Is there a such thing like economical V8...

economical v8.
youtube.com/watch?v=yUrmrvS8hAc&app=desktop

Well the downside is that you need a more robust engine, but the FiST comes with forged rods (Only cast Pistons though). Their new i3 has 120hp for 1L of displacement, which is the same or higher HP/Litre ratio as a Hypercar. Obviously it's more economical to not use a turbo, but you're actually replacing displacement with forced induction. (Inb4 no replacement for displacement)

>I am not talking about some v8 but a small I4 diesel
where are you from?

Factory turbos have been for economy in the last 10-15 years. Why do you think NA cars are dying out?

>30mpg
If you never use the turbo.
You know literally nothing about engines.

>NA cars are dying out.
lulwewlad

Most of the gains are going to be low throttle highway cruising and idling. The law of internal combustion engines is that there must be an additional proportionate amount of gasoline for any extra air entered into the engine whether it's more displacement, more cylinders, or forced induction. Too lean or too rich of Air/fuel ratio will kill performance or the engine

Yes if you floor it constantly you don't get 30 mpg, thank you captain obvious. A turbo i4 weighs less than a v8, so you get the benefits of a light i4 at cruising speeds but you still have good acceleration.

Get a v6 fourth gen f body and swap in a 4.8 lr4, with a t56 I can promise you'll get more or less better mileage than your mitsu

autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos
Turbos generally don't increase MPG's

Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong gearing

You're a fucking idiot. I'm not saying slapping a turbo on something makes it more fuel efficient. I'm saying using a i4 with a turbo is more fuel efficient than using a v6 or v8, while preserving some horsepower.

Turbos are more fuel efficient than na nowadays you mongloid.

you either want a v8 and all the shit that comes with it or you dont
stop being a cuck

YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

>didn't read the article
There are a lot of instances where a V6 is more fuel efficient that a i4 turbo, you ironic faggot

There is no such thing as a "economical v8", but there are alot of shitty V8s.. If you want an economic car dont go for a V8.
Also, nice car m8. I had one of those, it was bullet proof, but also it was the most drunk car ive ever owned, worst than the Volvos

>There is no such thing as a "economical v8"
*deep breath* wrong
A 1999 Jeep Wrangler gets less than 20mpg, and 1999 C5 Corvette gets 25mpg.
Wouldn't that v8 be economical given the context?

6.2 detroit
>diesel
>20+mpg city and highway
>still able to cruise
>nice low end
>reliable
>plenty of power
it's the perfect engine

Something lightweight with a v8 and a tall overdrive like a Corvette.

get a V8 landbarge from the 90's/00's.

something like a early-mid 00's Panther or 90's GM B-Body.

the standard at the time was 15/25.

Ive got an '03 Grand Marquis and I get about 14.5 mpg in NY

that said if you want a V8, then you also need to be ok with the fact that they are just not meant to be economical.

that said, despite 14mpg, I can go about 2-3 weeks between gas stops, despite being my daily. I dont "top up", though. I have a digidash and it tells my how many miles ive got left in the tank, and I might let it get fairly low sometimes.

When compared to the majority of cars a V8 is not an economical choice.

My 2002 C5 averages 19-20mpg.

Also, it drives sideways. Defying gravity.

if you're doing city miles, it ain't gonna happen. if you highway commute there are many options that have been covered in this thread.

Diesel? A small diesel car has the same torque as an american truck or 'muscle' car

is this what Euros tell themselves to feel better?

I average about 21.5 mpg in my ISF, but I do 60/40 highway/city. Pure highway, I averaged 27 mpg on a tank once.

I engage in the occasional act of hooliganism (the car sounds great about 3700rpm), but as long as you're not gunning it at every stop light, that 8 speed automatic will help you get really good mpg.

Vettes and Camaros also get good MPGs if you get a non-supercharged version.

Unrestricted older 2.2 honda accords have 348lb ft of torque

Even a Auris has 150ft of torque at around 2,000rpm

>Same power per litre as a hypercar

Probably bait but I'll bite
A few issues with this statement
>1L
>turbo that adds probably .05L of effective displacement under boost
>120 hp from 1.5L
Isn't that kinda shit? Motorbikes and hondas make better hp/L na

Also
>hyper car
>Agera r
>5.0L
>1300hp
That's more like it (albeit it makes this with an effective displacement of 22L under boost)

Um what how the fuck did they make that? 20psi of boost?

Weight doesn't matter when not accelerating, only friction does. A smaller engine is more efficient because of the reduced drivetrain friction.

Anything can be more efficient than anything if driven the right way. It could be a comparison of a lady driving a v6 Camry and my neighbor driving is turbo s15. They both make the same power but if my neighbor wasn't a fuckwit he could get very good economy out of it.
As in my tt 300zx gets better economy than my buddy's v8 commodore dispite making the same power if I stay off boost

As the consensus seems to be op I would say a vette

It's the only choice.

yes a ls1 with 3.08 or 2.97 or lower rear end will give you good MPG but will sacrifice alot of acceleration in the mid-low end rev range

i get 5-10l on the highway and good gas milage around town

>drive a midsize 4cyl sedan
>get 21mpg

I fell for the 4cyl maymay.

>commodore
>Australian
Oy. So that's why you're a blazing cunt.

Turbos have been a thing for 40 years, not 10-15.

True. My Tacoma would light up like a mobile crime scene. The Yaris, not so much.

Economy turbos haven't though. In the 80s and most of the 90s, the Turbo cars were very performance oriented, especially as opposed to nowadays, where every shitbox and their mother has some kind of turbo.

Which then means it only requires a software change to boost performance on a shitbox.
Why would people be against that?

I get about 15 city, 23 highway with my LS2 CTS-V

Personally? Because pushing 200hp/L doesn't feel safe, and I'd rather drive a big displacement NA than a small displacement Turbo, but that's just me.

No one was really arguing for or against it, someone was just claiming that Turbos being the economical option was something new.

The modern turbo are tiny and the engines aren't built for performance.

> 2017 elantra

Tiny fucking gas tank. Can only fit about $40 of gas. Fuel ecomomy is good (not great) but im ALWAYS at a gas station.

Fucking kikes give us free energy already

Modern engines with modern surface engineering processes and factory turbos will take turbo better than older n/a engines.

You don't have to boost the tits off it but getting a noticeable performance increase without sacrificing reliability is much easier today.

No

Yes

Such lack of knowledge in this thread.

Dobrze, że widać z kim mam do czynienia.

Audi 3.7, 4.2l w A6, A8, V8 (chociaż zalecam od razu swap hamulców w V8, UFO to chuj)
BMW E38, E39 3.5l
Mercedes W210 4.2l
Lexus LS400, GS400 4.0
ostatecznie Cadillac Seville 4.6l

Nie oczekuj cudów w miescie, ale poza miastem spalanie powinno być w tych autach całkiem OK.

Buy a v6 camaro, change the exhaust, add SS badge :D

LOL my 6cyl diesel makes 280hp and still gets better mpgs

:D

Whatever helps you sleep at night

Do they even have 300zx twin turbos in Australia? Idk

My buddy has a Challenger rt that has an economic mode on it and got 24mpg average. Best I've seen on those things.

>skip shift
lmfao

It's never happened to me. Previous owner must have disabled it

They do off boost. New technologies like water injection and cooled EGR will allow for much better on boost fuel economy by reducing detonation.

Turbo engines are the way of the future. Just will be more complicated than what we were hoping for.

>water injection
Having a water tank to refill would be an inconvenience most people wouldn't like.
I don't think turbos are going to be better than hybrids. Hybrids seem to be a much more likely "way of the future," especially with F1 using energy recovery systems in their cars. But they also use turbos so lol i guess we'll see.

LMAO

the engine disintegrated in that video?

>new technologies like water injection
>new
>water injection
for a production car, yes but water or meth injection has been very common since the 60s in drag racing

That's your galant?
Totally unmolested and clean as fuck
10/10 would not v8

If you buy a V8 expecting anything resembling good mileage you're an apocalyptic retard.

Just recently sold a Grand Marquis and bought a Civic, have yet to get lower than 29 mpg even with 4 people in the car and a loaded trunk, feels good man.