So are we all agreed: I6>V6>V8>V12>V10>anything

>>17517456
Inline 6 is twice as long as a V6, it's a lot heavier, packages like shit, gets your center of gravity way forward (in front engined cars), is impossible to mount transversely (unless you add twin turbos and Scandinavian gnome magic). Objectively speaking, it's shit.

Subjectively, BMW and Mercedes should stick to them because muh heritage, and they sound pretty good. Also, I6 is sex in motorcycles.
>tfw no MV Agusta F6

>>17517456
Frogposters need to gb2/b.

I4 vtec>any other engine

I3 should have been above V6.

File: Mercury Gray-U17-79,78,77-640-en_US.jpg (64KB, 640x480px)

64KB, 640x480px

>>17518109

>>17517482
My 280ZX has perfect weight distribution with an iron block L28E

File: ffb90ecada58f2e84a22f763eb6db7fd.jpg (406KB, 800x1152px)

406KB, 800x1152px

I6>V8>V6>V10>V12>I4
Unless you're a shitcunt, ofcourse.

>>17517456
I6>v12>v10>v6>v8 I love all but that's just personal order, I like v8s, it's just that order

>>17517456
V10 > I6 > Everything else > High revving V8

I personally like to break it down a bit

NA: V8, I4, V6, I6, everything else

FI: V8, I6, V6, I4, everything else

The v8 personally comes out on top in each category because of the LS and Coyote. These two engines are works of art by their respective companies and they really don't do much wrong at all. The I6 makes a huge jump when boosted beaches of the 2jz, everyone knows about that and it doesn't really need an introduction. The 3.5 ecoboost is a jack of all trades, and can fit a ton of applications.

>>17517456
Agreed


>>17518229
I would switch V8 and V6, hate how V6's sound but otherwise I agree

>>17517482
From an engineering standpoint yeah it's harder to package but actually plenty of I6 bimmers have perfect weight distribution. As a driver I would never want a V6 over an I6 but as an engineer I would much rather work with a V6

>>17517456
Super charged cross plane v8 > Cross plane V8 > V12 > flat plane v8 > v10 > I6 > who cares > turbo anything > boxer 4s

>>17518256
I agree on everything except v8 vs i6 forced induced.

Turbo i6 is the best engine configuration there is.

Rotary>Anything else

>>17517456
>le inline 6 meme
Explain. It's impossible to fit in any practical situation and sucks down twice as much gas as a V6 while delivering only slightly more torque.

>>17518449
This

V8 and V6 are equal
>>17518449
>>17518498
kys rotorcuck

File: listen_to_this.webm (878KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

878KB, 1920x1080px

>>17518505
>his car has pistons

>>17518461
wrong, I6 engines neither generate more torque nor use more fuel than a V6. You can design them to perform identically

>>17518461
>sucks down twice as much gas as a V6

lel you for real?

>6 cylinders
>ever

>>17518595
>he rates an engine by it's sound or number of cylinder rather than it's power, reliability and easiness to work on
kys retard

>>17518631
>he wants an engine that sounds like shit

File: 1424092151894.jpg (85KB, 454x453px)

85KB, 454x453px

>>17518641
>hurr hurr sound
I like a nice sounding engine but if you're gonna avoid a huge group of extremely well performing engines because 'muh sound' youre beyond retarded
I await your SEETHING reply which I will NOT be answering

>>17518679
im not bad, because im right

sound is a huge part of driving, a shit engine sound can ruin a whole car.

The ATS-V is completely ruined because it sounds like shit even though its one of the most glorious cars ever built.

>>17518693
i wasnt planning on replying but i will: ur a moran

>>17517456
V10>I5>3 rotor>4 rotor>V12>I6>I4>V4>V6>V8>i3

>>17518706
seething

>>17517456
I6>V8>V6>V10>I5>I3>V12
>>17518693
>CEL light on
>overheating
>cracked exhaust
>400hp out of a 5.7L engine
>everyone passing me
>see some guy in an ATS-V pass me, like clockwork
>465hp out of a 3.6L TT V6
>sounds like shit but
>it goes on it's way
>"y-yeah, at least my engine doesnt sound like that haha"
kys manchild
>>17518693
>>17518706
>>17518714
cease the samefaggotry

>>17518731
>overheating
sounds like an i6

>>17518731
>implying the check engine light is characteristic of inline 6 engines

big block understressed american v8s run forever

File: 1499703620775.gif (31KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x250px

Friendly reminder if your car needs anything bigger than an i4, it's too fat.

>>17518769
what about a flat 4

File: Lexus-LFA_Nurburgring-SEMA_2012-05-1680.jpg (506KB, 1680x1050px)

506KB, 1680x1050px

>>17518232
>>17518711
these guys get it

i6 for poorfags in civilized countries
v8 for people with money
v12 for richfags
i4 for thurdworld and small sportcars
i3 for yuropoors

>>17518711
dorito should be first

File: i5 ttrs.jpg (230KB, 822x463px)

230KB, 822x463px

the best sounding hairdressers car

>>17518207
>>17518357
>plenty of I6 bimmers have perfect weight distribution
>My 280ZX has perfect weight distribution
No they don't.

http://automotivethinker.com/chassis/stop-and-weight-a-5050-weight-distribution-is-not-optimal/

Perfect weight distribution for a RWD is somewhere between 55 and 65% on the rear wheels, 50/50 is a myth. More weight on the rear allows for better braking (because your rear brakes do more work), better corner exit (because more grip on the rear axle) and better corner entry rotation (because slight tendency towards oversteer).
50/50 is a myth perpetuated by car manufacturers that couldn't get their engines back far enough (probably unwilling to sacrifice interior room), or couldn't get their engines light enough. It hinges on mass centralisation, which you should always do as to minimise polar moment of inertia. However, a proper RWD car has it's mass well-centralised (packaged densely), yet mildly biased towards the rear. Preferably, all of that weight will be inside the axle lines.
Any car that has it's I6 swapped out for a V6 will have a more rearward-biased weight distribution, will have a lower polar moment of inertia, better grip and everything else I just listed.

>iron block L28E
Hello, understeer.

>>17518256
>The I6 makes a huge jump when boosted beaches of the 2jz
The 2JZ is a pigfat meme that causes terminal understeer (thank to it's I6 layout) and overweight cars (thanks to the iron block). It deserves to die.

NA : V12 > V8 > I6 > V10 > I4 > V6 >I3
Turbo : I6 > V6 > V8 > I5 > I4 > V12

No

NA: V8>V10>I6>V12>I4>V6
Forced Induc: I6>V8>I5>V12>V10>V6

>>17517482
Yea it's pretty cool just knowing you're behind an i6 but from a tuners point of view the camshafts are so long in the i6 that they get wobble and can score the journals easily compared to v configured engines

>>17517456
V8 above anything else. Troll harder.

>>17517456
>>17520821
>>17520834
>>17518256
All of you are idiots, the I6 is bottom feeder tier.

>>17518186
>>17518109

I'm really shocked the G4 mirage doesn't sell better if I had to get any new car and it wasn't the golf r I would get one of these.

>inb4 can't go diesel gets way to cold where I live and I'm not buzzing the ether life 4 times a week half the year

>>17520839
>they get wobble and can score the journals easily compared to v configured engines
Even worse, you can break your cam in half if you don't torque it down evenly.

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

>>17517482
>Mercedes 300CE uses physically large I6
>51/49 weight distro
>Still has tons of legroom and a double firewall.
Your argument is not universally applicable.

>>17520821
this is correct

>>17521144
>Your argument is not universally applicable.
It is though. With a V6, it would have a better weight distribution - further backwards, which is good for a RWD vehicle (see >>17520807).
Also, the 300CE is pretty damn pigfat, since it was made in a time when Mercedes still made tanks. It's a roomy, heavy coupé with a long wheelbase, so of course it has great amounts of legroom. Since it's wheelbase is only 3 inches shorter than the sedan/wagon W124, they can cram the I6 further backwards compared to the front axle, which results in a reasonable weight distribution. However, a V6 might have actually been short enough to stay behind the front axle, making it almost, if not completely front mid-engined. This would greatly improve the handling characteristics, and would leave engineers a lot more playing room to work on crash protection. There's a reason they went to a V6 with the W211 - although that car wasn't nearly on the same engineering level.

>>17520846
In an NA application, I agree. That's why I put it towards the bottom of my list. Once you introduce a turbo (I prefer a turbo to sc on I6) it's an incredibly good system. However I still think it's inferior to some boosted V8s, like a turbo ls, or sc Coyote.

>>17521642
>Once you introduce a turbo (I prefer a turbo to sc on I6) it's an incredibly good system.
No, the turbo's don't fix any of the packaging issues. It's still shit in boosted form. Inferior to a TT V6 in most if not every single case.

There is not thing that a boosted I6 does, that a boosted V6 can't do better.

File: 1jzbaby jesus2.png (745KB, 858x537px) Image search: [Google]

745KB, 858x537px

>>17517456
L6 1JZ VVT-i master race
non VVT-i plebs pls go

>>17521694
Anon, we're discussing engines here, not iron boat anchors.

I1>all

I5 > everything

>>17521645
Yes, being smaller.

>>17521744
The V6 is smaller though. Literally half the length, while being only a bit wider. This is much better for packaging anyways, since your engine bay is (nearly) square in most cases.

Also, the shorter length is much better for vehicle dynamics (less understeer in a front-engined vehicle), static weight distribution and mass centralisation.

>>17517456
Where are 5cyls ?

V8>I6>V12>V10>V6>I4>I3

>>17521744
you know except for have way better balance, naturally stronger bottom ends, only 2 cams versus 4 and sound way better I6>V6

File: Wankel_Cycle_anim_en.gif (365KB, 240x320px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 240x320px

>>17518449
Yes

>>17522749
you forgot the apex seals coming out on the exhaust part

>>17522737
MUH

File: 1499667322384.jpg (173KB, 640x640px)

173KB, 640x640px

I6>V8>I3>V12>V10>I4>V6

debate me, shitcunts

>>17522830
Finally someone with some sense.

>>17522830
V12 > I6 > V8 > I5 > V10 > I4 > V6 > I3

File: 1932 Miller-Burden Roadster V16 4WD left front partial BW.jpg (103KB, 800x585px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x585px

>>17517456
V16? Twin Cam? AWD?

>>17522830
There's no debate, that is true

>>17522830

this is what the perfect woman looks like

>>17517456
Ecoboost>power gap>everything else.

V10>V8>I6>V6=I5>I4

Since V12 is it's own ridiculous thing it's separate. Also excluded is FI. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fanboy, benchracer, or both.

>>17517456
NA:V12,V8,I6,V10,I3
Turbo:V8,V6,I5,I6,I4
SC;V8,V10,I4,V6

>>17524126
I can support this

>>17522745
>better internal balance
Irrelevant in modern engines
>Stronger bottom end
Actually no, since the webbing in a V6 overlaps more.
>Only 2 cams vs 4
2 cams which are twice the length, which is actually a construction liability. See >>17520851.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HltHVmQXeyo
>Sound better
Completely subjective, although most people will agree with you. Too bad sound doesn't make anything go faster.

high revving V8

that's all

>>17526373
>>17526566
Was this thread REALLY worth a bump?

>>17518711
I'm gonna cry man, my I5 got some love <333

Straight 8