*saves V6*

That just made me hate the V6

Ecoboosts platform is churning out 800 hp and tq with built engines and no truck in it's class can even touch one that's 8 years old

*breaks down in italian*

You're 30 years too late with that one
> revs to 8k
> can do it all day
> made 270hp NA in the early 90s
> reliable
> cheap to maintain supercar

what is the purpose of these threads

Lmao

Shitposting containment

This is Veeky Forums and there is no actual purpose to any thread beyond the vin lookup requests.

lolno

>hybrid
>cheap to maintain

>Built engines
Honda K20s built with a hairdryer make more horsepower much cheaper and more reliable

it is faggot

It's originally a V8 from the panamara with 2 cylinders lopped off but most v6 originated that nway

inaccurate times

The ecoboosts is already an incredibly reliable platform bud

>Says the person that doesn't own one

Mine has 100k and NO issues. I get the same mileage I got from the factory. Pulled the heads and it looks brand new inside. Faggot ass bitch

Are you retarded?

It's a V6 that originated by lopping 2 cylinders off the Ferrari F154 engine

The Panamera (check your spelling) is by Porsche

>Had to pull the heads at 100k

>turbo an Iron block chebby vortec and make the same power for less
Really got my noggin joggin

>pulled the heads at 100k
AHAHAHAHAHAHA. My 05 chebby cracked 300k and I still haven't pulled the heads. Ford a SHIT

Too bad the M4 sounds like absolute dogshit.

I6 a shit. Too long and heavy if you actually want performance. BMW would still be segment leader it the M3 had a V6.

>having no clue what the fuck you're on about

>The S65 weighs 202 kg (445 lb), which is 15 kg (33 lb) less than its S54 straight-6 engine predecessor.
V engines are lighter than inlines. So much so that they can use more cylinder with even less weight, to the point where the last generation M3 made more power with a lighter engine than the current turbo I6. Even worse, an inline six is long and therefore sticks out further over the front axle, generating a tendency towards understeer. The 3er chassis would be a lot better (and it's already good) if they let the I6 go the way of the I8.

Daily reminder that nu-BMW hates throttle response, therefore, all of their engines are turbo'd. They even advertise a boosted four cylinder as a x30 to make people think that it's a six, disgusting.

Copied from another thread:
>M3: 425hp
>RS4: 450hp
>ATS-V: 465hp
>Giulia QV: 510hp
The M3 is has so little power that it's closer to a C43 than it is to the C63. You know, the C43 designed to go after the 340 (which it also handily beats because it has a superior V6, not a shitty inline).

Didn't have to. Wanted to.

>being so insecure about your vehicle's reliability that you want to pull heads @100K just to be sure
Well you bought a Ford so I guess that's all part of regular preventative maintenance.

>defending an inherently worse design while trying to compare an NA v8 with a straight 6 with 2 turbos hanging off the side
>trying to tell me the best handling car in its segment with perfect weight distribution needs a v6 for some reason even though it’s objectively worse in every aspect besides packaging
>Hates throttle response yet every car he compares is turbo’d
>MUH LITTLE HP even tho it btfos every car in the segment and also the lightest.

V6 is lighter than V8 is lighter than I6.
V8 makes more power than V6 makes more power than I6.
V8>V6>>>>>>I6

>Best handling car
No objective sources to quantify handling, yet it isn't the fastest around tracks.
>perfect weight distribution
50:50 is not perfect for a RWD car. Learns physics.
>objectively worse in every aspect besides packaging
More power, better throttle response, less weight, better fuel economy. Do I need to go on?

>Hates throttle response yet every car he compares is turbo’d
That's because every single car in the M3 segment is turbo, or underpowered.

>MUH LITTLE HP even tho it btfos every car in the segment and also the lightest.
Yet it's going out of production because it can't compete. It doesn't BTFO anything in a straight line, gets wrecked around circuits and it hasn't been the lightest in the segment since the Giulia QV was introduced.

>more power
Wrong. It’s merely a factor of how much boost is being squeezed through the cars in this segment. We can bench race all day with dyno queens since that is all you’re doing and even then I6 is at the top.
>better throttle response
Wrong
>less weight
Prove it. Because you’re bench racing an NA v8 with cars that are turbo’d
>better fuel economy
Why should anyone care. At this point it’s who can stick the best gearing and keep the car out of boost

>he doesn't tear his shit apart just to see it's guts
Sad! Pulling the heads takes a few hours, don't be such a fairy

stop awnsering its just bait

>It’s merely a factor of how much boost is being squeezed through the cars in this segment.
Lolno. Less windage and less rotational inertia result in less strain on the engine. This segment is dictated by price, and price is what dictates how much strain the engines can be under. Less strain, thanks to the superior layout, means more boost. This is why BMW can't shove more boost into the S55.

A V6 has less rotational inertia, less windage, less internal friction, and can make for shorter turbo piping if you use a hot V. How does that not make for better throttle response?

I have already proven that a similarly engineered V8 is lighter than an I6. Given that less cylinders in the same configuration means less weight, the V6 is lighter than an I6. Given an identical set of turbo's, for identical airflow, that set of turbo's should weight the same. Therefore, turbo V6 engines are lighter than turbo I6 engines for any given engineering and production level. QED.

>Why should anyone care.
Most Euro countries, where this segment is actually relevant, calculate vehicle taxes according to fuel economy or Co2 emmissions. This directly influences price.
Anyways, I mistranslated ''economy'', it should have been efficiency. Thanks to the added windage, inertia, etc., the BSFC on an inline six is worse than on a V.

All I'm seeing is a seething i6 fanboy who doesn't want to listen to logic and reason.
For example, this is driven by passion This is driven by reason

wow you really don't know shit I see.
BMW doesn't pump up the power on purpose, M3's have always had low power in comparison to a C63 for example. It's never about raw power on the M3.
C43 is worse than 340i btw.
P.S M3 has the best weight balance out of the bunch and if you think the m3 has bad throttle response you are absolutely clueless.

wow shit tier bait
m3 btfo's everything else on track from that list on track and has the best throttle response and best fuel economy AND its the lightest car why are you lying to prove your point dumb shitter?

>its the lightest car
>M3: 1604kg
>Giulia: 1524kg

False data. Your Wikipedia article shows the pre production claimed weight. It is fucking pigfat.

>Alfa Romeo Giulia QV
>QV
>reliable source

Autocar test car was 1700kg
Autoavanti in the US weighed theirs in at 1740kg.

>50:50 is not perfect for a RWD car. Learns physics.
Neither is front bias. The closer to rear bias the better.
M3 weight balance: 52:48
Giulia Q: 53:47
>better economy
Combined fuel economy: M3 17/24 Giulia Q 17/24 (claimed U.S mpg, according to tests the M3 gets better economy than the alfa)
>less weight
Curb weight: M3 1580-1620kg
Giulia Q 1660-1740kg
>track performance
Giulia gets BTFO by the underpowered inline 6 M3 on pretty much every track. Holding the Nurburgring record doesn't mean it is the fastest track car.
Imagine what would happen if you bumped the M3 power a bit and added tyres just as sticky as the Alfa.
youtube.com/watch?v=xJZAKvReRvQ

Get exposed V6 shill

...

D E N I A L
E
N
I
A
L

It’s a L6 not a V6

>b-but I don't like it so it has to be wrong!
You have to be 18 to post here.

For the love of god, it's the same basement of the maserati ghibli v6, why the fuck are you posting on an auto board.

*gets discontinued*

>BMW doesn't pump up the power on purpose
No, they keep the power low because they have an inferior I6 engine.

>C43 is worse than 340i btw.
Except the C43 makes more power since it does not have an I6.

> M3 has the best weight balance out of the bunch
Weight distribution is irrelevant in a class that can't even put a significant portion of weight over the driven wheels.

>if you think the m3 has bad throttle response you are absolutely clueless.
If you think it's better than the QV you're absolutely clueless as well. The old M3, now THAT thing had throttle response in spades thanks to the fact that is was a naturally aspirated beast with ITB's. Lighter than the current S55, too, and more powerful.

>Still memeing on with unsourced kerb weights
You should get back into your 318ti.

So both cars have bad weight distribution, par for the course in this segment.

>according to tests the M3 gets better economy than the alfa
>tests which I'm obviously not going to source
Meanwhile the Alfa V6 has a much higher BSFC. Even if the M3 chassis is somehow more fuel efficient (it's not any lighter for sure), the significant gap in BSFC means the Alfa should get better MPG.

You've been proven wrong about your kerb weights already. Stop repeating them.

Note that the BMW still loses that test, and is losing in the real world. C63 and QV production is going strong, while BMW won't even bother with a facelift-tier redesign to continue production of the M3.

Get a hold of this nigger

Pic related, it's you.

>proven wrong
By who? I did not bother posting sources because I know that Alfa shills are going to deny them either way but Giulia forums should be an ''acceptable'' source for even the most hardcore alfa fags
giuliaforums.com/forum/481-alfa-romeo-giulia-quadrifoglio/4074-us-spec-weight.html
autocar.co.uk/car-review/alfa-romeo/giulia-quadrifoglio/design
>they keep low power because they have an inferior i6 engine
How does the engine configuration affect maximum power output? Do you even have a clue what you're posting? Are all the 3000hp 2JZ drag cars fake?

lol nice try alfa shills come back when any of your shitty v6 makes as much power as a 2jz, rb26 or a bmw straight six.

>Monkey models for US market
>Redesigned models for UK market
Figures. Regular, Euro model QV's are lighter than the M3 and M4. Also, note that the M4 is lighter than the M3, just like the eventual QV-based 6C will be lighter than the M4.

>How does the engine configuration affect maximum power output?
An inline six needs more bearings, has more windage and a heavier crank- and camshaft, and bigger bearings to support that added mass. More windage and more internal friction means that, given the same cylinder design and fuel, less power ends up at the tail end of the crankshaft. It's less power with more strain on the entire rotating assembly, and more strain on the block. If you've ever done the engineering calculations for this, it boils down to the fact that given a specific budget per unit, you can only put so much strain on said unit. Since the BMW engines are naturally highly stressed, well, they can't make as much power and still meet the expected lifespan. That lifespan has been carefully calculated in a modern car to be just far enough ahead of the warranty period, that the incidental failures during the warranty period are already covered.

>Are all the 3000hp 2JZ drag cars fake?
Are all the 3000hp 2JZ drag cars engineered by accountants like modern production cars? Thought so.
>3000hp
Cute. Pic related, the fastest accelerating six cylinder in the world.

But it already makes more power:
>RB26DETT: 276hp
>2JZ: 280hp
>S54: 338hp
>POWERGAP
>S55: 425hp
>POWERGAP
>F154 V6: 510hp
>VR38DETT: 570-600hp

the most interesting thing in that list is the S54, could naturally aspirated get to 360hp. Show me any ~3 liter engine with that power and i'll show you a boosted one.

And i think the user you replied to meant you CAN get an RB26 or a 2JZ to much higher power. Easily tunable and all that

The only S54 that ever did 360 from the factory was a highly limited edition which cost a fuckton more. Correct for inflation and they sold for at least 110K USD new. The only things that get close to that n/a and roughly 3L are either Porsches (but they're usually too big), or something like a Synergy. Guess what: Porsche went turbo with their base models because that makes more power, and Atom dropped the V8 because it was ludicrously expensive and a boosted K series can make 95% of that power, even with a warranty.
Anyways, you can buy a 2L I4 turbo fresh off the showroom that makes more than 360hp at both the Volvo and Mercedes dealership, you don't even need 3L for that.

You couldn't get that RB or 2JZ above ~325hp with a warranty though. Once the gloves are off, there are much more powerful V6 engines. A VR38 will go up to 3000hp just like a 2JZ (which has had much more time te develop in the aftermarket), while custom V6 builds can make way more than that .

In factory and tuned trim, V6>I6.

you're getting away from the point. Even without the special snowflake S54, it still did 340

So that KH Series V6 produces 3500hp and you honestly think a 3000hp inline 6 can't be built to reach such power?
The KH Series V6 has been in development for 7 years while you can go to titanmotorsports.com and buy a 3000hp ready 2jz block.
Talking about production cars the most powerful N/A V6 is the 3.7 liter Nissan VQ37VHR with 332hp while BMW built a n/a 3.2 liter inline 6 with 360hp back in the early 2000's. No n/a V6 comes close.

>you honestly think a 3000hp inline 6 can't be built to reach such power?
No. Crank whips around too much, which is what killed the I8.

Yet, I don't see any 2JZ's holding the 6 cylinder acceleration record.

The most powerful n/a V6 is the Porsche GT3 RS with 500 hp, which is obviously more than the special snowflake M3 CSL.

So building the block to hold extra 500hp is impossible? Lol okay.
>porsche 911
>V6
Wow what a clueless dipshit. Anything you posted can be discarded.

Guess what, adding enough material into a billet block to support the additional 500hp worth of crank slap is actually pretty hard. Titan's project is literally a second behind Al Anabi, which is ages in the drag racing.

Boxers are a subset of flat engines. Flat engines are a subset of V engines. Therefore, boxers are a subset of V engines.

>checks list
>yuropoor magazine
>all yuropoor microcars
>be me, not yuro, not poor
Dont care

The difference is Titan sells prepped blocks that are expected to hold 3000hp reliably while the KH V6 is constantly in development to push more power.
Give a 2JZ block to the same guys building the V6 and they'll eventually bring it up to 3500hp too.
V6 has more complexity, frictional losses and thermal losses because of the duplicate valve trains, and to this balance shafts add even more.
Let's be real here the only problem with inline 6 and the main reason why it's almost dead is size and packaging. Hence most cars are built on FWD platforms inline 6 becomes less viable for manufacturers because they simply don't fit.
There are pros and cons of all configs it's not like there is a major flaw for either V6, i6 or flat six.
>H6 is basically the same as a V6
Yeah nah lmao

Goddamn, get a sense of humor you salty Italian faggot.

>Give a 2JZ block to the same guys building the V6 and they'll eventually bring it up to 3500hp too.
No, since an I6 can't take that much power.

>V6 has more complexity, frictional losses and thermal losses because of the duplicate valve trains
Lolno. I6 has more windage and needs beefed up parts for the long crankshaft. They have more bearings, which means more internal friction, and the longer crankshaft means it needs to have more mass. Said mass also needs to be supported, with of course bigger bearings which means even more internal losses. The valvetrain are similarly heavier, to the point where a single I6 cam is far heavier than two short V6 (or I3) ones. Go look up how to tighten a 2JZ camshaft and you'll see the immense stresses that they're under, just because they're too damn long. All that stress needs to go somewhere, which usually means modern material, which means more bearings.
tl;dr V6 gets higher BSFC

>Let's be real here the only problem with inline 6 and the main reason why it's almost dead is size and packaging.
And weight, and fuel efficiency.

>because they simply don't fit.
Transverse I6 engines fit, go hone your Google-fu. They're impractical and a bitch to work on. However, the packaging advantages of the V6 also apply to longitudinal, RWD vehicles. The 370Z for example wouldn't even be midengined if it had an I6, because it'd have at least two cylinders sticking over the front axle Audi-style. A RWD V6 makes for a short chassis that centralises mass, which is what you want in a sportscar.

Explain to me the difference between a 180 degree V6 and a flat six. I'll wait.

the boxer mill employs one crankpin per cylinder, while the 180 degree flat engine uses one crankpin per two horizontally opposed cylinders. A porsche boxer shares no relation to a v6 like you said here and They are also balanced unlike a 180 degree V engine.

So according to you the difference between the boxer and flat/180 degree V is in the crankshaft configuration, not in the cylinder configuration. Guess what, a V8 doesn't just stop being a V8 when you use a flat plane crank instead of a cross plane crank. You could conceivably make a 180 degree flat engine with individual crankpins, without using a boxer-style crankshaft. Therefore, a boxer is just a flat engine with a fancy crank, and we already established that the flat engine is just a 180 degree V. Boxer = V, QED.

Except more valve gears and extra camshafts increase frictional loss more than adding 3 more main bearings. As well as there is more friction between cylinder walls and Piston as it is inclined by some angle and applies some of its weight normally on cylinder walls.
Plus the use of 2 cylinder banks leads to more heat loss on the V6. inline 6 is simply the more efficient layout.
V6 can be put in pretty much every chassis and can has a lower cog as standard but if you can afford to develop a proper chassis to accommodate the engine (like BMW) you can place the i6 just low and far back to achieve perfect chassis balance. E46 M3 for example even had rear biased weight balance.
Also post source on the V6 being more economical than i6 claim.

Flat six, just like i6, needs no cancelling forces to be added. Dude saying the 911 has a 180 degree v6 is just stupid.

>Except more valve gears and extra camshafts increase frictional loss
As said before, two V6 cams are lighter, and with less rotational inertia than a single I6 one due to lower torsional load. Less mass and less inertia means lighter bearings and thus less frictional losses. Those 4 cam gears can be made just as light as, if not lighter than, 2 I6 cam gears because their torsional stiffness can be less than half.

Friction between cylinder walls is actually lower since you can further offset them compared to the crank.

>E46 M3 for example even had rear biased weight balance.
Now imagine if it had a V6 instead. That would have shifted the polar moment of inertia even further backwards, would have centralised mass even more. Static weight distribution isn't nearly as important as centralisation, you can have a 50:50 weight distribution with 80% of the weight outside of the axles.

>Dude saying the 911 has a 180 degree v6 is just stupid.
Imagine a split wristpin, 180 degree V2. How is that not the definition of a boxer twin? Same applies to any number of cylinders.

>Flat six, just like i6, needs no cancelling forces to be added
Niether does the 90° V6 in OP.

>Give a 2JZ block to the same guys building the V6 and they'll eventually bring it up to an arbitrary number I made up
Nice try I6 shills. Come back when your 6 cylinder is the fastest accelerating one on earth.
Your status
[ ] told
[ ] not told
[x] stone told steve austin

>V6 wannabes actually convinced their configuration is good at anything

So there is less frictional loss because you say so?
Ignoring the fact that V6 has more moving parts?
Post some calculations or gtfo with your imbalanced economy car engine.

>Ignoring the fact that V6 has more moving parts?
Such as?

M3 is the segment leader. It is the top selling car in the segment and it has won the majority of reviews against the competition.
You're clueless.

Who's this handsome fellow?

>M3 is the segment leader.
Maybe, if you ignore power and performance.

>So there is less frictional loss because you say so?
No, because of basic engine physics. Go read mechanical engineering 101 and we can discuss this further once you properly understand the following principles:
>Rotational inertia
>Torsional load
>Torsional stiffness
>Bearing speed
>Polar moment of inertia
Also, read up on the effects of an offset cylinder to the cylinder wall loading during the power stroke, which can significantly increase power.

>Ignoring the fact that V6 has more moving parts?
It has more parts, the sum of which is lighter and with less inertia. This means less friction so support said parts.

>gtfo with your imbalanced economy car engine.
Not a single I6 has won Formula 1, while the V6 is the most winningest engine in all of F1. Not exactly econobox territory there.

How do you know the torsional rigidity of a S55 engine? Do you honestly think there have been no technical advancements since the 2JZ era?
M3 has never had the most powerful engines but M3 has always had the best in class handling and track performance, the F80/82 continues the tradition.

You clearly don't understand torsional rigidity. Research the subject some more, and find out that it applies to beams, cylinders and shafts under a specific load. There have been technological advancements since the 1990's, but basic physics hasn't change. If you take a crankshaft and make it twice as long, you need four times the material to support an identical load. That means a heavier crankshaft, and bigger bearings to support it. Even worse, an I6 uses 7 main bearings, a V6 uses 4. More bearings also means more friction. Physics doesn't change, it has already killed the inline eight and for exactly the same reasons that the I6 will eventually die.

>M3 has never had the most powerful engines
S14 > 2.3/2.5 16v
S50/52>M104 (and even the 4.3 M113)
It took the W203 with either a boosted M112 or a big 5.5 M113 to make more power than it's contemporary M3 equivalent. The M3's have made more power than their equivalent Mercedes for the majority of their career.

>the F80/82 continues the tradition.
Then why does it get BTFO by the QV and C63S?

...

But user, boxers are a subset of V's.

get a load of this fag.

Explain to me why a split wristpin, opposed piston, 180 degree V-twin isn't a boxer then.

e30 m3 and 190evo has the same power
C36 AMG and E36 M3 3.0 have the same power
C55 AMG W203 had more power than E46 M3
C63 AMG W204 had more power than E92 M3
current C63 has more power too
Yet the BMWs are always faster on track despite the power disadvantage, same with current F80 M3, it beats the C63 and Giulia Q on track despite having 60 horsepower less.

>split wrist pin

what, do you mean individual wrist pin

>Regular E30 M3: 195PS
>190E 2.3 16v: 185hp
Winner: E30

>E30 M3 Evolution: 220PS
>190E 2.3 16v Evolution: 202PS
Winner: E30

>E30 M3 Sport Evolution: 238PS
>190E 2.3 16v Evolution II: 235PS
Winner: E30

>E36 M3 (S50B30): 285PS
>E36 M3 (S50B32): 321PS
>W202 C36 (M104): 280PS
Winner: E36 M3

>C55 AMG W203 had more power than E46 M3
Read what I posted:
>It took the W203 with either a boosted M112 or a big 5.5 M113 to make more power than it's contemporary M3 equivalent. The M3's have made more power than their equivalent Mercedes for the majority of their career.

>Yet the BMWs are always faster on track despite the power disadvantage
Citation needed, because it usually gets BTFO thanks to the lack of power.

We call it a split pin in my language. Individual or split, doesn't really matter, as long as it isn't a shared wristpin like most V engines use.