The GT500 has a twin turbo v6 (similar to FordGT) and makes more power than the mustangGT...

>the GT500 has a twin turbo v6 (similar to FordGT) and makes more power than the mustangGT. This is is to show the masses that A)turbo6 is better and B) the v8 is doomed.

how do u react to this

Other urls found in this thread:

topgear.com/car-reviews/alfa-romeo/qv-4dr/first-drive
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I'm not going to be buying a GT500 anytime soon so it doesn't really matter to me. But a V6 performance mustang sounds wrong to me. So does a V6 Ford GT

Great way to push prices of the GT350 and GT350R through the roof

just basic apathy, I guess.

It'd be a good stunt as far as Halo cars go, but the Mustang is such a boomermobile, no way they'd shun that purist market who would just run to Dodge or Chevrolet.

no it better be a twin turbo v8 if it wants to beat the Zl1 and hellcat v6 can't compete

How many LeMans has ZL1 or Hellcat won?

This is a hypothetical right? because its been confirmed its getting a twin turbo V8 (thank god Ford isn't trying to bend over to motorsports regulations like they had to with the GT so they can make the best car they actually can rather than what they can just get away with)

Id laugh them out o the room because A, in order to make more horsepower than the last GT500 they'd have to be pushing near 700 HP out of a mediocre shitbox engine that was never designed for performance (god i can only imagine the reliability) 2 i wouldn't believe that its better because it would only be making more power than the naturally aspirated V8 because Ford won't twin turbo their own V8s because they want to push the false narrative that you can get more power out of a V8. Cosworth got more power out of a NATURALLY ASPIRATED Ford V8 so i'm pretty sure Ford themselves could create nuclear energy with that shit with twin turbos if they wanted to (and they are going to prove that with the new GT500). if they truly made that car a twin turbo V6 then Ford is dead to me as a company because its the last thing i can potentially get hyped about after nu-male GT.
Ford won 4 with V8s only and the C6-R came in 4th which is higher than anything ecopoop.

>want to push the false narrative that you can get more power out of a V8
out of a V6*

*v8
sorry made a mistake in my post

alphonse and shitters have arrived.

>>the GT500 has a twin turbo v6
But it doesn't. It's an SC V8.

When will cylinderlets ever learn?

ford already confirmed supercharged voodoo

GT500 has already been confirmed as a forced induction V8 with over 700hp though.

I turbo my LS1 with a vortech

>drag car versions for Lemans
Different engines for Different purposes friendo now Fuck off with your ecomeme

slow piece of shit...i can smoke the fuck out of this in my 1994 EG hatch with a couple of simple mods:

- 10 point cage with Parachute
- 3 piece discontinued JoJo frontend
- spec-R full drag suspension
- Fuel cell with -8 lines from tank to motor
- 1 044 bosch pump
- 1200 rc injectors
- golden eagle sleeved block
- cp 10:1 pistons
- Eagle rods
- arp headstuds
- oem h22 headgasket
- Balance shaft delete
- competition clutch twin disc
- Port and polished head
- skunk2 valve springs and retainers
- Str cam gears
- crower stage 1 cams
- aluminium radiator with slim fan
- gsr transmission with itr lsd.
- qsd h2k intake manifold adapter
- k20 rbc manifold
- qsd throttle body spacer
- blox 70mm throttle body
- 4bar omni map sensor
- 6al msd with coil and cap. 3 step launch control
- hks bov
- Garret 102mm turbocharger.
- Custom t4 front facing turbo manifold with 44mm flange
- 44mm tial wastegate
- Custom water to air intercooler set up
- aem eugo wideband w/ gauge
- tuned on chipped p28
- 13 inch volks drag rims
- 2 15 inch volks rear rims
- arp extended wheel studs
- si cluster
- 150 shots of nitrous
im making 348 horsepower to the FRONT WHEELS because thats the only place the power should ever be

the gt500 has a v8

Centrifugal supercharged v8 pls

I realize this is a troll post but the absolute anus-tearing faggotry is just too much

It's actually gonna be a new engine called the Predator.

are gt350s or 500s gonna be kinda cheap in the future, like 10 years or so?

At what point in history were GT350s ever cheap? GT500s are much more common.

i mean the new ones

Shut up retard.

you do realize there's new gt350s being made right you jackass

Not him but new ones are going nowhere but up. they can barely keep up with demand.

>GT500 has a twin turbo v6

No it doesn't, retard.
It's confirmed to have a supercharged V8.

>centrifugally supercharged Voodoo

>egg and spoon versions for LeMans
You're right, they would've been a laughing stock

>be ford
>own ford australia
>ford australia makes one of the best inline 6 engines
>still put a fucking v6 into our cars instead of just using it
what the fuck ford.

laff because they're switching the raptor back to v8 after loss of market share

Well, the V6 is a better overall engine afterall.
>inb4 but mah dyno queen

Since they can't even make 650hp out of a 400K USD, limited production Ford GT, I wonder how they can get close in a GT500. It's supposed to compete with the Hellcat/ZL1 ( unlike the GT350) which means it needs somewhere between 650 and 850hp and still needs to cost less than 100K USD.

Too bad even the best inline 6 engines suck compared to a good V6. Putting all the weight of an I6 into a Mustang would make it terminally understeer, and it's 3 cylinders too long to even fit in the GT.

>Well, the V6 is a better overall engine afterall.
holy LEL

>3 cylinders too long to even fit in the GT
transverse?

>transverse I6
HOW? You'd have to complete redesign the rear end of this thing, destroying all of the aero advantage. And then you end up with a transverse I6, which means it's a bitch to work on, puts all the engine mass right near the axle (instead of between the axles), and it's so wide that you have to compromise your entire suspension geometry. Just take one look at under the hood of a transverse I6 Volvo and you know how much of a bad idea this is.

The only way they could have improved the road-going GT in the engine department is using a V8, but that would not have been competetive in racing.

But it is. Same power, but more compact and lighter, with less rotational inertia.

>the road-going GT in the engine department is using a V8, but that would not have been competetive in racing.
If the rules loosened up it could, the GTLM cars still arent as fast as their V8 and V12 powered GT1 grand parents.

>But it is.

>Same power
Lolno.

>M3: 425hp
>RS4: 450hp
>ATS-V: 465hp
>Giulia QV: 510hp

And, and do you ever wonder why the current gen M3 is so damn pigfat?
>The S65 weighs 202 kg (445 lb), which is 15 kg (33 lb) less than its S54 straight-6 engine predecessor.
Inline six a shit.

Excellent rebuttal.

...

>oldest car in the segment
>still out handles all of them
The meme for horsepower is why you buy an M5 not an M3

The current M3 is being discontinued this year.
How much do the other V6s weigh?

Why the heck can they not just turbo a v8 instead.
V6 means
>OFFSET
>CRANKS

The BMW is the lightest car in the segment you tard

Yet S65 is V8 you fuck

...

So?

You don't fucking say.

Wait... There are people making cranks for v6s properly now? Rather than those weird staggered abominations. I guess the V6 is not so bad then

>The current M3 is being discontinued this year.
Because it can't compete.

>How much do the other V6s weigh?
Less than the S55, of course. It's simple physics.

Except the Giulia QV has a dry kerb weight of nearly 50kg less.

Porsche has been making proper V6 cranks since they introduced their flat six.

The M3 weights a hair over 3.5k (Curb weight 1520-1657 kg (3351-3653 lbs))and the alfa weighs: Curb weight 1672-1733 kg (3686-3821 lbs)

>less than the S55, of course. It's simple physics.
>can’t give me a number
Fuckin lol’d. And even then the M3 still weighs less. That gets me thinking doesn’t it?

The M3 is being discontinued because of some emissions meme filter that it needs under the car while the M4 will continue production. What on earth are you on about?

topgear.com/car-reviews/alfa-romeo/qv-4dr/first-drive
>[...]a claimed kerbweight of 1524kg – some 40kg lighter than the standard M3.
Next time you should look up the Giulia QV, not the Stelvio (which is lighter than the X3, by the way).

>And even then the M3 still weighs less.
But it doesn't.

S55 is 205kg, which is more than a the 202kg S65. How can a V6 not be lighter than a V8? How can a V6 not be lighter than an I6, when you are basically splitting the I6 into two I3's, and making them share bottom block material to reduce weight? How can an V6 not be lighter, when you don't need a terribly long crankshaft that needs more mass in order to not whip around due to it's excessive length?

>The M3 is being discontinued because it needs a small upgrade
That means they're not selling enough units to justify the upgrade. They're not selling units because it lacks power and it's heavy compared to it's competitors (and the previous gen M3).

>dumb nigger thinks you can stick in a part that needs a complete underbody redesign
>muh stelvio weight
That’s the Alfa Guilia Q.V. weight. Everywhere I looked the car weighed more than the M3. The standard M3 weighs 1520kg. 4 less than the Alfa. Still lighter. Keep sperging

>muh I6 weighs more
Hey dumbass, you do know there are two turbos hanging off the side right?
>sacrificing pure and natural balance for 3/4s of a v8
So v6s are complete shit? Good to know.

I await to see how the i6 trumpet blower will backpedal from this

>pure natural balance
>worsening polar moment of inertia is more "pure"

>comparing kerb weight to dry weight

>All this ad hom
>Zero valid arguments

>The standard M3 weighs 1520kg.
The Giulia QV weighs 1524kg DIN (pic related), C&D cites 1604kg for the base 2017 M3. Unless you've got a source citing that 1520kg, then the M3 is clearly heavier than the Giulia QV.

>dumb nigger thinks you can stick in a part that needs a complete underbody redesign
As an automotive designer I know that sticking that part in is actually easy, although underbody design is a bit harder. The actual hard part is setting up the production section to do it in manufacturing, and when the industrial engineers that do that part do the maths, they simply calculate how much they expect to sell of a given car, how much it costs to set up shop, and make a choice based on that. Given current M3 sales, it's obvious that even a relatively simple change is enough to not warrant continued production.

>Hey dumbass, you do know there are two turbos hanging off the side right?
You do know BMW never quotes engine weights with out accessoiries, right? Did you really think you could go from 217kg (S54) to 205kg (S55) by adding turbo's?

>Appeal to nature
Internal balance is irrelevant in a day and age where we can make VR5 engines. NVH engineering is so advanced we need to pipe engine sound into cabins, which only leaves RPM. Guess what, thanks to the added rotational inertia an I6 can't rev as well as a V6. Formula 1 is famous for having extreme engine and piston speeds, and I can't remember a single I6 winning there. Meanwhile, the V6 is literally the most winningest engine of F1.

Even worse
>Comparing the M3's kerb weight to the Stelvio QV's kerb weight

>mfw in poorland there's like only $5500 price difference between base mustang and gt

because both of the them are taxed to hell

$54K vs $48.5K

Please do.

M3 is 1604kg, Stelvia QV is 1670.

Most of these car-based CUV's aren't really that much heavier than their regular counterparts. The Stelvio in particular is damn light.

The only GT500 that ever mattered was the 1967 model, so I don't care.

Wait, I didn't realise you were retarded enough to compare an M3 to a fucking crossover.
>BMW's so shit, their X5 weighs more than a fucking Nissan Micra
fucking retard.

M3: 1604kg
Stelvio: 1670kg
Giulia: 1524kg

My point was that the BMW M3 is closer to the Stelvio, than it is to the Giulia.

I retract that remark. Didn't see where you were going with that.