>build an 8 liter engine >it only outputs 150hp Justify this

>>16424718
>murica

>>16424718
>torque > bhp

>>16424727
>only makes 300 some lb ft
>still slow as fuck


hp wins races torque sells tractors

File: V8s BTFO 8.png (277KB, 1229x2450px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1229x2450px

>using a V8 in 2017

>>16424761
>comparing NA to Turbo

>>16424718
Show me an example of this case.

>>16424761
I just don't trust anything with a faster 0-60 time than 5-60. You know they have a bunch of bullshit complicated computers with launch control.

>>16424718

It puts that out at 2000rpm along with delicious cruising torque.

Why can't Jaguar get more than 300hp out of a almost 6 liter V fucking 12?

>>16424718
Smooth af B)

>>16424727
>>16424801
Engine torque doesn´t matter, torque curve and wheel torque matter.

>>16424801
the jaguar v12 made up to 550 hp in the Jaguar Lister XJS and the Lister Storm

>>16424727
for pulling tractors sure
horsepower is all that matters for performance

>>16424794
5mph is a slow as fuck roll at low rpm..
launching from 0mph you can take off near redline... its the same for any car

>>16424952

8 liter big blocks also made way the fuck more than that at the time... Keep in mind it's a British jag, so only half of those cylinders will be working at a time so divide that power by 2.

>>16424718
Tourqe lil nigga

>>16424718
Emmissions regulations and outdated technology. Also law of diminishing returns. Sure, it's pathetic but in 20 years we'll think the same things about today's motors

i have one of these. it's 8.2 and more like 190hp.

The engine itself outputs around 300, it's just all the shit tacked on to it especially the 3 speed indesctructo-matic that sucks it all away.

and then the torque...

IDK but I had a GMC 2500 with a 6.0L with 341k miles.

Would you make a small displacement, high compression motor handle heavy loads, over a decade of hard use, it don't last. That's why big rigs use ridiculous sized straight 6's. They run cool, and don't over strain with extreme payloads and can pull that payload up and down hills for a million miles.

>>16426217
thats 190 at the flywheel bub

car probably puts 140 to the ground and shit torque

>>16424761
http://www.mercedes-amg.com/webspecial/slsblackseries/eng.php?lang=eng

6.3l 630hp, NA

>>16426485
That 6L had 300 hp though

File: lt castillo.jpg (59KB, 320x238px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 320x238px

>>16424718
>hp/L argument

OP confirmed for retard.

>>16426670
I swear only Americans have a problem with it since they do embarrassingly bad at it

>>16426653

Is that supposed to be impressive? A $10k crate engine will do that.

>>16424777
Trips of truth

>>16426485

i have a 2000 Silverado with the 6.0, makes like 300hp and 380ft/lb of torque. thats decent, and its the only American vehicle i own simply because the Japanese dont make a truck that can carry my camper as well as it yet be reliable

beyond that the Vortec 8100 made 330hp and 450ft/lb torque

>>16426713

hp/L pretty much translates to no torque.

File: america fireworks.gif (3MB, 222x222px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 222x222px

>>16426713
It's because Americans don't live in some third-world cuckstate of a nation that taxes or limits engine displacement.

Performance-wise, there's not realistic application outside of certain racing series where hp/L matters.

>>16426734
nope

besides you only need torque when you have a pigfat car

>>16426746
>were not good at it so it doesnt matter

as an American this mindset makes me ashamed of the country

File: colbert merica.gif (979KB, 390x224px) Image search: [Google]

979KB, 390x224px

>>16426753
>wants to be taxed for displacement

Fuck off to some shithole country then where everybody drives cars with tiny lawnmower engines and consumer pickups/SUVs are virtually non-existent.

>>16426822
doenst matter

American engines are lazy and asthmatic compared to the rest of the world

restrictions are good if it promotes good engineering

this whole country is a laughing stock lmao

Those engines weren't supposed to rev past 4k. The point was to make an adequate amount of power without the engine screaming.

>>16426841
>American engines are lazy and asthmatic compared to the rest of the world

Well, yeah, if you only drive econoboxes and utility vehicles. Same could be said about foreign cars when you aren't driving a sporty trim or a luxury vehicle that is made to be smooth and quiet.

You're talking double standards at this point.

File: nrm_1423837444-img_7701.jpg (1MB, 1500x750px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x750px

Malaise era cars aren't exactly goat tier, what they really aren't all that bad. Especially when you begin taking off all of the smog controls.

They are lazy bulletproof engines that last forever because they really never have to do anything strenuous.

>>16426885
hardly

look at the Corvette 6.2L for 420hp lmao

Mercedes makes 620hp from a 6.2L and is smoother than any American V8

even over 10 years ago the M5 was making 500 smooth hp from a 5.0

File: 72.jpg (101KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x720px

>>16426913
. They are also some of the most comfy cars ever built too

>>16426925
except they all had shit seats lazy engines and handled like pigs

not what Id call "comfy"

File: bcar_69.jpg (761KB, 2288x1712px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 2288x1712px

>>16426925

Lincoln Continental Mark V Cartier Ford's answer to the Cadillac Fleetwood Talisman Brougham pictured above

>>16426945
>This huge 45 year old car with primitive emission controls doesn't handle on par with modern cars! How could that be??????
hmm I wonder

>>16426945
You must have never driven one I've had a handful of them it was all like driving a lazy boy around. They were never meant to be performance cars they were meant to feel like you were driving your living room.

It seems odd to us now that an engineer would set out with that goal but that was the times

>>16426724
I could build an LS for less than that and still have money leftover for a shell to put it in

>>16426915
hp/L doesn't matter for performance bud
Hp/Kg does.

File: 310.jpg (114KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 960x720px

Keep in mind the car pictured is not a limousine it is just a high trim level Fleetwood meant for individual families to own.

Specifically the one pictured here had seats so large and comfortable It could only actually seat 4 people

It came with its own throw pillows

>>16426962
hmm

I wonder where I compared them to modern cars

oh I didnt

>>16426966
yeah theyre not comfortable tho

the seats have no support
the suspension is like its a boat on water

they feel like shit to drive and like a car never shouldve been made to try and replicate a couch

>>16426975
once again who said anything about performance

any retard can build a powerful go kart

>>16426985
>hp isn't a performance metric
wew lad 6/10 bait

File: hamm.jpg (46KB, 720x329px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 720x329px

>>16426985
>who said anything about performance
>forgets he mentioned the horsepower

>>16426992
>>16427000
yes anon

talking about how shit American engines are and criticizing their lazy engineering means Im talking about performance

just lmao

>>16426985
>I wonder where I compared them to modern cars
Then what are you comparing them to?
If you had never driven anything else then they probably handle pretty good

File: 707.jpg (1MB, 2756x1831px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2756x1831px

>>16427007
You must be a nightmare to deal with.
American engines aren't all that bad.
You probably own a import and can't handle admitting such a thing, I understand anon.

You do realize that Mopar is currently the maker of the most powerful engine available on the market, and the Dodge Viper has broken numerous records on numerous racetracks, correct? At roughly 130k the Viper ACR makes a mockery of the equivalently priced German cars.

>>16427023
any proper premium car of the time?

Americans just dont know luxury and just think SOFT SUSPENSION AND A COUCH

File: 240789.jpg (117KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 333x500px

>>16426985

Some people actually want to sink deep down into the seat.

Granted that's usually old people who don't have a lot of padding on their backsides but to them a car with seats that soft is like riding on a cloud anything else feels like torture for more than a short trip.

And that's who those cars for a largely built for.

Souce: i have a lot of experience with old people in poor health writing in different types of cars ones with seats like the ones pictured above are always their favorites.

To someone who has problems comfortably sitting those soft overstuffed seats can be are pure Mercy.

File: 46L BMW V12 only 750HP.jpg (53KB, 700x306px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 700x306px

>>16424718
It's old. Quit being such a troll.

>>16427046
>American engines aren't all that bad.

except they are

>You do realize that Mopar is currently the maker of the most powerful engine available on the market,

wrong

>Viper ACR

race car its irrelevant

a car half its price from BMW makes a mockery of its interior and engineering anyway

File: medium_1974-mercedes-benz-280-pictures-cargurus.jpg (116KB, 640x420px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 640x420px

>>16427051
People are allowed to have different definitions of luxury you know.

What's even more mind-blowing is that a well-reasoned philosophy of what luxury consists of can be equally as valid as another well-reasoned well-thought-out definition of luxury

Luxury really isn't one-size-fits-all despite what Mercedes might tell us

>>16424718

>engines from the worst performing era of the American auto industry

>do cam, aluminum heads, high rise intake, tuned 4 barrel and high flow air cleaner
>easily pushing 400hp

File: stellacad.jpg (79KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x540px

>>16426982
had a 79 coupe deville. 425 with like 190 hp, but massive torque. leather interior, that thing was god tier comfy

>>16427118
I had a 1979 Sedan DeVille d'Elegance. I loved that car. I used to commute 75 miles each way in it for a while never gave me any problems always smooth always comfortable

>>16427064
Over engineering isn't good engineering.

>>16427173
under engineering isnt good engineering either

>>16427148
really miss mine, had to get rid of her this year due to the frame looking like swiss cheese

File: 1483507981762.jpg (70KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 680x510px

>>16427225

You're hardly qualified to decide what is over or under-engineered, so why are you wasting everyone's time by cluttering the board with your ignorance?

Wait, don't answer; I already know why. See pic related.

>>16427278
the irony

>>16426841
Skymeme 2l > 1.5l turbo

>>16424721
wut
https://www.ford.com/performance/gt350/