Ford 3.5L EcoBoost

>Ford 3.5L EcoBoost
>400 lbs
>over 700 HP


>Chevy LT4
>529 lbs
>650 HP

Turbo V6's are clearly better than V8's for track performance. Why would you want extra weight if you're trying to create a lightweight track vehicle?

Other urls found in this thread:

edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-ford-f-150-fuel-economy-test-27-liter-ecoboost-vs-50-liter-v8.html
theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/adventure/red-line/the-trouble-with-turbos-why-fuel-economy-can-be-worse-not-better/article29705614/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>wanting extra cylinders to increase unreliability

>ecoboost v6 has proved it's reliability on the endurance racing stage
>between the lt4 and sub 1000 mile catastrophic failures, and overheating and going into limp mode in literally every single media test, gm chose not to use the lt4 as the engine in the c7r because it's such an unreliable piece of shit

Try again gmcuck

>z06
>moving
Pick one

a turbo v6 will have a shorter life than a n/a v8

turbo or superchargers (forced induction) will have negative a negative impact on a engines lifespan

Pretty sure a gtr is more reliable than a Ferrari v8

Wrong

>ecobost
>700hp max

>LT4
>650 stock and capable of 1500+hp in a weekend

Why is the fastest engine driven car a GM V8 and not a ecoboost V6? Really makes you think.

>engine weighs 400 pounds
>the turbocharger and all of its equipment has zero weight

this is correct but were talking about track cars
these engines are made to go for maybe 24 hours straight before a rebuild and they have an expert team maintaining them

>650 stock and so unreliable the ecu is actually programmed to retard timing and severely cut power so the engine lasts the warranty period
CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP

>blows up before a lap in stock form

Well no shit nigga, most Ferrari v8s don't last longer than 40,000 miles before igniting into flames.

>so asshurt he had to remove his trip so people stopped reporting his faggot little ass

get fucked kiddo

>projecting your asshurt onto others

Put a turbo on the v8 and it will be faster

Btw
>700hp at 7000rpm vs 650hp and 2000rpm

>put a turbo on the v8 and it will be faster
[citation needed]

.

>this mad
Lmao he just forgot to trip up
Like how your mum forgot her morning after pill
Lmao

>samefagging this hard

epitome of autism, kys you degenerate fag.

...

Yeah I made a post calling out Alphonso then I samefagged it with defense of Alphonso

Lmao

.

.

>implying it still doesn't weigh less

Are we all forgetting about packaging?

The answer of boost a V8 doesn't really work. You would have a substantially larger machine due to weight, Turbo(s)/SC, much larger cooling, more exhaust piping, etc.

A fast car needs more than power to be good. Design and chassis are pretty important as well.

In a lot of cars a TTv6 makes more sense than a V8. In some cars it doesn't. But it's silly to compare engines with no context of how they affect a given car.

Actually 450 lbs, without turbo or piping.
Doesn't make over 700 horsepower.

>450lb without turno or piping
This is about 50lb off a fully dressed Coyote
You're so full of shit

it's true, you dink. you're putting more stress on the internals when you boost.

Wrong, you will put more strain on the omponents if to try achieve those power gains keeping it N/A

this

Ferrari engines are incredible bulletproof. Everything else on the other hand...

BTFO

.

ecoboost is a dumb meme engine. Ford downsized to increase fuel economy but turbos typically use more fuel than larger engines. pic related is the -->EPA

>turbos typically use more fuel than larger engines
wrong.

>there is no replacement for displacement
yep, it's called a turbocharger you stupid cuck.

>wrong.
edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2015/long-term-road-test/2015-ford-f-150-fuel-economy-test-27-liter-ecoboost-vs-50-liter-v8.html
theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/adventure/red-line/the-trouble-with-turbos-why-fuel-economy-can-be-worse-not-better/article29705614/
> it's called a turbocharger
no. FI can supplement displacement but it cannot truely replace it.

>drives aggressively
>gets bad mpg
>hurr
sperg harder. turbo ohc gets better mpg

>it cannot truly replace it
except it can. sperg more.

so what you're saying is that everyone with a turbo car should only apply as much force as a light breeze can make to the accelerator? Most people don't drive "aggressively" but still get mpg below what the EPA says it should be.
sperg harder turbocuck

reminder that semi trucks use turbos for best mpg. na cucks on suicide watch. sperg more

you dumb turbonigger. turbos are only on diesels to increase torque, not economy. stop speaking out of your ass.

lol sperg more cuck.

>no! it isn't true!
LOOOOOOOOL. sperg more. na a shit

I have provided proofs for my claims. I'd like to see you backup your claims.
inb4 i-i cant because my ass is not a good source
sperg harder turbocuck

>please spoon feed me
nacuck eternally btfo.

stay btfo. semis use turbos because they're superior.

Eccoboost and all its extra parts to make it work weighs less than cheby v8?

I do like the eccoboost and mostly believe in it. But I thought it weighed more with all the parts it needs?

Not necessarily. Turbo does not equal less reliability. Turbo rigs...

>weighs less
yep. pushcucks on suicide watch.

nice try alphonse. I thought I recognized this shitposting style. Until you provide proofs to your claims I will not reply any more because it's a waste of my time.

Yes. But it was big turbo. It could have been a turbo v6. But all the parts already exist to do a 2000up Chevy or dodge for that matter, so why spend the time doing an ecco block when the logistics for the rest of the car itself are more than enough time spent.

nice obsession.

>literally ragequits
lel

Turbos use more in practice sometimes because many OEMS fuck up the details for cost.

GM turbos in sedans meet the promise of more power and better economy and imperceptible lag. VW has been doing it since the mk4 1.8, diesel trucks forever.

It's always both. Top fuel would not be the fastest thing since space shuttles without mega boost.

This guy gets it.

It's for torque and economy. Open a fucking book and actually read with comprehension before you sperg off.

>to increase torque
and as a result make the same amount of power with less displacement and lower revs

you are stupid

>shoving more air into a cylinder without adding more fuel magically increases
>running lean = more power
wew

>increases
increases power*

>dumb cuckold gets BTFO, resorts to cherrypick dumb shit

who do you take me for user, you? of course there is also an increase in fuel, but since the pressure inside a cylinder increases compared to an NA engine, you are capable of achieving better thermal efficiency compared to an NA making the same amount amount of power

also, if you are out of boost threshold, you do not inject extra air, so there is no necessity for extra fuek

I bet you feel fucking stupid now, yet you will reply again with something dumb because you don't know any better

being an NA cuck should be a bannable offense

you seem knowledgeable. why do you shitpost so often?

because fun things are fun, why don't you give shitposting a try? I promise you will get a couple of laff's

Why do you read shitposts?

Oh I do shitpost. It's just you often shitpost enough and so hard you seem genuinely retarded sometimes but then you post stuff that makes you look smart so it really makes me wonder.
Anyways Cunningham's law was proven correct once again :^)
it's fun

. so 3

Because "track cars" come with pit crews. Are you talking about race cars user? If so ur thread is fucking pointless

Why are V6s so small? Why not a 5.0V6?

>Americans JUST RECENTLY discovered forced induction
>and how you can have standard efficiency at normal driving and increased performance at higher RPMs
>when Japs and Yuropoors have been doing it for decades
>even fucking Zastava made turbo cars