Why would you prefer a V8 over a V6? They make less power and weigh more. What's the point unnecessary weight if you're trying to create a lightweight vehicle?
>they make less power
>>15377877
They don't weigh more.
>>15377883
>>15377885
>Ford 3.5L EcoBoost
>450 lbs
>over 700 HP
>over 675 LB ft torque
>Chevy LT4
>529 lbs
>650 HP
>650 lb ft torque
>15377883
That's right
I don't use either. I have a v10
>>15377893
What car does that come in?
>>15377877
Forced induction puts the V6 ahead of the V8. NA against NA, the V8 wins.
LSx is lighter and smaller, but that's more a consequence of OHV being a simpler design than OHC.
>>15377920
Ford GT.
>>15377930
Which is funny because everyone including ford is saying it will only be around 600hp
>>15377921
OHV makes less power than OHC
>>15377953
ford is just lying to keep the competition in the dark
>>15377893
>cherry picking
The average production V6 is far less powerful than the average production V8. It's also much cheaper to get a lot more power out of a V8.
>>15377893
but besides the ecoboost
>>15377957
weighs less though (assuming the same materials are used)
>>15377957
It's also lighter and more compact than OHC. From the factory I'd prefer OHC, but if I'm swapping something into a 944 shell it'll be a LS1.
>>15378125
the weight advantage isn't as significant as the power advantavge
>>15377893
Does that ecoboost include the extra weight for the turbos and their plumbing
>>15377893
You know, you can put a turbo or blower on a V8 also?
>>15378507
The LT4 is already superchargered.
>>15378239
No, but neither does the LT4 engine.
>>15378526
have we seen what an LT4 can do under turbo boost yet? I'd expect some tuning house is trying.
V4 > all
Drunk nazis ftw
boomers
>>15377893
Citation needed, citation needed, and citation needed.
Also, unit cost of both please, while you're at it.
>>15377961
That woukd be the most retarded marketing strategy I've heard of.
>>V6 makes more power
Come on now, a V8 makes more power and makes more power from forced induction methods as well. I'm saying this as a huge, huge 2JZ and RB26 faggot fanboy too.
Pic very related. You just can't compete. His engines are retarded in both performance AND price.
>>15380413
a V8 is also a slightly heavier and more thirsty package compared to its V6 equivalent and will probably lose lemans no matter how many drag races it dominates
>>15380413
>>15380413
yet they are slower than cars equipped with v6s
>>15380401
>450 lbs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine
>over 700 hp
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/02/radical-rxc-turbo-500r-geneva/
>>15380421
>take V6
>add 2 extra cylinders to the front
>car gets slower
No.
>>15380430
Yes, fuck off, retard. All V8's do is add unnecessary unsprung weight.
>>15380430
yes
besides you are a furfag, why aren't you gassing yourself
>>15380438
>unsprung weight.
now thats a bait
>>15380419
>moving goal posts
ok, we weren't talking about Le Mans given OP's post but cars in general, if you want to talk about Le Mans I guess the V4 dominates all
>>15380421
Sure, due to emission regulations cars have had to downsize to the V6. If we take into account slapping turbochargers / superchargers and sheer power NA, the V8 wins.
Look at some of the stupidly dumb engines Nelson has churned out.
>inb4movinggoalpostsagain
>>15380449
>the V8 wins.
lol
>>15380455
>moving goal posts
ok, we weren't talking about Le Mans given OP's post but cars in general, if you want to talk about Le Mans I guess the V4 dominates all
>>15380444
>still adds unnecessary weight
>no argument except "hurr durr bait!!"
lol, v8 cucks
>>15380449
>V8 wins
Except they don't, they weigh more adding unnecessary weight thus making slower lap times.
>>15380462
>slower lap times
>>Why would you prefer a V8 over a V6? They make less power
>>They make less power
>>less power
>no where did this bring up lap times of production cars
This is why when older posters say this board was great, I don't believe them for a second.
>>15380461
sure so that makes v8 more obsolete.
There's literally 0 reasons to use a v8 in the year of our lord 2016, unless you're a retard
>>15380465
>has literally no argument
V8s do nothing but slow a vehicle down with unnecessary weight, deal with it.
>>15377893
>>15380425
What source do you have stating the LT4's weight? Is it dry or wet weight, including or not including ancilliaries? Superchargers are usually counted as dry weight, turbo's sometimes aren't.
>Radical RXC Turbo 500R
>3.5 Ecoboost V6
>600hp
>465 lbft
Does not match your previous statement of
>over 700 HP
>over 675 LB ft torque
>>15377893
Oh, this is a Ford bait thread.
You got me good.
>>15380557
Are we reading the same article? Clearly says 600 on my end of the internet.
>>15377877
Go ride the bus
Its not about benchracing and HP figures
Its sound and feeling that matters.
And V8 wins in both
>>15380572
Oops! My bad! That article doesn't include exact manufacturer specifications. Here's the correct one:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/radical-unleashes-its-fastest-road-car-yet-geneva-show
>>15380592
>muh feels
>muh soul
>muh passion
t. toyocuck
lol, anyone who choses sound over performance is a moron
>>15377877
Ford GT
>Made in 2017
>Twinturbo Ford V6
>Direct and indirect injection
>DOHC
>~2890lbs
>~630HP
Saleen S7
>Made in 2005
>Twinturbo Ford V8
>Indirect injection only
>Pushrod OHV
>2968lbs
>750hp
So it took Ford 12 years, several millions worth of R&D and major advances in structural materials to make a car that is 70lbs lighter, with a 120hp deficit? Sounds like V6 just can't compete.
Sources:
http://horsepowerkings.com/sources-2017-ford-gt-will-weigh-around-2900-lbs-could-cost-around-400000/
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/saleen-s7-twin-turbosaleen-s7-twin-turbo-specs.pdf
>>15380631
It's actually 700 HP, try again, cuck.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/radical-unleashes-its-fastest-road-car-yet-geneva-show
>>15380631
>indirect injection
>>15380631
>"""source""""
>horsepower kings
>>15377877
Why would you take a V8 or V6 over a V4?
>>15380648
I have the biggest hate boner for her
>>15380631
And if someone complains it's an invalid comparison:
A 2017 car should be better than a 2017 car, both are twinturbo, the Saleen even lacks direct injection (which can make more power), and pushrod engines generally do no produce more power than a DOHC equivalent.
Also, boost pressure on the saleen is 6 PSI (~0.4 Bar). Boost pressure on the stock 3.5 Ecoboost is 12PSI (http://www.f150hub.com/specs/ecoboost.html). If boost scales linearly from 365 to 600HP, then 600 HP would require almost 45 PSI (3 Bar) - and that's assuming the air won't get heated as it compresses. Can you turn the boost up on 45PSI? Sure, but doing so on 6 is a lot safer, and yields more rewards.
>>15380641
Nice specs of the Ford GT you've got there. Also, 750 > 700.
>>15380653
Post a better source on the power and weight of the Ford GT then. Half the internet is saying ~2900lbs and 600+hp (including Ford).
>>15380670
It's going to have over 700 HP.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/radical-unleashes-its-fastest-road-car-yet-geneva-show
>muh horsepower kings
It isn't a reliable source, stay mad
>>15380670
0/10 dont make it so obvious next time
>>15377877
but turbo big blocks make so much power weight is meaningless
i dont know why you'd shill for ford, there quality deparment has been huffing fumes the last 20 years. sure the engines alright, but when the car literally falls apart around it, it doesn't seem worth it.
>>15380680
>It's going to have over 700 HP.
>citation needed
A Radical isn't a Ford.
Post a more reliable source then, one that actually applies to the Ford GT.
>>15380697
Read the article you stupid cuck. It's literally facts about the specs. It's the same engine, stay mad.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/radical-unleashes-its-fastest-road-car-yet-geneva-show
>>15380712
>http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/radical-unleashes-its-fastest-road-car-yet-geneva-show
>http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/02/radical-rxc-turbo-500r-geneva/
>It's the same engine
>new turbos
>new intercooles
>forged pistons
>hand-finished headers
>retuned ECU
>It's the same engine
It's nto the same engine Ford made, and it's not the engine Ford will put into the GT. Now, if you have some actual specs on the GT, that'd be interesting.
>>15380728
>slight modification
>no! it doesn't count!
It's the same engine, stay mad.
>>15380740
>>new turbos
>>new intercooles
>>forged pistons
>>hand-finished headers
>>retuned ECU
>slight modification
>>15380758
>same block
>same displacement
>hurr durr it's totally different!!!!!
Stay BTFO, cuck.
>>15380761
>same block
>same displacement
So pic related is a ''slight modification'' in your eyes? Also, who says it's the same displacement if they changed the pistons?
Still no source on the actual Ford GT, by the way.
>>15380805
They're testing an engine you stupid fuck. Of course it looks different. It's still the same engine. Stay mad cuck.
>>15380818
So you agree that, using slight modifications, an Ecoboost V6 will only make 700hp, while a V8 will reliably make 1000+hp, with a peak output of 1300hp?
http://www.trucktrend.com/how-to/engine/1213tr-vortec-5-3l-big-bang/
>>15380894
yet radical is using the ecoboost for their fastest production car ever
really makes you think
>>15380894
Yet it's still slower around a track
>>15380901
>>15380909
>moving goalposts
>>15380911
You're the only one moving goalposts. You were just throwing a tantrum here
>>15380697.
>>15380911
the thread is about hp/lb within a determined power goal
radical determined an ecoboost was better than a turbo iron 5.3
>>15380917
Wait, so actually asking for the output of the Ford GT, and not getting a proper answer, is moving goalposts? How in the hell can you compare a Radical to Ford?
>>15380925
Hp/lb within a determind powergoal is just weight.
>radical determined an ecoboost was better than a turbo iron 5.3
Doesn't have to be an iron block, could be aluminium. Also, Radical never even tried.
>>15380927
>Radical never even tried.
they would have if they didn't know before hand tha the ecoboost was better
>>15380927
It's the same engine, you dumb cuck. Stay mad.
>>15380894
>while a V8 will reliably make 1000+hp
You can build an ej25 to make 1000hp, whats new?
>>15380939
Apparently Radical can't build an Ecoboost V6 to over 700hp, that's new.
>>15380951
You do realize that sacrificing fuel efficiency, emissions, and reliability for absolute maximum power output is a stupid idea
>>15380939
a big block will do it on stock internals, open up the piston rings and maybe do a little headwork if you want extra reliablity.
an ej25 will do it on a full forged custom block, with a turbo so huge it'll have the powerband of a twostroke and have the reliablity of a twostroke
![sstp-1302-05-o+2012-yokohama-advan-world-time-attack-challenge+cyber-evo[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2q3yRO0.jpg "sstp-1302-05-o+2012-yokohama-advan-world-time-attack-challenge+cyber-evo[1].jpg")
>>15381014
yet top tier time attack cars have small engines with big turbo engines like the ej instead of big blocks
really
makes
you
think
>>15381014
>with a turbo so huge it'll have the powerband of a twostroke
But i thought peak power numbers were all that mattered? isnt that what the shitposting is about?
>>15381031
turbo big block will still make higher peak, and be more drivable
>>15381025
top tier drag racing cars have huge engines with huge turbos, only makes me think of the wasted potential of not combining the two.
>>15381061
>car simply can't put the power to the ground
>spins everywhere
>loses to a smaller engine with a smaller power output
>>15377893
I don't know, man. I'm still not convinced on this whole ecoboost thing...
>>15381185
k
>>15381204
>>15381204
That's from the 2013 WEC Shanghai round where the fuel rig caught on fire.
The car -- and the V8 -- were fine.
>>15377885
All things equal, of course they weigh more.
>>15377893
Let's see a Naturally aspirated v6 that can compete with a porsche Naturally aspirated v8.
Thought so, you can't find one, because the 918's v8 makes more power per ci than any other v8 or v6 as a production engine without resorting to forced induction.
Pic highly related, you fucking summerfags.
You are not le ebin troll for pointing out turbos make an engine good, you are new and making yourself look like idiots when you fail to remember the ford GT did not pioneer turbos, porsche, audi and the r32 GTR all have far greater racing victories thanks to turbos.
Lurk moar, acting like a retard is not good trolling, it just makes you a retard.
Why Venom GT, McLaren F1, 1:ONE and Regera have V8 and not V6?
Yeah, that's what i thought. Fuck you OP
>>15381288
Oh and for the record...
>Porsche v8
>297.624 lbs
>608hp
>528nm
An engine that weighs HALF your ecoboost is matching it on power.
Let me know when you can compete with porsche, picking on GM is pathetic, you ford faggots are like the schoolyard bully who can't ever stand up to his dad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_918#Specifications
>>15381288
>assblasted your v8 can't keep up
>makes excuses instead
>>15381294
>mclaren f1
>V8
wat?
>>15381309
>half
No.
>still has less torque
>has to rev unnecessarily high to make said torque
trash
>>15381309
>>15381288
Oh god i am laffin
It's gotten to the point where i HOPE these faggots are getting paid by ford at least and not doing it for free.
I like the ford GT, but you niggers are just as bad as GTR fanbois. The car is good, but you losers won't ever own one and have zero technical understanding of what you're talking about.
>>15381315
Hold on, hold on, are you actually suggesting the Ford gt can beat a 918?
The delusion gets better and better!
>Spoiler: There's no way in fucking hell you'll ever outperform a Porsche
>>15381322
>Implying it can't
>>15381315
>V8 can't keep up
So where's ford's sub 7 minute green hell lap?
Oh right, you can't get one?
Come shitpost some more when you come close to the prestige porsche has in the racing community.
Picking on GM is easy, but you have zero argument against a 918.
>>15381325
>>15381315
Are you at least getting paid mate?
It's pretty sad to be defending the GT against a 918, no matter how much you think it's trolling, acting like a retard and smearing cake on your face only makes you look like a retard.
We're all pissing ourselves.
PS: GM is shit
>>15381327
>I can't read: the post
>>15381322
It actually can. Stay mad, cuck.
>>15381327
They already set a faster time than the 918 around the ring.
>>15381331
Yes, it is sad. The 918's performance is pathetic.
>>15381334
>>15381332
No, they have not.
Infact, ford REFUSES to run the green hell.
http://www.topgear.com/car-news/motorsport/ford-n%C3%BCrburgring-times-are-rubbish
This conversation's done, you cannot link source of their time beating porsche, so we're just going to laugh at you while you keep acting like a retard smearing cake over your face.
>>15381334
Source?
>>15381340
The Radical SR8 LM is faster than a 918 around the ring. The Radical RXC Turbo is faster than any previous radical. Thus it means the EcoBoost is faster around the ring.
Stay mad, cuck.
>rage quits because porsche V8's can't compete
kek
>>15381343
see above
>>15381294
The McLaren F1 didn't have a V8, dummy.
>>15381349
>Radical SR8 LM
uses a v8
>Radical RXC Turbo
only makes 350hp
So your argument for ford REFUSING to run a production car at the ring is to resort to third parties and their non production cars?
Let's see a lap from a production ford. The funny thing is i like the ford GT, i think it would do great at the ring, but you fanbois who never will own one and are making up shit about it are insufferable and ruin the reputation of what could be a really good car.
>>15381349
This is how we know you're new to cars. You think turbo technology was pioneered with ecoboost. It's been around for a while mate.
You're also trying to compare lightweight shells (one of which is a v8, literally countering your original point in this thread) to a fully equipped with aircon/radio street legal car.
You're not trolling, you're just dumb. Dumb as rocks and i enjoy seeing you get ripped apart by everyone else here.
>>15381362
>uses a V8
Which is slower than a RXC TURBO
>only makes 350 HP
No, it actually makes 700 HP, try again.
>this much anal damage V8's can't compete
>>15381364
>this assmad your argument failed
BTFO!!
V6>V8
>>15381358
>>15381315
>not ignoring the obvious slip up and addressing the point, and instead just being facetious
>>15381374
Liar.
it makes 530
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/radical-sportscars/2016-radical-rxc-turbo-500-ar167765.html
>>15381381
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/radical-unleashes-its-fastest-road-car-yet-geneva-show
>muh base model
No, try again. It makes 700 HP
>>15381374
Still not a production car.
You literally need a le mans car to compete with a street legal Porsche.
Want us to whip out the 919's time and pit le mans car against le mans car?
On the subject of LM, how come ford can't match porsche at lemans?
18 wins by porsche while just 6 by ford....AND THEY CAN'T WIN A SINGLE RACE SINCE THE 60'S AHAHAHAHA
What's the matter, lost your touch?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans_winners#Winners
>>15381397
Oh boy.
Is this faggot actually trying to say Ford>Porsche?
I like the GT, but delusion has reached all new heights. Must drive a mustang and love crowds of people.
>>15381389
Literally a road legal le mans car for the track.
The car is also 90% british made.
And would be destroyed the moment it got put against a 919.
>>15377877
>Less power
It must be hard to be that fucking stupid
>>15381397
>want us to whip out the 918
Yes, please do. All it will do is prove that V4's and V6's are better than V8's. ;^)
>>15381402
>ford>porsche
I never said that, I said that Porsche's V8's are inferior, learn to read, cuck.
>it would be destroyed by a 919
A V4? I have no problem with that. Atleast you can finally recognized V8's are inferior.
>>15381410
>no argument
btfo
>>15381415
Have you remotely considered the concept of a power band?
Assuming you're not trolling, you know the 918 revs a lot faster and will instantly hit its peak power.
Additionally, it produces slightly less peak torque yes, but it produces more low end torque where a turbo cannot.
Porsche's engineers are not dumb, there's a reason they coupled a v8 with EV technology and there's a reason it works so well.
You also seem to think turbo is unique to ford. I actually own a high powered turbo car, do you?
If you did, you would understand there are drawbacks (and positives) and peak numbers are not everything.
Also, the Porsche v8 is absurdly light.
>>15381435
>but it produces more low end torque
[citation needed]
>absurdly light
Yet still makes less power than a EcoBoost engine.
Really makes you think, doesn't it?
>>15381435
>>15381437
If you just entered the thread, don't even try debating him. He does not own any car at all, he's a busrider who is incapable of understanding a NA engine is going to be more responsive.
It's really shitty bait, each engine obviously has to be assessed on a case by case basis, you cannot claim one is better simply because of the number of cylinders.
While most 4cyl are fucking trash, evo 4cyls are amazing. Get it?
Each engine must be assessed individually and that's what this kid does not get, because he literally just discovered turbo.
>>15381446
The GM engine makes more low end torque than you. Let alone a porsche v8.
>>15381446
hold on, according to ford's numbers it makes 600hp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GT#Second_generation_.282017.E2.80.93.29
Where the fuck are you getting your 700 number from?
The porsche weighs 200lbs less and makes more power, unless the official quote from ford is a lie.
>>15381358
Yeah, sry man i'm too drunk
Still
>>15381380
Kill yourselves, the lot of you
>>15381449
>he doesn't own a car
More ad hominems attacks and asshurt.
>it's really shitty bait
Sure, if you call everything that hurts your feelings "bait"
>gm makes more low end torque
[citation needed]
>>15381453
>Wikipedia
lol, try again
>>15381446
I actually own a high powered turbo, so don't pretend i'm bias in this.
Your blanket hate towards v8's is childish and petulant.
NA engines are ALWAYS going to be more responsive. Yes, turbos can minimise lag, but due to their very nature there's always going to be a small amount.
V8's simply have more displacement which makes the production of low end torque easier.
>>15381459
http://www.caranddriver.com/ford/gt
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/ford/2017-ford-gt-ar107642.html
Sorry, but this is a direct quote from ford.
I'm on your side, GM is trash but don't make up numbers.
I cannot find a single source claiming 700hp+, which means the 918 v8 is lighter and makes more power.
That does not diminish how good the ford GT will be, but please don't make up crap.
>>15381459
Prove me wrong, do you drive a car?
You've been proven to have to lie about HP numbers when someone pointed out a porsche NA engine is better in every way.
It does not give a fuck about peak torque, it's not trying to tow things or spin tires.
It's lighter, makes more power (proven with cited sources by above anons) and you clearly are so fucking new to turbos you don't understand how they function.
So post your car then, let's see it.
No dodging, no making excuses. Put your money where your mouth is, if you're not a benchracer i'll side with you.
>>15381460
>hate
I don't have any hate, I'm just pointing out that V8's are outdated garbage.
>V8's simply have more displacement which makes low end torque easier
lol, not in this case it doesn't.
>>15381472
>the 918 makes more power
[citation needed]
>>15381474
What car I drive is irrelevant.
>porsche naturally aspirated engine is better in every way
It isn't though, it makes less horsepower.
>>15381459
Where the fuck are you getting 700hp+ on ford GT?
Their official statement was 600.
>>15381475
Citations have already been provided.
It weighs 200lbs less, makes 608hp.
You are yet to provide source on these magical ford numbers.
>>15381478
It was relevant the moment you started trying to tell the guy with a GTR how turbos work.
You're lying about your statistics and backed into a corner. Post your fucking car, post these official ford stats showing 700hp, because we've all provided MULTIPLE citations that it's only 600, 8 below the ford.
How does it feel to need a pigfat engine AND turbos to match a naturally aspirated porsche!
You know if someone threw a turbo on that v8 you would have literally no chance right?
>>15381484
>Implying you can turbo a v8
>>15381489
>implying you can't
See >>15380413 and >>15380805
>>15381479
>their official statement was 600 HP
"Over 600 HP", try again, cuck.
>it weighs 200 lbs less
150, actually
>makes 608 HP
Pathetic, Ford is already at 700 HP.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/radical-unleashes-its-fastest-road-car-yet-geneva-show
>>15381484
>post your car
Why? It's irrelevant to the subject at hand.
>it's only 600 HP
NO! It's "over 600 HP", learn to read.
>if you threw turbos on you would stand no chance
[citation needed]
>>15381484
I found this...
http://blog.caranddriver.com/latest-ford-gt-info-serious-computing-chops-may-pack-700-horsepower/
But it's a "may" and not based on any sort of official citation, while ford's site remains at 600.
Basically a fanboi blogger wet dream, there appears to be no factual basis to this claim.
>>15381491
I actually own a rb26, i prefer turbo engines (love the sound) and i'll admit a turbo v8 would destroy me if it was built like mine.
>>15381497
Mate...can you really not provide source? You posted 700hp on the ford GT at the start of this thread, you can't take it back now.
>>15381497
>Radical
>Ford
These are two different things anon.
Over 600 hp is below 700. Otherwise, they'd say 700, that's just simple marketing.
>>15381497
Not an argument
>they make less power
>>15381497
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArUFGCLMZxE
Sorry, what was that about not being able to forced induction a v8?
Secondly, radical is not ford. It's literally a fucking track only car.
Third, you are still unable to fucking cite your bullshit about the ford GT having more power than the 918, despite us having the 918's figures cited to us.
So what do you drive (i'm not that anon but i'm fucking curious, because you sure are shitposting a lot)
>>15381513
2004 eclipse
>>15381503
>wet dream
Yet the engine still makes 700 HP in real life, stay assmad.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/radical-unleashes-its-fastest-road-car-yet-geneva-show
>a source
see
above
>>15381504
They're actually the same exact engine, stay mad.
>>15381506
stay mad
>>15381513
>2000 HP
>still slower around a track
kek
>a radical is a track only car
Wrong a Radical is street legal.
>third you are unable to cite the GT having more power
I actually am, you just chose not to accept FACTS.
>what do you drive
>moving goalposts
try again
>tfw ford fanboys inflate performance figures
>tfw ford uses that jew money to ruin o
>tfw elon musky did the same thing
>everyone here perminently hates tesla
>he bought the ecolose
>he chose not to have the V8
>>15381530
>ecolose
Wow, Ford's EcoBoost engines really hit a nerve didn't they.
>elon did the same thing
People hate Tesla products because their fanbase consists of retards who only value 0-60 times. Ford fans value track times, stay mad.
>>15381524
What facts?
The ford GT's official claim FROM FORD THEMSELVES is ballpark figures in 600.
If they were planning on 700, don't you think they would be shouting that from the rooftops? It makes them look better, so why are they not saying it?
Just because some british tuner ups the boost to crazy levels does not mean ford plans on doing that.
>>15381539
No, they could also hide their specs if they chose to. Seems logical to me.
>it's a Ford shill episode
>>15381565
>>15381530
not an argument, you're only making yourself look stupid
@15381570
Ford a shit
>>15381524
>They're actually the same exact engine, stay mad.
Funny, given how many details Ford has released about the GT's engine.
>>15381582
The Ford GT uses a modified F150 engine. So does the Radical EcoBoost. You're a fucking retard.
>>15381589
Yes, but all three are completely different, as are their power outputs. They're not comparable except for their engine architectur. You certainly can't derive the GT's output from either the F-150 or Radical.
Also, I don't think Radical has ever used a Ford engine, without exceeding the factory hp output. That might means the Ford GT's Ecoboost V6 will never exceed the Radical's 700hp - which gives us a ballpark figure: between the 600hp Ford stated (as a minimum), and Radical's 700 hp(as a maximum).
>>15381601
They are extremely similar actually. You're just talking out of your ass.
>>15381610
If they're that similar, how come there's a difference between their power ratings?
Why not just use single cylinder engines, then? A v6 is unnecessary weight.
>>15381613
Their boost increases?
>>15381617
Exactly. And since Ford has never, ever managed to add more boost than Radical ever has - how should the GT's power exceed the Radical's?
>>15380712
So I could cherrypick a 429 funny car engine and say the power it makes is the same as the production 429?
Alright.
>>15381623
>ford never manages to use more boost than radical
No shit, dumbfuck. They weren't exactly aiming for supercar levels of power in 40k cars. You're fucking retarded.
>>15381624
No, you couldn't actually. The Radical RXC Turbo is street legal, keep crying.
>>15381632
>They weren't exactly aiming for supercar levels of power in 40k cars.
Explain the last GT then. Or the last Shelby's Terminators, the GT350, and other high output Mustangs.
>>15381639
None of those cars cost 40k except the GT350 nor are they V6's.
>>15380462
>>still adds unnecessary weight
>>no argument except "hurr durr bait!!"
>lol, v8 cucks
He said UNSPRUNG weight. That's the bait.
>>15381624
>"a 429 funny car engine"
What's funny is you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>15381524
So then a meth burning hemi is the same as a production street hemi?
Then that means n/a v8s make upwards of 2500 hp
>>15381589
>literally a truck engine
Holy shit v6 cucks are grasping at straws
>>15380680
How fucking stupid are you? Ford even said it will be around 600.
>>15380670
I am sorry but boost = power. Boost is a measure of intake restriction. If you want to talk about power as related to turbos, you need to talk in terms of air flow (cfm). In fact all engine power is related to air flow, as they are all big air pumps, and you can only make as much power as air you pull in. Also boost says nothing about cylinder pressure, meaning you can have an engine with less boost and more cylinder pressure, because you were able to flow more air into the cylinder to compress with less restriction, again, boost is a useless measurement that cannot be used in pretty much any comparison.
>>15382839
>Being this wrong
>>15382840
proof?
>>15377877
>They make less power and weigh more
Excuse me?
I'm.....I'm sorry...
you appear to be talking bollocks
>>15383299
It's a bait thread, man.
Look at the idiots posting. Just smug chinese cartoon girls and not counter-arguments besides shitposts.
Obvious bait but /o/ takes it again.
>>15377877
it depends on which specific V8 vs which specific V6. There are plenty of examples of both that are better than the majority of the other. Anyone who has a hard and fast preference for one or the other regardless of actual engine specs has an extremely childish mentality about cars. Quit making shitty troll threads.
>>15378539
>>15380449
>>15380461
>>15380657
>>15381415
>V4
>>15383330
Maybe your the one that took the bait?
>Oohhhhhhh 4chan double reverse flip flop underside trolled
XXXXXXXD!!!!!!!!!!12bucklemyshoe
EPIC
>>15383371
![m16_0254_fine-56c376e970d7d[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0nog8zl.jpg "m16_0254_fine-56c376e970d7d[1].jpg")
>>15383351
get a load of this fucking retarded fag
does this look like an inline 4 to you?
>>15383351
Are you retarded? I mean, we're on /o/, but god damn.
>>15383351
>>15381669
>moving goalposts
>>15381677
The GT uses a truck engine stay mad.
>>15377877
cancerous thread is causing cancer
