Is there a such thing like economical V8? I'm looking to

>>17041665
It's called a turbo m8. Some fiestas crank out 300hp reliably with over 30mpg. Obviously not the same as driving n/a, but turbos have come a long way since the 90's

install LPG system
profit

>>17041665
the engine,assuming its not massively powered, isn't really what determines mpg in a car. it is the car, the gearing, and the driver.

a pontiac g8 gxp (6.2 liter) gives 13 city, 23 or so highway.

>>17041665
Why did Mitsubishi ditch the VR design?
>dat Galant that followed the last VR

>>17041665
C5 Corvette gets 25mpg if you don't hammer it everywhere.

File: 1472215619729_eightbit.jpg (1MB, 1834x1211px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1834x1211px

>>17041665
If you want economy buy a fucking prius. Otherwise man the fuck up and deal with it

>>17041665

You can only choose between lots of fuel, or lots of pussy, it very unlikely to have both

>>17041755
why would he buy a prius
a 15 year old merc can get 40mpg outside city and around 33-35 city and is way more comfortable than a shitty ass prius or even some new muscle cars
ofc I am not talking about some v8 but a small I4 diesel

>>17041684
>turbo is now considered an economical option

what a strange times we live in

economical v8.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUrmrvS8hAc&app=desktop

>>17041786
Well the downside is that you need a more robust engine, but the FiST comes with forged rods (Only cast Pistons though). Their new i3 has 120hp for 1L of displacement, which is the same or higher HP/Litre ratio as a Hypercar. Obviously it's more economical to not use a turbo, but you're actually replacing displacement with forced induction. (Inb4 no replacement for displacement)

>>17041764
>I am not talking about some v8 but a small I4 diesel
where are you from?

>>17041786
Factory turbos have been for economy in the last 10-15 years. Why do you think NA cars are dying out?

>>17041684
>30mpg
If you never use the turbo.
You know literally nothing about engines.

>>17042440
>NA cars are dying out.
lulwewlad

>>17042449
Most of the gains are going to be low throttle highway cruising and idling. The law of internal combustion engines is that there must be an additional proportionate amount of gasoline for any extra air entered into the engine whether it's more displacement, more cylinders, or forced induction. Too lean or too rich of Air/fuel ratio will kill performance or the engine

>>17042449
Yes if you floor it constantly you don't get 30 mpg, thank you captain obvious. A turbo i4 weighs less than a v8, so you get the benefits of a light i4 at cruising speeds but you still have good acceleration.

>>17041665
Get a v6 fourth gen f body and swap in a 4.8 lr4, with a t56 I can promise you'll get more or less better mileage than your mitsu

>>17042564
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos
Turbos generally don't increase MPG's

>>17041665
Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong gearing

>>17043009
You're a fucking idiot. I'm not saying slapping a turbo on something makes it more fuel efficient. I'm saying using a i4 with a turbo is more fuel efficient than using a v6 or v8, while preserving some horsepower.

>>17041786
Turbos are more fuel efficient than na nowadays you mongloid.

you either want a v8 and all the shit that comes with it or you dont
stop being a cuck

YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

>>17043034
>didn't read the article
There are a lot of instances where a V6 is more fuel efficient that a i4 turbo, you ironic faggot

>>17041665
There is no such thing as a "economical v8", but there are alot of shitty V8s.. If you want an economic car dont go for a V8.
Also, nice car m8. I had one of those, it was bullet proof, but also it was the most drunk car ive ever owned, worst than the Volvos

>>17043304
>There is no such thing as a "economical v8"
*deep breath* wrong
A 1999 Jeep Wrangler gets less than 20mpg, and 1999 C5 Corvette gets 25mpg.
Wouldn't that v8 be economical given the context?

>>17041665
6.2 detroit
>diesel
>20+mpg city and highway
>still able to cruise
>nice low end
>reliable
>plenty of power
it's the perfect engine

>>17041665
Something lightweight with a v8 and a tall overdrive like a Corvette.

get a V8 landbarge from the 90's/00's.

something like a early-mid 00's Panther or 90's GM B-Body.

the standard at the time was 15/25.

Ive got an '03 Grand Marquis and I get about 14.5 mpg in NY

that said if you want a V8, then you also need to be ok with the fact that they are just not meant to be economical.

that said, despite 14mpg, I can go about 2-3 weeks between gas stops, despite being my daily. I dont "top up", though. I have a digidash and it tells my how many miles ive got left in the tank, and I might let it get fairly low sometimes.

>>17043357
When compared to the majority of cars a V8 is not an economical choice.

File: IMG_4505.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>17041665
My 2002 C5 averages 19-20mpg.

>>17045185
Also, it drives sideways. Defying gravity.

>>17041665
if you're doing city miles, it ain't gonna happen. if you highway commute there are many options that have been covered in this thread.

Diesel? A small diesel car has the same torque as an american truck or 'muscle' car

>>17045240
is this what Euros tell themselves to feel better?

I average about 21.5 mpg in my ISF, but I do 60/40 highway/city. Pure highway, I averaged 27 mpg on a tank once.

I engage in the occasional act of hooliganism (the car sounds great about 3700rpm), but as long as you're not gunning it at every stop light, that 8 speed automatic will help you get really good mpg.

Vettes and Camaros also get good MPGs if you get a non-supercharged version.

>>17045246
Unrestricted older 2.2 honda accords have 348lb ft of torque

Even a Auris has 150ft of torque at around 2,000rpm

File: IMG_1250.jpg (27KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 443x332px

>>17041854
>Same power per litre as a hypercar

Probably bait but I'll bite
A few issues with this statement
>1L
>turbo that adds probably .05L of effective displacement under boost
>120 hp from 1.5L
Isn't that kinda shit? Motorbikes and hondas make better hp/L na

Also
>hyper car
>Agera r
>5.0L
>1300hp
That's more like it (albeit it makes this with an effective displacement of 22L under boost)

>>17045384
Um what how the fuck did they make that? 20psi of boost?

>>17042564
Weight doesn't matter when not accelerating, only friction does. A smaller engine is more efficient because of the reduced drivetrain friction.

>>17043184
Anything can be more efficient than anything if driven the right way. It could be a comparison of a lady driving a v6 Camry and my neighbor driving is turbo s15. They both make the same power but if my neighbor wasn't a fuckwit he could get very good economy out of it.
As in >>17042449 my tt 300zx gets better economy than my buddy's v8 commodore dispite making the same power if I stay off boost

>>17041665
As the consensus seems to be op I would say a vette

>>17045158
It's the only choice.

>>17041665
yes a ls1 with 3.08 or 2.97 or lower rear end will give you good MPG but will sacrifice alot of acceleration in the mid-low end rev range

i get 5-10l on the highway and good gas milage around town

>drive a midsize 4cyl sedan
>get 21mpg

I fell for the 4cyl maymay.

>>17045657
>commodore
>Australian
Oy. So that's why you're a blazing cunt.

>>17042440
Turbos have been a thing for 40 years, not 10-15.

File: b9fe8038c90fd6eeadc9f51bcb2e3aee.jpg (53KB, 736x414px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 736x414px

>>17041759
True. My Tacoma would light up like a mobile crime scene. The Yaris, not so much.

>>17048234
Economy turbos haven't though. In the 80s and most of the 90s, the Turbo cars were very performance oriented, especially as opposed to nowadays, where every shitbox and their mother has some kind of turbo.

>>17048381
Which then means it only requires a software change to boost performance on a shitbox.
Why would people be against that?

File: IMG_20170312_101542_01.jpg (4MB, 2610x4640px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2610x4640px

I get about 15 city, 23 highway with my LS2 CTS-V

>>17048405
Personally? Because pushing 200hp/L doesn't feel safe, and I'd rather drive a big displacement NA than a small displacement Turbo, but that's just me.

No one was really arguing for or against it, someone was just claiming that Turbos being the economical option was something new.

>>17048405
The modern turbo are tiny and the engines aren't built for performance.

> 2017 elantra

Tiny fucking gas tank. Can only fit about $40 of gas. Fuel ecomomy is good (not great) but im ALWAYS at a gas station.

Fucking kikes give us free energy already

>>17048414
>>17048425
Modern engines with modern surface engineering processes and factory turbos will take turbo better than older n/a engines.

You don't have to boost the tits off it but getting a noticeable performance increase without sacrificing reliability is much easier today.

>>17048478
No

>>17048542
Yes

File: 1478179409282.png (330KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 600x450px

Such lack of knowledge in this thread.

Dobrze, że widać z kim mam do czynienia.

Audi 3.7, 4.2l w A6, A8, V8 (chociaż zalecam od razu swap hamulców w V8, UFO to chuj)
BMW E38, E39 3.5l
Mercedes W210 4.2l
Lexus LS400, GS400 4.0
ostatecznie Cadillac Seville 4.6l

Nie oczekuj cudów w miescie, ale poza miastem spalanie powinno być w tych autach całkiem OK.

Buy a v6 camaro, change the exhaust, add SS badge :D

>>17047598
LOL my 6cyl diesel makes 280hp and still gets better mpgs

>>17048649
:D

>>17048567
Whatever helps you sleep at night

>>17048022
Do they even have 300zx twin turbos in Australia? Idk

My buddy has a Challenger rt that has an economic mode on it and got 24mpg average. Best I've seen on those things.

>>17048410
>skip shift
lmfao

File: IMG_20170327_154221.jpg (3MB, 4640x2610px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4640x2610px

>>17049487
It's never happened to me. Previous owner must have disabled it

>>17043009
They do off boost. New technologies like water injection and cooled EGR will allow for much better on boost fuel economy by reducing detonation.

Turbo engines are the way of the future. Just will be more complicated than what we were hoping for.

>>17049991
>water injection
Having a water tank to refill would be an inconvenience most people wouldn't like.
I don't think turbos are going to be better than hybrids. Hybrids seem to be a much more likely "way of the future," especially with F1 using energy recovery systems in their cars. But they also use turbos so lol i guess we'll see.

File: 144328459282.gif (2MB, 180x272px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 180x272px

>>17041833

LMAO

the engine disintegrated in that video?

>>17049991
>new technologies like water injection
>new
>water injection
for a production car, yes but water or meth injection has been very common since the 60s in drag racing

>>17041665
That's your galant?
Totally unmolested and clean as fuck
10/10 would not v8

If you buy a V8 expecting anything resembling good mileage you're an apocalyptic retard.

Just recently sold a Grand Marquis and bought a Civic, have yet to get lower than 29 mpg even with 4 people in the car and a loaded trunk, feels good man.