ok,

im not saying this to get burned by you guys or anything like that (i actually drive a lancer and to be honest it is the most gutless piece of crap....) , i have a simple question for you guys, i am a mechanic (and am willing to help any of you guys btw) and i would like to know what the big deal is with the turbo 4's ? and sixes too... what is the attraction? i mean yeah SOME turboed fours (eg wrx's and evo's) make OK numbers (when cash is literally poured into them from a bucket...) and some even richer kids make decent numbers but they will never have the same feel/sound/power/torque of a true MAN's V8 , people use the argument of economy but belive it or not the wrx will use more fuel than a ss down the strip, all that you are doing when you whack a turbo on is increasing volumetric efficiency , thus creating more horsepower, what i would like to see is a evo (or any smaller sports car with decent handling and lower weight) with a ls6 (6 litre v8 , 300kw standard, ) and perhaps even some sort of forced induction :gunsmilie: , would be a bit of a **** trying to use a east/west gearbox tho, please fella's i mean all the best it just does not make any sense to me why you kids think that these little 4's are better/faster/tougher than a good ole v8? well thats my honest opinion ..... just remember "There is no replacement for Displacement" ;)

The attraction is for the 4cyl is for people who can't afford a V8 to begin with. So they have to start with something cheap, effecient, and reliable. Then they just mod it up. A WRX will use more fuel down at the strip, but in everyday driving, it will use much,much less.

Now then, about your turbo 6 argument. The VR4 and Supra TT are more than capable of giving any mustang or camaro a run for it's money, and for about the same price. They both have a wonderful sound, and come stock with great power. 325hp, which is more than a mustang gt, or even mach 1 for that mater. It is more than the LT-1 engine, and about as much as the LS-1 engine. All in a better looking body, with a more durable and reliable setup, if you take care of it.

I share your opinion, that the american, and I emphasize AMERICAN, V8 is the best engine in the world. But I do NOT believe in the LS series engines. They are junk. The LT series was a much better, much more durable engine than the LS ever will be.

You speak of true mans V8, but the problem is, the V8 cars of today are not for true men. This is coming from a guy that owns a 2003 Mach 1. My dad had a 1960s-70s era Mach 1, a true V8. The true V8 is the big block Chevelle 454, or the Boss 429, or the Corvette Stingray 427.

I love V8's. The best engines ever(in terms of speed and performance) put into cars have been put out by americans. The old 1960's Ford GT40 that won Le Mans 4 years straight, the 1990's Corvette ZR-1 with the LT-5 that has world records that have yet to be broken, even by modern Corvettes. Both are great examples.

The only people who believe that these 4cyl cars are better than V8 cars or TT6 cars are those that cannot afford one, and want to think that they can keep up. The dump thousands into a car that in the end, is worth nothing. You can't stop them, and there will always be complaining. If you want to shut them up, just race them, beat them, and get it over with.

If I remember right, I read an article on the GT40 (many years ago) that said it reached a top speed of 212 or 214mph on the long straight at LeMans, and that was with the 289 smallblock engine. If I remember correctly, Ford didn't use the 427 in the GT40 until the last year of it's 4 year winning streak.

i think the reasoning for the 4 cylinder cars with turbo's and what not, is the car is a better daily driver than a V8 ( in terms of gas and reliablility) and they are a lot cheaper to but. i think your agruement against V6's is a little more weak. the v6 engine with a turbo is probably (in my oppinion) the best racing engine you can get for the money. as stated above, the vr4 and supra, the supra being one of the most sought after car on the market. you can get a nice turbo'd v6 for well under 20 grand to were as a nice v8 is probably starting at about 20 grand for the bottom end (mustang)

so over all its a preference thing, the v4 being the cheapest best gas car, the v6 being a happy medium of fast and gas efficient, and the v8 being the faster car but lacking in the gas efficient range.

look at it this way, if given the choice of the fastest 4cyl, (i'd have no idea what it was) a TT supra, or a mustang cobra (i believe that is about the same catagory) all cars with stock potential and all if modded correctly can reach under 10. which would you choose. i think most would go for the supra. (can't say i would't love a cobra, it would just be so much more to drive on a daily basis and cost more from the start.

again, this is just my opinion and all are entitled to their own.

bobthecow...

"A WRX will use more fuel down at the strip, but in everyday driving, it will use much,much less." yes this is true but only if they are both driven by an old lady on her way to the shops.. honestly how many times do you go driving a performance car (of any type) and drive it aseconomical as possible? personally never , when i do take the beast out it is driven like it needs to be... in either case they will both use loads of petrol (well more than usual) what my arguement was that there really isnt much reason to go past a v8, even tho the initial cost might be considered high, to get the 4 (or 6 for that matter) to do the same numbers it costs the same if not more anyways,







this is very controversial , there is no doubt in my mind that this is the case (supra being powerful/fast) but firstly the 2 cars you mentioned aren't really considered racing v8's but more of a style/power thing (that is without mods from factory...) so they cant really be used, the sound thing is solely personal opinion and nothing more (imo the 8 has it hands down to any turbo for that matter) , the lt1 (aka 350) as complete standard is 290 hp but with nothing more than an exhaust and carby upgrade there is crazy numbers to be had, the ls1 had up to 300 kw in the hsv version and the new ls2 starts at 300 kw, now to the "All in a better looking body, with a more durable and reliable setup" part , this is very very personal opinion only as the looks in my opinion are much better in the v8 area (although i have seen some tough looking skylines) and as far as the durable and reliability goes well in all the years i have been a mechanic the lt1's and pretty much all chev's have beenone of the most reliable and best engines for any car, the turbo 6 is a great option all i am saying its not the only/best option for everyone, and i think the v8 has the sound and feel that most racers can only imagine, torque is what makes a car feel fast and belive me most 8's have that as standard,





i almost feel like hugging you mate (emphasis on the almost part..... lol) but i have a question, have you ever worked on/ owned/driven/herd a ls series engine? as a mechanic i would definitely not say they are "junk" especially in the durable part, the ls1 has 6 bolt mains whereis the standard lt1 has 2 bolt mains, the new lsx is even better again with thicker cylinder walls, more material in the areas that matter most, eg cam retainers, and is guaranteed to withstand easily over 2500hp , and almost every one i have seen have been well over that , i speak from professional experience (no offence mate).





VERY VERY true! they are a **** to steer (usually , but thats what makes them so good!) and drive but it makes your genitals actually grow bigger! its a scientific fact! i just basically meant that the new v8's are still more manlier (if thats how to put it) than the ricers of today...




yes i spose you are right there too , im just trying to explain to people that there are easier options out there and they should at least have a drive of one before they make there mind up on what they buy... btw mate im so glad that you have been reasonable and understanding as well as a straight out nice bloke, thats a tops for you mate! :liebe011:




btw sorry if i missed anything im in a bit of a rush atm so will be back on here later...

very well put! im in a rush atm so i will be back on here in a bit to reply to this properly mate, thanks everyone for being top blokes!!! :liebe011:

4cylare4girls:

I don't know mate, first come on the forums and talk about a Chevy and how's V6 and V8 are great engines. Thats great and all but, I'm not going to say anything bad and you and Chevy / GM cars. but this day and age people in State Side are looking for a better car with good gas mileage (exp: 30 local / 30 highway/freeway/autobahn ) not having lest then 20 all around on local and highway.

Well yes you can make Great power with a v6/v8 but those engine are heavy compare to a Inline 4 that can make the same horsepower with a blower or a turbo. and your saving on weight as well.

Maybe you should now about this, technology have gone a long way from the 60's or so. From there cars gotten better faster with out anything using those big engine. Like the Aerial Atom it small light weight car that can take on Super Cars with more power then it has. or even a Caterham 7.

I have worked on the ls1,ls2, and ls6. I have never owned one, I have driven all three, and I have heard all of them, including the ls7.

Now then. In my personal opinion, The LT1>LS2. The LT1 was actuall underated, and in the corvette produced 325hp at the dyno. The LT4>LS2/LS6. Again, in produced 385hp at most dyno machines, and the newer "better" ls series only produces 20 more, but in a heavier car than the old GS. The LT5 was WAAAY underrated. A friend of mine is a Vette collector. Has both a '96GS and a 94ZR1. At the dyno his stock ZR1 did 485hp. Therefore, the LT5ZR1 is better than the newer LS7 engine. I mean, that engine has been around since the late 80's, is 1.3 liters smaller, and can still run almost the same power. It is a shame that chevy couldn't have done the newer ones a lot better.

I also think the LT series sounds better. It is throatier sounding, and more BadAss. It is a really fun car/engine to drive(Corvette C4)

I have worked on the entire LT series. And love doing it, it is really fun knowing that instead of a cramped workspace like in most imports, I have plenty or room for moving around. This can also be said in the LS series. So I won't disagree with you there.

The LS series actually does have thicker walls, but made of aluminum. The block is ALUMINUM for gods sake. That is just about the worst idea ever. I would much rather see the solid steel block of the LT series. Also, the main bolts haven't much to do with the reliability. Most LT series cars can run well into the 200,000 mile mark without a rebuild. Many LS series must be rebuilt in the 100,000 mile area.

Don't forget man, the LT5 Callaway Sledgehammer Vette still holds records that no other Corvette has broken. Not even the new ones with Lingenfelter conversion kits and newer Callaway conversions.

I'm not a big v8 guy myself. I've rebuilt the 351w in my 69 cougar (crappiest engine ever). I've driven all the newer mustangs (99-04) from the 6cyl, to the cobra. And I have yet to find a car that I enjoy driving as much as my GS-T. On top of having an excellent power/weight ratio, It cost very little to increase power this much, compared to how much I would've had to spend on a mustang gt to get the same increase.

I just creamed my buddies Duster 340 last night. Spinning my tires through 2nd gear, and walked away from him.

This is just my personal experience and opinion. There's just nothing like feeling your boost peg that 18psi mark at 3300 rpms, and feeling the tires break loose. (and I love the sound of a turbo 4cyl)

IF I ever bought a v8 again, it would def be a german v8. I had a BMW 540i, 4.4L v8, and it made me crave an M5. The sound was incredible.

the reason i'd go for a v8 is it would be RWD, and when you have all that extra power its nice for it to be RWD or else you have no traction til you get up to speed and no longer peel out.

I know this topic is all about opinions but......

Think about it, a decent shape eclipse GST/X with about 70k miles is about $10,000. It has a stock hp rating of just about 210. A decent shape mustang gt with about 70k miles on it is about $10,000. It has a stock hp rating of about 270. For $5000, you can upgrade the internals and the turbo on your eclipse. For about $5000 you can upgrade the internals and supercharge your gt. In the end, the gt will still have more power. The GT weighs about 3300 lbs stock. The GSX weighs about 3150lbs stock(GST about 3000). The GT will run a faster 1/4, and will pull harder from a role, and although it might lose you on the launch, it will easily reel you in with it's power and RWD. You will have the edge in turning, but unless you are on a track with a bunch of sharp turns, that won't really matter.

The plymouth duster was a POS replacement for a Barracuda. You can't even put it in the class of muscle car.

Although there is nothing like hitting your turbo at full spool, the wait to get there is unbarrable. With a V8 you get full power at about 2000rpm, and never go too far under that power. There is nothing like knowing that you don't have to wait, and that you wont lose anything.

I do like the european V8, but not bmw's. I really like the ones that ferrari put in the 355 and 360 though.

Another option since he had a 351w in the Cougar, would have been to put a stroker kit in it. For $5k he could have had the full stroker crank, rods, pistons, and a custom 1 off camshaft to match the entire engine combo perfectly, and still had enough left over for some good flowing Canfield aluminum cylinder heads. That could have given him a nearly stock looking (other than the aluminum heads) 393-427w putting out well over 500hp/500+tq. Paint the heads Ford blue and unless you knew exactly what to look for, nobody would ever know it wasn't just a stock rebuild on a 351 until he started it up. The 351w is actually right up there with the 289/302 as one of Fords best engines of all time, as long as it's built right.

It was the cleveland, not the windsor. The cleveland sucks balls. The windsor is a good engine.

As far as a eclipse for 10k? The only eclipse I'd spend 10k on is a GSX with 50k miles. I paid 5700 for my car, and $2000 bucks got me the car I have now. And how many mustangs do you hear reaching over 100k miles and still performing like they were brand new? My car now has 165,000 miles on it. It's my daily driver, and I love it. Full boost hits around 3k, so there's not much lag.

I live 2 minutes from one of the best mountain roads in southern california, so I want the handling that you wont get out of a mustang or muscle car.

How can you say that the duster isn't a muscle car?

http://image42.webshots.com/43/6/3/37/362160337OdEZWx_fs.jpg


Did you have a bad experience with a BMW or something? BMW makes some of the best cars on the market. My 4.4L v8 put out over 300hp, and still got 35mpg on the fwy. The interior is comfortable, and the ride is smooth, yet still has a performance feel to it. I could go all day on BMWs. I've never been more impressed with a car than my 540i and my 328i.

328 I don't mind. The only bmws I've ever liked were the Z3 or Z8

WOW! This is a nice thread. I have a little ryhme for ya's. "There is no replacment for displacement." Tis true a bigger engine will always increase the highest reachable hp limit. I have a little project i'm working on, mostly in theory right now, of putting one of the newere mitsubishi v6 (preferably the mivec v6) into a 2g gsx. Just think of the possibilities!

Many things are true about engines and cars. But might i point something out. The m1a1 abrams tank uses and jet turbine engine that weighs ALOT but it also puts out a massive amount of power, enough to propel a 66 ton <-- that's ton with a "T" at 75 mph! not bad huh. But that same engine when put on a light weight fighter jet can send the plane at over the speed of sound. The moral here? In the long run it is not the size of the engine or the car but the COMBINATION. Example #2. The last race in the fast and furious #1. Who won that race? NO one did! The cars were equally matched because both setups were powerful and well thought through.

To answer the origional question. We chose a "4 banger" because they are common, easy to work on (less heavy equipment needed) and they DO NOT require all that much money. Parts are cheap, the cars are easy to find (in most cases), and there are so many more options as far as paths to take. Lets face the other fact. -->They don't make muscle like they used to, and the good muscle is hard to get and VERY expensive.

Really there is still a lot of V8 muscle available right off the showroom floors at prices very competitive with the import turbo 4 cyinder cars. A person could buy a base model Mustang GT for around $25-$28k, then add a supercharger and be around 450-500hp to the ground, all for about the same price (or less) than a fully optioned WRX STI or EVO X. A person could most likely buy a new Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger for what the new Nissan GTR is going to cost, 3 for the price of 1 sounds like a good deal to me lol.

belive me i totally agree with everything you said but i just meant i wouldnt call the new ls series engines junk, dont get me wrong i still think that the ole lt series (aka three fity) win my heart hands down, but the new ls series still make good numbers with a lighter block (the lsx has a steel block, its heavier but lots stronger) and emissions standards, fuel injection etc...