V8 vs V6 (Page 3/9)
BillS DEC 27, 12:03 PM
Getting back on topic, the nice thing about a turbo 4 cylinder is that it acts like an NA engine when driven mildly, so you can get excellent fuel mileage but when you punch it you suddenly double the output.

I ran a turbo 88 Fiero for almost 20 years and it was a great combination (mine was a a stroked 3.2 V60.)

Using a modern high tech turbo engine means easier packaging in the Fiero and great power with decent mileage. The naturally aspirated 2.4 available in the Solstice didn't give as good mileage as the turbo 2.0 (unless you had your foot in it all the time.

A lot of people prefer V8s due to tradition, noise, whatever, but there is a lot to be said for the smaller options.
La fiera DEC 27, 06:21 PM

quote
Originally posted by BillS:
. The naturally aspirated 2.4 available in the Solstice didn't give as good mileage as the turbo 2.0 (unless you had your foot in it all the time.



Bill, is that 2.0 Turbo off the Firefly Pontiac? I'm a fan of the Firefly!
fieroguru DEC 27, 09:37 PM

quote
Originally posted by BillS:

Getting back on topic, the nice thing about a turbo 4 cylinder is that it acts like an NA engine when driven mildly, so you can get excellent fuel mileage but when you punch it you suddenly double the output.

A lot of people prefer V8s due to tradition, noise, whatever, but there is a lot to be said for the smaller options.



Turbos aren't just for 4cyls... they can be put on V8s too!
La fiera DEC 29, 10:03 PM

quote
Originally posted by fieroguru:


Turbos aren't just for 4cyls... they can be put on V8s too!



Yes Guru! Back in the 80's Alfa Romeo F1 engienes where V8 twin turbos. They killed the Ferrari V6, Porsche V6 and Renaults. They would always get fastest laps and pole positions. Their problem was reliability.
BillS JAN 01, 03:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by La fiera:


Bill, is that 2.0 Turbo off the Firefly Pontiac? I'm a fan of the Firefly!



No, the 2.4 NA engine is an Ecotec. Fireflies were 3 cylinder 1.0 engines or a 4 cylinder 1.3 engines IIRC.
lou_dias JAN 03, 06:42 PM
For advice on the Cadillac, sounds like something is wrong, however, multipled dynos on automatics have shown it to make ~160rwhp.

My 5-speed was making 175 rwhp with the Allante intake. Going to E85 made is jump to 196rwhp and 298 ft*lbs...
RotrexFiero JAN 03, 07:13 PM
When I was drag racing I was told torque was for the first half of the track, and horsepower for the second.

For every day driving torque is wonderful, especially in the city, stopping and starting, and climbing hills.

Patrick JAN 03, 07:36 PM

quote
Originally posted by BillS:

A lot of people prefer V8s due to tradition, noise, whatever...



Never underestimate the importance of "noise" when it comes to engines. If you love the sound of your engine, you get to revel in its glory from the moment it's started, right up until it's turned off.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 01-04-2022).]

Will JAN 04, 08:58 AM

quote
Originally posted by RotrexFiero:
For every day driving torque is wonderful, especially in the city, stopping and starting, and climbing hills.



I now own three diesel vehicles, and the powerbands are just great for every day driving.


quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

Never underestimate the importance of "noise" when it comes to engines. If you love the sound of your engine, you get to revel in it's glory from the moment it's started, right up until it's turned off.




My '05 Benz E320 has an OM648 3.2 inline 6. It's not loud, but it sounds good. My '07 Grand Cherokee has a Ben OM642 3.0 liter 75 degree v6. It's not loud either, but it sounds more like a piece of construction equipment... it does not make pretty noises.
Patrick JAN 04, 04:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by Will:

Ben OM642 3.0 liter 75 degree v6... sounds more like a piece of construction equipment



Thanks, I'll be crossing that engine off my list.