for a given amount of fuel in grams/kilowatthour, the engine (an air pump) increases its ability to pump air. By providing the intake tract with positive pressure, pumping losses are reduced or negated. Pumping losses being the energy used by the depressing piston to overcome the friction and resistance to flow in the charge air during the induction cycle. If the piston does not expend any energy drawing combustion air into the combustion chamber, these losses are reduced.

Where this becomes a moot point is as you've pointed out, this additional air can be matched with additional fuel to generate additional power. This changes the turbo-supercharger from a recovery system to a generating system, and the thermal efficiency begins to drop.

A small displacement engine with a turbocharger providing additional air equal to a quarter of the swept volume is often a very efficient package. When attempting to provide the same amount of additional air as the swept volume, the system efficiency is dropping rapidly.

File: 1463078224548[1].png (1MB, 628x1572px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 628x1572px

>>15474227
>>15474249
>the cuck is still trying to defend his shit-tier Company

kek

>>15474213
>Pushrod engines are lighter than their DOHC counterparts though, all else being equal

>all else being equal

the pushrod engine will make less power

>pushrodshit
>2016

>>15477185
If engine displacement is identical, then yes, a pushrod engine will produce less, but it'll also weigh less.

If external size and weight are identical (on V engines), then a pushrod engine may actually displace more, and therefore produce more power.

>>15471219
Corvette C7 Z06.

>>15477428
>but it'll also weigh less.
ill take the extra power over a couple of extra lbs any day

>needs more displacement to make the same power

lel, literally can't compete

>>15477433
lol overheats after a lap

File: AMG-GT-2016-644x363-286c8d9b82dff0d9.jpg (55KB, 644x363px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 644x363px

>>15471090
>Why not just put forced induction on a v8 from the factory

File: 1468374234073.png (243KB, 628x671px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 628x671px

>>15477440

File: 1447108635787[1].png (2MB, 1200x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1920px

>>15477447
Aaah, I see corvette cucks are still delusional

>>15477458
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>15477447

File: Audi_Shit8.jpg (500KB, 2244x1133px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 2244x1133px

>>15477447
>>15477463
>faster around willow springs
It isn't, nice photoshopped lap times.

Define mass produced

A turbo v8 car just doesnt have a large market.

File: 1463075174542[1].png (1MB, 633x1165px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 633x1165px

>>15477463
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>15477447


any nurburgring laptimes? because I remember GM saying some years ago how the Nurburgring was the best place to set laptimes

File: 2d47ca54-c08d-40a4-ad4d-832254982831.png (2MB, 1595x726px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1595x726px

Who won Le Mans?
Oh that's right not corvette.

File: 14353804142077.jpg (790KB, 4000x4183px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 4000x4183px

>>15477516
BTFO!!!! HOW WILL GM EVER RECOVER?!!!

>>15477471
Corvette (Z07, Auto): 97K MSRP
Loaded Corvette (optimal boomer spec, tick every box): ~130K

Nismo GT-R: 152K MSRP

>only 0:06 difference
For more than 20K price difference, it ought to be. For less than 10K, you can get some headers, a pulley swap. new throttle body, and E85 tune, which would probably undercut the GT-R's laptime. You'd even have money left for some good semislicks.

File: 1449722798612.jpg (141KB, 1024x570px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1024x570px

>>15477538
>97k
lol, no

>b-but it's only slightly faster
BTFO!!!

File: Cut.jpg (105KB, 1001x615px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1001x615px

>>15477548
Pic related is 97K if it weren't for the (arguably unnecessary) data recorder. It's an automatic Z07, with bucket seats, ground effects package and aero packge. A stripper Z07 with all the performance goodies added. Please tell me if I've missed any other options.

The Motortrend example clearly had some other options added, probably some fancy interior stuff. That yellow paint is 1K, and the balck wheels are another 600 USD. Also, we don't know if it actually had the aero kit, which coudl've improved performance.

If the gap is tiny, but the price difference is huge, then you can use the aftermarket to compensate for that gap. At 100K, you can only afford a Z06. For 150K, you're better off buying a new Z06 and modding it. At ~200K, you'd be better off buying and modifying the GT-R, because lord knows those things respond well to some aftermarket boost control and fancy fuels.

File: 1435977158526.jpg (25KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x500px

>>15477623
>muh cherry picking
It costs 110k.

Stay mad.

>>15477623
>automatic

kek, literal cuck confirmed

>>15477636
>smug anime face
Show us a build list for a 110K Z07 then.

>>15477641
GT-R is automatic too. However, if you like manuals, there's good news. You can get a 80K Z06, add 7K worth of boltons, and still go 9's - a full second faster than the GT-R's 11 dead.

http://www.superchevy.com/features/1504-2015-chevrolet-corvette-z06-does-9-8s-with-just-bolt-ons/

>>15477663
there isn't a manual offering for the GTR...

>>15477663
>drag Racing

lol corvette can't turn

>>15477669
That Z07 had unnecessary options. A base Z07 with all the performance stuff starts at 97K.

>>15477683
The car as optioned cost the amount motortrend said


> but much mods for price difference
TThe r35 is a decade old platform and you can pick up used examples for 40k, which gives you 50k of mods to rape the z07

>>15477696
>TThe r35 is a decade old platform and you can pick up used examples for 40k, which gives you 50k of mods to rape the z07

BTFO

BTFO

BTFO

>>15477696
Therefore, with some cutting in the options list, you can have a cheaper car. Maybe even faster too, boomerspec carpeting weighs a bunch.

>comparing new to used

>>15477697
If it starts at 110K (which it doesn't), it's 99.93% of the performance of a GT-R, at 75% of the price. Do the math.

>>15477731
Yet the GTR is still faster.

>>15477731
>it's 99.93% of the performance of a GT-R, at 75% of the price. Do the math.

what kind of bullshit metric is this?

>>15477777
FUCK YOU GET STEALER YOU WASTED IT

>>15477777
oh shit got the quints

File: 1448132956968.jpg (701KB, 2048x1901px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 2048x1901px

>>15477777
QUINTS CONFIRM!

GM BTFO!!

>>15477782
2 soon junior

>>15477777
GT-R Nismo ran a 1:25:70 on Big Willow. Z07 did a 1:25:76. 85.70 divided by 85.76 gets you 99.93%.

>>15477807
I see you are inside the spectrum

File: 1430207048955.jpg (725KB, 2250x964px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 2250x964px

>>15477807
>ignoring the Nurburgring

>>15477813
>implying the ring is a good performance metric

File: 1448501831886.jpg (36KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 250x241px

>>15477817
>excuses
BTFO!!!!

>>15477817
>the ring is a good performance metric when the Corvette can lap it faster
the ring isn't a good performance metrich when it can't

>>15477825
>>15477829

Nissan probably did it at a time when there was less traffic, or at night or something.

>>15477837
now this is how you bait

File: 1448532725262.jpg (26KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 327x316px

>>15477837
>excuses
BTFO!!!

>>15471182
Wouldn't the turbo almost guarantee that you're running near lean as well? This should make the turbo slightly more efficient than a similar-displacement NA even with conservative driving.

>>15477810
>ad hominem
>using maths = autist
Had several tests to confirm I wasn't an autist like my brother. Every single one was negative.

>>15477813
No official C7 Z06 time has been released so far, because of the temporary ban on timed laps. The C7 Z06 beats the C6 ZR1 at nearly every track, so let's go by it's 7:19:63. 428.68 divided by 439.63 gives us 97.5%, again, at 75% of the price. You can get a cheaper (97K) performance model, at 65% of the price.

>>15477837
Of course they did. There's days for manufacturers to test their cars using professional drivers, during which the Ring is closed for public drivers. There's less traffic, and (except for a brief haitus after a deadly crash during which the safety equipment was upgraded) manufacturers can set great laptimes there.

>>15477892
>because of the temporary ban on timed laps.
good meme, tens of manufacturers have taken their cars around the ring after the N24H crash

Porsche just released the Panamera time some weeks ago

lay off the damage control

>manufacturers can set great laptimes there.
unless you are GM

File: 1443328017895.jpg (78KB, 880x558px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 880x558px

>>15477892
>no official time has been released
Yes, because it was too busy overheating and exploding. That's why we're comparing the C6 Z06 (which is also slower).

>>15477904
Overheating and exploding into the lives of anyone fortunate enough to own the greatest performance per dollar vehicle ever made.

>>15477900
Of course laps are always timed, but the ban was on making your laptimes public. You get the idea.

And there's no damage control there. It's a level playing field when all manufacturers can have a near-empty track both for Nissan and GM. You're right about GM setting laptimes there though. Despite both companies being on a different continent, GM seems to crash a whole lot mroe cars there.

>>15477935
it has to perform in order to be the greatest "performance" per dollar vehicle in the first place

plus lets not forget is slower than several cars that happen to be cheaper aswell

>>15477946
>but the ban was on making your laptimes public.

yet porsche, alfa romeo bmw, lotus, Lamborghini and even vw made laptimes public during the so called "ban"

please lay off the damage control

>>15471090
its a power vs complexity problem
like how a 30 litre inane four is just as wasteful as a 1.5 litre v16

the idea with a small turbo engine is that in town and off boost it is just that
but when you get on the highway and need some more hp the turbo goes to work
how this is hard to grasp for some people ill never know

>>15471140
a turbo just captures some of the heat and flow from the exhaust

down side being back pressure and a bit more heat on the exsuast manifold
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine

>>15472675
>what is inertia for 500