Can somebody explain to me the advantages of a V8? A V6 delivers

>>16013618
t. V6 camaro owner

V8s came first.

V6 are useless when you have an I6. Like why go through the trouble for 2 more cylinders over an inline 4? Two banks, two heads, two headgaskts, two set of everything. Lot of additional complication to improve an I4. Just always go to a V8, or an I6.

>b-but my fitment
fuck off.

>>16013618
Fuck off alphonse

>>16013618
>same powe
mkay

>twin turbo a V6
>say it's better than a V8
>twin turbo a V8
>V8 destroys it

>>16013627
I6s are inferior to V6s and flat 6s.
>>16013630
They make more power actually. Sorry, my bad.

>>16013631
/thread

>>16013627
>V6 are useless when you have an I6.
A more false sentence has never been spoken. The other way around would be true however.

>>16013631
V8s are slower than V6s on average actually
>>16013630
He's right. They make pretty much the same power

File: 2015-mustangs-5-0l-coyote-2-3l-ecoboost-engines-breakdown4[1].jpg (505KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1200x800px

Will this type of shitposting not stop until the GT has the 5.0tt in it?

>>16013631
You should tell McLaren an Ferrari that when they were demolished by an F150 with a body kit at Lemans.

>>16013645
This

File: e46-m3-32-liter-inline-6-engine.jpg (216KB, 1254x690px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1254x690px

>>16013627
Fitment and packaging is for faggots.

God-tier I6 > shit V6 that saved 30cm of space in he engine bay

>>16013618
Starts with T and it rhymes with "pork"

>>16013655
Ill take the weight advantage and polar moment of inertia thanks. Hanging half the motor over the front axle is akin to wearing your pants on your head.

Keep quoting "mah perfect balance" though, as if it's of any relevance.

>>16013626
>>16013627
>>16013630
>>16013631
>>16013644
>>16013670
>>16013655
Please don't reply to obvious bait.

>>16013641
If you compare a v8 truck to a v6 car.

>>16013618
inb4 fake laptimes and stay btfo

File: bmw_biturbo0142-750x500.jpg (84KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 750x500px

>>16013632
>I6s are inferior to V6s and flat 6s.
>>16013640
>A more false sentence has never been spoken. The other way around would be true however.
Then why does BMW make I6s? Aren't they the best or nothing?

File: O.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>16013683
Riiiiiiight

>>16013627
l6 is dogshit. deal with it tractorboy

>>16013631
daily reminder the fastest race cars have all been twin turbo v6s

>>16013696
Call me when an inline 6 holds the nurburgring lap record

>>16013696
>the best or nothing?

That's Benz...

>>16013641
How do you figure that?
in almost every car line up ever the v8 is faster usually the fastest they offer unless they have a v10. This holds true with forced induction as well.
Take the Audi brand for example I4 turbo- V6- V6 turbo -V8 - V8 turbo -V10. From least powerful to most.
This holds true for almost all brands with the exception of forced induction pushing ahead of a natural aspirated engine with fewer cylinders.

>>16013618
>same power

File: 2015-bmw-m4-motogp-safety-car-front-fascia-013.jpg (211KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 2048x1360px

>>16013673
Mah perfect balance.

And glorious sound, too. Flat-6 is also invited, but only if it's NA.

>>16013696
Remind me when the last time BMW had a factory inline 6 race car.
>but mah E46 M3
>...that was kitted out with a V8 for racing purposes

>>16013723
And the Ford GT is the fastest car in Ford's lineup. What's your point?

>>16013683
How about we compare them to Ferrari and McLaren twin turbo V8s then. Oh wait, that's right>>16013645

>>16013753
Not yet. Its still a 5.2L V8.N/A and that is a Turbocharged V6 not just a V6. Forced induction is a factor.
You are saying V6 are usually faster then v8s
It is just not true in the slightest.

If you are trying to say Turbocharged V6s are faster then naturally aspirated V8s then say that. I wouldnt agree with you but it is much harder to prove because the margins are much smaller.

>>16013809
Well then, how about we level the playing field a little then, and compare the turbo V6 against turbo V8s. Oh wait>>16013645

>>16013883
This

>>16013883
>V8s are slower than V6s on average actually

Post 3 production turbo v6s that have more power output then 3 production turbo v8s.

Race cars do not count as "on average" as they are anything but average. There will always be an example that you can find to back up your argument.

>>16014047
>post an arbitrary number of examples in contrary of my claim
I only need to post one.
>race cars don't count because I said so
As far as I'm concerned production based race cars certainly do count. Sorry if the example I've brought to the front doesn't conform with what you're claiming.

>>16014047
See
>>16013705
Nobody said anything about power output, retard

>>16013708
Top fuel would disagree

File: bmREEEE.png (355KB, 750x711px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 750x711px

>>16013695
>btfo
BTFO

>>16013618
If it's not a japanese v6 it sounds like shit. turbo v6's make me want to kill myself

also n/a v8s are an experience

>>16014282
You should do everyone a favour and trip up. That way everyone has the opportunity to block your worthless tripe.

>>16013618
no shitposting?

power band, displacement and sound.

>People just love the sound. It's a nice sound.
>Power band is more important than anything else. A v8, v10 and v12 all make their power low down AND high up, meaning no matter when you are pressing the throttle, in any gear, you have power. Lots of it.
>There is no replacement for displacement. Not in the sense of "MUH DISPLACEMENT>forced induction". A turbo v8 will beat a turbo i6 in regards to being a dyno queen, since there's more space to shove more air in and mix with fuel.

And i say this as a turbo i6 owner. It's 100% shitposting. Each engine has it's own unique pros and cons for your application. There is no one size fits all engine.

The V6 design is inherently unbalanced. All V6 engines enjoy parasitic losses from balance shafts, and thus have similar mechanical complexity when compared with a V8 with the same type of valvetrain.

I'm not sure where the 'less weight' part is coming from. To my knowledge, there's no inherent strength in a V6 block for a given displacement over a V8 that allows it to be built with less material. I'd love it if someone could explain that for me.

Subtracting two pistons and their valvetrain losses would make a more efficient engine, if you didn't have to include the extra movements and required balance shafts to counteract them. This is why the I-6 is virtually always your most efficient engine design for a large displacement. That's why you'll never find V6-powered heavy equipment.

The V6 wins in automobiles primarily due to a balance of packaging and power delivery in both RWD and FWD applications, but it's inferior in most respects to the I-5.

For a given power output, a V8 is cheaper to make (similar number of bearing surfaces to machine, rods, pistons and liners are easy to build, balance shafts and their bearing surfaces aren't). They also sound so much fucking better... 8 is more than 6, and ultimately, that's the level of mentality most people are working with when they're trying to market a product.

Sure, you get a shorter engine with similar efficiency as a V8 with a modern V6, but those packaging advantages mean almost nothing when you can design in a good weight balance. So, any engineering advantage is outweighed by a marketing and selling advantage. The V8 isn't going anywhere.

>>16013632
>i6 inferior to v6
What the fuck? I6 produces more torque and uses less fuel

>>16014517
In what comparison?

>>16013618
Sound.
Smoothness of power delivery.
masterrace

>>16013618
>Comparing apples to oranges

Now compare a V8 to a V6 with:
>identical displacement
>either identical boost or both naturally aspirated
>identical compression
>identical bore:stroke ratio
Etc.
Eventually you'll find that the V8 is more efficient.

>>16013627
>Two banks, two heads, two headgaskts, two set of everything.
Two of everything, but half the size. Just as much to go wrong, effectively: and the packaging of a V6 is a lot shorter, actually making it fit in transverse applications, and resulting in a way shorter overhang in longitudinal applications.

>>16014517
>torque and fuel consumption
>related to cilinder layout
What?

>>16013644
At that point you'll just get a 750-ish hp GT500, and Fordshills will just go turbo vs. supercharger instead of V6 vs. V8.

>>16013696
>Then why does BMW make I6s?
Because of heritage and marketing.

>Aren't they the best or nothing?
That's Mercedes, which have gone V6.

>>16013705
We're comparing engines though, not chassis.

>inb4 comparing n/a V8 Radical to turbo V6 Radical
Apples to oranges, you should compare two turbo cars instead.

>>16014505
>Subtracting two pistons and their valvetrain losses would make a more efficient engine
How about the added combustion chamber efficiency?

>That's why you'll never find V6-powered heavy equipment.
Heavy equipment doesn't care as much about packaging as cars do though, so they might as well choose the balanced layout.

>>16013737
>And glorious sound
GTR sounds better than an M4

>>16014560
See
>>16013645

>>16014571
>spec racing
Not relevant. You simply cannot compare two different chassis', with completely different engines, and conclude that it was the engines that made the difference.

>>16014562
What combustion chamber efficiency are you talking about? You can put the same combustion chamber on top of any piston configuration.

You must be some kind of dimwit.

>>16014580
>gets proven wrong
>damage control
Typical day on /o/

>>16014589
Smaller combustion chabers typically have higher efficiency, don't they?

>>16014591
>proven
I don't think that word means what you think it means

>>16014598
Okay, retard

>>16014592
Alright, maybe I'm the dimwit here, but you're assuming that we're talking about the same design (over/under/square) for a given displacement.

It's not really practical to do that because bore:stroke choice is motivated by a combination of desired characteristics, and limitations of the engine design.

File: Bell-B40D-Articulated-Dump-Truck-1 (1).jpg (115KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x600px

>>16014505
>That's why you'll never find V6-powered heavy equipment
Gotta pull you up there. I've operated plenty of these in both Bell and Hitatchi guise and the 12L V6 in them is not only silky smooth, but has similar performance and better economy than the C15 powered 740 Caterpillars.

File: OM501LA [Actros 2646].jpg (22KB, 300x301px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x301px

>>16014627

>>16014627
>>16014630
I stand corrected, and confused. I suppose packaging still matters in heavy equipment. But surely you won't find a V6 container ship engine, or a V6 electromotive... Right?

>>16014649
I suppose there's no reason besides cost why you couldn't have multiple V6 units like that Merc engine to meet the required power

>>16014505
Are you actually retarded? V6's are used in heavy equipment quite often

>>16013618
Torque, noise, muh veeate, the fact that it triggers salty displacelet cucks like you.

>>16014937
Except V6s makes more torque at lower rpms.

>>16013753
Koeniggseggs all have v8's and all are faster than the GT. Ford GT is just a Ford Corvette with twice as much money spent on the engine and body and interior.

>>16014943
>koenigseggs are faster
[citation needed]

File: ford-gt-wins-2016-lemans24hr-16.jpg (46KB, 750x406px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 750x406px

>>16014943
>Koeniggseggs all have v8's and all are faster than the GT
That's funny, I didn't see them on the Le Mans podium.
>Ford GT is just a...
McLaren 650s, but cheaper, and faster. Corvette can't compete

>>16013716
Benz are ditching V6 engines and going back to I6 engines

BTFO

>>16014084
Land speed records are held all by diesels and jet cars, does this mean that the diesel in my hilux is better than a Mercedes v8?

>>16014558
Benz are ditching the V6 to go back to I6

B
T
F
O

>>16014941
How wrong can one man be?

>>16014951
>Le Mans is about speed.

Lot of damage control from v8 fans itt

>>16014975
Lots of insecurity from V6cucks itt

File: V8s BTFO 1.jpg (263KB, 1068x1298px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1068x1298px

>>16014979

>>16014955
Well, it kind of is.

if v6 are better, why do drag cars use v8 engines?

>>16015000
Drag racing goes on >>>/lgbt/, cuck

>>16015016
>Gets BTFO
>''Let's call him gay''

Stay assmad.

>>16014941
>implying cilinder count and configuration determines torque

>>16014951
>That's funny, I didn't see them on the Le Mans podium.

>spec racing
>relevant
Pick one.

>Ford GT is just a...
McLaren 675LT, but more expensive, and slower
FTFY

>>16014952
>>16014961
Only because of marketing reasons. Their engineers know what's up.

Ford only used a V6 in the GT because of marketing, too. Tried to show a link between those Canadian-built racecars that have nothing to do with Ford, and their road cars.

>>16014982
>Let's compare two completely different cars, with two completely different engines, with two completely different kinds of forced induction, with two completely different drivetrain layout, with two completely different pricepoints and equipment, and make some conclusions on that!
Really now?

>>16014969
>Le Mans is about speed.
Correct. Highest average speed over 24 hours on one of the world's fastest curcuits. I'll sit and wait while you dig up Koeniggsegg's results.

>>16015049
Stay btfo
>>16015052
>damage control
The post

>>16015059
>claims V8s are faster
>proven wrong
>b-but
As expected

>>16015073
This. The only thing sadder than V8 diehards is the I6 fanboys who peddle their even more outdated, archaic, less relevant configuration.

>pretend to be retarded
>get replies
>/o/

>>16014570
kek, gtr sounds like an angry altima.

ecoboost 3.5 weights 450lbs
ls3 weights 460lbs
ecoboost 3.5: a little over $9000
ls3 : $8000 (500 from a junkyard)
ecoboost 3.5: 365hp
ls3: 430hp

The v6tt weights about the same, costs more, has less power, and most likely has a shorter life. The v6tt is more efficient though.

>>16015073
If he wanted to prove v8s are faster then it can be done like this
>rxc turbo 500r time: 58 seconds
http://radicalsportscars.com/news/57
>mclaren p1 LM time: 47 seconds
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/29/watch-the-mclaren-p1-lm-break-goodwood-roadcar-record/
>mclaren p1 time: 53 seconds
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1085546_jenson-button-hits-goodwood-hill-climb-in-a-mclaren-p1-video

File: 1449981975654.png (8KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 400x400px

>>16015083
>archaic
Except straight-six engines are naturally balanced and mechanically less complex than a V6

>>16016006
Balance and complexity can be solved with modern engineering.

Bad packaging cannot.

>>16015979
>lap times set in the rain
Aww, how cute.

See
>>16013705
And stay triggered

>>16016021
>radical says it was a dry run
>video shows dry track
Stay in denial

>not a p1 LM
Stay btfo

>>16016038
It actually doesn't. It wasn't a record run. Stay triggered.

>a p1 lm
Which is slower than the rxc turbo

>>16013708
>daily reminder the fastest race cars have all been twin turbo v6s
Depending on how you're defining fastest they either have NA V10s or supercharged V8s

>>16016044
>wasn't a record run
Excuses for a shitty time

>slower than a rxc turbo
Proof? Because from what I see it's 11 seconds faster

>>16016056
Stay btfo

>>16013705

>>16016078
So you have no proof that the rxc turbo is faster than a p1 LM? ok

>>16016085
>spoon feed me mommy
As expected, stay btfo

>>16016017
No amount of modern engineering will remove the extra head and valvetrain hardware of a V engine

>>16016095
>spoonfeed me
As expected, v8 > v6
Stay btfo by the p1 LM

>>16016103
You do realise that a V engine has twice the components, but they're half as big, right? You're only adding a set of camp sprockets and other drive accesories.

>>16016113
What? V6s are faster though. I already proved it. Stay btfo

>>16016122
Nope, p1 LM is faster than the 500r
And I posted video proof.

>>16016113
>>16016095
Both of you idiots, stop wasting bandwidth like a set of retards, and get the hell out of here.

>>16016131
>b-but muh wet lap times
LMAO, stay btfo
https://youtu.be/G1Mbc192qGc

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChBJtIxHaqFf5UFcYNtR68A

>>16016142
>muh wet laps
Video shows otherwise

>not a p1 LM
Try again

>>16016157
>V8 cucks this desperate
The P1 lm is slower than the P1 GTR. Try again.

>>16014550
>actually making it fit in transverse applications
Transverse engines are for faggots.
V12>V10>V8>F6>I6>F4>I4>V6>cat shit>I3.
Deal with it faggot.

>>16016164
>LM slower than GTR
But it isn't, it weighs less and has better aero.

>>16016165
Can't deny the overhangs though.

>>16016176
And the GTR has non street legal racing tires (because it's a race car) offsetting any weight advantages that the LM has. Stay btfo

>>16016183
>tires offset performance of aero and weight
Very minuscule difference, but not enough to be faster. Especially with the tires that already come stock on the LM

>>16016195
Bullshit. That's like saying F1 tires have a miniscule difference over prius tires. Stay btfo

>>16016205
I guess you don't know what tires come on the LM already and what they are capable of. It's not that big of a difference between the two tires.

>>16016213
It is though. Stay btfo

V8 fangirls btfo yet again

>>16016217
It really isn't. Stay in denial

>>16016234
Stay btfo

>>16016239
See
>>16016249

Yes yes V6 is more practical and all but I6 is beautiful. Life is not a pragmatic journey to grave. Gotta have beauty.

The problem with I6 is the considerably longer crankshaft which has to be made stronger, has more vibration (not due to being unbalanced, just from firings) and the heads are longer so they bend and crack more easily and have to be made stronger. But it's still more beautiful and runs nicer and supposedly has a good potential for long term reliability (both petrol and diesel engines) because of being so balanced.

>>16017925
Also who doesn't like the feeling of having a long DICK under the hood vs an engineering compromise? Only V10 or V12 matches the epicness that is I6.

>>16013618
Just for the sound and tone. Its all aesthetic but it works. The roar of the V8 is tantalizing.

Some would argue about torque with V8's vs V6's. But unless you are hauling or trucking or dragging, i say whats the point?

the sound of a V8 engine is scientifically proven to be harmonic and pleasing to the Human ear.

>>16014305
>Power band is more important than anything else

Fuck off with that bullshit.

Unless you are a middle aged mom/dont know how to drive, there is nothing stopping from downshifting and redlining at a moments notice.

Retarded shit like that is why we have no small displacement high rpm cars anymore.

File: image.jpg (687KB, 1900x1268px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1900x1268px

hey 6-cylinder retards, you can stop arguing now, the god-machine has arrived.

there's a reason all the trucks are v6

the 3.0 ecodiesel is fine, the 2.7 ecoboost is fine, the 4.3 ecotec is fine

they are simply better for what average people actually do with trucks

>>16013641
>V8s are slower than V6s on average actually
wtf are you talking about?
v8 camaros and mustangs are way faster than their v6 counterparts

>>16018553
See
>>16014982

>>16018454
/thread

There are none. 6 cylinders are just as good with less weight

better power band, always and forever.
you have to strap not one but TWO turbochargers just to get any power from a v6. cuck logic to be quite honest family, but ttv6's only exist due to shitty emissions and regulations

>>16019990
So you admit V6s are superior?

>>16019977
This

ITT - virgins becoming emotional over inanimate objects.

>>16013618
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodhound_SSC
world's fastest car uses a Jaguar Supercharged V8 (two other engine types but those aren't for anything roadworthy)

>>16024349
This is objectively wrong

SSC hasn't been finished yet. And a Chevy based v8 powered the world's fastest wheel driven car

http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a9366/new-world-speed-record-for-a-piston-engined-car-439-mph-38899/

>>16024394
I was memeing, the V8 is only acting as a fuel pump.
On another note, I agree that the best record for land speed is the wheel driven one

In the real world, wouldn't a V6 be better for most actual applications?

If you're a regular guy who needs a truck, the V6 seems to be the best choice. It's is much more fuel efficient, is comparably powerful in terms of towing ability, HP, and Torque.

What I'm wondering is why manufacturers still produce vehicles with V8s for everyday, non-specialized trucks.

>>16024567
V6 has 3/4 of the power on average, so for most people that's fine. But when you need more, you'd need a V8 or turbos. With turbos, you're running comparable weight to the V8 setup, worse emissions when under load, as well as milage when under load.
as for when you're noting towing/hauling, the V6 will be under more average stress and load percentage than the V8 model. this COULD lead to shorter engine lifespan.

>the only reason manufacturers are going away from I6 designs is that the engine compartments are being made smaller and smaller, I6 are intrinsically better balanced than any v6 it's just a design characteristic, similarly in any format a I6 withe a similar displacement and aspiration with produce more torque which usually equates to real world use, cause let's face it even if any engine makes 1000HP if it doesn't make any torque it's useless
>btw Volvo still only uses the inline platform in either a I5 or I6 so there must be some reason js

>>16024660
an engine cannot generate hp without torque hp is a product of tourqe

>>16024739
Obviously I was purely pointing outo that torque is what I equate to real world use when it comes to engines and I6 makes more than similar displacement v6 and usually comes close to smaller v8s

>>16013627
this. i6 or v8 or ur a faggit.

There are none

>>16024660
>similarly in any format a I6 withe a similar displacement and aspiration with produce more torque
Interested to see the source of this citation.

L7wvekgsuzjsnsbe

>>16018454
is the E39 M5 the best car ever made? not sure, but it sure as fuck is a contender for the title

as far as I know balance is the only real reason. you can run a crossplane crank in a v8 or i6 and not deal with balancing issues of a v6.

>>16014965
you tell me

Bumpo

>>16027204
Is beaten by E60 M5, so not the best car

>>16027204
2nd gen CTS V wagon is the greatest car that was ever made.

>>16029186
>implying the whole world is USA only

>>16024567
The V6s are not that much more fuel efficient than the V8s, unless you drive the V8 like a mad cunt.

Most drivers won't see rated mileage in a TTV6 unless they hypermile. RealMPG tests show that Ram and GM V8 trucks get similar mileage to the Ecoboost.

If you've got a heavy shoe or a light one, you'll see benefit to a V6 truck (especially naturally aspirated), but if you drive normal, the V8 will give you more capability and better performance for very little economy penalty.

File: cadillac cts-v wagon4.jpg (137KB, 1500x938px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1500x938px

>>16029232
>implying it isn't
we superpower nao

>>16029602
>>16029186
i mean, opinions and all that, but to me, that thing misses half the charm the M5 has, the whole sneaky/discrete thing

File: impp_1104_06_o+1989_toyota_supra+engine_bay.jpg (452KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1600x1200px

>>16014558
benz is going back to inline 6 kid.

Can somebody explain to me the advantages of a V6? An I4 delivers the same power with less weight and more efficiency. Why would you still use a V6 in a modern car?

>>16029712
Call me when 4 or 8 cylinders hold the nurburgring lap records

File: cadillac cts-v wagon3.jpg (351KB, 1024x566px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1024x566px

>>16029621
no one in there right mind assumes a cadillac is fast. unless you know, it just looks like a really well nigged CTS.

File: 2016-06-14_05-14-39.jpg (124KB, 1600x1043px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1600x1043px

>>16029749
>V cuck trying to be relevant

call me back when you can match the flat 6 godmachine

File: mitsudomoe_smug_shop_employee_ep5.png (469KB, 658x647px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 658x647px

>>16029768
>admits 6 cylinders are superior.

/thread

>>16029760
augh, i don't think its about looking fast as much as it is looking flashy. just a tad too much chrome for my taste at least. And that thing isn't exactly the car that is easiest on the eye

File: cadillac cts-v race.jpg (380KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1024x682px

>>16029784
>a tad too much chrome
u wut? it doesn't have that much. I get it though. It is a pretty polarizing car.

>>16029749
Can somebody explain to me the advantages of an I4? An I3 delivers the same power with less weight and more efficiency. Why would you still use an I4 in a modern car?

File: cadillac cts-v lineup1.jpg (1MB, 1500x938px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x938px

>>16029800
smoothness without as big of a balancing shaft. ability to rev higher.

File: 1476907873083.gif (54KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 350x263px

>w-why would women want an 8 inch cock in them? a 6 inch one d-de-delivers the same power with less weight and more efficiency.

>>16029834
>V8 fangirls resorting to false equivalencies
>V8 fangirls of all people talking about dick size
All of my keks

V8 fangirls are the epitome of compensation

>>16013696
>literally BMW is the only one to makes L6 in this day and age

>literally everyone fucking else moved onto V6
>smaller, slightly lighter, smaller crank and cams allow for higher RPM limit

>NSX was the first one to show faggots that V6 was the future
>same displacement as the 2JZ from the supra, naturally aspirated, achieving similar or the same power


inline 6 BTFO

>>16029854
how would we be compensating when you're the one saying a v6 is more efficient and lightweight? those are literal compensation aspects for having less power output. kek.

>>16029862
It is more efficient and lightweight

Stay btfo, cuck

File: 1476533395072.png (440KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 657x527px

>>16029881
>admits to compensating
>other person is a cuck somehow

well meme'd

File: buick gnx1.jpg (232KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1920x1080px

>>16029859
>NSX was the first one to show faggots that V6 was the future
>implying

>>16029890
Nice projection
Stay btfo

It is about displacement, a 5 L v6 is better than a 5 L v8. Less friction and more efficient combustion.

A 6.6 L v8 is better than a 5L v6

>>16014982
>Comparing a Corvette to a Radical

The Radical weighs a thousand pounds less! No fucking shit, it's faster!

literally the gayest thread ever

op is a fag overly concerned with gas-guzzlers while being a cum-guzzler himself

File: 1450190034245.jpg (10KB, 233x233px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 233x233px

>>16031280
I am a fag. How did you know?

File: Should have got a V8.gif (2MB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x233px

>>16013618
A V8 at a moment during a revolution has two cylinders firing at once. A V6 does not offer that chance.

File: kill.jpg (767KB, 2048x1901px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 2048x1901px

>>16031303

>>16013618
A V8 delivers more power and torque while putting less stress on the engine, allowing it to last much longer.

Ever wonder why basically all work trucks have V8s and not turbo 4s or 6s?

>>16031320
And yet semis use 6 cylinders

V8 cucks lose again

>>16031305

>A car going 7k RPM with twin turbo beats a car going around the same speed at 4k RPM without forced induction.

Yes and?

>>16031331
The z06 is supercharged.

Must suck to have autism, bud

>>16014653
But that one reason is a really big fuckin reason; Cost makes all the difference in the world for construction equipment.

If a V24 motor will do the same thing as 4 V6's for less money, less maintenance with 1 engine vs 4, and more reliability (Based merely on probability.), why the hell would you go with 4 V6's?

>>16014982
>Weighs a literal half ton less.
>Literally twice the price.
>3 Seconds faster.

Pffffffft. Wow m8. That's sad.

>>16031322
>Gargantuan 12L diesel I6 vs 5-7L gas V8
Your shitty gas V6 is not even remotely related to a semi engine.

V6 fags confirmed delusional.

>>16031389
Beautiful damage control.

As expected from a V8 cuck

>>16031407
>muh damage control
Wow, you sure showed me.

>>16031415
>no argument
As expected

>>16031418
You just said "damage control".

That's barely a statement, much less anything worth arguing.

>>16031320
v6 ecoboost has best power delivery and torque in class
deal with it

>>16031448
>turbo V6

I wonder who's engine will be running problem-free at 100k?

>>16031338

>A LS7 is now Supercharged

STOP THE PRESSES!

File: LOL.png (193KB, 432x359px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 432x359px

>>16031457
not the ohv chebby v8 because it wont even reach 100k

>>16018479
>trucks
You mean the actual trucks or the pickups?
Because V6 in either is pretty fucking bad, and I6/V8 is the only reasonable choice.

>>16031461
>ls7

Did we get anywhere?

Seems to me like both are fine. Look at what the GT-R and Venom GT have done. One is V6 and the other is V8. Both twin turbo. The Venom GT has 3.2L more. Tesla is electric and keeps up really well. Clearly this isn't a performance question. Electric, 4, 6, 8, or even 16 cylinder engines perform quite well relative to each other. Sometimes really well.

I think the question is efficiency or maybe "pulling power" for trucks. However, we have technology now that turns off extra cylinders when not in use. So, MPG is not that important.

V8 trucks should be more powerful, but is it worth it? You can turbo the V6, but you're stressing the engine.

I don't know. V8 seems to be geared towards trucks because anything above a V6 is detrimental. Think about it. No one wants a V8 BMW. They'd be like why'd you give me this bulky piece of shit? L6 seems to be best for performance and V6 for power I'd dare say.

File: bmw-m5-e39-image-750x500.jpg (99KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 750x500px

>>16035477
>No one wants a V8 BMW.
B8

>>16035477
>No one wants a V8 BMW
.....I honestly can't tell if you're joking or if you actually believe that...

>>16031461

>>16013632
>I6s are inferior to V6s and flat 6s.
t. Sperg
i6s are
Better balanced
Better empeegee
Better power delivery
More torque

>>16015059
I thought they used a v6 because the packaging allowed then to have a narrower body thus better aero.

Bumpdhd

>>16013618
There are v6 with the power of some v8
There are v4 with the power of some v6
There are i4 with the power of some v4
There are v-twins with the power of some i4
There are single two strokes with the power of some v-twins

Why aren't we all swapping 2 smokes into our cars?

File: 1985_lancia_deltas4stradale_0.jpg (143KB, 1024x667px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1024x667px

'sup guys.

File: IMG_20150629_153528.jpg (2MB, 4208x2368px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4208x2368px

>>16039915
>2016
>he doesnt have a triple supercharged i10 two stroke diesel engine

>>16037639
This

>>16041857
Exactly

>>16037661

this. Merc tried the v6 bullshit to save costs and use modular v8s like ford. People didn't fall for it

>>16031443
Are you mad?

>>16043520
>this
That post you linked is 75% factually incorrect. Idiot.

You guys are all beyond helpless lmao.

Let me spell this out for you retards. You can't cite a single example proving this otherwise.

V8 > I6 > V6

This is for performance. That's it. I'm intentionally excluding v10/v12 because those aren't relevant for this discussion.

File: 46945.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>16045090

File: Capture.jpg (45KB, 757x174px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 757x174px

>>16045090

File: Screenshot_20161022-205102.png (266KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 2560x1440px

Nobody Ever-(Buying a Pontiac Grand Prix, "no thank you to the V-8, that's for sure!")

>>16045378
Holy fuck, it has that much more displacement and 2 more cylinders, and yet, it only makes 50 more HP.

V8s a shit

>>16013618
Ecoboost V6 weighs more than the 5.0 V8

File: latest.png (466KB, 495x451px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 495x451px

>>16045395
Nobody ever = This guy

>>16013618
is this a a bait?

why a v6 when you can get a v8

File: MASERATIMerak-3126_2.jpg (312KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1024x768px

>>16029859
>>NSX was the first one to show faggots that V6 was the future
>implying that fuckloads of other european MR cars weren't already using V6s way before
lmao

File: 1467279_595742973853024_1941605524_n[1].jpg (120KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 720x960px

Can somebody explain to me the advantages of a V6? A V4 delivers the same power with less weight and more efficiency. Why would you still use a V6 in a modern car?

>>16046520
Btfo

He won't recover

>>16046777
>>16046520
V4 fan girls on suicide watch

File: 1470511117484.jpg (25KB, 341x720px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 341x720px

>>16014085
>"V6s are faster than V8s hyuk hyuk"
>gets proven otherwise
>"power output doesn't matter"

>>16047418
See
>>16013705
Stay mad
>>16046783
This.

File: hqdefault.jpg (27KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x360px

>>16039915
>two stroke swapping
>diesel

Because CARB won't let us have nice things.

File: saab-historical_-(4).jpg (244KB, 1280x810px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1280x810px

>>16046515
>V4

Who the hell even makes V4's any more?

>>16048545
honda

>>16048545

https://youtu.be/MyXt5PLM1dM

Bumpg

>>16013618

>same power

8/10 bait. Four sixty fucking years, people have been saying it, so let me continue the notion.

There is no replacement for displacement, retard.

>>16053609
It's called turbochargers

>>16053617
This

>>16053617
Muh throttle response

>>16053617
Except you're wrong. Forced induction is a lame excuse for a stand in.

Yes, you can create similar power numbers (to a limit), however you're doing so at the cost of reliability and serviceability. Can a turbo vehicle go 500k with nothing but oil changes and the occasional tune up? Noooooope.

>>16056251
>damage control

>>16056251
My e39 525d is at 680k and the engine is still going strong

because of the sound, V8's sound way cooler than V6's, added bonus extra torque.....no replacement for displacement!

File: Xzibit.png (439KB, 720x529px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 720x529px

>>16013712
Well correct me if I'm wrong but a BMW S50 i6 won the SP6 category in the 2009 24 hours of Nurburgring, completing 145 laps. 10th overall. Bested by many laps the following:
Aston Martin 6L V12
Audi 5.2L V10
Porsche 997 GT3
Dodge Viper 8.3L V10
Mercedes Benz 3.5L V6
Subaru WRX sti BRB
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X


Another i6 won the SP5 category.
A bmw N52 i6 won the V5 category


Tldr; the only benefit v6 provides is engine bay length required

>>16013743
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/videos/a31269/watch-this-bmw-dtm-car-set-an-insanely-fast-nurburgring-lap-time/
>6:14 Nurburgring lap time
And yes, the M4 DTM is inline six powered>>16013712

>>16062384
All modern trucks are using turbo inline six diesels for a reason
>625hp
>2212 lb ft
http://www.torquenews.com/1084/mercedes-slt-250-ton-carrying-truck-will-make-you-drool
fucking 3000
3
0
0
0
Newton
Meters

>>16013618
Balance.
A V8 can be any size (even a 1.2l or a 24.8l, displacement can be increased/decreased on any engine layout). A V8 can get any gas mileage any other piston can. A V8 can get any torque or wattage output any other piston engine can.
What a V8 does that a V6, V12, I4, I3, V16, I8, I6 or I5 can't is have a good balance and be space saving.
A V2 or F4 is also good at this. But the impracticality of a large displacement V2 in a vehicle, and the unreliability of an a large flat(boxer) engine, bar them from becoming a major competitor to the V8.
A fuel-conscious or alternative fuel rotary could be better than a V8. Bugatti's W16 is just two VR8s merged together so it doesn't really count.

A 135° low-displacement high revving V8 would be goat.

>>16045395
Any more torque and it would grenade the transmission.
As it is, people regularly destroy them with the supercharged or turbocharged V6's.

>>16045378
tfw my n/a 2.5 liter inline six from 1990 makes 8 hp less than that 3.8 V6

File: Perfect balance.png (58KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x600px

V8s and Flat eights can have the perfect balance.

Pic related
Cylinder groupings by spark
1-6
3-8
5-2
7-4
Cylinders sharing the same exact position on crank
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8

>>16063796
Preciate it

>>16062560
does your 2.5l i6 have over head cams? cause that 3.8l is a push-rod motor. and the TQ numbers will be a much bigger tell tale of how the 2 engines may compare performance wise.

>>16063796
Thx

>>16064237
idk but I easily outran a 200hp V6 Firebird with my 1990 E36 325i

Bumpj

>>16014517
also put less stress on mounts

Bumps
>>16064237

>>16069712
This

File: 4D6PdvD.jpg (939KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

939KB, 3000x3000px

The advantage of the V6 is the car companies like Ford and Chevy get to pay for less materials (lighter engine) while still charging you the same amount of money as the V8. Just another form of indirect inflation.

>>16014047
Gtr 560hp > c63 amg 457hp/487/507/517hp

Gtr 560hp > panamera turbo s 550hp

Gtr 560hp > Audi s7 420hp


Most v8 give something between 400-550hp but you have to have a great v6 to kill their turbos v8

>>16013618
V8s are quieter and have less vibration, due to basically being a pair of I4s bolted together.

>>16070102
If they are flatplane V8s yeah, that's what they are.
Otherwise, they are a bit different m80

>>16071242
Thx

Bump s

I can't believe this thread has been around so long

>>16013618
>Can anyone explain to me the advantages of a v6 over I4?

>Can anyone explain to me the advantages of a I4 over a V2?

>Can anyone explain to me the advantages of a V2 over a 1 cylinder engine?

>>16080807
Thanks

its easier to make power with more cylinders but also more expensive.

thats why they dont make a v10 corolla

>>16013655
>Fitment and packaging
The only reason anyone would ever buy a VW/Audi.

>tfw this thread turned two weeks old today
Good job, /o/! Keep up the good work!

>>16085956
Thanks

>>16013676
that's a pretty tall post for a manlet!

>>16013618
>Can somebody explain to me the advantages of a V6? An Inline 6 delivers the same power with less weight and more efficiency. Why would you still use a V6 in a modern car?

>>16045041
butthurt v6 camaro/mustang owner

>>16087168
>blatantly lying on the internet
I6 fags are desperate

>>16045104
>AWD
>costs like 150k
>Twin Turbo

LOL

File: 1455912878437.jpg (23KB, 535x425px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 535x425px

>>16087195
>V6 is lighter and more efficient

nice try, no one is going to fall for you retarded opinion xD

>>16087221
Stay btfo

File: comfie.jpg (76KB, 399x565px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 399x565px

>>16087226
i think you meant to reply to >>16087195 dipshit xD

>>16087237
Stay btfo

V6>I6

File: 1477847476188.jpg (57KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x800px

>>16087249
learn to use 4chan
>>>/out/

>>16087253
Stay btfo

>>16087249
why you so angry v6 mustang cuck

couldn't afford a v8? hahaahhah

>>16087260
Stay Btfo

I can't believe thisn FUCKING thread is still here.

>>16087266
why you so angry v6 mustang cuck

couldn't afford a v8? hahaahhah

>>16087270
Stay btfo fangirl

>2 week old bait thread
>still biting

Stay classy, /o/

>>16087275
Stay btfo

>>16087284
why you so angry v6 mustang cuck

couldn't afford a v8? hahaahhah

>>16087293
Stay btfo

>>16087282
Alphonse is just bumping it. 4 more posts till we finally hit bump limit thougb.

>>16087277
reported for spam

>>16087313
Gm fangirls so fucking mad rn lmao

2 more posts and this can disappear.

File: 23158392405_d3e3b60cb8_o.jpg (569KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 2048x1365px

>>16087324
Then i'll make another

>>16087317
i own an inline 5 and idc about your shitty low spec v6 american cars you poser

get banned fag

>>16087334
>alphonse ever being banned

>>16087334
Stay btfo

>>16087344
reported for spam...again

>>16087353
It wont do anything. He is buddy-buddy with the mods.