Car Enthusiast Club [Now Motorcycle friendly!] - First thread to 150k! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Bananasplit_00]

Bruh

 

thats just silly, also thats some wierd combination of dragracing and autocross

[Real_PhillBert]

Probably trying to get ahead of the curve. Next 5-10 years are gonna make it hard for manufacturers to make V8s that can meet the emissions requirements in the US. 

 

Not so much emissions, but more trying to comply with the CAFE standard. 

 

Chrysler is not selling as many small cars as ford and GM so they have to cut fuel consumption on the larger vehicles by a larger margin. 

 

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=fuel&story=cafe&subject=fuelList

[JoaoPRSousa]

 

[AlwaysFSX]

Probably trying to get ahead of the curve. Next 5-10 years are gonna make it hard for manufacturers to make V8s that can meet the emissions requirements in the US. 

Let's just kill off the EPA already..

[chaozbandit]

~~

 

thats just silly, also thats some wierd combination of dragracing and autocross

 

That's German autocross for ya.

 

Honestly, having heard ~30 different C63s this summer alone and comparing them to my friend's, the stock system is more than adequate. Audible anywhere above 3K, raspy at 4, pops and bangs on the overruns though not as bad as the F-Type R. Most owners are content with the stock pipes, and the ones I've talked to who upgraded say its too loud after a couple of months. A minor custom pipe job is probably as far as you'd want to go for a daily.

 

BUT when you're drinking anywhere from 15-20 L / 100KM, noise is the least of your worries.

[vetali]

Not so much emissions, but more trying to comply with the CAFE standard. 

 

Chrysler is not selling as many small cars as ford and GM so they have to cut fuel consumption on the larger vehicles by a larger margin. 

 

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=fuel&story=cafe&subject=fuelList

GM is pretty down on that list there too. 

[AlwaysFSX]

BUT when you're drinking anywhere from 15-20 L / 100KM, noise is the least of your worries.

..can I get that in a measurement that makes sense?

 

Google says 11.76 MPG, heeeeey, that's not that bad.

[Real_PhillBert]

GM is pretty down on that list there too. 

 

Yep. And notice that the Z06 Corvette went from 7L to 6.2L? 

[Bananasplit_00]

..can I get that in a measurement that makes sense?

 

 

Google says 11.76 MPG, heeeeey, that's not that bad.

[AlwaysFSX]

-snips-

Sorry but the L/100KM measurement is pretty stupid.

[Bananasplit_00]

also why all this about the loud exhausts? i love a good raspy, crispy and poppy exhaust but when it gets really loud then fuck no, i dont really like a super loud exhaust it just getts anoying and kinda ruins the whole thing IMO

[chaozbandit]

..can I get that in a measurement that makes sense?

~~

 

Google says 11.76 MPG, heeeeey, that's not that bad.

 

I highly recommend bookmarking this website for future ref. Comes in quite handy

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

 

 

Edit: L/100KM isn't silly when you consider the US uses a different method to evaluate MPG compared to Europe.

[Bananasplit_00]

Sorry but the L/100KM measurement is pretty stupid.

well it kindof is but mpg is less understandable, for me its like dafuq is a "mile"? because we dont use them here

[AlwaysFSX]

I highly recommend bookmarking this website for future ref. Comes in quite handy

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

 

I just use Google to convert the things into measurements that make sense.

 

well it kindof is but mpg is less understandable, for me its like dafuq is a "mile"? because we dont use them here

The logic behind the methodology makes more sense. You have a set amount gas and head on your way, find out where you run out. Finding out how much fuel you use in a certain distance is frankly dumb. It's more math. MPG = sensible

 

You guys use kilometers to make yourselves feel better travelling a distance with a higher number, that's what I'm thinking..

[chaozbandit]

I just use Google to convert the things into measurements that make sense.

 

The logic behind the methodology makes more sense. You have a set amount gas and head on your way, find out where you run out. Finding out how much fuel you use in a certain distance is frankly dumb. It's more math. MPG = sensible

 

You guys use kilometers to make yourselves feel better travelling a distance with a higher number, that's what I'm thinking..

 

Canada is so used to using metric and imperial units, it's just we prefer using the more logical units when we can. <:

 

The same principles apply: x L of gas and a trip computer ftw.

 

Easy level maths.

[AlwaysFSX]

Canada is so used to using metric and imperial units, it's just we prefer using the more logical units when we can. <:

 

The same principles apply: x L of gas and a trip computer ftw.

 

Easy level maths.

KPL (Kilometers per Liter brain fart sorry) would be so much more efficient at finding your gas mileage.

 

But when you think about it, shouldn't it be gas kiloage?

[chaozbandit]

KPL (Kilometers per Liter brain fart sorry) would be so much more efficient at finding your gas mileage.

 

But when you think about it, shouldn't it be gas kiloage?

 

Doesn't roll off the tongue as well

[AlwaysFSX]

Doesn't roll off the tongue as well

Are you talking about kiloage or KPL?

[chaozbandit]

Are you talking about kiloage or KPL?

Kiloge. I've heard kilomege a few times, but most people just use range at that point.

[AlwaysFSX]

Kiloge. I've heard kilomege a few times, but most people just use range at that point.

Mileage is superior once again! It sounds better. :lol:

[Real_PhillBert]

Canada is so used to using metric and imperial units, it's just we prefer using the more logical units when we can. <:

 

The same principles apply: x L of gas and a trip computer ftw.

 

Easy level maths.

 

My complaint about Canada is your insanely low speed limits. Most seems to be 100kph! WTF?!? Canada is huge, how are you supposed to cover real distances at 100kph?

[AlwaysFSX]

My complaint about Canada is your insanely low speed limits. Most seems to be 100kph! WTF?!? Canada is huge, how are you supposed to cover real distances at 100kph?

Just don't travel.

[bcredeur97]

My complaint about Canada is your insanely low speed limits. Most seems to be 100kph! WTF?!? Canada is huge, how are you supposed to cover real distances at 100kph?

ok remind me not to go to canada should I get too many tickets lol

 

any long, boring straight road, under 110 kph bothers me

[chaozbandit]

My complaint about Canada is your insanely low speed limits. Most seems to be 100kph! WTF?!? Canada is huge, how are you supposed to cover real distances at 100kph?

 

Trust me, the majority of long-distance drivers never do 100. The main highway through the province is plagued with construction, but the "regular" flow goes at 120, then you have the asshats that weave through traffic at 160+. Normal cruising speed when the OPP isn't out and about seems to be 130-140 in the left lane. Near Pearson Airport, it's a free for all because it's basically a giant on-ramp. 60 in most of the populated areas is bearable because of the frequency of traffic lights, and they up it to 80 in most suburbs. In the newer communities, the main roads are built like highways and it's a 70 limit (most people do 80 regardless) and that's where you find the majority of six-figure price tag cars.

 

Of course, this is just Ontario and I can't vouch for any other province. Unless it's Quebec, in which case don't drive in Quebec. Ever.

[MEC-777]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/433690-mini-news-ea-reveals-the-first-set-of-cars-for-the-new-need-for-speed-game/#entry5812630

What do you guys think about the next NFS?

I honestly just want more customization and louder engine revs, and less cop chases that are way too easy to win

But EA will most probably f**k it up

And the always online is complete s**t

 

Assetto Corsa > any NFS game, ever, indefinitely.

 

@MEC-777 in case you haven't been to CTMP

 

I've been there a number of times but have only done laps in Assetto.

 

Chrysler is dropping the Hemi engines from the SRT cars, in favor of turbocharged I4 and V6's.

 

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/srt-hellcat-hemi-engines-might-not-survive-2019-173010561.html

 

 

I understand the reasoning, but I dont think they will sell as well as long as the competitors are still using large displacement V8's.

 

What I'm about to say isn't necessarily directed at you, specifically, but everyone here complaining about smaller turbocharged engines vs larger NA engines, in general. 

 

I love an awesome V8, don't get me wrong. But I actually prefer smaller turbo'd engines over larger NA engines and the main reason being; because technology. What you might not realize is that you can actually get a wider and more usable power band from a smaller turbo engine vs a larger NA engine. Turbochargers basically allow optimal volumetric efficiency across a much wider rpm range - which means the cylinders are being "filled" more effectively at all times while in boost, where as NA engines are only being "filled" most effectively around the rpm where peak torque is produced. More usable power = better than higher peak power. 

 

In my 1.8T Golf, I can accelerate up steep hills from 2000rpm in 5th by just riding the torque wave thanks to the boost from the turbo. This is also actually far less stressful on an engine compared to down-shifting and revving it higher. Higher rpm operation puts more stress/strain on internal components vs simply making more power via adding boost. Higher powered NA engines generally must rev higher to make said power (because it's necessary to achieve that higher volumetric efficiency).

 

Turbocharged engines can also be more efficient under cruising conditions. The compressor can actually help improve volumetric efficiency even while not producing any boost. The less "work" the engine has to do to breathe, the more efficient it will run (less wasted energy).

 

So, let's tally this up...

-More usable power (more torque, same or more horsepower).

-Less stress on components. 

-More efficient operation.

 

It's better in nearly every way. And let's not forget ease of power upgrade-ability. How do you get a significant power increase from an NA engine? You have to change the cams, raise compression, rev it even higher etc. or... add forced induction (hmmm. ). How do you get a significant power increase from a factory turbocharged engine? Simply turn up the boost in many cases and or simply get it tuned/chipped. No other part changes or physical work is necessary. For my Golf, I could pay $650 for a GIAC stage 1 ECU re-flash at a local speed shop and drive away with 50+ extra HP and 50+ extra ft-lbs, without even having to pop the hood. To get 50 extra HP and TQ from a VR6, for example, you'd have to install a turbo or do some series engine work and tuning to get there.

 

TL;DR - Turbos > everything. Turbos 4 life!

 

There is a replacement for displacement, it's called a turbo.

 

And yeah, V8's sound cool, but I actually like the way turbo's sound over V8's. V8 + turbo, well, that's just glorious music.