Thread 28671447

Every reviewer jizzes about "It revs to 9000!". How is that a good thing? It's like saying "Wow my package took 9000 days to cum in the male!"

I want low-end torque to break the tires loose at idle RPM. I don't want to wait for it to "rev up". I want that power NOW, so I can do a burnout NOW, right here in the middle of traffic.

I want loud bassy rumble, like a guttural growl. Not no annoying high-pitched wail like a thousand toddlers screaming. Fuck V10s, Eye-talians, whatever other bullshit you car nerds fap to.

Even modern muscle revs too high for me (new Mustangs redline 8000!) and not enough low-end torque. What the fuck do I do? DON'T YOU DARE say go electric

>>28671447 (OP)
>I want low-end torque to break the tires loose at idle RPM. I don't want to wait for it to "rev up". I want that power NOW, so I can do a burnout NOW, right here in the middle of traffic.
sounds like a Tesla might be right up your alley

Sounds like what you need is Lancia Stratos

>>28671447 (OP)
>t. failed the marshmallow test

>>28671447 (OP)
I built a junkyard 460 for about $1500 all in. Lights the tires easy enough, cruises happily at 1200 RPM. My first full rebuild of an automotive engine and I'm not super confident in everything, also flat tappet because it was on such a tight budget, so I set the limiter at like 4k. More than enough, really. I get annoyed on the highway because my gearing is too tight and I wind up at like 2100 to do 70 in 5th.

>>28671447 (OP)
Turbodiseasel

>>28671478
>low down torque
>low fuel consumption
Only real engine choice.

>>28671447 (OP)
Just get a long intake runner

>>28671447 (OP)
>not enough low-end torque
because it has low displacement compared to camaro and challenger

>>28671447 (OP)
Take the EV pill, they're designed for faggots like you

>>28671449
You talk like a fag and your shits all retarded

>>28671447 (OP)
Modern turbo cars make peak torque just off idle.

>>28671590
>definition of OP: faggot

>>28671484
>tfw daily has a b57 in it
Feels good bros

>>28671613
rent free

>>28671590
he is right though. regardless of all the gayshit in em, if you want instant torque an electric motor is THE thing to go for.
there's a reason why locomotives use em to haul mountains uphill

All the Fagtubers be making "drift Tesla" builds now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6ffJXgXPcY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKZYxn7uzIk

The correct answer is EV

>>28671642
lul

>>28671447 (OP)
Your a fucking idiot who doesn't know shit.

I wish I had enough low end torque that the engine doesn't want to die pulling away from a stop at anything below 2000rpm

>>28671447 (OP)
Learn to drive retard

>>28671447 (OP)
I don't care about revs in a car either, I want it to be as comfy as a limo. So having too much low-end power is also redundant. I want power just for those rolling starts to fly out of blind spots or do instant overtakes without any interruptions of crooze vibe from possible gear changes.

On a motorbike however I want the drama. When it just starts to touch the powerband at 8k and the intensity of sound and not just the pull itself doubles it's just such an amazing contrast to how the machine behaves normally while in slow traffic. It's telling you that you are fucking around, and you're about to find out. It always leaves you longing for the next chance of getting that rush.

>>28671447 (OP)
Corvettes, they are still made with God rods, infinite low end torque

>>28671447 (OP)
this is a pretty good post.

op they're called deisels and only retards and farmers like them

>>28674640
>deisels
>only retards and farmers like them
anon I...

>>28671447 (OP)
Gay nigger mobile by government motors. I have torque at 1rpm in my tesla. Gassers literally have lmao notorque.

>>28671447 (OP)
You and your... kind might be the target demographic for those new electric Dodge Chargers.

Instant gratification EV torque, and a Fartzonic exhaust for the rumbles. Just don't kill us when your doing takeovers Jamal

What is a gearing advantage.
What is being able to accelerate longer in lower ratio gears.

>>28671447 (OP)
RPMlets coping and seething
I have a supercharger + cams optimized for high rpm so at the cost of some peak power from my cam overlap I just have the worlds broadest powerband. Already making 10psi from 2300rpm and revs 9300 (engine could do ~10.5k reasonably but i'm already slightly overspinning the blower)

>>28671447 (OP)
RPMlets coping and seething
I have a supercharger + cams optimized for high rpm so at the cost of some peak power from my cam overlap I just have the worlds broadest powerband. Already making 10psi from 2300rpm and revs 9300 (engine could do ~10.5k reasonably but i'm already slightly overspinning the blower)

>>28671447 (OP)
If you want fast go electric, if you want good sound go big V8, this shit isn't hard to figure out.

>>28675356
and if you want a real car, you drive a pentastar

>>28671447 (OP)
It literally doesn't matter tho.

Kinetic energy=1/2 x Mass x Velocity^2

If you have a 1500kg car, and want to go 25m/s or 55mph

1/2 x 1500 x 25^2 = 468,750j

1 Watt is 1j/s and there's 746 watts to the horsepower

468,750 / 746 is 628 Horsepower-seconds in a perfect, lossless/frictionless world.

That means the car has to transmit 628 horsepower at the wheels to the ground for 1 second, or 62.8 horsepower at the wheels, at a minimum to reach 55mph/90kmh/25m/s. Torque in this matter, beyond the gear ratios, is irrelevant. You may have been taught that hp = torque x rpm / 5252, but I believe a better way to express this is;

1hp=1ft-lb @ 5252 rpm. Whether you make 300 ft lbs at 2626 rpm, or 150 ft lbs at 5250, you're making equal amounts of power, and equal amounts of torque at the wheel, and thus equal acceleration, so long as the faster engine has shorter gearing to compensate. This is literally why everyone has gone to high revving smaller displacement engines, it doesn't matter how you make the power, so long as you make the power. Torque just doesn't really matter in a world of 10 speed gearboxes.

>>28671447 (OP)
Yep. Been through the young phase where it was all about RPM and rowing the box like a galley slave just to keep up with traffic, then the turbo phase which invariably lead to being boost greedy and the resultant downtime, before finally settling on big cubes and three speed autos as the pinnacle of automotive development.

>>28671513
>camaro and challenger
Those still don't quite get it compared to a good running big block. Yes, they feel like they've got lots of displacement when compared to modern 3 cyl turbo hit but not when compared to properly large displacement engines.

>>28675595
>If I rev my penalty box to the moon, it makes the same torque as a big-block at idle
>Therefore it literally doesn’t matter
Your math is correct, but I hope you realize that this isn’t exactly a compelling argument.

>>28671447 (OP)
>I want low-end torque to break the tires loose at idle RPM. I don't want to wait for it to "rev up". I want that power NOW, so I can do a burnout NOW, right here in the middle of traffic.

I see you too are a diesel enjoyer.

>>28675621
>Those still don't quite get it compared to a good running big block
just upgrade the cam and youre making 500 lb ft easily

This is why a blower is the best option.
>only compromise is the slight parasitic loss
>instant throttle response
>gain the torque benefits of forced induction without sacrificing a linear powerband

>>28676528
>and youre making 500 lb ft easily
At too high an rpm. If you're having to rev it past 1800 or so to move smartly then you don't have enough displacement for what OP and I are after.

>>28677011
>positive displacement blower
Sure that'll work but have you SEEN the prices for blowers? Much cheaper to poke and stroke a big block. The blower becomes the next step once you've maxed out the cubes on your mountain motor.

>>28671447 (OP)
>Fuck V10s
Viper laughs at your pitiful torque figures.

>>28671447 (OP)
- Because hp = torque x rpm/5252.
More rpm = more hp.

- Whatever torque an engine is "missing" can be made up with by gearing. Like an na miata makes about 1350ft/lbs of wheel torque in first gear. You can't multiply missing hp.

- Good engineering prioritizes rpm and saving weight over shoehorning a truck engine into a sportscar chassis. When you do that you need to beef up the tires, suspension, axles, transmission, longer gearing, etc etc. And then you just end up with a truck that looks like a sports car.

>>28677074
>muh miata
Kill yourself faggot

>>28675595
>>28677074
>hurr low end torque doesn't matter if you just rev it to hp/tq crossover anyway
Are you guys intentionally being obtuse? He's saying he doesn't want to have to wait until 5k+ to start making meaningful power.
A 30 year old LT1 in a Camaro makes 325lb-ft @ 2400rpm and continues to make enough torque to produce 275hp at 5200rpm. I agree with OP it's a much more satisfying experience than a gutless Honda you have to rev to the moon to make less power and be slower.

>>28677783
>agree with OP it's a much more satisfying experience
your idea of satisfying is jamming it into 3rd and never shifting kek, Tesla model S drives itself and has 1000hp

>>28677783
my 3.6 liter v6 makes "meaningful power" from 1600 rpm all the way to redline

>>28677798
PentaKINO

>>28677792
>I want low-end torque to break the tires loose at idle RPM. I don't want to wait for it to "rev up". I want that power NOW, so I can do a burnout NOW, right here in the middle of traffic.
Where is "not shifting" mentioned?
>>28677798
>never makes torque that begins with a 3 at any point in the rev range
No, it doesn't. You can't even spin the tires without doing a brakestand.

>>28677798
If I remember correctly from my dyno days the v6 chally makes about 100hp@3000 rpm at the flywheel. I'll be generous and say you have 50hp@1600. You call that significant?

>>28678227
are you talking about the 3.5? the 3.6 makes over 200 lb ft under 2000 rpm, and maintains 270+ through its entire rev range.
you know the car has an internal dyno and i can actually see what it's producing, right? don't bullshit me, faggot.

>>28677842
>You can't even spin the tires without doing a brakestand.
only because of the zf8's torque mitigation which is on top of the traction control, you can't do it in a stock 5.7 either because lol open diff

>>28678239
>200 lb ft under 2000 rpm
200 lb ft at 2000rpm is like 75hp
>car has an internal dyno
lol retard fell for marketing

>only because of the zf8's torque
Weird, I have an ZF8 in my SUV and I can spin all 4 wheels from a dig when I get on it.

>>28678339
>the actual torque and horsepower numbers that the transmission and traction control uses to operate, pulled directly from the ecu, that match diagnostic information pulled directly from the tcm with alfaobd are "marketing" but an external dyno that can be atmospherically skewed to read literally anything the operator wants is somehow heckin valid
don't be a fucking retard, also your math is wrong

mopars have an anti-retard system that delays throttle opening if you just jam the pedal like a monkey, so you have to either roll your foot into the pedal at bit before mashing it all the way or load the tc up a bit, but then it will light both wheels up no problem. i don't believe for a minute your faggy crossover suv can do the same.

as usual chally haters are all liars, theives, and uneducated faggots who can't even use a fucking calculator

>>28671447 (OP)
You can have torque and a high redline. A high redline is indicative of a well balanced engine

>>28678369
>mopars have an anti-retard system
And yet you somehow still got inside. Interesting.

>>28678537
obviously because i am not a retard you fucking retard

>>28671724
Ehh we all know the M3 and S Class teslas are the fastest thing on the road now. But cmonn jeez

>>28678542
>t.guy who thinks his instrument cluster is accurate

>>28678828
>implying it isn't

>>28674614
That or Vipers. Stock cam makes a buttass load of torque down low.

>>28678227
57hp if he's lucky.
>>28678239
Or is it because your car is a torque-let V6 auto? Torque management is usually to keep from damaging parts, I highly doubt 200lb-ft of torque is stressing anything unless your car is a huge POS.
>>28678339
X3M Anon?

>>28675353
Looks like an integra gen 2 dash, gsr or type r?

>>28678369
Nope, my math checks out

>>28678909
If you ever had your car connected to anything you'd know how much "rounding" is getting done so normgroids don't freak out and think their car is broken. The numbers you're seeing are on your little "dyno" are just approximations that need to conform with the marketing numbers.

>>28679629
No.

>>28680650
its a GSR with a bunch of type R parts (engine, cluster, helical diff, console, clock, sway bar, brakes, and some other stuff). GSR tach only goes to 9

>>28677074
if this are true then why the peterbuilts got big cummins in em ... . .. and not one of your jap crap 4 cylinders.That go to 15000 rpm.

-Gary
----------------------------
Gary "Road King" Goatsy
SEMPER FI
USMC 1979-1979
POW MIA REMEMBER OUR TROOPS
Trump 2020!

[Image hosted by Photobucket]

For SALE: Matching numbers 95 Camaro email me gary7181960@sbcglobal.net 164k miles original 350 c.i.d. $55,000 O.B.O NO LOWBALLERS

>>28682761
What did it put down at the wheels 170-180whp?

>>28682964
235 at ~6psi

>>28674640
Europeans too

>>28678239
>are you talking about the 3.5? the 3.6 makes over 200 lb ft under 2000 rpm, and maintains 270+ through its entire rev range
Wow, that's just like my 20 year old Volvo

>>28679629
>I highly doubt 200lb-ft of torque is stressing anything unless your car is a huge POS.
Anon drives a V6 Challenger, so there's your answer

>>28682976
Ah, my bad I missed >>28675353 Are you running the Jackson Racing kit?

>>28680892
>If you ever had your car connected to anything you'd know how much "rounding" is getting done so normgroids don't freak out and think their car is broken. >The numbers you're seeing are on your little "dyno" are just approximations that need to conform with the marketing numbers.

then how come it doesn't ever actually show the "marketing numbers"? if it were simply a LUT with preprogrammed throttle position/speed to show me satistfactory marketing numbers then i would see the same numbers all the time, i would see exactly 305 hp at full throttle at the redline and not 310 or 299-something depending on how humid/cold it is outside.
and no, your math doesn't check out because the car doesn't stop at the crank. 1st gear is a 4.71:1 ratio. i have a 2.62 LSD and 18 inch wheels with 235/40s. give me my wheel torque, dynojet dave, chop chop.


>>28679629
Nope, it's because of heavy torque mitigation that is common to the platform and needs to be tuned out
you would know if you knew anything about cars instead of just how to google useless information

>>28682984
yeah it's pretty based, drives a lot like my old 850. but does your volvo also rev to 6600 rpm maintaining that torque the entire time and also sound like an indy car while doing it?

pentastar haters are a curious bunch, they will make up all kinds of stupid shit just to deny this is one of the greatest engines ever made, simply because they have a hateboner for ford and all the gay shit they did to make the v6 mustang a laughable pile of trash
a chally is not a ford or a mustang. a pentastar is not your shitty sohc essex lump. Pentas are severely underrated and electronically hobbled to keep retards from killing themselves with a rental. my car has no such hobbling.

>>28682976
>all that and you still can't beat a v6 chally at its worst

>>28683036
a n/a ITR making like 180whp can beat a v6 challenger no probalo, theyre like over 15sec 1/4 mile stock lol

>>28683041
only the 3.5 with the 4-speed ultradrive is that slow, a 3.6 with a zf would eat your japscrap alive (and i have, many times)

>>28683036
>but does your volvo also rev to 6600 rpm maintaining that torque the entire time
yes
>and also sound like an indy car while doing it
no it sounds like a viper

>>28683051
the viper's exhaust note is not generally considered as impressive as the rest of the car btw

>>28683048
best case scenario v6 challenger with the 305hp motor you're still getting mogged 0.096hp/lb to 0.075 hp/lb

>>28683036
>pentastar haters are a curious bunch, they will make up all kinds of stupid shit just to deny this is one of the greatest engines ever made
forgot to add, I still think your pentastar cope is ridiculous and there are plenty of real reasons they are not one of the greatest engines ever. I'm not going to tell you about them though, because I think it would be more funny for you to discover these problems naturally.

>>28683057
the v6 challenger weighs 3800 lbs, not 4078 friend, that's the AWD one or possibly a hemi curb weight you're looking at

>YOUR PENTASTAR WILL BLOW UP ANY DAY NOW
says the increasingly agitated tin can driving wapanese faggot on his 3rd chinese ebay turbo and 4th motor

>>28671447 (OP)
>What the fuck do I do
Diesel. 335d. Cummins ram. Eff too fiddy. Merc wagon. Roll coal.

>>28683060
then it would be fair to compare both wheel horsepower numbers then, what do the v6 challengers actually make again? a generous 255whp on a dynojet and you're back down to 0.66 hp/lp

>>28683072
>>28683076
the Charger and Challenger, despite having the same engine, have different ECU mapping. the Charger makes over 10 hp less depending on trim. all V6 Challengers make 305 crank hp or more. any dyno test that attempts to conflate the two is wrong.

>>28683083
crank, through an automatic

>>28683088
>no car listed
>ZF8 has only 8% powertrain loss

your google dyno needs calibration

>>28683088
>>28683092
mathematically speaking a real v6 chally should put somewhere between 260-280 to the wheels. anything lower than that is suspicious, either the dyno is calibrated wrong, the car is not being tested correctly, or the car being tested is not a challenger (common Pentahater L)

>>28683092
actual dyno sheets vs a theroetical efficiency number

>>28683107
im waiting for you to post contradictory examples

>>28683110
i'm waiting for you to post a picture of the actual engine and car we are discussing and not base model chargers and 3.5s with hot air intakes

>noooooo, they're talking about chargers and not posting challenger dynos
>they totally make 280whp
>no, I won't post one that makes that either
Get a load of this fag guys.

>>28684576
>STILL posting the WRONG car with a 3.5 SOHC and 4-speed automatic because he is too stupid to use wikipedia

>it's the heck'n wrong engine!!@!
>they totally make 280whp
>no, I won't post one that makes that either
It's weird how you won't just substantiate your claim instead of pretending to be retarded. Here's a 2015 with the ZF8 only putting down 237whp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOEeXTn4ObA

>wrong year
>wrong transmission
>wrong generation of car
>not even the same platform as the one in question

so according to you a mustang ii is the same thing as a foxbody which is the same as an sn95 cobra because all three cars say "ford mustang" on them somewhere
cool argument bro

>anon's face when the video he posted openly demonstrates that a v6 challenger can gain 20+ free whp with just an intake and a rezzy delete, thereby proving me correct
>he thinks this thing is fuckin bone stock

lole

>fully sik mawdz and a tune
>makes 250hp
Lol, lmao even. So you'll just never post a V6 Challenger making 280whp?

>>28684670
i just did retard

>I posted it
>last dyno was the one I posted ITT

>all the dynos posted were of a completely different car on a literally different platform with a different drivetrain
>but-but but it it looks t-t-the same that means its the same car!!!111

gigaCOPE

>going to pretend he didn't already reply to my post with the 2015 dyno
>goes back to saying it's totally not the same heck'n car!!@!

>the video proves me correct in saying that if the car makes under the mathematical minimum for the drivetrain, then there is something suspiciously wrong with the car or testing regimen
>it's not my exact car which is even more modded and thus clearly makes even more power than that

chrysler intentionally hobbles the cars for emissions from factory because they didn't want to recertify it with the epa every time they updated it.
a few flips of electronic switches, a proper thermostat and an intake swap and you're putting down at LEAST 260 whp at minimum and at most 280 without a tune
i have outgunned same-year STIs so i know my car is putting down somewhere between 260 and 280, i have seen up to 310 crank on the internal dyno.

i don't need some zoomer faggot with a youtube shorts addiction and a wikipedo degree in benchracing to tell me what the fuck im driving and the fact you think you can is fucking comical. go back.

>nearly a second faster than the stock car, not even accounting for the .3 second rollout of the internal timer
>he will say i was on a hill or some other such cope

>>28683064
post mileage

>>28683076
Wow that's like 20 more horsepower than my stock 5 cylinder from 2 decades ago

>>28684859
203,000 or so right now
still on factory oil cooler
no leaks

>>28684860
picrel it's mine from 15 years ago
a chally isn't a fwd toyota wearing a volvo's skin thoughbeit

>>28684895
>a chally isn't a fwd toyota wearing a volvo's skin thoughbeit
you're totally right
it's actually a fat hog that makes less torque to boot

>>28684902
270 is greater than 162 you fucking retard
>oh well uhhh uhhh uhhh i meant the turbo version
250 is still less than 270 you spackle eating illiterate moron

>>28684907
oh excuse me the 850R only made 221 lb/ft
it was the TWR BTCC touring car that made 250 lb/ft i read it wrong

PENTASTAR POWAH BAYBEE

>>28671447 (OP)
>I want low-end torque

>135,375 lbf
>at the wheels

>>28684718
>>28684724
>even more coping
>still no 280whp dyno produced
Crazy how that other Anon and I can provide multiple dynos to support our argument and the only thing you can do is screech like an autist and post 0 dyno sheets.

>>28684724
>5.8 0-60
kek, my Golf can do better.

>>28683092
>>ZF8 has only 8% powertrain loss
absolutely delulu

>>28683048
>and i have, many times
I doubt someone driving an itr would bother fooling around with someone in a rental spec charger kek

>>28671447 (OP)
may as well drive a diesel

>>28688221
oh yeah excuse me that's for the
ZF9 fwd transaxle
a rwd zf8 is like 12%

>>28688239
i've demolished plenty of integras, nobody has a real type r here
your fwd crapcans can't keep up in group runs meanwhile the "rental spec" chally on cop steelies wrapped in tires i pulled out of a dumpster easily hangs with built audis and bmws on the dragon
i dont benchrace or play around, i know what my car can do because i go and do it and busrider faggots and garage queens don't. simple as.

>>28688467
>hangs with built audis and bmws on the dragon
Because they're all going the fucking speed limit, kek.

>>28683036
Okay now compare your precious rental spec clown car to the 3.7 mustang. They only made them from 2011 through 2017 across two generations so I don't know why you think it's appropriate to compare the faggotstar to the engine that was last used in Mustangs 15 years ago.

I personally find it hilarious how even with this board's autism, the 3.7 Mustangs are still completely flying under the radar. Although I suppose I would be the same if I had not realized it personally when my friend put a Borla catback on his 2014 and I rode in it a few times. Obviously not as fast as the v8, and he did later upgrade to a 2018 GT which he still has, but that thing was a legitimate sports car. Those things also do 500 to the tire on stock bottom end and pump gas with the auto Mafia racing single turbo kit, check it out on YouTube if you aren't seething hard enough already.

Me, I'm a v8 man so your ad hominem attacks are unfortunately incompatible with my Chad aura. I suggest you rope and reroll if you're unable to grow past your current cringemaxxed life.

>>28688778
no that 70 year old lady in the x5 with her grandkidswas racing me i swear

>>28688817
mustangs are ugly slow n gay who cares
https://files.catbox.moe/092xqf.mp4

>>28688889
What a fucking ugly ass hairy junkie. Fitting for you, Arrrriba arriba arriba!

>>28677783
Are YOU being obtuse? All that matters is horsepower, torque is modulated by the gearing. Again, if you had an engine that made 200ftlbs at 2526, and another that made 100ftlbs at 5252, and exactly half the gearing, they would accelerate at exactly the same rate, and shift at the same time, all else being equal. But it's not, because the smaller, faster spinning engine likely weighs half what the V8 does, with half the frictional losses, half the pumping losses, half the timing system losses, and so on. By saying you don't want your engine to spin to 5000 rpm, you're saying you don't want to make power. Period. The only real differences between these two hypothetical vehicles is noise and fuel economy.

>>28688897
Too pretty and thin for your tastlet ahh LOL

>>28689018
>if you had an engine that made 200ftlbs at 2526
>if
The trouble with that is I already gave an example of a V8 that makes 125lb-ft more at an even lower RPM. Even an old NPI 2V is making 250lb-ft at only 1500rpm. You can dream up whatever retarded scenario you want to make the math suit your argument, but it's erroneous to the actual argument and V8 torque curves.
An EM1 Si had 100lb-ft of torque, revved to 8k and even with it's 4.40 final drive it was still slower than a 2.73 A4 fbody by a large margin, let alone a 3.42 geared M6 car.

>>28688467
>i've demolished plenty of integras,
Like where you both line up or are you just doing that thing where you fly by people and start weaving in and out of traffic? Also how do you race with an automatic?

>>28688817
>the 3.7 Mustangs are still completely flying under the radar
It's not that we don't know the Cyclone is better than the Pentashart. It's just that we have one extremely vocal V6 Challenger autist that continuously needs to validate overpaying for a used rental.

>>28671447 (OP)
"low-end torque to break the tires loose at idle RPM" horrible launch is not an actual benefit on the track or in performance cars in general

Yeah, I do agree that high RPM shouldn't be the ultimate goal if your car drops HP drastically in higher rev ranges

>>28689461
Everyone that pulls up next to me at a light is trying to race, right?

>>28690553
I'm not tryna go fast, just to have fun slip-n-sliding around town going weehee, woohoo at every turn

I'd prefer less capable in terms of mechanical grip so I don't have to risk crashing if/when I fuck up

GR86/Miata seemed good but I drove them both and they're too weak. They need 3x the power, and worser tires (ideally steel tires so I can make sparks everywhere too)

IMAGINE THE FUNS

>>28671447 (OP)
No worries, EVs are there for you, no revs, all the torque, and car nerds will hate you

>>28675595
here's an equation for you poindexter
Lotta words = Lotta cope

>>28693590
Let me put it in simple terms then
More RPM = More Testosterone
If your car has a redline lower than 7000RPM it's a woman's car

You haven't lived until you've rolled a slant 6.

>>28694214
a 4 cylinder revving to 8k is lower test than a V8 revving to 5k.

>I want a gallon a minute consumption at idle
Burgerstani installment mentality.

>>28695022
>5k
kek what's that? Your wife's car or something? Nothing wrong with that, women can't handle clutches very well so having a lot of low down torque so they don't stall every red light

>>28671447 (OP)
In what world is a mustang lacking low end torque?
Compared to my fully worked ls1 a mustang has about the same power across the board and its doing about the same rpm.
Can shift into 6th at 60kmh no worries without bogging down the engine.

>>28683088
damn dude thats so good you got k24 numbers out of your v6

Based 4500rpm redline enjoyer

>>28688467
>i dont benchrace or play around
when are ya signing up inside the yellow lines champ

I think nearly all manufacturers have gone for the low end torque solution. Except Mazda and Honda that develop peak torque at like 7000 RPM with their NA engines.

>>28695782
ive driven a gg and gh mazda 6 with the 2.5 and they are both tuned for low end torque. they feel pretty good up untill about 3k then are completely gutless to redline

>>28695768
What i drive at work Max 2250rpm for 530hp 2250nm of torque
>tfw bulldozer work in a front loader

>>28695815
in aus?

>>28695815
>US forces give the nod
>DUN DUN DUN-DUN DUN-DUN-DUN DUN DUN-DUN

>>28695816
Yes.
In Victoria of all the states to be operating 50 tonne machines.

>>28695850
whats it like these days? been thinking of getting out of the industry im in and getting into being a plant operator cos dad used to be one. is it a shit job? how hard is it to get into? is it full of dickheads etc what im wondering. got no experince in the job atm but i reckon i could do it

>>28695854
My job site just went through about 15 people to find 2 who could actually do the job.
Big difference between knowing how to turn the machine on and make it do things and operating it with skill.
And idk I get 60 paid days off per year with a wage of 130k dollarydoos and 10+ years of job security that comes with a 4.5% pay increase per year so you tell me if that is good.

>>28695858
righto so if im not a retard ill be alright? the job itself though whats it like day to day?
im working in television rn and its hell on earth

>>28695860
Never met someone who came from anything other than mining or truck driving that does well at the job, people like you hit a peak at about 60% of where you should be with all the training and support possible.
The best hme operators actually come from manual labour jobs because they spent 10 years watching the hme operator sit down while they worked so they don't complain about back injuries because at least they aren't doing manual labour any more. If you didn't come from a construction crew good luck

>>28695865
if i started as a labourer with the same company could i work up to it? did you do any training outside of when you started the job?

>>28695866
Yes, the lowest job is picker so oversized concrete remover by hand and people who show initiative get promoted but that is just my company and it rarely happens because no one shows initiative.
I started as a picker but also had 10 years experience dr8ving tractors so I am not a case study.

>>28695691
https://youtube.com/shorts/v2-mMR-DRjM
this is low T by your logic.
this is why you're an idiot.

>>28695942
Seems pretty low t senpai

>>28684606
>still not posting the right one and continuing to argue further without proving anything
post exactly what numbers you are talking about in a clearly defined context or stop posting you obnoxious smelly turbofaggot.

>>28693534
underage or actually mentally handicapped retard???

>>28696754
>t. never driven a car with more than 200hp

>>28695753
>In what world is a mustang lacking low end torque?

cumpared to Challenger EnemaPack and Camary SS it is lacking. those 2 break tires loose way easier

>>28696754
>simply cannot fathom low effort wheelspin and oversteer being fun
Are you sure you're not the retard Anon?