Why aren't low displacement v8s made?

File: p1.jpg (77KB, 1440x741px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1440x741px

3.8 litres

man I want a 2.0 liter v8

File: AudiS4_B7_Avant_front.jpg (172KB, 1025x719px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1025x719px

4.2L

>>15597883
>Why aren't low displacement v8s made?
emissions standards imposed by the government

>>15597913
are low displacement v8s really that much worse than higher displacement?
I want a light weight 2.0 high revving v8 like a japanese i4

>>15597924
I AM WITH YOU ANON.

>>15597883
If Lexus can make a 4.8 litre V10, I'm sure a V8 wouldn't be hard

wasn't the f40 a 2.8 v8

>>15597883
Ford Taurus jellybean SHO had a 3.0L Yamaha V8 mounted transverse driving the front wheels.

>>15597893
>>15597906
Eh, ~4.0L is actually pretty middle-of-the-road for 8cyl engines in passenger vehicles.

>>15597958
3.0 was a v6 i think it was a 3.4

>>15597924
>light weight 2.0
>V8


why not have a light weight 5.7l


>faggots

File: dino208.jpg (241KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 900x600px

>>15597883
Ferrari dino 208 gt4

>2.0 v8.

File: Drysdale-1000-V8-Dusk-RHS-emailable.jpg (299KB, 1200x797px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1200x797px

pic related Drysdale V8 1000cc and sounds god tier
http://www.motorcycle.com/features/featuresdrysdale-v8-1000-a-closer-look-html.html

Theres also a PGM 2.0L V8, 334 hp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-DtdKJu5k4

File: t1_3_4_rear_hr.jpg (37KB, 750x422px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 750x422px

>>15597924
>I want a light weight 2.0 high revving v8 like a japanese i4

Then just slap two bike engines together like the Arial Atom V8. Camparo T1 had a really low displacement high revving V8 but that had atrocious reliability issues that i don't know if the manufacturer ever addressed.

Maybe 2 and 3 liter V8s aren't produced much because their expensive to extract power out of whilst retaining reliability and most manufacturers would either use higher displacement V8s or low displacement turbo V6s.

File: 773852659635.jpg (171KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1600x1067px

>>15597883
Lots of old Ferrari had low-displacement V8 all the way through the '90s.

>tfw no twin-turbo 2.0 V8 Miata

>>15597883
Buick 215/Rover 3.5
Daimler 2.5
I think the Urraco was available as a 2.0 tax special.

File: 01-ariel-atom-500-v8.jpg (265KB, 1280x1134px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1280x1134px

>implying

>>15597979
I love it when cagers wonder why something doesn't exist, and then motorcyclists show up having done that 10 years ago.

>can an engine even go up to 10k rpm?

Also holy fucking jesus that PGM. Sounds like a god damned spaceship. That's the best sounding engine I've heard in my entire life.

>>15597913
you are a dumb nigger

File: 1469412285452.png (243KB, 628x671px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 628x671px

>>15597883
b cause torque wins races

>>15597971
This. No replacement for displacement, pushrods pushgods.

File: 1425855235283.jpg (1MB, 2048x1901px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1901px

>>15598062
>fake lap times
Glad to see you're still triggered, cuck.

>>15598036
>What is torque

File: SLOWVETTE.jpg (56KB, 500x410px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x410px

>>15598062
no it doesn't

>>15598036
I dont understand why motorcyclists have to be so hostile for no reason and keep shoving themselves into the conversation

>>15598039
It's the same reason we never got 250cc i4 motorcycles from nippon. EPA wouldn't allow it. Now they aren't made anymore.

>yfw you'll never have 19,000 rpm inches from your dick
https://youtu.be/cwyksKx6txo

They also made a shitload of 400cc V4's that we never got because of the fucking government.

>>15598082
>I don't understand what I am talking about

ok

>>15598072
wahhh

>>15598072
Sorry if I'm coming off harsh. Honestly didn't mean it like that.

>>15598067 is probably correct.

>>15597964
Not really no. 5.0 +/- is average anything under 4.0 is uncommon.

Most all V8's are above 4.0

2.0 to 4.0 is typically V6/I6 territory.

File: CORVETTE BTFO.png (934KB, 831x613px) Image search: [Google]

934KB, 831x613px

>>15598068
lel

File: 1448821541853.jpg (70KB, 769x756px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 769x756px

>>15598133
Literally cannot make this shit up

File: corvette.jpg (145KB, 1068x1298px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1068x1298px

>>15598063
pushrods are literal dogshit

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/hrdp-1103-how-to-hot-rod-any-engine/

>Aardema has done SOHC conversions by building custom cam boxes that bolt to an existing overhead-valve motor's heads. On this LS motor, converting from OHV to SOHC configuration was worth 21 hp with an identical cam profile-and the engine happily revs to 7,000 rpm with no valve float.

>same heads
>same valve profile
>extra 21 HP

pushrods a shit

>>15598167
And how much weight, not to mention size do those OHC heads add?

>>15598182
considering it literally only adds one camshaft, probably about 20 lbs

which is nothing

>>15598104
~500cc/cyl is generally considered "medium sized" for passenger cars. Unless you live in the US during the '60s and '70s, displacement isn't really considered "big" until it''s reaches something well over 600cc/cyl.

>>15598182
>And how much weight, not to mention size do those OHC heads add?
Senpai, its ok to know jack shit about mechanic, but dont try to talk your shit info.

Sohc/Dohc might as well fucking add 2-4 kg to the engine, in exchange to better intake and exhaust flow, thus higher power, AND chance of much higher rev limit.


Seen the fucking european DOHC V8? They could get 100hp/l in N/A long before any US engine did.

>>15598253
600 cc/cyl still isnt that big. Y'all are just used to itty bitty passenger cars.

>>15598264
>English as second language
>knowing anything about fast cars
If I wanted advice on the Fiat Punto diesel I'd ask you right away, aside from that you are clueless

>>15598517
>>English as second language
lol k

>If I wanted advice on the Fiat Punto diesel I'd ask you right away, aside from that you are clueless
ok

File: 1465675158164.jpg (56KB, 516x339px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 516x339px

>>15598517
funny because an american shitbox isn't any better, post pics of you v6 rustang, americuck

>>15598528
I'm not American

>>15598531
what

literally no other anglo country is known for "affordable fast cars"

>>15598542
Most of the europe that isn't cucked.

File: 1400890630195.jpg (56KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 342x342px

>>15598547
>Brits
>Irish

>not cucked

>affordable fast cars


literally keking

>>15598551
>trying to take less muslims compared to the rest
>slightly over half of them voted to exit the EU
>has some of the most aesthetically pleasing sports car maker
>cars are fucking cheap, even sport cars

>>15598563
>brexit
>related to cars

what

>cars are fucking cheap, even sport cars
literally on par with mainland europe

>>15598571
>>brexit
>>related to cars
>what
You implied brits were cucked.

>>cars are fucking cheap, even sport cars
literally on par with mainland europe

Exactly.

>>15597883
I don't know. A 1.6 liter 4 banger is common but a 3.2 liter v8 barely exists.

>>15598587
as on cars

a fucking base model v8 costs as much as a gt350 compared to america or canada

>Exactly.
what?? how exacly is saying "exactly" somewhat in favour of your argument, you imploed mainland yurop is cucked and the isles somehow aren't, yet the cost of cars in the second hand market is almost the fucking same as long as you don't count meme countries

Normies love torque.

So does 50% of the performance car markey that probably makes up 5% of the overall market.

So your left with 2.5% of the market (I'm making up numbers that are probably close to the truth here) that wants a fast, light, revvy car and who can afford it.

>>15598542
I'm in Zealand

File: 1464650730737.gif (1MB, 292x243px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 292x243px

>>15598615
what about big displacement i4?

BIG DISPLACEMENT TURBO I4
HELL YEAH

>>15598618
NZ is actually pretty expensive

ur memes are fucking stale dude

>>15598627
It's cheap as hell man and we have so much to pick from

>>15597971
5.7 isn't heavy for its size

File: 1468015095980.jpg (10KB, 185x185px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 185x185px

>>15598610
exactly

>>15598627
>NZ
>expensive
lolwat

>>15598600

1.6 is common because they are weakass under powered motors shoved into Corollas and there competitors to squeeze out every mpg they can well still being able to move the car.

v8's aren't made for mpg's they are made for power so there is no reason to make small v8's.

>>15598621

seems like when turboing 2.0 is the sweet spot of having thick enough cylinder walls for good boost.

>>15598092
It's okay squid, we understand. It's just the way you are.

>>15598621
Unless you want a Aircraft engine. No point.

Also there's that italian 38. something liter. Inline 4.

A high displacement 4 cylinder can rev lower cos of size while still having power.

>>15598737
>1.6 is common because they are weakass under powered motors shoved into Corollas and there competitors to squeeze out every mpg they can well still being able to move the car.
That or turbocharged.

>v8's aren't made for mpg's they are made for power so there is no reason to make small v8's.
Pretty much this. I4s are pretty much the ideal engine configuration, at any point in the engine there is a power stroke, unlike any less pistons, and they're not wasting power by just turning like any more cylinders.

This is why a turbo I4 is perfectly acceptable for power.

Also 6 cylinders aren't too crazy either, a NA v6 isn't that much of a gas hog unless you live in Europe. And most modern V6s get at least 200hp, so they're also fine.

V8s are when you need TORKS and powers. When I4 is a joke, 5 is too Swedish and 6 isn't enough.The 8 comes out when you want a engine that makes lots of power and torque without needing a turbo.

This is why in 1969, the Lincoln continental was making 365 hp and 500lb ft torks with a >pushrod and two valve engine. It was such a unsophisticated engine, making large quantities of power.

File: 240sx_with_diesel_4bt_02.jpg (130KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 640x960px

>>15598621
3.9L

>>15598082
Post yfw you learned 250cc i4s are being made and sold currently

>>15597946
2.9L TT V8. Close enough.

File: 2016-07-14 18.14.06.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

Can't remember actually displacement, but this is a V8 they had at the BMW museum in Munich.

Sorry for shitty phone edit, was edited a while back and only version of the photo on my phone that would upload.

>>15598621

I had a 2.6l I4 turbo making ~450hp with a stock motor in an ae86

>>15599476
What would an engine that sized be used for? A furious lawn mower?
>62.7 cc per cylinder.

>>15597883
>>15597900
>>15597893
You get the lack of fuel efficiency with the added bonus of no power!!

File: image.jpg (79KB, 564x353px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 564x353px

2.2L Ford Flathead

>>15599516
>>15598621
I had a 2.6l I4 making a whopping 120HP..... In my Isuzu Trooper lel

>>15599476
They're not, the big four haven't made a 250cc i4 since the late 90's.

The last survivor of that era is the Honda CB400 Super Four, none of the other marques have a similar bike currently in production.

>inb4 muh new CBR250RR

It's a parallel twin, not an i4. It's pretty much a tarted up CBR250 with a different engine, rather than a proper sportbike like the old MC22 was.

>>15598621
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-360

Not inline 4 but hey man, 5.9 liter 4 cylinders, come on.

>>15598264
The Olds 455 W43 reached it far before europe did

>>15598019
The 308 was available as a 2.0 tax special as well.

Too many moving parts and therefore high production costs and compromised reliability in relation to the power output.

>>15598167
>More RPM
>It makes more power
Duh.

Now, for the price of a professional designing and building those 1-off conversion kits, you probably could've just put titanium pushrod, rockers and beehive valve springs in, resulting in an even higher redline. You'd even have money left for a bigger cam.

Also, I'm calling bullshit on the 'identical cam profile's because the stock LS ones tend to stop flowing (by cam design) at 6.5-ish. Also also, I don't think those conversion kits would clear the hood of a stock Corvette or Camaro. One of the biggest advantage of pushrod V engines is packaging, and clumsily designed conversion kits will usually make the engine a few inches wider on each side. In the actual automotive design world, this leads to bonnet clearance issues (which require adding a bigger bonnet and thus drag) and an intrusion into the suspension area, which may heavily compromise your layout and effectiveness.

File: 68cb09fe134e43ad-14250397909_e1319c7521_o.jpg (195KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1024x683px

>>15599643
>>15599357
Beast of turin, a 28 litre inline 4.
https://vimeo.com/113158655
whole video worth a watch, starts at 1:48 ish

File: v16.jpg (78KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 600x450px

>>15597883
Theres the toyota 2.0L V8.

Though in low displacement high cylinder count engines nothing beats 50's formula 1.

1.6 Litre V16 engines.

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

>>15599799
That engine made 600bhp at 12,000RPM on 82psi of boost via a supercharger.

File: 1024px-BRM_H16_engine.jpg (274KB, 1024x804px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1024x804px

Another crazy engine from the 50's

NA engines could be 3 litres, that meant this monstrosity was created, a "true" H16. two flat eights stacked on top of each other.

>>15598202
>literally only adds one camshaft
Nope. Pushrods are usually used on V engines, where they can save you another camshaft compared to a SOHC head. However, in modern engines, you either use SOHC or pushrods, which means you'd be adding three cams.

Now, remember that it's not just the cam. It's the bearing surfaces, oiling passages, extra head width, and most importantly the ports. You're adding a lot of material - and in the worst place possible. Not only is it up high, it's also at the widest point of the V, which means you'll be adding a lot of width to the entire engine. This width and height causes packaging issues, and because the cams are up high,you'll end up with a much higher CoG.

>>15598264
>Better flow
In terms of raw cfm, you can't beat am aftermarket 2v pushrod head.
>Chance of a higher rev limit
First off, your bottom end has to be able to take this. Piston speed exceeds ~25m/s @ 7000RPM? Conrods stop connecting at high speed? Crank or pistons can't deal? Might as well use pushrods.
Second, you can still rev a pushrod top end. The trick is using a shorter stroke, which shortens you pushrods, this reducing inertia - because it's reciprocating mass, which is 'heavier' than rotating mass. Honda, for example, made a 4v pushrod engine that could easily rev to 9.5K.

>>15598551
Britain has pretty much the cheapest used cars in the world. You don't know what you're talking about.

>>15598621
Inline 4 is inherently imbalanced. Therefore, going over ~2.5L is pretty hard if you want to make significant RPM.

>>15599357
>5 is too Swedish
But much Audi!

>>15599518
>You get the lack of fuel efficiency with the added bonus of no power!!
What do you mean the P1 has no power?

>>15598551

You are aware that the British used car market is the cheapest in the world?

>>15598062
Haven't seen many diesels used in racing though

>>15599825
>>15599937
Why

>>15599957
Watch Le Mans

Why the fuck would you want a low displacement V8 you dumb kek? total waste of cylinders and effort to make it perform well

>>15599970
muh revs

>>15599958
Taxes on large engines are insane

>>15599982

>High revving V8 with low displacement

That's just a load of fucking effort to get right. Also a waste of fucking cylinder that delay you revving high without effort lol.

File: _murica_cant_hear_you_over_their_freedom__by_destinysreward-d8flm4d[1].jpg (68KB, 557x404px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 557x404px

>>15597883

I think anything less than 6 liters is low displacement.

>>15597883
My 2.7 V6 seems small to me, you fucking burger.

>>15599994
>You will never again be able to own a sedan that's almost 8 yards long
>You will never have wings that are so big you're sure it'l fly
>You will never have a 7.5 liter V8 putting out 500 torks and 365 hp completely unstressed, with only 2 valves per cylinder and >pushrods
>You will never make Europoors cry
>You will never be handed a checklist at the dealership and check off what you wanted instead of this package bullshit.

>>15597900
There's a 3.0L V8 made from two Hayabusa engines, IIRC.

>>15597883
Everybody mentions the Ferraris and stuff, but I read through this wholw damn thread and nobody mentioned the obvious reason why they aren't making a 1.8L V8 for your Accord.

It's a waste of money and parts when the 4cyl will get the job done just as well. Cost more to make, takes up more room and will probably weigh more, and a lot more parts that can fail.

File: 1ab23.jpg (206KB, 776x650px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 776x650px

Why does this engine look so weird to me

>>15598033
>40,000$ to purchase
I've looked into this.

>>15598067
good thing gears can multiply torque or your argument might have actually have been valid.

The Olds Aurora had a 4.0L Northstar V8.

>>15597900
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIm3_HDv8YE

File: 1992_MX3_V6_24V.jpg (258KB, 640x467px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 640x467px

>>15603041
Some of these had 1.8L V6s in them, but that doesn't count I'm sure.

Low displacement v8s are made. Literally everywhere else except USA. We make them in USA because we can and always have.

And v8's aren't magically better for torque or anything either. That's relative to displacement.

and "torque wins races" is an absolute bold faced lie. horsepower determines max speed and acceleration. ferrari used small displacements for a reason.

>car companies go out of their way to overengineer shit like transmissions, differentials, water pumps, suspension, etc
>Maybe 2 and 3 liter V8s aren't produced much because their expensive to extract power out of whilst retaining reliability and most manufacturers would either use higher displacement V8s or low displacement turbo V6s.

the auto industry everyone

>>15598033
i want to see one of these in an elise

>>15598621
Porsche 944S2 has a 3.0 NA l4.

File: 1465321478020.jpg (88KB, 976x1080px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 976x1080px

>>15599775
>proved wrong
>"nuh uh"

it would clear them easily considering most of them instal superchargers, which make the engine actually higher

pushrods a shit

deal with it

>>15599820
>which means you'd be adding three cams.
are you fucking retarded?

its a SOHC conversion, each bank of cylinders has just one camshaft

>It's the bearing surfaces, oiling passages
bearing surfaces and oil passages that already exist on a pushrod engine

> which means you'll be adding a lot of width to the entire engine. This width and height causes packaging issues
not true, especially considering hemi pushrod engines heads are as big as OHC

google aaderma OHC heads, they aren't any wider than the plastic covers the engines are installed with

>In terms of raw cfm, you can't beat am aftermarket 2v pushrod head.
too bad thats not true, besides, raw cfm is pretty much irrelevant, a hayabusa head flows a maximum of 220 cfm, I guess its pretty shit compared to a 400cfm aftermarket LS head right?

>>15604092
>its a SOHC conversion, each bank of cylinders has just one camshaft
Yeah sorry I was wrong

>not true, especially considering hemi pushrod engines heads are as big as OHC
Except they're not. Whether they look smaller or not, you're gonna get packaging issues.

File: 1465659453399.gif (1MB, 300x226px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x226px

>>15599804
>82psi of boost
jebus

>>15597906
That's not low displacement imo

>>15598072
They're angry that they can't afford cars, so they project that onto adults that can.

>Huur duuur muh pushrods are best!! Muh packaging and fuel economy!!
yeah, that's why only TWO manufacturers use them and even then they don't out them in cars meant to be compact and fuel efficient
If pushrod shit is so good why don't more manufacturers use them? Pushrod fags are the most retarded bench racers around

>>15598563
Most migrants in the UK weren't there because of the EU. The UK has a liberal immigration policy for decades, the brexit crowd is just stupid and doesn't realize that it can't just blame others for its own problems.

File: no-subject.jpg (26KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 640x480px

I'd really like to know why crossplane crank four bangers aren't used in cars. You could have an exciting murrican veeate sound in an econobox instead of that buzzy flatplane sound.

>>15605673
they give up a little power and response for smoothness
that and the firing order gets tricky
and I have the impression that only Yamaha bothers with it

>>15605681
To add to that, Yamaha's reasoning behind using a cross plane i4 for GP racing is (apparently) the power gap over a 720 degree turn of the crankshaft is alleged to aid traction under drive. Whether there's any science to this hocus pocus or not, this reason would be lost in a car at any level of performance.
I imagine the only reason the last couple of R1s have used such a setup is for a marketing link to Grand Prix racing.
>>15605673
Do agree, they sound horn.

>>15602987
Wait you can purchase this as a crate engine? Where?

Toyota did a 2.6 v8 in their 1960's crowns iirc.

File: toyota-crown-eight-03.jpg (113KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x600px

>>15606422
1962-67 crown eight.

File: hqdefault.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>15606439
it's got a miniature hemi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OcabhV_GEY

>>15597883
BSFC is probably better in an I4 or V6 with the reduced rotating mass. Lower weight the car has to drag around.

Why aren't turbo 2 stroke v8s made?

>>15606472
they are

in marine diesel applications ;o

>me standing on the crankweb of a 2-stroke straight 6

>>15598104
For American V8s yeah, but most other countries 4.0l is pretty average at 500cc a cylinder. The Japanese and Euros don't even make many V8s about 4.0

File: fathers.png (353KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1500x1000px

>>15601694
>>You will never be handed a checklist at the dealership and check off what you wanted instead of this package bullshit.
This
This right here

File: 5e58d49cbfa56cb97b56ba8f6188d14a.jpg (54KB, 736x575px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 736x575px

>>15606472
Detroit Diesel
Usually on boats and dozers

>>15603081
>And v8's aren't magically better for torque or anything either.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-physics-of-engine-cylinder-bank-angles-feature

Cylinder geometry plays a huge amount into what you can do with an engine.

>>15603081
>"torque wins races"
Pretty sure he was talking about gear ratios m8, i've heard oldfags talk about "torque of x gear"

>>15604439
>If pushrod shit is so good why don't more manufacturers use them?
in the 70's American cars were built with some shit quality, missing parts, oil leaks from the factory etc. All of them were OHV. Then the oil crisis happened and japscrap came in with exotic OHC except they were made with quality. People attributed poor quality to OHV where it wasn't deserved.

>>15606472
>turbo 2 stroke
emissions

>>15606586
>boats and dozers
Exempt from most emissions requirements.

Emissions requirements are about getting people out of personal cans and into mass transit, which is also exempt from emmissions requirements (follow the blue clouds that are called buses some time).

>>15599937
No it's not you fucking liar

A 944 costs 10k in bongbucks lmao, that's with 100k miles. I can get one for 2k in North America.

>>15599958
taxes and insurances
Used to live in UK, to insurance a 2000 GBP (at the time) suzuki cappuccino was 7000 GBP a year
Its just not worth it

>>15597883
im surprised the 1UZ wasnt mentioned
i know its still pretty big being a 4.0 and doesnt make a lot of power, but it sounds pretty amazing

>>15599937
its literally not

File: Fiat-S76-4[1].jpg (203KB, 1142x514px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1142x514px

>>15598621
The beast of Turin has a 28.5 liter I4
>>15597883
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5Q_rGllPVs

No one mentions the BMW M60? 3/3.5 litre V8 engines.

>>15597883

The smallest naturally aspirated V8 I'd want is 3563 cc or 90 mm bore by 70 mm stroke.

There's a sweet spot just above 90 mm and below 105 mm for bore so I don't really want any less than a 90 mm bore. Even at the smallest, 90 mm bore, it doesn't make much sense to go much less than 70 mm for stroke. I'd rather have between 101-102 mm bore and 82-83 mm stroke for 5419 cc. In race trim it should make power at 8k RPM or above and rev to a bit over 9k RPM.

>>15599799
>that sound
It's not even reving anymore, it's just ringing.

>>15598104
Most European (except Germany with Mercedes Benz) and Japanese V8s are around 3.0l to 4.0l. The majority of V8s bigger than 5.0l are usually American, Australian or German.

>>15612448
bigger v8= bigger cock

>>15601778
Is that sum KL-DE/KL-ZE?

>>15609507
Dutchfag here, a semi-decent 944 costs 5k eurobucks and Brits have it even cheaper.

>>15606405
http://www.holeshot-racing.co.uk/index.php/engines/h1-v8-busa

Enjoy the fap

>>15598167
Wow a whole 21 more HP made by making the engine far heavier and larger

>>15608228
Dunno about boats, but earthmoving equipment is most certainly not exempt from emissions standards.

>>15598036
you're not welcome here

>>15615196
Why?

>>15601778
Well, first problem is its backwards. As in, the image is flipped.........

Unless Mazda manufactured the KLZE (or DE with one of the ZE manifolds, IIRC) with their name written as a mirror image, put the oil filler cap on the opposite side, and reversed where the VAF is positioned. Lol.

I love me sum KLZE's and KLDE's.

>>15616026
>tfw all V6 MX-6s currently listed for sale are at least halfway across the country
>tfw the same goes for all V6 Probes