The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Why do people spend $60k on an Audi with a 6-cylinder engine?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 25th, 2017 7:46 PM Author: turquoise stain striped hyena or $40k on one with 4-cylinders? this literally doesn't make any sense (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700157) |
 |
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:14 PM Author: 180 saffron knife $60k for a 4 cyl BMW or Benz these days too lol.
TBF they have plenty of power and you're somewhat insulated from the I-4 vibration/noise but at that price a car should be 180 not 160. Benz and Audi V6s sucked ass anyway and BMW lets you pay to get their smooth I-6.
Problem is these brands sell no economy cars in the US. CAFE laws require they hit some target for average corporate fuel economy or pay fines/taxes. Brands like Toyota can sell Corollas to offset their guzzling V8 Lexuses, but MB and BMW can't. |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:14 PM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes 320i starts at 34K (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700295) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:19 PM Author: 180 saffron knife 528i with reasonable options or E300 is easily over $60k. Both have 2 liter I-4 engines running lots of boost. lmao at some old businessman driving down the highway with a juiced up tuner engine like he's in a Lancer Evo or WRX. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700322) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:53 PM Author: geriatric box office I think about this every time i see them.... they have no idea they are pedro driving the WRX (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708050) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:25 AM Author: Arousing telephone fortuitous meteor BMW sells mini basically just for CAFE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701639) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 8:56 AM Author: 180 saffron knife I thought it was so they'd have a brand for the growing gay market. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702353) |
Date: February 25th, 2017 7:49 PM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes To prove they're not bigoted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700175) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 7:51 PM Author: alcoholic bistre parlor generalized bond Those V6s and I4s have the same hp as (or more than) a V8 a generation or two ago, respectively. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700191) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:12 PM Author: Razzmatazz Hairy Legs My V8 Lexus has torque for days (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32703432) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:54 PM Author: domesticated bearded lettuce Ljl brother my v8 pontiac g8 dynos at 365rwhp 382rwtq with long tube headers, cold air intake and a tune (thats around 420ish hp at the crank). I would destroy any v6 or i4 audis. Are they running mid 12s in the 1/4? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32705516) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:19 PM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes the B5 S4 with a tune would.
Edit: shame they killed the G8. Also shame the GTO didn't stick around. They were both cool cars. |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 7:55 PM Author: Judgmental dysfunction V8s are disappearing fast. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700211) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 7:55 PM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes very sad! I've never owned one. Feel I should get a m3 or s5 (old one w v8) while I still can. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700216) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:21 PM Author: 180 saffron knife The old V8 M3 was an awesome car.
Fuck Audis. Very nose heavy and ponderous cars to drive. Somehow their owners manage to be even more up their own ass than BMW owners. |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:51 PM Author: Hairraiser milk area what makes a car "ponderous" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700800) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:33 AM Author: Arousing telephone fortuitous meteor Vague steering, soft suspension. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701662) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:50 AM Author: Coiffed address You mean electric strering and soft suspension are somehow bad for a sedan? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701719) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:40 AM Author: Motley orchestra pit I've never owned anything else (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702235) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 10:39 PM Author: Very tactful step-uncle's house Buy the last panamera GTS while u still can. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701071) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:20 AM Author: Coiffed address You r retarded and never post about cars again you fucktard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701625) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 7:59 PM Author: trip ocher dog poop antidepressant drug The 1.8T is a solid motor in the right hands, can make some sick power with a tune and a downpipe. Of course they're better in a lighter weight VW, but Audis can be great if done correctly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700226) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:25 AM Author: Arousing telephone fortuitous meteor Until they shoot a spark plug through the hood. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701641) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:34 AM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes Also had sludge issues IIRC (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701668) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 7:59 PM Author: Electric center codepig social signaling. it's about "i drive an expensive import, therefore i have more value as a person than all of you don't." lol at thinking any of those people care or know about the number of cylinders. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700227) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:05 PM Author: chartreuse soul-stirring persian cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700248) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:07 PM Author: alcoholic bistre parlor generalized bond There is no need for a 450hp car in America if you aren't tracking it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700254) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:15 PM Author: chartreuse soul-stirring persian huh? there's no "need" for a luxury car either. what's your point? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700299) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:32 PM Author: alcoholic bistre parlor generalized bond Luxury is better for NHV. V8 vs V6 doesn't change anything when you're doing a steady 75 on the freeway for 90% of your driving. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700393) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:34 PM Author: trip ocher dog poop antidepressant drug Patently untrue. NVH characteristics are totally different for a V8 vs a V6 vs I6 vs I4. I6 or V12 are the ideal luxury car engines but nobody will make these anymore. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700403) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:38 PM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes BMW still uses the inline six for everything. 3L Turbo, 300-365 hp (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700438) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:43 PM Author: 180 saffron knife Mercedes is going to bring back to the I-6 and Jaguar as well.
All these cars used to have an inline six, XJ6, E300, 535i, GS300... IMO it's the best engine layout for a mid-size RWD luxury car. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:41 AM Author: Motley orchestra pit Rolls Royce makes a v12, but you'll still hear the argument in this bort that "oh its just a BMW motor" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702236) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 8:25 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native To be fair, this oversimplifies things. Ignores forced air induction. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32706494) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:40 PM Author: 180 saffron knife I6s are smoother than V8s even. 6-cylinder engines are ok.
The latest trend is putting 4 bangers in even mid sized luxury cars. What a joke. They shake like a paint mixer. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:21 AM Author: Coiffed address Go drive a 718 Cayman and report back. Before than shut your mouth. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701628) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:34 PM Author: trip ocher dog poop antidepressant drug flat 4 != inline 4. Try again. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707171) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:46 PM Author: Coiffed address My point is that 4-cylinders can be made to be relatively rumble/vibration free. Do you disagree? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707270) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:17 AM Author: Coiffed address Yer an idiot.
You can actually be efit from lixury day to day. Nicer leather feels good and features like heated seats and steering wheel and 18 way memory seats greatly improve the experience of being trapped in gridlock traffic.
There is NO way you can EVER benefit from 450hp going 0-60 in 4 seconds outside of Arizona or Montana without reckelessly endangering other people and commiting a felony. If you are not tracking, a high HP car is actually worse than something like a Miata or S2000. It is more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:36 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant I take limited issue with your assertion, to the extent it disregards the power band of engines. There is a world of difference between a high revving engine that produces 450 hp at an absurdly high RPM and an engine, that just so happens to produce 450 hp that has gobs of low end torque. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701674) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:54 AM Author: Coiffed address Most modern day 4s and 6s have relatively linear power bands and top out around 10k rpms give or take. You pccasionnaly get some gimmicky sports modes or Vtec to play around with but for the most part the name of the game is linear and effeciency. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701733) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:56 AM Author: chartreuse soul-stirring persian >top out around 10k rpms
are you fucking retarded? |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:59 AM Author: Coiffed address I used a round even number. Want me to say 9000 or 8000? 8000 is plain wrong and 9000 is still wrong for sports cars since they push 10k.
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/a77b4v9/
Go fuck yourself. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:56 AM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes lol 10K rpm? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701742) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 1:00 AM Author: Coiffed address Go fuck yourself.
If you've never been behind the wheel of a Ferrari or an Atom just don't even pretend to know shit about cars and go back to your POS 5 seires.
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/a77b4v9/ |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 1:02 AM Author: chartreuse soul-stirring persian You said:
>Most modern day 4s and 6s have relatively linear power bands and top out around 10k rpms give or take.
...And then you posted a link to an article that does NOT represent "most modern days 4s and 6s," but instead represents a handful of the highest-revving engines of all time. You've got to be kidding me. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 1:04 AM Author: Coiffed address Reading comprehension fail. I said TOP OUT meaning precisely the "handful of the highest-revving engines of all time." Why the hell would I be talking about a Hyundai engine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701762) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 1:08 AM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes JFC just own your own poor writing. You said "MOST top out at.." This is analogous to me saying "Most lawyers' salary top out at $15 Million." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701774) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 1:10 AM Author: Coiffed address OK if I wasn't clear sorry, but clearly I wasn't saying Hyundai Sonatas are hitting 10K RPMS or your new Audi turbodiesel is approaching that level. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701781) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:26 PM Author: 180 saffron knife Yeah is this moron talking about motorcycles or something?
Very few cars even exotic sports cars make peak HP or even redline past 8k. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 4:13 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. My comment was extolling virtues of low-reving, powerful engines. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702121) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 4:40 AM Author: Coiffed address You are trying to make 1-to-1 correlations between torque/rpms/power and it's just not that simple. Lower-revs does not necessarily mean higher torque, it really depends on how the car was designed, its gear ratios, component/cost limitations, etc. The Corvette doesn't have a low revving high torque engine because the only way to get high torque was to make the engine turn slower.
(Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower
As you can see, torque and engine are two separate variables. Whereas engine speed is a relatively straightforward design input, torque on the other hand depends on MANY different factors. It's not a simple plug and play concept. For any given car, there are literally an infinite different combinations of designs to achieve a "X" number of torque or "Y" number of engine speed or "Z" number of horsepower. What combination you choose completely depends on cost, car platform and size/weight/comfort considerations. You can have a high revving low torque car (F1 cars have low torque for instance) be exactly the same speed around the Ring as a low revving high torque car.
Let me just copy and paste something for you:
"The physics to accelerate a 1000kg car to 30 m/s in 4 seconds (about 0-60, and no friction etc.): a = 7.5 m/s. F = m*a = 7500 N. D=1/2*a*t^2 = 60 meters. Work=force*distance = 60 * 7500 = 450,000 newton-meters. Power = work/time = 112.5kW = 151HP. Notice that torque is not part of the equation! The ability to do work is described by power! Power is, however, made by repeatedly applying torque. So a few hearty shoves of a big V8 or many small shoves in rapid succession from a free-revving engine - the only thing that matters is the TOTAL torque (torquexRPM) applied over a given timeframe.
It's a complete mistake to think the lower the rpm a torque figure comes in at, the better. No, the lower the operating range of the engine, the taller the gearing and the less rear wheel torque due to less multiplication of torque by the transmission.
What is beneficial, however, is maintaining a high percentage of peak torque over a wide range. The fact that this is beneficial confuses many into thinking that big torque numbers themselves at low rpm are promising, whereas in fact a 150 hp diesel is going to accelerate no better than another 150 hp motor no matter how high the torque figure.
Another related problem is virtually every source failing to consider effect of an engine's operating rpm range on the significance of the dynograph.
If hp or torque curves are overlayed onto the same rpm scale regardless of in fact having different operating ranges, then there's an appearance that the higher-revving, somewhat higher hp engine has "less power throughout the rev range" except at the very top. But this is illusion: the driver is not constrained to operate at identical rpms with different behaving engines and so in practice, at any given road speed the higher-revving engine is indeed revving higher. Instead probably the closest comparison, and certainly closer, is to compare at equal percent redline.
For example, let's compare a 250 hp diesel with a redline at 4000 with a 300 hp gas motor with a redline at 8000. The gas motor car can run gearing twice as short for same road speed. So at a given moment, it might be operating at say 4000 rpm when the diesel is operating at 2000 rpm.
So instead of saying "Oooh, look, the diesel has more torque at 2000 rpm" or "the diesel makes more hp at 4000 rpm than the gas engine does at 4000" the correct comparison is the gas engine's hp at 4000 vs the diesel's at 2000; or 8000 vs 4000, etc.
Then suddenly the theory matches practice: despite superstition of many regarding torque, hp proves the correct predictor of acceleration.
But how many people fail to account for taller gearing for slow-turning engines usually completely eliminating any advantage at the real world? Seemingly just about everyone everywhere, and just about every automotive writer, pretty much everyone." |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 8:55 AM Author: 180 saffron knife You're right and you're not.
You can always adjust torque at the wheels with gearing like you're saying, but drivability suffers especially if the torque curve is tilted toward higher RPMs instead of a flat/balanced torque curve. Nobody other than rice boys wants to rev their engine up just to get around town. High RPM -> More NVH. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:15 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant It's been a while since I have seen a poaster as confident in his opinions on a particular subject as that guy where the poaster clearly lacks even a basic understanding of the subject.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:18 PM Author: Coiffed address You haven't posted a single thing to prove me wrong. Until then, HTFH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32705286) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:22 PM Author: Coiffed address And you're missing the point that most modern cars have flat torque curves across the entire power band. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32705305) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:23 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant Your long rant/screed is entirely off the mark because: (1) I was comparing two engines that both produce 450 max hp but at different RPMS, and (2) your idiotic solution of "just do more gears, bro" ignores the fact that most people don't want to bang through 11 gears in their DD to reach 60 mph like an 18-wheeler. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32703120) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:21 PM Author: Coiffed address Uhm explain the trend in cars to have more gears. You really are out of touch with modern cars. Variable gears are the future of modern passenger cars. The new Lexus LC 500 has 10 gears, but it won't go through all 10 in "sport" or "sport plus" mode since it can be controlled by what mode you are in.
Anyone who has ever driven a manual knows you don't always have to shift gears sequentially, and the more gears you have, the more optionality you have and you can achieve greater efficiency. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:36 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant "Uhm explain the trend in cars to have more gears." EPA |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:55 AM Author: chartreuse soul-stirring persian You are truly worthy of a DeVry University degree.
A four-cylinder Audi A4 will never have the thrilling rumble or pin-you-to-your seat acceleration of the big V8s in the Camaro and Mustang. For people who care about acceleration, speed, handling and the sound and impression their car make, you actually CAN benefit from a big V8 on a day-to-day basis.
Also, leather and heated seats? Give me a fucking break, I can get those features on a Volkswagen Jetta. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 1:02 AM Author: Coiffed address Camaro and Mustang lol. Pathetic. Garbage ass "American muscle" prole tell.
I drive a 911, less than 400hp and I will drive circles around your Camaro on the track.
Where are your garbage Mustangs and Camaros on this list?
https://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times-top-100/
Garbage. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 4:16 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant Damn it, can't believe I fell for this flame. Is this Drunkard or Askav? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702127) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 4:17 AM Author: Coiffed address Why don't you try responding to facts? Not a single Mustang on the Ring's official 100 best times (OEM build and wheels required and they are all driven by factory test drivers). The Corvette and maybe Viper are basically the only decent sports cars to come out of American factories in the last 20 years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702130) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 4:20 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant That's not because ofor it's engine, dumbfuck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702134) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 4:21 AM Author: Coiffed address You really are slow you peasant ass.
Read the post I was responding to, kick yourself in the face and then report back. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:46 AM Author: Motley orchestra pit No offense bro but I saw a tv commercial selling porsches the other day. It's not an aspirational marque. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702238) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:50 PM Author: Coiffed address Porsche has jumped the shark recently. Decades of failure at the GT classes at Lemans, uninspired 991 and utter focus on selling Cayennes and Macans and Panameras. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32705476) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 1:21 PM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant LOL, you fucking gook. Did you read the list in your link?
What car has the 33rd and 46th fastest lap time? |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:34 PM Author: Coiffed address Not a Mustang you fuck. And congratulations, your V8 "American muscle car" is ranked 33rd and 46th, behind a slew of V6s. The Mustang/Camaro/Challengers are utter pieces of garbage, designed to give proles a "taste" of V8, nothing more. As I said earlier, the only decent American sports cars made in the last 2 decades are the Corvette and Viper, both fantastic cars. Mustang/Camaro/Challenger are entry-level sports cars, nothing more, and they suck balls.
"But but 'Murican V8" you sputtered, as Porsche and BMW slammed their big German cocks up your ass.
Pay to play motherfucker. |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:17 PM Author: 180 saffron knife These cars aren't flame because they're underpowered, they're flame because inline-4s can never be smooth and they have complex turbo systems that will break down. Just to squeeze 1-2 MPG out on the EPA test that you'll never see in IRL driving unless you drive like a grandma. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700310) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:52 PM Author: Hairraiser milk area youre a dumbass (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700804) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:14 PM Author: pea-brained heady school cafeteria (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700294) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:16 PM Author: excitant insecure rigor This isn't really responsive to the issue raised in the OP. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700617) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:52 PM Author: Hairraiser milk area lol, gotta love the bitchmade lawyer response. do you "object," too, faggotacre? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700810) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:26 PM Author: excitant insecure rigor Wtf brutal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32703540) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 8:44 PM Author: Irradiated Know-it-all Faggotry Business Firm I'm uncomfortable that all these vehicles have electronic navigation systems. Russians could hack me and crash me into a tree! Scary! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700480) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:16 PM Author: 180 saffron knife Navigation is the biggest (((hehe))) thing out there. Somehow a nav that works worse than a 5-year-old iPhone costs $2k. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700615) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 11:23 PM Author: Lilac Filthy Site Personal Credit Line (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701314) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:01 PM Author: concupiscible chest-beating senate The power of the engine isn't purely a function of the # of cylinders.
E.g. all of the Porsche 911s use flat 6 engines.
|
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:21 PM Author: 180 saffron knife Flat or inline 6 = classy A's
V6 = oafish D's |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:23 PM Author: violent sanctuary (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700667) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:13 AM Author: Coiffed address False. Never heard of the 911 Turbo? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701588) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:20 AM Author: concupiscible chest-beating senate still 6 cylinders (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701626) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:23 AM Author: Coiffed address Not naturally aspirated though. Turbos and hybrids Will be the future for the next 5 years before all cars become full blown electric. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701633) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:15 PM Author: excitant insecure rigor Brother hardly any cars come with a V8 anymore. The turbo 4 and 6 cyl engines can move and are pretty efficient. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700613) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:27 PM Author: 180 saffron knife "pretty efficient", he lisped as my THUNDERCOCK V8 wet fart exhaust note knocked him over and stole his girl. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700687) |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 9:48 PM Author: excitant insecure rigor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32700793) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:57 AM Author: Arousing telephone fortuitous meteor Supercharged V8s are goat.
550hp 500ft/lbs torque in the jag 5.0 |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 6:07 PM Author: Fragrant property We are actually in a golden age for V8 engines right now. Modern V8 engines that gape boomer nostalgia V8s in every conceivable metric are being put out by a ton of manufacturers.
Soon they will be eliminated by electric motors though. Sad! |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 8:45 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Mercedes AMG with either the turbo 4.0L or 5.5L V8s are great.
And, of course, Grand Cherokees still offer 5.7L or 6.2L V8s, with the 6.2L turbo hellcats coming soon. |
|
Date: February 25th, 2017 10:44 PM Author: Odious Salmon Laser Beams Legend I drive an audi. I dont go hooning around with the pedal down i just like the AWD its good in the snow (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701118) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 6:05 PM Author: Coiffed address Any car with winter tires is good in the snow with or without AWD. Quattro/Xdrive etc. are mostly gimmicks for lazy fucks who don't want to swap out for winter tires every year. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32705596) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:36 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native jfc, are you a Rudolph alt? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707185) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:48 PM Author: Coiffed address Unless you're zipping through highway ramps at 60mph in the snow, a rear-wheel drive with winter wheels is more than sufficient for almost all weather conditions in the continental USA.
Go to Germany (where it snows). You will not see this same obsession with "AWD" as you do in America. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:56 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Yes, you can live with remarkably shitty cars in a variety of conditions. And most people in Germany can't afford decent cars, so they drive shitboxes with small engines, like in much of Europe due to massive taxes (income, on cars specifically, and on gas). That doesn't in any way mean that AWD isn't much better. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707405) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:01 PM Author: Coiffed address Except with AWD you're basically driving in "cheat mode" so it's not fun anymore. You can easily get through most winters with a RWD with winter tires, you don't have to handicap yourself in the summer months as well by getting a AWD. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707470) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:07 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native "Except with AWD you're basically driving in "cheat mode" so it's not fun anymore."
JFC, I don't drive "for the challenge." Yes, I would love to put my car in as much "cheat mode" as I possibly can, so I can drive quickly and safely from point A to point B. I utilize all kinds of other "cheat mode" features like adaptive cruise, with my next car likely including some form of self-driving.
"you don't have to handicap yourself in the summer months as well by getting a AWD."
AWD doesn't handicap you in summer. Do you actually know how to drive? I'm starting to think you're some loser sitting in brooklyn without a driver's license running some stupid flame. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:16 PM Author: Coiffed address I have a FIA Class C international license, grew up karting (Yamaha 100cc, Rotax Jr., Max and shifters) before that and participate in SCCA track events every year. I'd be happy to race you in iracing at any time if you want.
AWD handicaps you in the sense that it takes away from the "feel" of the car. Yes, the GT-R is incredibly quick. It is also boring as fuk.
The vast majority of pure sports cars remain RWD even though they could easily transition to AWD. There is something special about pushing a RWD car to its g-slip limit and going back and forth in a slight oversteer in a corner. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:17 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native *rolls eyes* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707678) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:19 PM Author: Coiffed address You know I'm right when it comes to RWD and motorsports. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707712) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:25 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native I'm saying no one gaf about these things. I certainly don't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707787) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:27 PM Author: Coiffed address The vast majority of Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche, M, etc., drivers would disagree with you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707809) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:34 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Few of them ever visit a track in their lives. They will say their car is the best because it is their car. Most buy these cars because they are status symbols. Full stop.
My next car will likely be a Mercedes AMG, but it won't be RWD and it will probably never see a track. Also, tons of Porsches are AWD. I've considered a few. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:36 PM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes Macan. get the Macan. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707896) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:39 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Considering a Macan Turbo and wife is pushing for this too. It is too small, Porsche maintenance is expensive and it doesn't have adaptive cruise with steering assist, which I really want.
The Mercedes GLE 63 AMG is likely going to be easier to deal with on a daily basis. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:03 PM Author: Odious Salmon Laser Beams Legend EVERYONE in the alps drives an audi (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707493) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:45 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant God damn! Not only do we agree about something, we agree about something in which we are in the extreme minority!
Assuming ground clearance in not an issue, a rear wheel drive car with good snow tires is the best car for non-offroad driving during winter inclement weather. In the hands of a prudent driver, a RWD car with winter tires is a better, safer option than an AWD car. An AWD car suffers from the same shortcomings of a FWD car. The fact that the front wheels are tied to the drive train takes up precious traction in slick conditions when trying to turn without power being applied to the front wheels. Of course, in 99% of situations, powering out of situations is perfectly fine, but in that 1%, the RWD car is better. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:53 PM Author: Odious Salmon Laser Beams Legend Utter bullshit. I have driven in the snow all my life and nothing beats an audi (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707362) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:06 PM Author: Coiffed address Have you ever had winter tires on a rear-wheel drive car? It's really not that bad. If you're talking about black ice, even an AWD car with winters is going to slip short of having chains. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707529) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:18 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Yes. It is a poor substitution for actual AWD. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707694) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:24 PM Author: Coiffed address Except it's massively overstated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g-T4nlL0P4
Side by side comparison of RWD and AWD Porsches on the ice. Look how well the RWD Boxster does. And this is on hardcore ICE, not snow. 99% of Americans will never drive on conditions as slippery as this in their lifetimes. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:31 PM Author: Odious Salmon Laser Beams Legend That isnt hardcore ice at all. Thats very stable cold ice with a dusting of snow on top. Not very slick at all. Black ice or ice with a melt layer on top are much slicker. Ljl citymo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707851) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:20 PM Author: Coiffed address I laffed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708361) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:18 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Well, except Range Rovers, Jeeps, etc. AWD + ground clearance is preferable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707687) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:22 PM Author: Odious Salmon Laser Beams Legend Wrong, you want a low center of gravity. Ljl city slicker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707746) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:14 AM Author: Coiffed address A 718 Porsche Cayman with 4 cylinder wipes its ass with the previous 981 6 cylinder NA.
With that said, I hate 4 cylinder cars. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:31 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant Y'all talking about the power potential of modern V6 engines are missing the OP's point. Do some research on what cylinder configurations are naturally balanced and the significance of having a naturally balanced engine with respect to voise, vibration, and harshness (commonly referred to as NVH), and then offer your opinion on this subject. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701658) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 1:07 AM Author: Coiffed address There is no science out there that 4/6/8 cylinders have better "balance" naturally. There are so many factors involved that influence noise, vibration and harshness, including the state of technology, materials used, parts, oils, lubrications, build quality, etc. etc.
If you need a lesson, take a ride in any classic car and enjoy the rumble, regardless of engine size.
Just listen to this 4-cylinder beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dyE3VS3pYQ
Compared to the 8-cylinder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ienk3gWgOI
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 3:52 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant Do you make it a common practice to talk out your ass about topics where you are obviously our of your depth?
In its simplest form, the V8 is basically two parallel inline-four engines sharing a common crankshaft. However, this simple configuration, with a flat- or single-plane crankshaft, has the same secondary dynamic imbalance problems as two straight-4s, resulting in vibrations in large engine displacements.[2] Since the 1920s, most V8s have used the somewhat more complex crossplane crankshaft with heavy counterweights to eliminate the vibrations. This results in an engine that is smoother than a V6, while being considerably less expensive than a V12.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V8_engine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_balance
EDIT: and note that I referenced cylinder CONFIGURATUON, not just the number of cylinders.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 4:09 AM Author: Coiffed address I know more about cars than you will ever know.
You are trying to argue that having more cylinders is inherently smoother than less. There is ZERO evidence to make this conclusion.
Nothing in what you quoted says that V8s are by their very nature "smoother" than a V6. Certain V8s in their current configuration (V8s differ greatly) using extensive counterweights can be smoother than other V8s and V6s which lack these features. There is no technological need for V4s and V6s to introduce these features given the minimal vibration as is and the more effective methods which I will mention below, and it would introduce excessive weight which would reduce speeds and emissions. But if you wanted, you could add those features and you bet your ass the V6 and V4 would be FAR smoother than a V8 or V12. Less displacement, fewer moving parts, less intertia = less vibration. It's simple physics. And we haven't even gotten into the impact of a naturally aspirated or supercharged engine or other dynamics such as how fast these engines are designed to rev, bore tolerances and other components which have a FAR greater impact on vibration.
Some of the smoothest, quietest cars on the road are puny V4/V6s thanks to advances in materials used for sound insulation and higher build quality around which further dampens vibrations. Get in a modern-day Lexus, most people have a hard time figuring out if the car is even on or not. Why is a 4-cylinder car from the 60s so much louder and vibrate more than a V6/V8 built today? It has nothing to do with # of cylinders and everything to do with everything else.
(3rd generation auto industry inbred) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 4:25 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant JFC, I edited, we'll before your post, to make it explicitly clear that I was talking about cylinder configuration, and you just pretend I said something completely different. Try harder with your flame so that it's at least entertaining. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702145) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 4:29 AM Author: Coiffed address Why even bother bringing up cylinder configurations? You only need to start worrying about component placement and cylinder configuration when the engine starts getting too big and heavy, like in a V8. How is enhanced complexity an advantage? F1 cars are V6, V6 have owned on LeMans. The only advantage I can see to a V8/V12 is relatively cheap power (i.e., cheaper to buy a fast V8 than to make a V6 very fast) and the sound/rumble. Everything else (weight, efficiency, size) are massive disadvantages. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702152) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:08 AM Author: 180 saffron knife http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/videos/a8645/the-enginerdy-dept-straight-six-revival/ read this if the wiki article is too complicated for you.
It's not the number of cylinders. It's how they're laid out. Certain layouts naturally have offsetting mechanical forces so the engine doesn't rock or vibrate as much. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:23 PM Author: Coiffed address Again, how is this even relevant to the OP? You can make all kinds of configuration, component, placement, displacement, speed changes to a V4, V6, V8, V12 engine to reduce vibration. What's the point you're trying to make? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32705309) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 1:23 AM Author: Arousing telephone fortuitous meteor Straight 8 or V12 rolls phantom. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32701799) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 4:02 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant Agreed re straight 8, disagree re V12s, but not because of balancing issues, obviously. Assuming the V8 has a similar displacement to the V12, valve shrouding on the V12 will kill IRL road driveability. 4 valve per cylinder heads address this somewhat, but it's still an issue.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:10 AM Author: Coiffed address Getting back on topic, what really is the concern with having a V6 in an Audi family sedan? Not enough power? Increasing the number of cylinders isn't the only way to increase power (and adding cylinders is a heavy, big way to bulk up the car). Increasing the engine speed or valve sizes are more efficient (but can be costlier, hence the price tag), and going this route is more reliable and weighs far less, and are physically smaller allowing for smaller cars or more room for other luxury components. The only real downside is that it costs more to do. And don't buy any of that BS about low-end torque, since torque isn't dictated by # of cylinders and engine speed.
A Porsche GT3RS has a V6 engine and puts out 500hp stock. A 911 Turbo can be pushed above 1,000HP and do a quarter mile in under 10 seconds on its V6 with the right tuning.
Why not just get a Mustang/Camaro for a quarter of the cost? Well because they're heavy, big and they suck. One of the Mustang's configuration is a 5.0 L Coyote V8 making only 435 hp. Read that again. 5L V8 making 435hp. ROFL. The Ferrari 458 naturally aspirated V8 was 4.5L making 570 hp. The Z06 has a 650hp 6.2L V8 engine and is fastest of the three. If you want to introduce hyper cars, there is the Porsche 918 with a 4.6L V8 making a little under 900Hp, and is the fastest street-legal car ever recorded around the NRing. What's my point? There is no magic formula to achieve power or torque. The 918 has a smaller displacement than the Mustang, yet over 350 more hp using 8 cylinders. Why? Engine speed and valve/cylinder size are part of the reason. There are utter crap V8s (like the Mustang) and wonders like the 918's V8. Same goes for V6s. You have V6 crap that goes inside Camrys and amazing engines powering the GT3RS and F1 cars.
If you want to talk about "feel" of the car, then number of cylinders starts to matter even less, and you start talking about balance, suspension, engine placement, steering, shifting, ride height, cabin, noise. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:44 AM Author: Violent shrine turdskin your username is fitting haha. There is no replacement for displacement. Also you are wrong in various other ways that you will soon be informed of, if poasters take the bait. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32702546) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:39 AM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant I can't decide whether I want to go outside and enjoy what's shaping up to be a beautiful day, or take the bait and respond to a mentally ill gook who is most likely running flame. I hate myself for even considering the latter option. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32703227) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:43 AM Author: Very tactful step-uncle's house Rongtime auto mechanic herrre (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32703248) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:26 PM Author: 180 saffron knife Big engines ahhh proletell. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32703539) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 12:55 PM Author: Adventurous pink legal warrant "proe tell" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32703681) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 1:41 PM Author: 180 saffron knife old money WASP rike a modest inrine 4 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32703916) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:28 PM Author: Coiffed address What exactly do you mean, "there is no replacement for displacement?" You hear that a lot on auto forums populated by Camaro owners where people are trying to push quarter times and have no idea about engineering. Go to a SCCA or other tracking oriented forum and then all of a sudden displacement is one of the least discussed item. Explain why the 918 has lower displacement than a Mustang but is faster in all measures (straight line, track). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32705334) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 6:07 PM Author: Violent shrine turdskin A regular Mustang GT is a mass market car that costs a fraction of what a 911 costs, and is detuned as hell. A GT350 or GT500 or whatever the top-end model is has the same displacement, and is a little more comparable to a Porsche. The Porsche is a dedicated 2 seat sports car, and is smaller aside from that. The rear engine probably saves weight for some reason as well.
I don't keep exacting track of car specs but a Corvette ZR1 is probably about the same price as a run of the mill 911, and probably kicks its ass around the track. A Mustang GT is something you'd compare to an Infiniti G37, or maybe an M3. These are the cars you should be comparing because they are in the same 'segment.'
For IRL driving, displacement is what you want because it provides low-end torque that enables the car to accelerate without requiring you to drive it like a racecar. Displacement generally correlates with # of cylinders, although overhead cam engines will generally have smaller displacement relative to power (e.g. German 4.5ishL V8s vs. the 5.7L in a Corvette). A V8 or an I6 will also idle at lower RPMs and thus not disrupt you in the cabin by vibrating like a bitch when you're idling with the AC on in traffic in July. They'll make less noise when accelerating and give you and your passengers the perception that you are awesome and your car doesn't suck. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 6:13 PM Author: Coiffed address Finally someone that is talking some sense.
About the 911, it is hampered by its rear-engine design which is hamstrung by history. They can't make the 911 a mid-engine due to the fact that the 911 is traditionally an out-dated rear-engine configuration, and it would all of a sudden compete with the Cayman/Boxster. This has had the double negative effect of both terrible weight distribution on the track and limitations on aero, which makes the 911 slower than it could be on the track (hence the Corvette kicks its ass). But the latest 911 GT car has moved to mid-engine so we will see how it performs.
Regarding vibration, there have been so many advances in vibration dampening and sound insulation that smaller displacement V4/V6s are quiet as hell. Test drive a Lexus GS or LS model. You can hardly tell those things are even on. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 7:45 PM Author: 180 saffron knife Dude you clearly know nothing about cars. There haven't been a mass-market *V*4 since the Saab 96. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32706230) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:15 PM Author: Coiffed address I'm typing on my iphone so I don't feel like typing "4-cylinder" over and over again so I used short-hand "V4" to mean 4-cylinder.
If you read the discussion instead of focusing on terminology like a Kike, you will see the discussion is focused on the benefits of having more cylinders, not particular configurations of the cylinders.
Replace "V4" with "4-cylinder" and report back. My point still stands. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:24 PM Author: Violent shrine turdskin 120 flame Also I don't think there are any 4-banger Lexuses around other than the IS or the hybrids.
Look, at the end of the day, this is what happens - Take the on-ramp in a 180 hp 4-banger Camry/Audi/whatever, which is plenty of power to do anything, and probably faster than a Fox Body Mustang somehow, but it makes weird noises and scares female passengers, and makes you seem like a bad or irresponsible driver. Take the on-ramp in a 6 or 8 cylinder and they're like, "oh, this has nice pickup," and it's quiet, and luxurious and shit. This is a nice LUXURY to have. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:30 PM Author: Coiffed address Yet you have yet to point out a single reason that shows intrinsically that 8 cylinders are better than 6 cylinders.
The number of cylinders in a car is just a variable used by manufacturers to manipulate desired outcomes in power. Cost, regulatory considerations and available R&D are massive considerations in deciding whether to make an engine with 4-cylinders vs. 6/8/12.
Why doesn't Porsche stick an 8-cylinder in their 911s? Size and weight, simple as that. They make up for the relatively smaller displacement by engineering the hell out of the 6 and decreasing weight to achieve similar or better performance figures than other 8-cylinder cars. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:42 PM Author: Violent shrine turdskin V6s are generally a compromise for space constraints, but it's usually more than enough and practically equivalent to a V8 other than lacking the cool sound. With a full-size luxury car though, there's more than enough room for a V8. Size is a luxury that affords extra room, that affords the space to add additional cylinders without any drawbacks. If you're driving a 3-series, you're allegedly more on the 'sport' side of the 'luxury-sport-sedan' segment. 7 series' have, or had, V12s. Audi/VW had the W12. It's nice to have. It's a LUXURY. It gets you to where you're going. A Rolex tells time, luxuriously. Your phone tells time. An I4 has enough power to do anything you need it to. A V8 is a V8.
I4s are what's limited still imo, although I don't test drive cars every day without intention to buy. I once test drove the FR-S a couple hyears ago and thought it felt very slow because I couldn't drive it like a maniac with the salesman next to me. Meanwhile I could drive a 1999 Grand Prix with a <200hp pushrod V6 and feel like it has 'nice pickup.' If I were a real estate agent I would not drive clients around in an I4 anything, unless there's been some amazing advances in the last couple of years.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:05 PM Author: Coiffed address Well yeah, if I was shopping for an S-Class or A-8 I want the biggest engine you can put in there. But if you want "sports car" performance, size and weight are huge considerations so in that case bigger isn't always better.
And the A-6 isn't that big of a car. A V8 would be pushing it in terms of size. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 7:50 PM Author: 180 saffron knife The only replacements for displacement are:
-Better tech/breathing can get you some extra juice, but now almost all cars are DOHC with variable valve timing, direct injection, etc.
-Forced induction: unreliable and hurts drivability with turbo lag
-Revving really high: annoying except for a dedicated track car |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:16 PM Author: Coiffed address This may have been true 10 years ago. Modern day forced induction has almost no turbo lag, and forced induction cars tear things up on the track.
A modern day 718 Cayman with a 4-cylinder turbo destroys its predeccesor 981 Cayman with a NA 6-cylinder. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:17 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native "Revving really high" - also causes wear and kills engines. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32706995) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:21 PM Author: Coiffed address And lugging your 4-speed Challenger around at 1000 rpms is no good either (bbbut I got dat overdrive so it's technically 5, he lisped). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707042) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:25 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native You seem clueless. Challengers and Chargers are now offered with an 8 speed transmission for the auto (a ZF tranny, no less). Same with Grand Cherokees for that matter. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707084) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:31 PM Author: Coiffed address Offered != all. Now why don't you admit that the 4th generation Challenger (until 2015) had a fuking 4-speed and tell me that isn't a complete fail. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707140) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:33 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Again, you're clueless. Only two choices on current V8s - a manual 6 or an auto ZF 8. What they did several years ago is entirely irrelevant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707157) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:34 PM Author: Coiffed address Starting in 2015 they offered actual gears. 1 year ago != "several years ago" you idiot.
In 2014 Challengers were 4-speed automatics. Just LOL. Dodge thinking that it's still 1972. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:43 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native You're a fucking moron and no one cares what they did back in 2014 or before. The point is that now they have modern ZF transmissions so no one buying a car now or in the last few years gaf about this point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707235) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:45 PM Author: Coiffed address OK let's assume you're right and ignore the thousands of 4-speed automatic Challengers on the used market.
How do you justify Dodge putting a fucking 4-speed automatic on a sports car until very recently? Explain that decision to me. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:53 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native I am 100% right and everything I said is a fact. If someone wants an 8 speed tranny then they're getting a car built in the last few years, which is nbd because these cars are cheap as fuck. I could buy a brand new one tomorrow for sticker price without it being a financial hardship.
"How do you justify Dodge putting a fucking 4-speed automatic on a sports car until very recently? Explain that decision to me."
I'm mostly curious why you think this is relevant. This isn't anything they need to "justify" - the cars sold very well and still performed fantastically compared to the competition for their price range. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:08 PM Author: Coiffed address I think it's relevant because certain manufacturers are guilty of misleading their customers and creating idiotic trends where they value engine size and HP numbers above all else, even at the expense of safety and real performance. I think manufacturers should be publicly shamed for making crap cars with poor reviews and poor resale value. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707546) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:16 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Actually, they get pretty good reviews and are bought because consumers are getting exactly what they want (a ton of horsepower for cheap). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707667) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:20 PM Author: Coiffed address They also got plenty of really bad reviews. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707728) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:24 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Mostly with the shitty low hp engines. You're acting like people buy the R/Ts or SRTs and complaining that they're not fast enough or don't handle like German cars, which simply isn't the case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707783) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 5:54 PM Author: Coiffed address TLDR of this thread:
OP makes post criticizing V6 engines in an Audi. I respond with the benefits of a V6 (size, efficiency, can be engineered to be extremely fast at any range of the powerband, as evidenced by the BMW M-series and Porsche 911 not to mention modern day F1 and LeMans engines), and then a couple of proles respond back with completely irrelevant nonsense about how their V8 Mustang is better simply because it happens to be a V8 and some irrelevant factoids about engine configuration (which is made irrelevant in a modern V6 due to minimal vibration as is) and low-end torque (which again is made irrelevant because a light chassis and rolling weight and other engineering benefits of a V6 enable it to accelerate faster than a V8 with less power). A Camaro weighs almost 2 fuking tons. Jesus H. Christ. 2 tons. What, was it designed to transport Colonial Marines in Bumblefuck Kansas?
LJL. Everyone who has ever stepped foot in a Mustang/Camaro/Challenger knows they are big, heavy and loud as fuck, and with the exception of the most expensive variants of the Camaro, they are slow, overheating pieces of shit. And all modern-day Mustangs just suck. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 7:47 PM Author: 180 saffron knife Not a Mustang fan but the Shelby GT350 8250 RPM screamer of a V8 would be at home in a supercar. You're a tard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32706243) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 8:31 PM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes I would still pimp an SRT Challenger. It's all man. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32706551) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:07 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native V8 Mustangs, Camaros and Challengers/Chargers are the most power and fun you can for your money. Yes, you Mercedes AMGs, BMW M models and Porsches are better, but they also cost multiples of those cars.
What is also really nice is that the things done to make cars lighter also makes them shittier in crashes and often more expensive to repair. For example, throwing on a few turbos onto a V6 to give it V8 power sounds great, until those turbos blow. A good NA V8 will last longer than the rest of the car.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:20 PM Author: Coiffed address Yes, a good NA V8 is very good bang for the buck. It is also heavy and big which requires a high-end suspension, tires and brakes to support bc it weighs a ton(which the Mustang does not include bc of $$$). Ask yourself, why is the engine for a Mustang in the front? Because at that price point you can't get that motor to fit behind the front axle like a proper sports car. The engineers at Ford wanted to make the cheapest V8 possible for the masses, so they took a big ass block drilled in 8 holes and shoved it in under the hood. Actually engineering the engine to make it work in a mid-engine configuration would take actual R&D and $$, which Ford doesn't give a crap about when it comes to the Mustang.
"High-class" V8s and 12s have their engines in the middle of the car. They have also been engineered to be as small and light as possible. Even Corvette has moved their engine to the middle. It also costs a lot more than a base Mustang. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:30 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native So, in other words, you're saying that it would be awesome to pay $100k+ for a high end German auto with a turbo V8, and that would be much better than a $40k American car, which is of course true but entirely and totally irrelevant.
Also, as to why Ford and others put them in the front is because they're not only cheap to build but also cheap to maintain and repair. Yes, it is all about bang for the buck. They're the reason American teens and middle class people can have awesome power instead of shitboxes with lawnmower engines. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:40 PM Author: Coiffed address I think people need to invest in drivers' education/track time before getting behind their "first sports car" and putting themselves behind the wheel of a V8 400HP+ rear-wheel vehicle. It's way too much power for most people and those cars have notoriously poor balancing and inadequate suspensions/brakes/tires for the task and it's a hazard. Mustangs crashing at C&C meets did not become a meme for no reason.
Ford/Dodge doesn't care about this - they just care about marketing their muscle cars using abstract numbers(V8 'Murica!!). And I hate Ford/Dodge for making these POS cars with big engines and shit everything else. It's ruining the sports car culture and they are selling inherently dangerous vehicles.
I love sports cars. They used to be super tiny, nimble, light, powered by small 4-6 cylinder engines. Like the Porsche 904. Beautiful cars that was more about the driving experience, not about how fast you can blitz out of a traffic light or go in a straight line. BTW, you are probably familiar with the phenomenon of stock Mustangs blowing up when going over 140mph.
I was at the Detroit Autoshow when Ford was touting how the stock Mustang can hit over 170mph on the dyno. Yeah right, good luck with that in real life, when your shit aero and retarded weight will put way too much stress on the car at speeds over 120mph and your engine explodes. It was pathetic how Ford was trying to imply that the Mustang could hit 170mph in real life based on a Dyno facing no air resistance or road friction. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:48 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native They really don't. Most people are rarely going to use these cars to their full potential beyond some fast starts at a red light. Yes, much like a lot of people getting SUVs are rarely going to drive them off road and even when they do they will not use 100% of their capability.
Also, not sure why this is limited to American sports cars and not Euro sports cars.
Finally, the Porsche 904 is a slow POS and you sound like a fucking boomer with your clueless lecturing. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 9:50 PM Author: Coiffed address Yeah, the 904 is a slow POS by today's metrics, but I bet you would trade whatever you own right now for a 904 if given the option, if you can even find one.
And no, I'm not a boomer but I grew up around cars my whole life (like I said, 3rd generation auto industry inbred) and I hate seeing what the auto industry has slowly become.
Tell me, do you have an affiliation with US auto? You seem like a die-hard supporter. FWIW my dad still works at VW, as he has been for the last 30 years. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:03 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native "Yeah, the 904 is a slow POS by today's metrics, but I bet you would trade whatever you own right now for a 904 if given the option, if you can even find one."
Only so I could sell it immediately and then buy something else.
"I'm not a boomer but I grew up around cars my whole life (like I said, 3rd generation auto industry inbred"
I believe the inbred bit...
"I hate seeing what the auto industry has slowly become."
What's that?
"Tell me, do you have an affiliation with US auto?"
No financial stake. I've driven cars from all over the world. Current car is American, in fact, a V8 powered Jeep Grand Cherokee, which is a fantastic car for the money. Next one will probably be an Mercedes GLE 63 AMG. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:13 PM Author: Coiffed address The auto industry is basically a CAFE-conscious circle-jerk where they are slowly transforming people-driven cars into safe, low-emission transportation pods. The mass marketed "sports cars" are nothing more than giant landbeasts with decent straight line speed and acceleration, but suck at everything else.
Remember, sports cars are called "sports" cars because they were designed for motorsports in mind, not for "racing" from stop signs and traffic lights. "Sports" cars always have been light and nimble machines. But because of the constant HP marketing by American manufacturers, even the classic sports car manufacturers like Porsche/MB/BMW are feeling the pressure and moving away from "feel" and "experience" to something that can appeal to the power-hungry public created by the Fords of the world. How can Porsche justify charging 3x more for a vehicle that has less HP than a Mustang? So, Porsche has to make the 911 bigger, heavier to accomodate a bigger motor. Throw on some 20" wheels for the "bling" to remain relevant.
This is not even mentioning how every car in 10 years will either be a hybrid or electric. The top-end LMP cars are now all hybrid, which tells you which direction R&D is shifting towards. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:23 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native "The auto industry is basically a CAFE-conscious circle-jerk where they are slowly transforming people-driven cars into safe, low-emission transportation pods."
First thing you've said I actually agree with.
"The mass marketed "sports cars" are nothing more than giant landbeasts with decent straight line speed and acceleration, but suck at everything else."
This has always been true. Americans want space + fast + high hp.
"Remember, sports cars are called "sports" cars because they were designed for motorsports in mind"
No, they're not. It just is a marketing term for "fast."
"This is not even mentioning how every car in 10 years will either be a hybrid or electric. The top-end LMP cars are now all hybrid, which tells you which direction R&D is shifting towards."
No shit. You can see it with the Panamera, the Cayenne, the upcoming hybrid Macan, the GLE 550e, etc.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:37 PM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes ever driven a Lada? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707911) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:41 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native I've been in many but never in the driver's seat. When I lived in Moscow I knew this guy at a car dealership that would rent me cars for cash, but they were always western cars. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707946) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:14 PM Author: violent sanctuary you're clearly retarded and not worth paying attention to, but would you mind linking to some 4 or 6 cylinder cars that outperform mustang/camaro/challenger v8s at a cost difference of not more than $5k? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707639) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:21 PM Author: Coiffed address What metric of performance? You got to pick a particular Mustang/Camaro/Challenger trim.
1) Looks
Basically ever car ever made.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:26 PM Author: violent sanctuary let's say for $40,000 speed, track time, power, etc. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:29 PM Author: Coiffed address Just pick any trim of either of the 3 and I'll see if I can dig up a smaller-cylinder car in the same price point that partially outperforms it in some meaningful way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707831) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:32 PM Author: violent sanctuary http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-sports-car/build-your-own.html#/trim/features/383628 msrp of $38k |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:43 PM Author: Coiffed address Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0 4-cylinder. MSRP of 25k. Did I just own you?
Almost exactly the same 0-60 with 2 less cylinders... |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:45 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native LMAO at this dumbfuckery - that is 1000x shittier overall and only a complete moron would pick it over the Camaro.
Nevertheless, you also have to state how it is better even by your retarded metric. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:46 PM Author: Coiffed address 0-60 same time for less money. The 3.8 Genesis is faster 0-60 and still for less than your MSRP. Given thesr cars also weigh less, I imagine they are also faster around the track but I haven't found any reliable track tests for an apples to apples. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707995) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:50 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native The 0-60 for the 6.2L V8 is 4 seconds for the Camaro.
Neither of your shitboxes come close. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:54 PM Author: Coiffed address He linked to the base model 1LS initially. Since he's going for the SS now, I'll have to revise my search initially. But, clearly the WRX, GTI and Genesis kick the living shit out of the base trim Camaro. Now let's up the trims and see what happens. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708061) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:05 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Always came up right for me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708184) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:50 PM Author: violent sanctuary according to car and driver this shit box of yours (with the 3.8) goes 0-60 in 5.2. so, pray tell, wtf are you talking about |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:53 PM Author: Coiffed address You linked to the 1LS and edited to now link me to the SS. Let me revise my search. I was searching for cars under $28K, to compare against the 1LS POS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708053) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:55 PM Author: violent sanctuary never had the 1ls. originally picked the 2ss but edited to the 1ss since the 1 has the same engine (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708071) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:59 PM Author: Coiffed address So you admit to changing your linked build. Whatever, let me look for comparisons to the 1SS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708098) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:01 PM Author: violent sanctuary yeah, like i said. don't know how the 1LS would have showed up for you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708115) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:50 PM Author: Coiffed address Lol WRX. Kicks Camaros ass by a full second 0-60. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708024) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:54 PM Author: violent sanctuary 4.8 according to car and driver. which, surprise, is slower. jfc go fuck yourself if you're just going to make up shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708060) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:55 PM Author: Coiffed address Fool, you linked to the base 1LS in your initial build. So my searches were based on the 1LS, and my searches were all faster. Now let me go and find stuff to compete against the SS which is objectively a serious car. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708070) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:56 PM Author: violent sanctuary wrong. the 1ls isn't even a fucking v8 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708076) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:59 PM Author: Coiffed address I clicked the link and it lead me to a 1LS build (V6) so I was looking for 4 cylinders to beat your car. Since you linked to the 1SS, I will look for 6 cylinders. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708094) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:06 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native You also have to stick to the approximate price range. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708206) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:38 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native "same price point that partially outperforms it in some meaningful way."
Wtf, this is retarded. Yes, you can get some slower, smaller Japanese car lower to the ground that will corner better. Few buyers would ever trade their cars for that alternative for a variety of reasons (such as space considerations), but sure, it meets your stupid criteria. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:42 PM Author: violent sanctuary yeah, i thought mpg would implicitly not be a category, but wouldn't put it past this numbskull (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707955) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:44 PM Author: Coiffed address Only going to look at 0-60 / quarter and lap times in stock trim. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707972) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:18 PM Author: Coiffed address Just going for 0-60 times for now, searched only for 4/6 cylinder cars to go against the V8 SS.
The V8 SS is right around 4.1 seconds. Here are cars within a couple of thousand (and certainly under 40K) that come very close using only 4 or 6 cylinders. For uniformity purposes, I only used caranddriver figures.
Test model:
Camaro SS V8 (455hp, 0-60 in 4.1 seconds)
1) WRX STI (4 cylinders) making 305HP, 0-60 at 4.5 seconds. 2) Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution (4 cylinders) making only 303HP, yet achieving 0-60 at 4.4 seconds. 3) BMW 2-series (6 cylinders) making 335hp, 0-60 at 4.2 seconds.
The 2-series is probably the best comparison. Over 100 less horses, yet almost equal 0-60 time using 2 cylinders less. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:27 PM Author: violent sanctuary those cars are quick 0-60. but the comparison gets pretty lulzy when you go 0-100 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708435) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:29 PM Author: Coiffed address Well obviously, you have over 100 more horses to work with...
But outside of the track, where do 0-100 or quarter times even matter?
I admit, I was surprised at how quick the 1SS was. It's faster than my 911 C2S which has 385hp and 0-60 in 4.3ish. But it says something about the weight that a 4-cylinder engine can sprint 0-60 almost as fast as an 8-cylinder SS. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:36 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native I drive over 100mph all the time, so yes it does matter.
Yes, a few rice rockets where the weight was reduced by stripping almost everything out of the car to the extent that there isn't even much insulation between you and the engine are several tenths of a second behind the Camaro at 0-60, at which point they fall further behind as you move to higher speeds. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:33 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Stop. Why are you even giving this guy credit for this crappy work product? Even on 0-60 (where they are strongest) they STILL fail to beat (or even match) the car you presented. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708498) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:35 PM Author: Coiffed address 0.1 second difference is not matching? LJL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708519) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:38 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native You promised us you would beat it. Yes, that isn't matching, let alone beating, and it was much more expensive. Mind you, that's not even mentioning what BMW service prices are like. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708547) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:36 PM Author: violent sanctuary i'm just conceding he came close in ONE metric. my question is why the fuck would anyone not buy the v8 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708528) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:31 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Seriously, you must be a shit employee. If someone presented this work product to me I'd tear them a new one for being buffoons and failing to meet the originally stated objective.
The original task: "Just pick any trim of either of the 3 and I'll see if I can dig up a smaller-cylinder car in the same price point that partially outperforms it in some meaningful way."
You then present 3 cars using a metric of 0-60. All 3 of them are SLOWER than the V8 car presented to you. Your closest was only 0.1 second slower (so you still failed), but at the trim presented started at over $45k (yes, I checked), so you failed the requirement to keep it under $40k.
So in other words, you were absolutely full of shit when you were promising to beat these horrible American cars that apparently are non-competitive and you really know cars except it is clear that you don't know jack shit. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:35 PM Author: violent sanctuary lmao i didn't check the prices. tbf, i allowed him an extra $5k to work with, so $43k would be allowed. still gets btfo by the v8 |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:38 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native You're generous, considering the original post was $40k max. But even with your generosity the 2 series doesn't pass muster, and even if you allow it it still is slower.
This is kind of hilarious because he did his best and get completely blown out. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:43 PM Author: Coiffed address No, because the 4.1 second Camaro used a 45K version.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:44 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native You are seriously low IQ.
Date: February 26th, 2017 10:32 PM Author: Rust Austin
http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-sports-car/build-your-own.html#/trim/features/383628
msrp of $38k
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32707866)
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:47 PM Author: Coiffed address And there is ZERO evidence that some phantom car built on a website config can achieve whatever performance metric, hence they don't QUOTE 0-60 times on the configurator.
You must be an imbecile. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:51 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Holy fuck, you can't be this dumb. The higher prices get you more comfort features which is irrelevant to the performance. Did you say you came from a family that worked in the industry? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708647) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:52 PM Author: Coiffed address First off, you are factually wrong.
Higher prices can also introduce better suspension, lighter wheels, tires, better brakes, "sports components" that are generally lighter and stronger. Jesus christ you think all options are for navigation and better sound and leather? I mean, have you ever even bought a new car? Better tires alone can make a huge difference. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:07 AM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Actually look at the trim options. Also, better brakes are irrelevant for 0 to 60 times. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708790) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:11 AM Author: Coiffed address I don't know what build C&D used. I just know that the "base" version of their "tested" came out at 45K to produce the 4.1 second run. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708832) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:16 AM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Sorry, I can't stand your retardation further. Best of luck in all of your future endeavors. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708893) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:35 AM Author: Coiffed address Lol losing to a retaded, gj poster. U win! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32709156) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:41 PM Author: Coiffed address You fuking idiot. The Camaro SS that hit 4.1 seconds was MORE EXPENSIVE than 40K.
PRICE AS TESTED: $45,700 (base price: $44,400)
In order to do a fair apples-to-apples comparison, I used a single source rather than amalgating figures/builds from random places. Like I mentioned, I was going to rely solely on caranddriver for uniformity. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:43 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native He linked you to his config, which was $38k. There is no config for a BMW 240 that is under $45k. That is the base price. Price as tested included other extras, which the BMW probably also doesn't include at base. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708579) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:46 PM Author: Coiffed address And there is ZERO evidence that some phantom car built on a website config can achieve whatever performance metric, hence they don't QUOTE 0-60 times on the configurator. This is precisely why organizations like Caranddriver exist, to test cars. You can't take a performance test from C&D which they achieved using a certain build of car, and then universally apply it to ALL cars of that make.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:46 PM Author: violent sanctuary bingo. whole pt is that for comparatively big 4/6 cylinder performance you have to spend big $ for it |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:49 PM Author: Coiffed address Wrong.
The Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution costs $7,000 LESS than the V8 Camaro and is only 0.3 seconds slower than the Camaro 0-60. And it has 4-cylinders less. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:52 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native "and is only 0.3 seconds slower"
"and is only 0.3 seconds slower"
"and is only 0.3 seconds slower" |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:53 PM Author: Coiffed address "shit 'Murican 8 cylinder engine only 0.3 seconds faster than 4 cylinder..."
"shit 'Murican 8 cylinder engine only 0.3 seconds faster than 4 cylinder..."
"shit 'Murican 8 cylinder engine only 0.3 seconds faster than 4 cylinder..." |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:54 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native And that's just to 60. As you continue they keep getting further behind. So in other words, it is shittier and slower, so you failed to make your initial point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708681) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:59 PM Author: Coiffed address My initial point was to try to establish, using some objective performance metric, that a similarly priced car with fewer cylinders could beat a car with more cylinders.
The 6-cylinder Camaro is creamed by many cars, and Camaro is considered the "best" at this price point which is lulzy. The examples I introduced (mostly 4 cylinders, with a couple of 6s) actually destroy most 6 and 8 cylinder cars on a 0-60 test.
Now if you take the V8 Camaro SS, I could not find an example that could best it at a similar price point. However, the fact that a 4 cylinder can come so close to a V8, for even less money, is very noteworthy. To deny this just shows how much of a fanboi you are. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:04 AM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native Lol, you stated that for any model/trim he picked you would find something that beat it with fewer cylinders and in the same price range. You totally failed in this task. No one ever denied that in some cases the car with fewer cylinders will win. That isn't noteworthy at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708767) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:10 AM Author: Coiffed address Not what happened, reread this chain. He asked:
"but would you mind linking to some 4 or 6 cylinder cars that outperform mustang/camaro/challenger v8s at a cost difference of not more than $5k?"
I responded:
"I'll see if I can dig up a smaller-cylinder car in the same price point"
Of course OP had to cop out and go with the Camaro SS. Challenger or Mustang would have been more interesting since the V8 Challenger is over 70K and from my recollection the V8 Mustang is pretty slow.
|
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:53 PM Author: violent sanctuary yes and you are still well behind me at the finish mark, and that's the *only* metric that could be considered somewhat close. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708676) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:55 PM Author: Coiffed address Well behind at 0.3 seconds? Lul. At the <4.5 second range the tranny, clutch and how good of a launch you had can equal half a second or more. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708685) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:56 PM Author: violent sanctuary .3 seems like enough to put you in the rearview. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708694) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:00 AM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native *facepalm* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708724) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:01 AM Author: Coiffed address Whatever your personal views are, serious question:
How do you respond to the following:
1) A 4-cylinder WRX creampies a 6-cylinder Camaro 2) A 4-cylinder WRX comes close to an 8-cylinder Camaro in a 0-60 test, and costs less $$
|
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:07 AM Author: violent sanctuary means it better be fully warrantied if i were going to make a habit out of challenging either camaro. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708795) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2017 12:12 AM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native 1) I would say that American car base models are always cheap options rather than great ones.
2) It is slower and also had a shittier interior by far. In other words, an all around inferior car. Not surprising that it is also cheaper. |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:41 PM Author: Galvanic coldplay fan guy with a 13 year old honda accord v4 here,
i am interested in getting a V6 mustang. bad idea? V8 or bust? cant get a challenger or camaro because theyre much more expensive than mustangs where i live
tyia |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:48 PM Author: Rambunctious genital piercing native This is a question of personal preference. I would wait for the V8 but then again, I'm not you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708616) |
|
Date: February 26th, 2017 11:50 PM Author: crystalline racy useless brakes V8 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3536334&forum_id=2#32708637) |