Can somebody explain to me the advantages of a V8? A V6 delivers the same power with less weight and more efficiency...

Can somebody explain to me the advantages of a V8? A V6 delivers the same power with less weight and more efficiency. Why would you still use a V8 in a modern car?

Other urls found in this thread:

radicalsportscars.com/news/57
autoblog.com/2016/06/29/watch-the-mclaren-p1-lm-break-goodwood-roadcar-record/
motorauthority.com/news/1085546_jenson-button-hits-goodwood-hill-climb-in-a-mclaren-p1-video
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

t. V6 camaro owner

V8s came first.

V6 are useless when you have an I6. Like why go through the trouble for 2 more cylinders over an inline 4? Two banks, two heads, two headgaskts, two set of everything. Lot of additional complication to improve an I4. Just always go to a V8, or an I6.

>b-but my fitment
fuck off.

Fuck off alphonse

>same powe
mkay

>twin turbo a V6
>say it's better than a V8
>twin turbo a V8
>V8 destroys it

I6s are inferior to V6s and flat 6s.
They make more power actually. Sorry, my bad.

/thread

>V6 are useless when you have an I6.
A more false sentence has never been spoken. The other way around would be true however.

V8s are slower than V6s on average actually
He's right. They make pretty much the same power

Will this type of shitposting not stop until the GT has the 5.0tt in it?

You should tell McLaren an Ferrari that when they were demolished by an F150 with a body kit at Lemans.

This

Fitment and packaging is for faggots.

God-tier I6 > shit V6 that saved 30cm of space in he engine bay

Starts with T and it rhymes with "pork"

Ill take the weight advantage and polar moment of inertia thanks. Hanging half the motor over the front axle is akin to wearing your pants on your head.

Keep quoting "mah perfect balance" though, as if it's of any relevance.

Please don't reply to obvious bait.

If you compare a v8 truck to a v6 car.

inb4 fake laptimes and stay btfo

>I6s are inferior to V6s and flat 6s.
>A more false sentence has never been spoken. The other way around would be true however.
Then why does BMW make I6s? Aren't they the best or nothing?

Riiiiiiight

l6 is dogshit. deal with it tractorboy

daily reminder the fastest race cars have all been twin turbo v6s

Call me when an inline 6 holds the nurburgring lap record

>the best or nothing?

That's Benz...

How do you figure that?
in almost every car line up ever the v8 is faster usually the fastest they offer unless they have a v10. This holds true with forced induction as well.
Take the Audi brand for example I4 turbo- V6- V6 turbo -V8 - V8 turbo -V10. From least powerful to most.
This holds true for almost all brands with the exception of forced induction pushing ahead of a natural aspirated engine with fewer cylinders.

>same power

Mah perfect balance.

And glorious sound, too. Flat-6 is also invited, but only if it's NA.

Remind me when the last time BMW had a factory inline 6 race car.
>but mah E46 M3
>...that was kitted out with a V8 for racing purposes

And the Ford GT is the fastest car in Ford's lineup. What's your point?

How about we compare them to Ferrari and McLaren twin turbo V8s then. Oh wait, that's right

Not yet. Its still a 5.2L V8.N/A and that is a Turbocharged V6 not just a V6. Forced induction is a factor.
You are saying V6 are usually faster then v8s
It is just not true in the slightest.

If you are trying to say Turbocharged V6s are faster then naturally aspirated V8s then say that. I wouldnt agree with you but it is much harder to prove because the margins are much smaller.

Well then, how about we level the playing field a little then, and compare the turbo V6 against turbo V8s. Oh wait

This

>V8s are slower than V6s on average actually

Post 3 production turbo v6s that have more power output then 3 production turbo v8s.

Race cars do not count as "on average" as they are anything but average. There will always be an example that you can find to back up your argument.

>post an arbitrary number of examples in contrary of my claim
I only need to post one.
>race cars don't count because I said so
As far as I'm concerned production based race cars certainly do count. Sorry if the example I've brought to the front doesn't conform with what you're claiming.

See
Nobody said anything about power output, retard

Top fuel would disagree

>btfo
BTFO

If it's not a japanese v6 it sounds like shit. turbo v6's make me want to kill myself

also n/a v8s are an experience

You should do everyone a favour and trip up. That way everyone has the opportunity to block your worthless tripe.

no shitposting?

power band, displacement and sound.

>People just love the sound. It's a nice sound.
>Power band is more important than anything else. A v8, v10 and v12 all make their power low down AND high up, meaning no matter when you are pressing the throttle, in any gear, you have power. Lots of it.
>There is no replacement for displacement. Not in the sense of "MUH DISPLACEMENT>forced induction". A turbo v8 will beat a turbo i6 in regards to being a dyno queen, since there's more space to shove more air in and mix with fuel.

And i say this as a turbo i6 owner. It's 100% shitposting. Each engine has it's own unique pros and cons for your application. There is no one size fits all engine.

The V6 design is inherently unbalanced. All V6 engines enjoy parasitic losses from balance shafts, and thus have similar mechanical complexity when compared with a V8 with the same type of valvetrain.

I'm not sure where the 'less weight' part is coming from. To my knowledge, there's no inherent strength in a V6 block for a given displacement over a V8 that allows it to be built with less material. I'd love it if someone could explain that for me.

Subtracting two pistons and their valvetrain losses would make a more efficient engine, if you didn't have to include the extra movements and required balance shafts to counteract them. This is why the I-6 is virtually always your most efficient engine design for a large displacement. That's why you'll never find V6-powered heavy equipment.

The V6 wins in automobiles primarily due to a balance of packaging and power delivery in both RWD and FWD applications, but it's inferior in most respects to the I-5.

For a given power output, a V8 is cheaper to make (similar number of bearing surfaces to machine, rods, pistons and liners are easy to build, balance shafts and their bearing surfaces aren't). They also sound so much fucking better... 8 is more than 6, and ultimately, that's the level of mentality most people are working with when they're trying to market a product.

Sure, you get a shorter engine with similar efficiency as a V8 with a modern V6, but those packaging advantages mean almost nothing when you can design in a good weight balance. So, any engineering advantage is outweighed by a marketing and selling advantage. The V8 isn't going anywhere.

>i6 inferior to v6
What the fuck? I6 produces more torque and uses less fuel

In what comparison?

Sound.
Smoothness of power delivery.
masterrace

>Comparing apples to oranges

Now compare a V8 to a V6 with:
>identical displacement
>either identical boost or both naturally aspirated
>identical compression
>identical bore:stroke ratio
Etc.
Eventually you'll find that the V8 is more efficient.

>Two banks, two heads, two headgaskts, two set of everything.
Two of everything, but half the size. Just as much to go wrong, effectively: and the packaging of a V6 is a lot shorter, actually making it fit in transverse applications, and resulting in a way shorter overhang in longitudinal applications.

>torque and fuel consumption
>related to cilinder layout
What?

At that point you'll just get a 750-ish hp GT500, and Fordshills will just go turbo vs. supercharger instead of V6 vs. V8.

>Then why does BMW make I6s?
Because of heritage and marketing.

>Aren't they the best or nothing?
That's Mercedes, which have gone V6.

We're comparing engines though, not chassis.

>inb4 comparing n/a V8 Radical to turbo V6 Radical
Apples to oranges, you should compare two turbo cars instead.

>Subtracting two pistons and their valvetrain losses would make a more efficient engine
How about the added combustion chamber efficiency?

>That's why you'll never find V6-powered heavy equipment.
Heavy equipment doesn't care as much about packaging as cars do though, so they might as well choose the balanced layout.

>And glorious sound
GTR sounds better than an M4

See

>spec racing
Not relevant. You simply cannot compare two different chassis', with completely different engines, and conclude that it was the engines that made the difference.

What combustion chamber efficiency are you talking about? You can put the same combustion chamber on top of any piston configuration.

You must be some kind of dimwit.

>gets proven wrong
>damage control
Typical day on Veeky Forums

Smaller combustion chabers typically have higher efficiency, don't they?

>proven
I don't think that word means what you think it means

Okay, retard

Alright, maybe I'm the dimwit here, but you're assuming that we're talking about the same design (over/under/square) for a given displacement.

It's not really practical to do that because bore:stroke choice is motivated by a combination of desired characteristics, and limitations of the engine design.

>That's why you'll never find V6-powered heavy equipment
Gotta pull you up there. I've operated plenty of these in both Bell and Hitatchi guise and the 12L V6 in them is not only silky smooth, but has similar performance and better economy than the C15 powered 740 Caterpillars.

...

I stand corrected, and confused. I suppose packaging still matters in heavy equipment. But surely you won't find a V6 container ship engine, or a V6 electromotive... Right?

I suppose there's no reason besides cost why you couldn't have multiple V6 units like that Merc engine to meet the required power

Are you actually retarded? V6's are used in heavy equipment quite often

Torque, noise, muh veeate, the fact that it triggers salty displacelet cucks like you.

Except V6s makes more torque at lower rpms.

Koeniggseggs all have v8's and all are faster than the GT. Ford GT is just a Ford Corvette with twice as much money spent on the engine and body and interior.

>koenigseggs are faster
[citation needed]

>Koeniggseggs all have v8's and all are faster than the GT
That's funny, I didn't see them on the Le Mans podium.
>Ford GT is just a...
McLaren 650s, but cheaper, and faster. Corvette can't compete

Benz are ditching V6 engines and going back to I6 engines

BTFO

Land speed records are held all by diesels and jet cars, does this mean that the diesel in my hilux is better than a Mercedes v8?

Benz are ditching the V6 to go back to I6

B
T
F
O

How wrong can one man be?

>Le Mans is about speed.

Lot of damage control from v8 fans itt

Lots of insecurity from V6cucks itt

...

Well, it kind of is.

if v6 are better, why do drag cars use v8 engines?

Drag racing goes on cuck

>Gets BTFO
>''Let's call him gay''

Stay assmad.

>implying cilinder count and configuration determines torque

>That's funny, I didn't see them on the Le Mans podium.

>spec racing
>relevant
Pick one.

>Ford GT is just a...
McLaren 675LT, but more expensive, and slower
FTFY

Only because of marketing reasons. Their engineers know what's up.

Ford only used a V6 in the GT because of marketing, too. Tried to show a link between those Canadian-built racecars that have nothing to do with Ford, and their road cars.

>Let's compare two completely different cars, with two completely different engines, with two completely different kinds of forced induction, with two completely different drivetrain layout, with two completely different pricepoints and equipment, and make some conclusions on that!
Really now?

>Le Mans is about speed.
Correct. Highest average speed over 24 hours on one of the world's fastest curcuits. I'll sit and wait while you dig up Koeniggsegg's results.

Stay btfo
>damage control
The post

>claims V8s are faster
>proven wrong
>b-but
As expected

This. The only thing sadder than V8 diehards is the I6 fanboys who peddle their even more outdated, archaic, less relevant configuration.

>pretend to be retarded
>get replies
>Veeky Forums

kek, gtr sounds like an angry altima.

ecoboost 3.5 weights 450lbs
ls3 weights 460lbs
ecoboost 3.5: a little over $9000
ls3 : $8000 (500 from a junkyard)
ecoboost 3.5: 365hp
ls3: 430hp

The v6tt weights about the same, costs more, has less power, and most likely has a shorter life. The v6tt is more efficient though.