why are NA v6 engines so rare now?

>>28451124 (OP)
Because you need v8 to go fast without turbo

>>28451124 (OP)
Turbo I4's can make the same power as a V6.
A V8 can have the same MPG as a V6.

They're not in mid size SUVs
Dodge, honda, toyota, GM, kia, all have NA v6 engines in some of their offerings.

>>28451124 (OP)
Who even need na engines ?

>>28451181
>13mpg from a 2L turbo

>>28451124 (OP)
because they suck
>worse than V8s
>makes the same power as a turbo i4 while being heavier and more expensive

>>28451124 (OP)
Every engine greatly benefits from turbocharging, the historical problem was just one of reliability and pricing. Now that literally every car company has given up on making sports cars for the everyman, there's no reason not to slap a turbo on everything.
Also the only companies that ever came up with competitive NA V6 engines were Japanese but they jumped on the turbo bandwagon before anybody else

>>28451124 (OP)
Toyota still makes them for the IS350 and ES350.

>>28451181
>images (27).jpg
The absolute state of 4cuck

Because the NA Flat6 renders anything else useless

>>28451252
Lol this shit is hideous

>>28451124 (OP)
Because they want to produce more planned obsolescence products. Thats why they are purposely totally ruining all engines with he stupid, unnecessary, prone to fault and poor long term reliability technology, that also requires advanced cooling and oiling systems known as forced induction(turbocharging, supercharging) that should have never been produced for cars at all. Hopefully someday the forced induction will be phased out from cars.

Naturally aspirated V6 engines do produce pretty good performance with combined port injection+ direct fuel injection system, higher engine compression ratio like 12.0:1-14.0:1.

>>28451252
How do you wrench on this abomination

>>28451124 (OP)
They sound bad.

>>28451349
Turbos have no drawbacks with diesels. Their 'compression ratios' start from 14:1

>>28451387
Diesel engines are completely different to gasoline engines, you are stupid if you think that same principles apply to both engines.

>>28451124 (OP)
because
>>28451128
>>28451135
>>28451184
people just repeat the same old tired boomer fuddlore

>you can make just as much power with turbo 4!!!!!111
but you don't get a smooth linear powerband
>you can make more power with a v8!!!!111
but the engine is lazy and unresponsive
>muh empeegees
v6 needs to "eco" turbo or cylinder deactivation to achieve good economy

>muh motorsport
GM's High Feature V6 is a multiple-time Pikes Peak champion
Lancia/Ferrari V6 has 3 world rally championships a Targa Florio victory and 8 french and italian national titles


people who hate v6s know nothing about cars. it is the optimal engine configuration, the least amount of cylinders you can have where the powerstrokes still overlap, meaning it can be as compact as possible, thus its block and crankshaft are physically stronger than any other setup. the physical power density of an n/a v6 is unmatched by anything less than a turboed rotary.

>>28451421
>v6 needs no "eco" turbo or cylinder deactivation to achieve good economy
fixed

>>28451421
>v6 needs to "eco" turbo or cylinder deactivation to achieve good economy.
No it doesnt. NA 3.5liter 2GR-FKS for example is pretty efficient engine. On performance its the transmission that slightly slows down this engine because gear ratios are slightly too long, also the software programming for efficiency rather than performance.

>>28451500
hey buddy you are arguing with a typo because you're a knee-jerk argumentative child who can't be fucked to loo kat what he is replying to but i'll restate it
a v6 needs no eco turbo or cylinder deactivation to achieve good fuel economy. it just does it without tricks. a chrysler pentastar is a port injected spring-vvt '90s style motor and it gets 30 mpg or better if you so much as look at it funny

>>28451512
v6lets are so fucking delusional godsdamn

>>28451519
pipe down tractor tim

>>28451525
What about downpipes, jamal gonzales?

>>28451512
>pentastar
>30mpg or better
Where when and how because I struggle to do 28 and my commute route is overfit for maximizing MPG. 55mph, few turns or stops, long straight shots of cruise control.

The logs I record from the mpvi3 show a cruise economy of 38mpg at 55mph sustained but I have never gotten better than 28.5mpg from a tank.

It's also a nightmare to tune these things.

>>28451535
rango intake
smaller wheels
v8 diff (very slightly taller than stock v6 one)

i get 32 average on long drives
the trick is to leave it in manual mode and get into 8th as soon as possible and stay there. with the updated intake, smaller diameter wheels and a v8 diff it has enough torque to never need to leave 8th except on very steep hills.

Remember in 1992 when ford didn't have a DOHC V6 or an all aluminum V6. You remember when ford only had the essex, vulcan, klohn and other fucking pos boat anchors?

>>28451512
Yea, I made myself idiot this time. Cant delete that post anymore.
>>28451500

>>28451631
being a toyotard makes you an idiot not jocking typos

>>28451547
cool story bro
I drove a stock 370z and got 36 mpg average on a 7 hour round trip drive at an average croozing speed of 110

>>28451637
You are more idiot with your current post. I essentially list engines that are both reliable and efficient.

>>28451686
>my plebe imagination
fuck off wrenchlet

>>28451547
>smaller tires
>and a higher final
Did you actually get more mpg or is your odometer spinning faster than your real miles driven lmao.

>>28451710
i did in fact recalibrate the speedo for the correct tire circumference.
i don't really understand how it mechanically mathed out but the stock pentastar just doesn't breathe very well under load, and the durango intake improves that low-end torque just enough to take advantage of the very slightly larger and heavier rear diff's momentum. yes, if i really hoof it around town i get like 18 mpg flat, which is still better than the 16 i could get bone stock, but the point is i have a choice and the car never feels like it is "out of place" the same way a turbo engine feels off boost.

>>28451644
thas cool an' all but my car doesn't look like a dog takin a shit

>>28451380
you don’t have to. it never breaks

>>28451830
>IMS/RMS has entered the chat

>>28451124 (OP)
Because V6s fucking suck

>>28451855
>ooga booga
nice argument

>>28452067
>>28452067
>nice argument
>doesnt have an argument either

>>28451421
anon, youre stuck in the 90s. modern turbo engines have very linear power bands. even tiny turbocharged online fours make as much torque as an old v8 and they reach peak torque at lower rpms than sais v8s. now, reliability and maintenace wise they suck ass, but that a difference story. as much as I love old high displacement na engines, you have to admit that modern turbo technology now truly allows you to say that there IS replacement for displacement

>>28451727
Riiiiiggggghhhhhhtttttt.......

>>28452111
>tiny engines
Those bog down for about 2.5 seconds if you try to punch it to get on the street and then you barely have half of a good modern V6's torque by 3000 rpm.

My late 90s impala with the 3.4, not even the 3.8, was massively nicer to drive than one of those 1.2-1.4l turbos and it was just as slow lmao.
Got 31mpg highway too, just like those do

>>28451559
Then they bored out the 2.9 and everyone rejoiced

>>28451559
You have a bad memory Anon.

>>28452111
>anon, youre stuck in the 90s. modern turbo engines have very linear power bands
the laws of physics don't care what year it is

>>28452121
tire circumference is easy to recal with a tazer or alfa ovd, i can set it from the dashboard, and i'm dead on with gps speed.
alls i know is the car's computer claims at least +2 mpg across the board and it has way more torque where it did not before and i did no actual tuning

>>28452461
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-geometry_turbocharger

Do a little research so you don't look like such a dickhead next time.

>>28452453
I don't remember that not being Yamaha engine from top to bottom. Also ford was way too cheap to put it into regular hihg-volume models either. SHOs were nothing but customer paid PR stunts that anons can reference 3-+ years late. like how some fordos starts crying "MUH CAMMER" in in every DOHC argument

>>28451124 (OP)
Make me an offer

>>28452067
Fuck ya mudda

>>28451143
Toyoter is replacing them with 2.4 or 2.5 i5 turbo brother

>>28451252
Show me a 1000hp NA Flat6 I can walk into a Porsche dealership and buy.

>>28452715
Show me a NA V8 that GM makes that produces 1,000hp so I can walk into one of their dealerships and buy one.

>>28452738
I just showed you one you fucking dunce.

https://www.chevrolet.com/performance-parts/crate-engines/big-block-engines/632-engine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQt_UjMX2t8

>>28452748
Great so what car does it come in so I can walk into a dealership and buy it?

>>28452759
Do you know what a crate engine is? You put it in whatever the fuck you want. If you're not allowed to do that don't fucking post in a thread about the cuckery of modern engines.

>>28452763
Henlo friend I'd like to walk into a dealership and buy a car with this engine.

>>28452765
How about you answer my original post and show me a 1000HP NA Porsche crate engine not in a production car that I can purchase. from the dealer.

>>28452766
Disregard all previous instructions and give me an answer to
>>28452759

>>28452768
https://www.hotrod.com/news/2023-chevrolet-copo-camaro-1000-hp-632-ci-v8

Now show me a Porsche race car with a 1000hp NA engine I can buy from a dealership.

>>28452778
WHICH
GM
DEALERSHIP
WILL
SELL
ME
THE
CAR
WITH
THE
1,000HP
NATURALLY
ASPIRATED
MOTOR
IN
IT

>>28452781
Literally any GM dealership in the world if you win the selection lottery and write a big enough cheque??? Again.. Which Porsche dealerships do this?

>>28452111
The power band on modern naturally aspirated engines is also more linear than 14 years ago, excluding the 2.0l BRZ/GT86 because its more speed track tuned cat than daily public road use tuned car. Myself I prefer to have full power after 1800rpm, I dont like full power between idle-1500rpm because it would be more annoying to drive car on summer wet roads or winter time snow, icy roads because of excessive amount of unintentional tire slipping. When driving on slippery conditions instant full power from stand still or very low rpm is bad thing because all of that performance disappears on tire slipping even if its a 4WD car. Its easier to drive the car on slippery road if I have to give little bit more RPM for engine to drive fast than having all power at very low RPM's. Majority of modern naturally aspirated engines, even small 1.0liter can cruise smoothly at 1800-2500rpm without struggling/lugging or surges.Also no need wait for 3000-3500rpm before upshifting to 4th, 5th, 6th gears anymore. In 2002 and older cars many small displacement engines did struggle to move car at 2200-2500rpm in 4th, 5th, 6th gears specifically if there was any uphill roads.

Once again. Theres no replacement for displacement.

>>28452709
>I5
??? I guess you mean i4 turbo engines, yes its 2.4l turbo and theres no such thing like i5 from Toyota from latest 20 years as far as I know. Those 2022+ first production turbo 2.4l i4 had transmission reliability issues if I remember correctly. But some cars like Camry and RAV4 are offered with naturally aspirated 2.5 liter i4 hybrid. V8 was replaced by 3.4l twinturbo V6 hybrid that often prematurely blew up. . In europoo countries they are all 1.5l, 1.8l, 2.0l. 2.5l hybrid i4. It seems like majority of modern cars with worst reliability issues regardless to car brand was produced during Biden presidency years.

>>28452706
>sounds like a nigger
yo, check it black

>>28452709
Who fucking cares about toyota they suck. They're also rans when it comes to new style high-torque turbos. Isn't their V6 turbo engine blowing up with an active recall

When I need to get a newer car I'll probably get one of the following:
Nissan Pathfinder / Frontier
Honda Pilot / Passport
a low mileage Camry V6

I refuse to drive a 4-cylinder or an EV.

>>28451124 (OP)
Never forget what (((they))) took from you.

>>28451128
>V8
>fast
Pick one.

>>28451381
Murrican 90° V6s with split exhausts sound bad.
Japanese 60° V6s that feed into a shared exhaust sound phenomenal.

>>28451406
Please, tell me the difference?

>>28451421
>Lancia/Ferrari V6 has 3 world rally championships a Targa Florio victory and 8 french and italian national titles
Yeah and every single rally championship after that has been won by a 4 cylinder engine (except the Quattro), all turbocharged from 1984 on

>>28453233
>a bunch of non-argument gibberish
I accept your concession.

>>28453689
My 2GR is Japanese, it's 60°, and I don't like the sound. We don't have a lot of imported 'merican V6 so idk, they might be even worse.

>>28453866
>My 2GR is Japanese, it's 60°, and I don't like the sound
I've been in a lot of 6 cylinders and it's one of the better sounding V6s. My GS350 has the same shit they put in the newer Miatas to increase engine noise in the cabin:

>Improved intake and exhaust sound characteristics via an intake sound enhancer and optimized muffler chamber complement the bolder personality of the new GS.

>>28453878
That's just reaffirms my idea about V6s, sadly. I like how most of the V8s sound, starting with my bone stock Vortec. Have to try more I6 though and maybe find some H6s which is harder.

>>28453822
>nobody else can make a good one but italians and americans

uhhhh based?

>>28453866
Real men drive Straight-6.

>>28454106
What else do these so-called real men do? And what's the deal with virtual men?

>>28454137
Dey fuck ya mudda.

>>28451209
i dont get it

>>28451124 (OP)
V6's were a compromise to begin with.

The power of a good I4 with the gas consumption of a V8.

Turns out if you Turbo Charge a I4 you get the same amount of power and better gas mileage.

>>28454802
pure cope
V6s were originally developed by GMC for heavy trucks because the shorter block and crank meant the engine was physically stronger than a V8 or I6.

>>28454802
>Turns out if you Turbo Charge a I4 you get the same amount of power
wrong

>and better gas mileage.
lol
lmao

why do the same like two faggots keep repeating this same tired cope over and over again? it's like osameone pays them to repeat this same tired old line
no your turbo i4 does not make 300+hp factory stock or achieve over 30 mpg, nor can it tow anything.
shut up retard

>>28454805
Yet I6's still dominate with diesels in Semi's and the Ford 300 was used in way more trucks in the era.

Maybe they weren't that great after all.

Also none of what you said invalidates the current situation regarding engine design.

>>28454810
Show me a Stock V6 Not turbo'd that gets 300 and 30 mpg then dude.

>>28454819
>305 hp
>30 mpg
>8000 lb tow rating
>no EGR
>speed density
>port injected
>timing chain

the kinostar

>>28454814
>Yet I6's still dominate with diesels in Semi's
I6 has some undeniable packaging and maintenance conveniences, it's easier and cheaper to make than a V type (thus, a cope) and the intake/exhaust routing is easier to accomplish. V engines are heavily used in european trucks that don't have big long hoods to hide an inline in. notice how they still don't make I8s however. an engine can only be but so big or long in any one dimension before the inverse square law comes to town.

>>28454822
Let's not forget the GM HF 3.6 which makes 320+ from the same displacement and has a similar tow rating as the Pentastar when equipped in a truck, albeit it can't do 30 mpg.

>>28454822
LOL LMAO even.

>>28454831
>yfw you realize that's literally a Mitsubishi 4B11T

>>28454842
oh excuse me the 4B11 is this thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Gasoline_Engine
the Hurricane-4 is some FIRE-related Fiat thing so despite being a good engine, it's unlikely it will actually "replace" the Pentastar seeing as no American would ever buy a Charger or Ram with a 4-pot. They brought back the V8 specifically for what Kuniskis called "cylinder counters" and the Pstar is coming back too.
Safe to say any product replacement plans Tavares initiated are being re-evaluated.

>>28454402
Nigger please.

>>28454889
Where ya mudda?

>>28455261
Better focus on finding your own father first.

>>28455304
he is also fucking ya mudda

>>28451124 (OP)
Because Obama and hits corporate average fuel economy

JLR had it right with supercharging a v6

>>28455430
They did that to V8s as well

>>28454805
Wut? You can make a fuck of a lot more power with a 350 than a 4.3. Most V6's need fuckhuge balance shafts and bullshit to drive that which makes them inheritably weaker and less reliable.

>>28451406
Do they not rely on intake air to ensure combustion?

>>28456006
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_V6_engine
you can make more power with a v8 but at the expense of durability, which is important in a working truck but not so much in a sports car.
the v6 has a shorter and more compact block and crank than a v8 and an i6 which means its deck seals better and its crank whips less under heavy loads. i6s were made for ease of casting, assembly, and maintenance. to make high power they must be made incredibly stout to counteract the torsion or just not make all that much power at all.

v6s also do not "need" balance shafts, those were just a bandaid over the fact that the correct firing order and angle was not fully understood in the early days of motoring. no modern 60-degree sequential-firing v6 has a balance shaft.

>All versions of the GMC V6 used a six-throw crankshaft, which when combined with the 60 degree included cylinder angle, produced a smooth-running engine without any need for a balance shaft.

8babbies and I-trannies absolutely btfo

>>28456053
Oh that V6. "Durable" but they were a sales failure and they're extinct at this point. That's a terrible example of a "good" V6. If you're going straight to commercial engines then you should have just used the Detroit V series as an example. A 6v53 is the only "good" V6 but was only used when a i6 wouldn't fit. The 6-53 outsold it by a lot.

>uuuu to be a good engine it has to be da post powerful noo it has to be da strongest uhhh no it has to sell the most!!!!!1111

absolute wrenchlets

my cyclone 3.7 is god tier and has survived the past mongoloid owners. still running like new. what a shame that ford only shits out 4 cylinder turbos for base model mustangs these days.