Who would win in a battle for the worst type of engine of all

every concept has its pros and cons.

that's like asking "whut car is gud"

File: Audi-RS2-729x486-d2454f9826cae6da[1].jpg (69KB, 729x486px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 729x486px

>implying inline 5s aren't based as fuck

File: vr5[1].jpg (464KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1600x1200px

VR5 maybe, VW ditched them after one generation.

File: 17l6u5l3v4r2mjpg.jpg (327KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 960x540px

>>16001158
>inline 5
>anything but god tier

>>16001188
>vr5
>bad

lolwut

>>16001158
Rotaries are very good for racing applications friend. Please try to think a little bit before making retarded threads next time. Thank you.

>>16001208
> so good that nobody uses them

>>16001191
>>16001175
Daily reminder that there is a reason the inline 5 has only been used in one car (Audi RS3) in the last 10 years.

So sad.

Car engines went the way of the mobile phone.

From a fuckton of interesting concepts, it all got condensed down to less than a handful similar concepts.

Everything is a fucking turbo inline 4 now and soon for the most part will be a washing machine motors energized by laptop batteries.

File: ford-focus-rs-2009-01[1].jpg (161KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1024x768px

>>16001214
>what is the 2nd gen Focus RS
>what is every single T5 Volvo

File: 1377635018105.png (127KB, 339x273px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 339x273px

>>16001214
more like daily reminder that you're ignorant as fuck

>>16001223
>GM
>Volvo

I thought we were only talking about relevant car manufacturers in this thread.

>>16001232
>dat damage control

>>16001232
>I decide who's relevant!
You said that only one car in the last 10 years has used an inline 5.
You got proven wrong.

File: 465481654357654.jpg (12KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 275x183px

>>16001208
>Rotaries are very good for racing applications

When was the last time anybody had success with a rotary engine outside of spec racing?

>>16001238
watch out, next reply will be "butthurt gm fangirls btfo haha xDDD"

>>16001234
>>16001238
Assmad GM fangirls need to stay in their Streets of Willow containment threads.

Why the fuck would you use 5 cylinders when you only have to add one more to get a perfect engine?

File: 1459326330549.png (57KB, 195x252px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 195x252px

>>16001252
>>16001255
aaaaaand there it is

>>16001252
Delete this.

File: 1429929536689.gif (431KB, 250x189px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 250x189px

>>16001232
>he thinks Ford is owned by GM

>>16001200
It was about ~17% less good than the VR6 and that engine was a clusterfuck.

>>16001213
Blame fia for banning them in lemans because of massive butthurt

>>16001255
>Assmad GM fangirls
Weak. Aren't you supposed to love Ford? How did you not know about the Focus RS?

File: consider the following.png (227KB, 365x473px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 365x473px

>>16001158
Depends on the application. Any other answer is blatantly incorrect.

>>16001158
But anon, both I5's and rotarys are awesome.

>>16001277
Which one is subjectively better to a bunch of autists on a Indonesian fingerprinting forum

>>16001268
>Blame fia for banning them in lemans because of massive butthurt

ACO runs the LM24, not the FIA. The ACO uses FIA regs as a basis and adjusts them accordingly. The old Group C cars were allowed to run the 1991 LM24 and WSC in the C2 class despite the new regs (and because there weren't enough teams to run the new spec yet) which means that the 787B already didn't comply with the new regs and would no longer be eligible in 1992.

Furthermore, the ACO had no reason to expect Mazda rotary prototypes would be competitive given that they've always performed poorly and mediocre at best ('91 LM24 was the only win for the car in over 20 races). In turn, the ACO gave the Mazda cars a break in weight which amounted to a nearly 400lbs weight savings because they didn't think it had a chance to win if it followed the same specs as everybody else.

>>16001214
1st gen Chevy Colorado

>>16001436
Not mw argument.

i wish a manufacturer cough mazda would have the balls to make a mid or rear engine wankle powered car

>>16001258
It sounds like sex.

Wasn't the wankel banned from Le Mans because it was "2 gud"?

>>16001158
3 cylinder is more worthless
a well tuned 4 banger should out perform, out live, and out economy the 3 cylinder

File: giphy[1].gif (1MB, 350x387px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x387px

>>16001782
"No"

>>16001782
>Wasn't the wankel banned from Le Mans because it was "2 gud"?
No. In fact, it won at Le Mans because they thought it sucked so bad and let it run reduced weight.

>>16001158
slant 4s

>>16001214
TT RS

>>16001214
Right.

Except for the Focus RS
And Volvo 850, C30, S40, V50, S60, S70, V70,C70, XC70, S80 and XC90
And the Renault Sefrane
And the Ford Mondeo and S-Max
And the Ford Transit and Ranger
And Mazda BT-50

And a bunch of diesel mercedes
And almost every Audi
And the Jeep Grand Cherokee
And the Land Rover Disco
And a bunch of Hondas and the Acura TL
And all the VW using the audi engines
And a bunch of Fiats

So basically half the car manufacturers have put I5s into a production car at this point

Fucktard

File: 1457327412571.jpg (31KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 650x488px

>>16001252
>>16001255
10/10

>>16002048
No that's not why you retard, you can literally look this shit up.

>>16001782
Not really, the ban was planned before the win

>>16001245
Right before F1 and LeMans started mandating engine designs.

>>16001620
Why? For the same price as developing a new mid engined platform they could bring the weight of the engine down below 100 pounds and ceramic coat everything so the coolant system could be removed. Then there's so little weight in the engine bay that you would make the front of the car heavier by pushing the cabin forward to make room for the engine.

>>16001620
No point. FD3S RX-7 for example had near 50/50 balance and insanely good handling that rivaled mid mounted cars of it's time.

>>16002389
lay off the forza m8

>>16002484
applies to this guy too
>>16002471

>>16001232
>GM
>Ford Focus
Wew lad

>>16002484
>midship shill
>accusing others of being bus riders

>>16002544
>accuses others of being forza bench racers
>doesn't offer any insight as to why

>>16002094
Not disagreeing but what honda used an inline 5 besides the legend?

>>16001255
Oddly, the Ford Focus is manufactured by Ford, not GM

The rotary engine gets too much hate 2bh

>>16002594
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_G_engine

Boring JDM sedans, which is disappointing because no transverse. Civic with a 2.5L I5 would be sweet

>>16002693
don't be a cuck
make your own

>>16001258
Space constraints and manufacturing costs while still being a whole lot better than the complete pile of trash that a straight four is.

>>16002187

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_787B
>Oreca and team consultant Jacky Ickx were able to persuade FISA that the 787s should be allowed to run with less weight than their competitors, leading to FISA allowing the team to run the cars at 830 kg (1,830 lb) rather than the standard 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) required for the C2 class

>>16002094
>almost every Audi
That's not true and you know it.

>>16001332
I am you

>>16001232
You do know you're supposed to shill FOR ford, not against it, right?

>>16001258
Because raspy/rumbly sound, and it usually (not always) packages better in AWD setups.

>>16002471
50/50 balance isn't optimal in RWD cars though.

>>16002967
It's better than 60f 40r

>>16002693
Imagine a K25: a five cilinder K series. I'd buy the fuck out of that.

>>16001208
No. Also cheating regulations because someone some time ago used bad formula to compare rotaries to piston engine isn't exactly something to brag about.

>>16001158

I'm going to say two cylinders. Name me a two pot that's being built these days save for Boomer Bikes (Harleys)

They had applications during their time, sure, but the only thing they had going for them was reliability and simplicity.

>>16002981
If you're gonna make a track day car a rotary is a great option.
It's been regulated into obsolesence in high level motorsport but in practical terms it's very good.

>>16001158
v4 rotary layout with dual pistons and 5cylinder hybrid

>>16002916
Guess they should ban Ford GTs.

>>16002982
Fiat 500 twin air

>>16002994
>If you're gonna make a track day car a rotary is a great option.
Except they use a lot of fuel and oil, need a big turbo to make decent power, the RX7 is getting too expensive to use as a track car while the RX8 is difficult to tune because N/A rotary.

The RX8 is really cheap here, but the trackday cars of choice are MX5s, 328is and Caterhams/7 replicas.

>>16002982
See >>16003070 also a number of companies are working on two cylinder range extender hybrids.

>>16001214
name that reason then

>>16001252
>>16001255
FUCKING INB4 PERFECTION. Tip top kek lad

>>16003070

I had no idea.

Does it move under its own power?

>>16003247
yes
it reaches 170 km/h relatively easy actually
it has a tarbo

t. someone who has access to one

>>16001158
>w123 E Class has the OM617, a N/A Diesel I5 that can last +1 million kms
>w124 E Class has the OM602, a N/A Diesel I5 that can last +1 million kms
>w202 C Class has the OM605, a N/A Diesel I5 that can last +1 million kms
>worst type of engine

3 cylinder turbo
Fuck you europe

>>16001191
Is that the car that could only compete against "inferior" RWD and had it's pants pulled down by AWD competitors?