So people are touting Ecoboost L4s, turbo v6s, and N/A veeaites as God tier production engines

I must mass producing (you)s then by your definition

...

Could you at least post V8s that are lightweight to prove a point?

>general disasters

OP means good cars here

Performance cars are expensive, Dumbshit. What do you want? Between EPA taxes and the increased warranty costs it's expensive for the automakers to bring that shit to the public on brand new cars. If you want cheap forced induction V8s just slap a Roots on your shit or even cheaper, some nitrous. I literally don't understand your problem.

>ecoboost maymay
>literally a regular turbo attached to a regular 4 pot
>not even featuring electro hydraulic valve control

There is none you fucking autist I'm just wondering why induction is reserved for fucking expensive trims.

Because it's a luxury

>Why has no mass produced car done this?
GM has produced severl forced induction small blocks, most notably the LSA, LS9, and LT4. Mopar currently produces the Hellcat. Everybody and their mother (Ferrari, McLaren) are moving to twinturbo V8's in the low end supercar segment. The big German three all offer twinturbo V8's in their cars (RS6 and up, C63 and up, M5 and up).

>expensive
Lolno. 64K starting isn't expensive for 707hp.
>highly limited edition
The only limited is their production capacity vs. consumer demand, which is overwhelming.

Hellcat engines are still heavy due to their reliance on the 3rd gen Hemi's iron block. LSA's and LS9's however, are compact and light.

>64K starting isn't expensive for 707hp.

It pains me because if it was in a lighter pony-car tier chassis like the Stang and Camaro it would be fucking nuclear. I get that the Charger/challenger aren't comparable in that regard but maybe they could release another that is (call it "Duster or whatever names of small muscle cars Chrysler still has under their hat and hasn't used yet)

The hellcat cars are already powerful despite their fat (heard people were out-gunning high performance sports-cars with them) and i imagine if they were more lightweight and (god forbid) had AWD versions they would probably be Viper ACR levels of insanity in a affordable stop-light racing package. Young americans would fucking love something like that, not that the Hellcat isn't already popular as it is but they are missing out are creating what would be a legendary throwback to some of the most powerful 50s and 60s era muscle cars fully modernized with the ability to stomp some very powerful super-cars (and maybe if boosted to 800+HP possibly hyper-cars as well) at the lights and be pretty good (chassis-wise) in the corners too like the others. (seems far fetched but that's what everyone thought about the ACR too).

>LSA's are light
[citation needed]

amg merc g

maserati, audi, bmw and merc all do this, those are just ottomh

FCA has the possibility of just stuffing it in the Giulia chassis, making a twodoor, and calling it the 'Cuda (which they renewed the copyrights on). Ford and GM would shit themselves. Also, there's still room left for improvement in that engine: direct injection, aluminium block, maybe even going to turbo's (which Fiat is really good at) and maybe even Multiair tech for some full VVT, which would help against the emissions it's currently struggles against, because of it's semi-hemi layout.

The current Hellcats shouldn't be considered ponycars though, that's the main thing. They're musclecars: overweight, powerful, almost a Grand Tourer.

Again, on the Giulia chassis (which is the size of a C-class, not the size of the Challengers E-class), it'd be a lot lighter. AWD wouldn't be possible, or desirable, there isn't a transmission in the world that would hold 700+hp AWD. The ZF8HP already struggles with Audi's RS6.

There are rumors of the Hellcat going to 750hp within some years. Aftermarket-wise, E85 tunes already exceed 800hp. Again, put the Hellcat in the Giulia chassis, and it'd handle.

They're pushrod and aluminium pretty much the lightest you can get.

Post the LSA's weight, I guarantee it weighs more than 50 lbs more than a 3.5L Ecoboost V6.

accidentally quoted 15471556

Lots o' Sneks had factory blowers

The legends are true, educative posts on Veeky Forums exist. Thanks for that.

murrica has been doing that since the early 60's, studebaker golden hawks were s/c and the olds cutlass jetfire was t/c,

Smaller displacement has faster throttle response and can rev higher. They are also simpler.

All of those things are subject to taste but as such warrant their existence.

>faster throttle respons
So a small displacement, turbo 1L will respond better than a 2L n/a motor?
>rev higher
RPM isn't about displacement, it's about bore:stroke ratio.

>They are also simpler.
Size =/= complexity. If anything, a small engine can be more complicated and crowded.

EB35: 449lbs 380hp
LS9: 529lbs 640hp

>Why not just put forced induction on a v8 from the factory instead of putting it on smaller engines? Why has no mass produced car done this?
because plebs cant handle power and when they finally get it they whinge its too much and its not safe bla bla blah

basically
>its2fast4me
faggots all of them

500-700hp is nothing for these engines.

hell a ls with a blower on it gets 600 stock imagine what a factory twin turbo compound would get? Fact of the matter is downsizing is the new meme.

its like inverse 70's all over again

Aren't LS7s massively detuned from the factory? Even so, they're still putting out 505 hp.

>starts shitty thread about there being no FI V8s on the market.
>start saying NO I DONT LIKE THIS ONE SUGGEST ANOTHER ONE

Bitch, that's a high performance vehicle setup, an FI V8. Its typically only necessary in high limit cars, so don't be surprised if it's in an expensive, heavy vehicle. Hell, the M5 crate engine probably costs more than your car itself.

were you looking for something like the weight of a base C5 vette with a twin turbo v8 for like 30k new?

No, but it will respond better than a 2.0l turbo. I'd say it's easier all things being equal to make a smaller displacement rev higher.

Because it's expensive, it requires premium fuel, and it reduces reliability. Are you retarded?

>No, but it will respond better than a 2.0l turbo.
No. You'd just put a tiny turbo on the 2L to make identical power, but you'd have more exhaust flow for the similarly sized turbo, therefore creating less turbo lag.
>I'd say it's easier all things being equal to make a smaller displacement rev higher.
That's simply because you're reducing stroke, which, in fact, does not make all things equal.

>ignoring the ecoboost GT
lol

That's a nice SAE net hp rating you've got there.

>Why has no mass produced car done this?
The idea is too good. It would tear a hole in the fabric of the universe.

>this assmad
Ecoboost engines are lighter and make the same power.

>smug animu face
The most powerful Ford Ecoboost makes 380hp. That's not ''the same power'', it's significantly less.

Speculation is it's going to be in the GT500 and possibly be an option for the Raptor.

>pic related

It was used in the 2013 Cobra Jet I believe.

motorauthority.com/news/1080169_ford-mustang-cobra-jet-gets-twin-turbos-sema-2012

youtube.com/watch?v=gAl3UvngjDM

It actually makes over 600 HP. Stay mad.

>Ecoboost
>600+ HP
>446 lbs

>LT4
>650 HP
>529 lbs

BTFO!!!

>ecoboost
>V8
lol, no

It won't be called Ecoboost.

Again, nice SAE net hp rating you've got there. Those could be 600 British Tax horsepower for al we know.

>american engine
>British horsepower
Yea, nice damage control.

V6>V8

6

>getting this mad over engines
Full Blown Autism

>ignoring the existence of turbos
>mad
I'm not mad, this stupid cuck just isn't understanding how heavy supercharged pushrod V8s are. They're dogshit engines.

ecoboost V6>pushrod V8

>needing smug animu faces to troll

Turbo V6 < Turbo V8 (unless turbo=0 or V=0). Again, simple maths.

Pushrod engines are lighter than their DOHC counterparts though, all else being equal.

Again, nice SAE net hp rating to support your theory.

>unnecessary weight

>pushrods are lighter than their DOHC counterparts
Nope, see . Nice try lying though

...

>all else being equal
A V6 is not equal to a V8.

You're right, it isn't. It's superior to a pushrod V8.

>600hp
>$500/afternoon

No.

Sure that's why it has a power rating that actually exceeds the LT4's 640hp or the Hellcat's 707.

Oh, wait, it doesn't. Because it doesn't have a hp rating.

Boosted V8s are the reason why I love cars.

Benz's new TT 4.0 V8 is pretty neat. It's got the turbos imposed right over the block, revs up to 7900, and reviewers say it's got almost no turbo lag, feels like a 7-liter. It's even got fucking rollers in the pistons like a G3 bolt.

It's too bad it's too expensive for tuners to ever really get to it and this thread has turned to shitposting, imaging being able to crank up the boost on an 8k-redline V8.

>doesn't know about $500 turbo evenings

Veeky Forums this dum

>V8 cuckolds so triggered they called the janny in to delete the truth

A naturally aspirated LS has the same redline and makes more power without the turbo while weighing less.

>loses argument and gets banned

double kek

>V8 weighs more
>gets mad
lmao

...

I don't see how this follows:

A supercharger (turbos included) allows you to push more air into the engine thus allowing an increased amount of fuel to be burned in a given volume.

You could run lean I suppose but why?

>Ford will never remake the boss 429 mustang
>Modular 7 liter Ti-VCT with 10 psi blower
1000 HP reliably

The LSA in the 2011 CTS-V is supercharged. A TVS (similar to a roots style)-- not even close to a turbine impeller...

It weighs 446, lbs, liar.

It's forced induction. I swear, the goalposts have been moved all the way to the volleyball court.

It's really that heavy?
lmao

>getting a junkyard engine AND turbo for less than $1000

Yeah, it doesn't work like that. You could get away with $1200 or maybe $1500, but not $500 for all the shit you'd need.

Modular platform doesn't really support a V8 over ~6L though. You're better off with a Windsor 427 instead. Saleen did a twinturbo one with the S7, which was about 750hp iirc.

It's more that the turbo-supercharger makes use of the waste energy in the exhaust stream.

The velocity of the spent combustion gas, the temperature of the spent combustion gas, the volume and the pressure are all factors of Enthalpy. This potential energy is discharged from the exhaust tract in a naturally aspirated engine.

The turbo-supercharger increases the efficiency of the engine system thermally, volumetrically and chemically.

The turbo-supercharger makes use of this potential energy and converts it to work, providing power for a compressor. The compressor then raises the volumetric efficiency of the engine system. This means that for a given amount of fuel in grams/kilowatthour, the engine (an air pump) increases its ability to pump air. By providing the intake tract with positive pressure, pumping losses are reduced or negated. Pumping losses being the energy used by the depressing piston to overcome the friction and resistance to flow in the charge air during the induction cycle. If the piston does not expend any energy drawing combustion air into the combustion chamber, these losses are reduced.

Where this becomes a moot point is as you've pointed out, this additional air can be matched with additional fuel to generate additional power. This changes the turbo-supercharger from a recovery system to a generating system, and the thermal efficiency begins to drop.

A small displacement engine with a turbocharger providing additional air equal to a quarter of the swept volume is often a very efficient package. When attempting to provide the same amount of additional air as the swept volume, the system efficiency is dropping rapidly.

>the cuck is still trying to defend his shit-tier Company

kek

>Pushrod engines are lighter than their DOHC counterparts though, all else being equal

>all else being equal

the pushrod engine will make less power

>pushrodshit
>2016

If engine displacement is identical, then yes, a pushrod engine will produce less, but it'll also weigh less.

If external size and weight are identical (on V engines), then a pushrod engine may actually displace more, and therefore produce more power.

Corvette C7 Z06.

>but it'll also weigh less.
ill take the extra power over a couple of extra lbs any day

>needs more displacement to make the same power

lel, literally can't compete

lol overheats after a lap

>Why not just put forced induction on a v8 from the factory

...

Aaah, I see corvette cucks are still delusional

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>faster around willow springs
It isn't, nice photoshopped lap times.

Define mass produced

A turbo v8 car just doesnt have a large market.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

any nurburgring laptimes? because I remember GM saying some years ago how the Nurburgring was the best place to set laptimes

Who won Le Mans?
Oh that's right not corvette.

BTFO!!!! HOW WILL GM EVER RECOVER?!!!

Corvette (Z07, Auto): 97K MSRP
Loaded Corvette (optimal boomer spec, tick every box): ~130K

Nismo GT-R: 152K MSRP

>only 0:06 difference
For more than 20K price difference, it ought to be. For less than 10K, you can get some headers, a pulley swap. new throttle body, and E85 tune, which would probably undercut the GT-R's laptime. You'd even have money left for some good semislicks.

>97k
lol, no

>b-but it's only slightly faster
BTFO!!!

Pic related is 97K if it weren't for the (arguably unnecessary) data recorder. It's an automatic Z07, with bucket seats, ground effects package and aero packge. A stripper Z07 with all the performance goodies added. Please tell me if I've missed any other options.

The Motortrend example clearly had some other options added, probably some fancy interior stuff. That yellow paint is 1K, and the balck wheels are another 600 USD. Also, we don't know if it actually had the aero kit, which coudl've improved performance.

If the gap is tiny, but the price difference is huge, then you can use the aftermarket to compensate for that gap. At 100K, you can only afford a Z06. For 150K, you're better off buying a new Z06 and modding it. At ~200K, you'd be better off buying and modifying the GT-R, because lord knows those things respond well to some aftermarket boost control and fancy fuels.

>muh cherry picking
It costs 110k.

Stay mad.

>automatic

kek, literal cuck confirmed

>smug anime face
Show us a build list for a 110K Z07 then.

GT-R is automatic too. However, if you like manuals, there's good news. You can get a 80K Z06, add 7K worth of boltons, and still go 9's - a full second faster than the GT-R's 11 dead.

superchevy.com/features/1504-2015-chevrolet-corvette-z06-does-9-8s-with-just-bolt-ons/

there isn't a manual offering for the GTR...

see
BTFO!!!

>drag Racing

lol corvette can't turn

That Z07 had unnecessary options. A base Z07 with all the performance stuff starts at 97K.

The car as optioned cost the amount motortrend said

> but much mods for price difference
TThe r35 is a decade old platform and you can pick up used examples for 40k, which gives you 50k of mods to rape the z07