What's new
Carbonite

South Africa's Top Online Tech Classifieds!
Register a free account today to become a member! (No Under 18's)
Home of C.U.D.

V6 Turbo or V8

V6T or V8

  • V6T

    Votes: 28 50.9%
  • V8

    Votes: 27 49.1%

  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll votes is visible for users with special permission.
No one mentioned rotary yet. I'm surprised


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because you put the same amount of oil in it as you do petrol and the principle design of the engine is flawed. The bang part of the combusion needs to follow the cyclinder as it rotates away, which means that the explosion and thus the energy isn't in the sweet spot, the expansion of the gases is delayed over the chamber leading to high petrol use for the same Kw.
 
They just take some time to get going... Motors ain't that flexible like a 6 :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends what v8. If we were talking turbo V8. I definetly won't say they take long to get going :p
 
Every time I skim over this thread's title my mind reads it as "Polo: V6 Turbo or V8" and my heart does a little 2-step...
 
Anything without a turbo.

You sound like a friend of mine. He hates turbos because of the lag. I agree, older turbos have massive lag but modern turbos are very very good.
AMG GT springs to mind. Turbos are here to stay so get used to them.

They help BS the Co2 testing because they only get used moderately in the controlled test but in the real world, they drink as much fuel as a normal car.
 
You sound like a friend of mine. He hates turbos because of the lag. I agree, older turbos have massive lag but modern turbos are very very good.
AMG GT springs to mind. Turbos are here to stay so get used to them.

They help BS the Co2 testing because they only get used moderately in the controlled test but in the real world, they drink as much fuel as a normal car.

Turbos are great, especially at Highveld but I still prefer the response and sound of an NA engine. Economy is definitely an interesting point but I think they are better than NA, when driven sensibly. New cars feel a bit odd to me, I can't see myself owning anything too modern.
 
Turbos are great, especially at Highveld but I still prefer the response and sound of an NA engine. Economy is definitely an interesting point but I think they are better than NA, when driven sensibly. New cars feel a bit odd to me, I can't see myself owning anything too modern.
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/how-emissions-tests-work-and-why-theyre-stupidly-unrealistic/
the "New European Driving Cycle" and while it can be conducted on a road it’s typically done in a laboratory in order to ensure the tests are repeatable and generate comparative figures. There are two separate tests, but usually they’re performed together and the car must be run from cold with all ancillary electrics turned off so there’s minimal battery load.

The first is the urban driving cycle (UDC), designed to mimic driving conditions in European cities. It consists of three acceleration and four braking phases and they are ludicrously gentle:

Accelerate to 9mph in four seconds
Cruise at 9mph for eight seconds
Brake to rest in five seconds
Accelerate to 20mph over 12 seconds
Cruise at 20mph for 24 seconds
Brake to rest in 11 seconds
Accelerate to 31mph over 26 seconds
Cruise at 31mph for 12 seconds
Brake to 22mph over eight seconds
Cruise at 22mph for 13 seconds
Brake to rest in 12 seconds
Adding in all the required gear changes and idle periods, this whole test takes just over three minutes and less than a mile of driving. It’s repeated another three times, with the total driven distance adding up to just 2.5 miles.
A second test was added in the 1990s, called the extra-urban driving cycle (EUDC). This is similarly gentle and not particularly recognisable as real-world driving either:

Accelerate to 44mph in 41 seconds
Cruise at 44mph for 50 seconds
Brake to 31mph in eight seconds
Cruise at 31mph for 69 seconds
Accelerate to 44mph in 13 seconds
Cruise at 44mph for 50 seconds
Accelerate to 62mph in 35 seconds
Cruise at 62mph for 30 seconds
Accelerate to 75mph in 20 seconds
Cruise at 75mph for 10 seconds
Brake to rest in 34 seconds

No turbo car is going to struggle to do well with those loads. The load on the turbos would be so gentle that they are running at little strain. My dads Supra can drop 4l/100km in usage with gentle acceleration (from 19L to 15L P/100km). A supercharger would do worse in these conditions because it's under strain immediately due to the use of the drive shaft and not gasses. It's why the Mini S changed from super charger to turbo.

Superchargers are more like NA cars in that the power is immediate and works from low RPM, rising at a constant ratio.
Turbos hit you lekker later on in the RPM range. I'm a big fan of the 335D. Big power with good economy under non stressful driving.
 
Turbo lag is like foreplay, what is there not to like?

In most cases I'd go V8. Unless a Jag F Type V6 S is on the cards.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom