Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

Thread: Performance V6 vs. V8

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    The Coastal Table
    Posts
    127
    i am curious as well about this
    as fricitonal losses in a V6 are less than a v8- for the same capacity a v6 can rev higher yes? and get more power torque should not be too off
    ferrari had a good line of v6's as nissan does currently
    some V6 trans am cars existed in the later 80's (V6GTU berretta 5.0!)

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Stop looking at me! Look at me! Stop looking at me!
    Posts
    1,873
    The 2008 Evo is somewhere around 300-320hp and 295 ft lbs. It will cost somewhere around $35k - $40k USD.

    A similarly priced Shelby GT500 has around 500hp 480ft lbs.

    The Shelby weighs 3500 lbs. Reportedly the lancer will be 3200 - 3500.

    So HPwise, no. The new evo X will not be as fast. But who buys Evos to go in straight lines??? The GT500 is a muscle car, it damn well better beat the Evo in HP :P
    I dont if I'll make home tonight
    But I know I can swim
    under the Tahitian moon

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck View Post
    This is a 4 cylinder.

    A good powered V6 would be the new 3.7 Nissan engines (G37?)
    Screw V6s

    Straight 6 engines are the best 6-cylinder engines out there

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by digitalcraft View Post
    The 2008 Evo is somewhere around 300-320hp and 295 ft lbs. It will cost somewhere around $35k - $40k USD.

    A similarly priced Shelby GT500 has around 500hp 480ft lbs.

    The Shelby weighs 3500 lbs. Reportedly the lancer will be 3200 - 3500.

    So HPwise, no. The new evo X will not be as fast. But who buys Evos to go in straight lines??? The GT500 is a muscle car, it damn well better beat the Evo in HP :P
    No the Shelby GT500 has a heavy 3920 lbs (almost 1800 kg) curb weight. So much for a light powerful muscle car.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    The Coastal Table
    Posts
    127
    back to the topic at hand-
    what are the pitfalls of more cylinders and the benefits?
    What are the advantages of less cylinders...?
    i recall the old ferrari V12 f1 cars of the 50's going well- but aften failing when the ferrari inline 4 would soldier on to win and staying on pace...if a tad slower

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Earle, AR 72331
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by digitalcraft View Post
    The 2008 Evo is somewhere around 300-320hp and 295 ft lbs. It will cost somewhere around $35k - $40k USD.

    A similarly priced Shelby GT500 has around 500hp 480ft lbs.

    The Shelby weighs 3500 lbs. Reportedly the lancer will be 3200 - 3500.

    So HPwise, no. The new evo X will not be as fast. But who buys Evos to go in straight lines??? The GT500 is a muscle car, it damn well better beat the Evo in HP :P
    Well said, Digital Craft.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Stop looking at me! Look at me! Stop looking at me!
    Posts
    1,873
    My bad, I saw the weight as 3500 somewhere, but if I go look, most places say around 3900.

    So around 11% heavier than the X, but 66% more HP, 62% more torque than the X.
    I dont if I'll make home tonight
    But I know I can swim
    under the Tahitian moon

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiorano View Post
    back to the topic at hand-
    what are the pitfalls of more cylinders and the benefits?
    What are the advantages of less cylinders...?
    i recall the old ferrari V12 f1 cars of the 50's going well- but aften failing when the ferrari inline 4 would soldier on to win and staying on pace...if a tad slower
    I guess less things could go wrong with less cylinders- less moving parts, less friction, stuff like that.

    More cylinders usually mean more power (more air in each cylinder), although that changes with superchargers and turbochargers.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St Marys Western Sydney
    Posts
    20,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Fiorano View Post
    i am curious as well about this
    as fricitonal losses in a V6 are less than a v8- for the same capacity a v6 can rev higher yes? and get more power torque should not be too off
    ferrari had a good line of v6's as nissan does currently
    some V6 trans am cars existed in the later 80's (V6GTU berretta 5.0!)
    Youve also got to consider though how the bore/stroke gets affected when you add/subtract cylinders and keep the same displacement. Generally for a fixed displacement, its the engines with more cylinders that seem to rev higher. Compare a 6L V8 and V12 as an example.
    I am the Stig

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    6,065
    Quote Originally Posted by rgibbs205 View Post
    Thanks, Members. I'll be sure to challenge what i read. I basically was asking about power and being fast. Really fast! Can a V6 somewhere between 270-320 HP (with added parts if neccessary) create that "UMPH" when you get down on the gas pedal. People say a car around 300 HP is getting into some serious speed. Well, the picture is that there are some V6 engines that are near V8 horsepower (stock) and some V6 engines with more horsepower than a V8 car (stock). EX. 2008 Mitsu. Lancer (320 HP) and 2005 Ford Mustang GT (300 HP) Doesn't this mean the 2008 Lancer is more powerful than this 2005 Mustang GT?
    There's a lot more factors in a cars performance than just the engine.
    Where the power is in the rpm range, gear ratios, weight, traction, tires, balance, chassis, suspension all effect how that power is transfered to the ground. Just because a car has more hp, doesn't mean it's faster or better.

    BTW, 300hp is nothing.

    I hate v6's due to their sound. Also another thing to look at, my dad had a dakota with a v6, it was wrecked and then got another one with a v8, exact same truck other than the motor. The v8(more hp and tq) got better mileage due to the fact it didn't have to work as much as the v6.
    Last edited by johnnynumfiv; 09-25-2007 at 06:50 PM.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northampton, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,989
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnynumfiv View Post
    I hate v6's due to their sound.
    O rly.

    Johnny sucks.
    [O o)O=\x/=O(o O]

    The things we do for girls who won't sleep with us.

    Patrick says:
    dads is too long so it wont fit
    so i took hers out
    and put mine in

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    brisbane - sub-tropical land of mangoes
    Posts
    16,251
    flat 6 and I6 > V6
    Andreas Preuninger, Manager of Porsche High Performance Cars: "Grandmas can use paddles. They aren't challenging."

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,994

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    6,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Quiggs View Post
    Vr6=/= v6

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Redneckville, AL
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by fpv_gtho View Post
    Youve also got to consider though how the bore/stroke gets affected when you add/subtract cylinders and keep the same displacement. Generally for a fixed displacement, its the engines with more cylinders that seem to rev higher. Compare a 6L V8 and V12 as an example.

    I'd like to disagree. A V12 has a longer/heavier Crankshaft that takes more energy to turn. All of the 6L V8s you can think of are probably OHV designs, while most V12s are over head cam designs. If you compare examples with the same cam position the V8 should rev higher. Of course many other factors come into play like length of the stroke and use of lightweight internals.


    oh and I6 > V6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A Useless List Of Nissan Engines!!
    By don_85 in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 06:11 PM
  2. Probable Entry List for Le Mans
    By Zytek_Fan in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-01-2006, 07:16 AM
  3. Chrysler lights hi-po wick with 300C
    By SlickHolden in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 11-27-2005, 03:14 AM
  4. Driveline Question
    By sandwich in forum Car comparison
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-24-2005, 09:06 AM
  5. Rover 75 1998–2005
    By Matt in forum Matt's Hi-Res Hide-Out
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-30-2004, 01:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •