How will V8fags ever recover?

The real question is

Can a turbo v6 make turbo I6 power?

Vey Akt.

The goalposts were moved from the beginning. Why are N/A V8s being compared to turbo V6s? What about N/A V6s? Oh, they're anemic piles of shit?

2 cylinders? 1 is too much!

Yes, but not a turbo V6 which was the question.

NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT

>put the engine in the middle where it fucking belongs
>now it's okay if it's heavy
>turbo v8 instead

Not hard.

Front engine is how you get cancer like four bangers and rotaries.

Apart from intake pressure, air-fuel mixture, compression, ignition timing and a variety of other measures.

Cylinder count.

2l V8 makes more power than 2l i4.

>goalposts were moved from the beginning
Sorry you don't understand freshman level rhetoric.

Thesis: A turbo v6 can make as much power as a N/A v8 and save fuel economy.

That is the author's claim. The fallacy of moving the goalposts comes in when decides that we are no longer evaluating a turbo V6 with a N/A V8 but rather against a turbo V8.

The thesis is complete garbage because it compares vastly different things PURPOSELY to make a statement for one over the other. It's a thesis that belongs in the garbage before even seeing the results.

A thesis can't be garbage just because you don't like it. Like said, that was the authors claim, that's what they supported. So what if you think engines aren't comparable for some reason, T/V6 vs NA/V8 is what was said.

>1/11 pages
Fuck you and your click bait """""article""""

My old Northstar did pretty good on gas and had loads of power. My modular v8 does have more power then the v6, and mpg is only like 1-2mpg difference

Why can't we compare Turbo V6 engines with N/A V8 engines?

A thesis doesn't get better just because the author supports it. In fact theses usually get worse when the author supports them because he will expect a certain outcome from his research. A good thesis is objective and looks at comparable matters to begin with. Comparing turbo V6s and N/A V8s is like comparing apples and oranges on edibility including the peel. You'd have to compare apples and pears, or oranges and lemons.

EcoBoost turbos have reliability issues out the ass. Why don't we talk about adding complexity and cost?

Except they don't? You have no evidence for this meme.

Well, he’s partially right, but the issue isn’t limited to just Ford. All turbos eventually fail in these types of cars typically before 100k miles.

>happens in the Gti
>happens in the n54 and n55
>happens in ecoboosts

It’s part of the gand.

The simple fact is, no matter your V6 type, Jag V6, Nissan V6, VAG VR6, it will never sound anything like a V8.

You can get equal, if not better mpgs from the v8.

Too bad Ford's turbo v6's need to be replaced at around 100k miles for being so shit.

It's a fucking scam designed to inflate fleet mpgs for the EPA. No one gets the stated mpgs for that engine.

>can make as much power as a naturally aspirated V8 and save fuel
not at the same time. A turbo V6 will be as powerful as an NA V8 with the turbo(s) at full chat (thus eliminating any fuel economy advantage) but off boost it will lag far behind.

Basically all that he is showing is that turbos increase power for a given displacement and are a more economical way of adding power vs. displacement. Shit that's already common knowledge.

Not like turbos are expensive to replace.
Not true.