|
ilkhan posted:The 2.7EB is a factory 400HP (in 3.0L trim) motor. The 3.5EB is a factory 650HP (GT) motor. I know the GT has some differences, but its similar enough. There are 2 generations of the 3.5l. The 2nd generation debuts with the 2017 trucks and the GT, and has port and direct injection. It's not the same engine as the old 3.5l. Wheeee posted:I'm just waiting for GM to say gently caress it and throw twin turbos on the small block. GM already has two (2) turbo 3.6l V6s, a 420 hp and a 464hp with titanium rods. "Not enough varieties of engines" has historically not been a problem at GM. Between the turbo V6, V8 and supercharged V8 I think they've got all possible applications covered.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
3.6L is a car engine though. A twin turbo 5.3L or hell even a 4.3L would be comically insane. The 4.3L with any performance orientation with TT's would double its horsepower. 5.3L with basic effort get to 800hp for everyone doing swaps. Getting efficiency would be interesting. If they brought back the short crank 4.8L and put it on a bigger bore 6.2L and twin turbo it you could really have some equally nuts high revving thing. 4.8L crank in a 6.0L is around 332 cubic inches and 7500rpm redline for safety is standard thought. 5.3L with 20 psi 1092hp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so20on3hlJE Christobevii3 fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
The supercharged 6.2l is already more than enough power for any possible high power application without the need to rev a pushrod 2v engine that usually tops out at 6000 to 7500. What purpose would that serve?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
It would sound awesome
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:It would sound awesome My old man shifted the cam and headers LS1 in his last Camaro at about 6800. Can confirm it sounded loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
You could make the twin scroll turbo not come on until after 4000rpm to goose the epa testing. Also pushes the torque curve up higher in the rpm for safety of not bending rods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:There are 2 generations of the 3.5l. The 2nd generation debuts with the 2017 trucks and the GT, and has port and direct injection. It's not the same engine as the old 3.5l. I don't think the new/old 3.5s are that different in size. I was only addressing the weight difference between the 2.7EB and the 3.5EB/3.5EB-II.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:You could make the twin scroll turbo not come on until after 4000rpm to goose the epa testing. Also pushes the torque curve up higher in the rpm for safety of not bending rods. driveability is stupid anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:driveability is stupid anyway That sounds like a part throttle concern, so it's irrelevant. You should be launching around 4k anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:driveability is stupid anyway -Porsche AG engineering department, circa 1974
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Pfft 3200-4000 rpm stall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:Pfft 3200-4000 rpm stall. There's a Z28 on Craigslist right now that isn't even a full bolt on car but it has a 4k stall. The gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Video is in spanish, but you'll get the point... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCEthdH7iYw :alltheeyepopsmilieshere:
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
I'm not kidding when I say that everyone in Detroit (hint) says not to buy a Chrysler.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Video is in spanish, but you'll get the point... I don't get it? What's the point?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I don't get it? What's the point? If you want to rip fat stoppies, buy a Jeep Renegade!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Jeeps can enter motorcycle stunt contests
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
The first time I wizzed through the video and only saw the footage of the ones that don't have the problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Ive said it before and ill say it again, the day FCA decides to go all-in on autonomous vehicles is the day i apply to law school so i can get in on some of that sweet lawsuit cash and retire by 50. They certainly make some cool stuff but as a company i have no idea how they remain in business. also Max Warburton is a personal hero of mine. http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2015/04/29/fiat-chrysler-ceo-analyst-spar-over-industry-consolidation-in-earnings-call/ Mariana Horchata fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Mariana Horchata posted:i have no idea how they remain in business.  The US and Canadian governments bailed them out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Also Jeep.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Definitely Jeep. At least they seem to be aware of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
How has no one else brought this issue up? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
The new G60 5-series supposedly only comes with the manual on the lovely diesel version. Also looks absolutely enormous. http://www.autoblog.com/2016/10/12/2017-bmw-5-series-revealed/
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The new G60 5-series supposedly only comes with the manual on the lovely diesel version. Also looks absolutely enormous. I'm amazed it hasn't completely bloated to 7-Series proportions. Then again, the 7-Series is pretty big, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
This should surprise absolutely no one but as it turns out very small capacity turbos aren't all they're cracked up to be: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-paris-engines-exclusive-idUSKBN12E11K Leaving emissions aside in my own experience the little TSI Golfs and turbo Cruze and similar can't get even close to their test economy figures in real world usage, whereas my larger Mazda with a larger n/a engine is pretty much spot on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
The 7 series is 207 inches long. The new BMW G30 5 series is 194 inches long (1 inch longer than previous F10) and around 150 lbs lighter. No manual transmissions, but non-run flat tires and a spare are an option at least! lol If they can tighten the steering feel back up near pre-electric levels that will help a lot as well. It looks like they added the extra length to the now more sloping nose. 540 turbo 6 is 355 hp and 0-60 in 4.7. http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=934934 
Keyser_Soze fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
dissss posted:This should surprise absolutely no one but as it turns out very small capacity turbos aren't all they're cracked up to be: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-paris-engines-exclusive-idUSKBN12E11K Well, nothing left to do but jack the boost way up and boil the tires on those failed econoboxes. They need to live their best lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
dissss posted:This should surprise absolutely no one but as it turns out very small capacity turbos aren't all they're cracked up to be: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-paris-engines-exclusive-idUSKBN12E11K It's been known forever, but now that it's known the tests can be changed and hopefully manufacturers will go back to putting real engines in things. I can't imagine Honda is happy about this coming up right after they finally bit the bullet on small turbos, but Toyota, Mazda, and GM must be laughing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:It's been known forever, but now that it's known the tests can be changed and hopefully manufacturers will go back to putting real engines in things. OTOH, my Fiat Spider has a 1.4L turbo and is rated at 36 highway, 25 city - and that's almost exactly what it gets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:OTOH, my Fiat Spider has a 1.4L turbo and is rated at 36 highway, 25 city - and that's almost exactly what it gets. Yeah but it's a worse handling uglier Miata soooooo
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:OTOH, my Fiat Spider has a 1.4L turbo and is rated at 36 highway, 25 city - and that's almost exactly what it gets. I'd bet an MX-5 would do slightly better given the same usage despite its worse official figures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Did you guys know they made a BMW X4? I must have seen it a lot, but always thought it was an X6 until I saw the badge today. http://www.bmwblog.com/2015/03/05/bmw-x4-vs-bmw-x6-whats-the-right-choice-for-you/ It's been around since 2014?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
^^^ "What's the right choice"? X6 if you're an rear end in a top hat, X4 if you're a poor rear end in a top hat? dissss posted:This should surprise absolutely no one but as it turns out very small capacity turbos aren't all they're cracked up to be: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-paris-engines-exclusive-idUSKBN12E11K dissss posted:I'd bet an MX-5 would do slightly better given the same usage despite its worse official figures. That's the word on the street, at least, but it's hard to find any reliable confirmation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
dissss posted:I'd bet an MX-5 would do slightly better given the same usage despite its worse official figures. They have different transmissions, the MX5 is almost certainly geared more aggresively, and the whole Skyactive thing is a package of both engine and transmission, both auto and manual. Mazda wasn't going to sell that to FIAT so the FIAT still uses the NC's transmission which is presumably less efficient. Wheeee posted:I can't imagine Honda is happy about this coming up right after they finally bit the bullet on small turbos, but Toyota, Mazda, and GM must be laughing. Toyota and Mazda are fine but GM is all in on small engines, all their cars like the Malibu and Cruze have like 1.5l turbos as the top engine now. It never made any sense to me anyway because all the Ford and GM turbo engines never actually got any better fuel economy than Toyota or Mazda NA engines even on the EPA test.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
dissss posted:I'd bet an MX-5 would do slightly better given the same usage despite its worse official figures. To achieve that mileage, Mazda had to detune their engine to produce less horsepower and substantially less torque than a 40% smaller engine. I'll admit the Fiat engine is kind of a dog less than about 2500 RPM, but once the boost comes on it kicks all kinds of rear end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:To achieve that mileage, Mazda had to detune their engine to produce less horsepower and substantially less torque than a 40% smaller engine. The Miata is also cheaper, weighs less, handles better, and despite being down on power is quicker in every way. I mean it's a neat car, but I just don't see the point of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
iwentdoodie posted:The Miata is also cheaper, weighs less, handles better, and despite being down on power is quicker in every way. They're priced almost the same. The Fiat does weigh a bit more. The Fiat generally handles better due to less body roll. The Fiat was actually quicker around a course where they swapped tires with a Miata to make everything equal. The Miata feels quicker because the back end breaks loose easier and it requires more input from the driver constantly. The Fiat has a better suspension and a better engine. It's more comfortable, quieter, and refined. It's the better car in my completely unbiased and objective opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wFuuAfYdnw Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Oct 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
iwentdoodie posted:The Miata is also cheaper, weighs less, handles better, and despite being down on power is quicker in every way. Pretty much every review out there about the Fiata and especially the Abarth model have begrudgingly said its as good or better when it comes to handling despite the extra weight. Also that its engine is much more enjoyable for day to day driving if not when being wrung out on a track.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
kill me now posted:Pretty much every review out there about the Fiata and especially the Abarth model have begrudgingly said its as good or better when it comes to handling despite the extra weight. Also that its engine is much more enjoyable for day to day driving if not when being wrung out on a track. It is surprising how different the cars are despite coming off the same assembly line and sharing most of the same parts. They will have rather different appeals and neither is clearly "better" than the other by any objective criteria. They're just alternate takes on the concept. The Fiat connected with me in a way the Mazda never did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:24
|
|