>>17162 You will understand when v6s start getting replaced with twincharged 4 cylinders.

>>17164 Nope Every normalfag drives a 4pot

>>17165 I know most europeans drive 4 cylinders. I’m talking about the luxury and work vehicles changing to twincharged 4 cylinders because of EU taxes on emissions. A v6 or v8 represents more than what someone needs for a passenger vehicle and just enough for some work vehicles. One day you will wish you had an understressed engine instead of one stretched to its limit.

>>17166 >one day >cheapest V6 in EU: Chevy Camaro (around 45k€) lel bro no one buys V6s here. The Germans go for straight 4,5 or 6s, the French don't even know how to engineer anything over 4 cylinders (bye V6 PRV, you'll be missed), the English don't even sell any English cars anymore and Jags are 4 bangers, or you'll have to upgrade a lot to get a 6 cylinder Range Rover. Don't get me started on Lambos and Rolls Royces because that's out of anyone's league in here. Maybe the Giulia has a V6. On it's Quadrifoglio version. Which is 80k€. And it's Chrysler based. You see I drive a 3 cylinders shitbox. It runs. It does what I want it to do. It isn't stretched to its limit as it only has 800 kgs to carry around. 6 cylinders is a luxury.

>>17166 Charged 4-cylinders? They are common, but i prefer them raw. Most vans in Europe come with 4-cyilinders, but VW ups their game with the Amarok and Tiguan (i know Tiguan is not a work vehicle, but that is besides the point) by giving them a V6. Audi gives a V6 in some A6 and fancy A4s, not even mentioning that hardly any of the S or RS series have a 4-cyilinder inside. While anything above a 4-cyl is not important in a daily driver, if you look for the option, you can get it. Heck, i have seen some Passats driving around with a V5 badge on them, whatever the fuck that means.

>>17167 It works for a subcompact or compact but anything larger is merely satisfactory. 6 cylinders is already a luxury because of gas prices and taxes put them further out of reach. I'm sure 3 cylinders can carry you in a small car but if you had the choice (and roads) its more fun to get a bigger engine. V6 doesn't need as long of a hood as i6 so you can get cars with more space for the back seat. The Giulia manufacturer is owned by chrysler but no other brand under FCA has used the Giulia platform. It also does that weird thing where everything is moved back so weight is closer to the middle but that means the backseat of the midsize giulia is the smaller than a compact car. It is a luxury in europe but the prices are still absurd.

>>17166 I already have an understressed engine, a 2.0T destroked to 1.8, You don't need much more power beyond that, I can't have the foot on the gas for more than 5 secs in the roads near me, or I kill myself. You don't need more than a two liter to have an engine that isn't going to be squeezed of all the available power all the time. >>17168 The V5 badge means that they have a V5, pic related.

>>17169 Oh don't get me wrong, if I had the money I'd get a V12 Century V8 mustang. It's roughly around 50k€ new and that's hella cheap compared to what it gives in here. Used? Less than 30k€. I'd totally get a neo american muscle. I'm just saying for regular commuters that 3 to 4 cylinders is enough and prevail because: >small engines for scrimpy towns >medium diesel blocks for highway >hot hatches are more popular than muscles and tbh I see less and less fun cars around here Prices are absurd, that's a given too yeah. But they're about the same in the US, people don't spend as much money on cars in here than in the US. I see my richest friend driving a beaten up 5th gen Golf (and I can tell you he could buy any car he wanted straight off) and my engineer friends, who makes a decent living, own either no cars, or shitty beaten up compacts. Europe doesn't care about cars anymore since the prices skyrocketed.

>>17154 >Manifold air density only matters in cars with forced induction. Tell me how you plan to get the air density higher without forced induction Einstein? >>17157 >If I say 30% more enough muh 65 HP shitbox will become cool. It's 15 HP shutup. >but it has a turbo Does it happen to look like this? >Renault Yeah it definitely looks like this.

>>17179 >Air density is the same at sea level and 1km high

>>17179 >sage goes in all the fields Pathetic >Tell me how you plan to get the air density higher without forced induction Einstein? Porting the heads, lowering intake restrictions, eliminating heat soak, using an intercooler with ice on it, … Plenty of things you can do to get more air mass into that combustion chamber without precompression.

>>17179 >Tell me how you plan to get the air density higher without forced induction Einstein? Cold air intake?

>>17179 >being this much assblasted from a 65 hp Renault Delicious

>>17180 That has nothing to do with anything being discussed. >>17183 >Don't sage when the discussion is clearly far off topic. Dumbass. >Porting the heads, lowering intake restrictions Let's refer back to a previous post. 17153 "No shit if it has more airflow it can run better." >using an intercooler with ice on it So I get accused of being stuck in the 70's but the 10's are perfectly fine, I'll tell you right now I'm not gonna dump ice into my car before driving it. Also while I've seen plenty of turbo setups with no intercooler I've never seen or heard of an engine that has an intercooler but no turbo because cold air intake exists. >>17184 That's just a tube, has already been done for decades as an aftermarket mod/ factory option, and isn't gonna increase the density by much driving down the road.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMusa5hZxtk >>17188 >muh offtopic This place is so dead it can use any discussion. >ice on intercoolers is a 2010s thing It isn't. See somewhere in this video. >Also while I've seen plenty of turbo setups with no intercooler They're shit, your turbo setup is very inefficient if you don't include intercooling >CAIs don't do much That's why almost every single car has one from factory, right?

>>17188 >That has nothing to do with anything being discussed. Oh I forgot how cars live isolated from the atmosphere and how the air density difference because of the height doesn't have an effect on the power output, retard.

>>17189 He meant 1910's. if you are adding ice to your car, why not carry a sack of coal with you too, for good measure? And bring some candles for headlights?

>>17191 >this derailing

Nobody has mentioned the Model 3. There is no gauge cluster behind the wheel (this model only so far) and no physical climate control (all others).

>>17191 He implied forced induction is the only way to raise MAD, when lowering manifold temperature does the job, which is why virtually every modern car has a cold air intake. If you want to cool the air further, you need ice or water spray on an intercooler. I don't see how that is being stuck in the 1910s. I didn't say you're supposed to drive with ice on your intercooler every day.

>>17189 >This place is so dead it can use any discussion. Don't care still off topic so I'm gonna sage. >It isn't. As >>17191 said hence the icemanattruck.png. >They're shit, your turbo setup is very inefficient if you don't include intercooling. Don't care and doesn't change my point. >That's why almost every single car has one from factory, right? The filter is a more convenient size/shape with more filter medium than the giant rings of olde all while being far more convenient to make. Which due to the increased filter surface area I'd be inclined to believe is the real reason for the performance increase rather than the air actually being cold since the inlet is still in the engine bay. >>17212 >He implied forced induction is the only way to raise MAD By a meaningful amount. >If you want to cool the air further, you need ice or water spray on an intercooler. So either 1910 it or lug around a water tank. >I didn't say you're supposed to drive with ice on your intercooler every day. We're talking about daily driving.

>>17213 >he thinks every day stands for "driving every day" and not "having ice on your engine" You're a special one, don't you know?

>>17129 >tfw no off-road Motorsport event with no vehicle type restriction where only true daredevils can compete without fear of crashing or dying Is such a thing outlawed by human rights fags? People get hurt in any sport anyway. Dakar is the closest thing to it but they don't race together. Also why doesn't grid motorsport circuits have alternate routes to mix things up? Is it a bad idea?

>>17259 It isn't. You just have to host the event on your private land and road. No country will allow you to legally make a no rules race on their roads, because then they will be obliged to provide medics/road maintenance/safety and other stuff in case anything happens.

When did F1 die? Mid 90's?

>>17101 Ford made a shit ton of 4.0L "Cologne" OHC V6's from 90's thru 2000's that has one chain front, one chain back. Had to remove engine to replace properly, and that happened every 80-100K. Meanwhile, they continued to manufacture the 4.0L pushrod V6 with a single short timing chain in the front that generally did not need replacing for the life of the engine, which was often 300,000+ miles (except for the heads… the heads cracked frequently). During the overlap years (90's) your V6 ranger or explorer might have either one… most of the remaining ones on the road are the pushrod V6 or 5.0L V8, I'd wager.

>>17340 2004 was the last year of innovation, so I'll go ahead and say 2005.

>>17340 F1 died with Senna

Fuckin American trucks man. Look at that first one. 83 f-100. Unassuming, utilitarian, restrained. You will be taller than the truck unless you're short. I fuckin guarantee that truck would be more than enough for 9 out 10 fatass fuckin rednecks driving the grotesque behemoths that are clogging the roads of modern America. Look at that fuckin 2020 F-150. What a fucking waste of aluminum. And don't even get me started on that silverado, did GM hire a fucking 8-year old as their lead designer? Goddamn I guess I'm gonna get a tacoma, since the "midsize" trucks that are available now are only barely fuckin smaller than these monstrosities

>>17921 Yurop feels you.

>>17926 Europe hasn't had a true "small car" for at least 15 years. Fiat and British Leyland were the last two companies to offer such a thing, and apart from the Seicento, were all hideously outdated. The Panda in the second pic may look mechanically and physically identical to a 1985 model, but it was made in 2001. Safety regs hurt, but manufacturers' apathy ultimately dealt the killing blow. Case in point: the Smart Car, as well as Toyota's rival, the IQ. Similarly you have the Czech trio of the Aygo/C1/107/108 and the VW Up. Companies can still make true small cars if they want to, but most choose not to.

>>17927 I don't get your point, you either say that European manufacturers don't do small cars anymore and also uses the C1/108 examples, which are quite small cars. It's not smal with a "long" hood as they used to do, but at least it's small and fits in small parking spaces. The 1st gen Twingo was the roomiest small car ever built and that one was the peak small car. Not tiny, kei-car small, but small enough to qualify as such. >also Czech trio with Toyota/Citroën/Peugeot/Volkswagen <aren't you confusing the trio Aygo/C1/108 and the trio Up!/Mii/Citigo?

>>17928 >aren't you confusing the trio Aygo/C1/108 and the trio Up!/Mii/Citigo? Those three cars are all built in the same Czech plant, at least for the first gen. And remembering how long the original Twingo lasted, yeah, that car counts too. There are quite a few others that survived into the 00s, but they're all bigger now. Ford don't make the regular Ka anymore, instead they import the "Ka+" from India. Opel/Vauxhall have the Adam, which is about the same size as the Fiat 500. Same case with Renault's current Twingo. Mercedes' A-Class ballooned into a fullsize compact long ago. Mini said they'd make the Rocketman but have never got further than a concept. When you remove all the badge engineering, there are just 3 vehicles European manufacturers offer that are city cars in the traditional sense - the Up, the Aygo and the Smart. Japan still makes the same Kei cars they used to but infuriatingly don't sell them outside anymore as they did in the 80s/early 90s. The Honda Brio RS for example looks far more like a "Civic Type R" than the current one does, which is now a coupe.

>>17930 And crucially, the target market has changed. The current crop of subcompacts/city cars are designed for an entirely different audience than the likes of the Mini, Metro or Panda. Cars like those 3 were made as the most basic form of automotive transportation for a fully grown family who need to get from A to B. They were built as fullsize cars but for a smaller frame. You had legroom in exchange for little in the way of safety. Cars like the 108, Up etc. are aimed for students/graduates who want to buy their first new car, and so are typically lesser equipped and have far less room in the back.

The Datsun 120Y was the mightiest car ever produced - ever! Fight me.

>>17930 >Those three cars are all built in the same Czech plant, at least for the first gen. >quotes 6 cars >talks only about 3 bro you're confusing Well if I remove the badge engeneering, theres: PSA's 108/C1 Opel's Adam (PSA now, but not at all the same car as those above) Renault's twingo Smart's Fortwo VW's trio Fiat 500 Kia Piccanto Hyundai i10 So that's way more than 3 differents cars. And I deliberately took off the Audi A1 and the Suzuki Ignis from the list. I'm pretty sure some other small cars are sold here but I don't have them in mind. >>17931 what you're pointing out is more a security standard change than a shift in market.