Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I reckon that the journalist or whoever made those mockups went and got the VE mid section (read: everything between the front and back of the car) and stuck it in the middle.

Other than that... I'd have one.

I didn't mind the BA, but I knew ford would fck it up the next shape to come. Probably why the BA shape hasn't changed in years. Some one was saying to me they're putting a v6 in instead of the straight, so that'll prevent anymore turbo six's from coming out.

What Australia really needs is another bigass V6 sedan...

From that old rag: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22067380-421,00.html

The plea follows a report that Ford is considering ending its manufacture of V6 Falcon engines at the Geelong plant in Victoria with the possible loss of 600 jobs.

Too right they should lose their jobs, the useless c**ts. I don't think they've ever made a V6 properly so far. The idiots have been building their V6s with the cylinders all in one row.

Some one was saying to me they're putting a v6 in instead of the straight, so that'll prevent anymore turbo six's from coming out.

Wow. The end of the XR6T....because its apparently impossible to turbocharge a V6 engine.

Wow. The end of the XR6T....because its apparently impossible to turbocharge a V6 engine.

What a fcking stupid comment. Of course it's possible, but it isn't practicable for what is essentially a family car. Besides the weight issue there's no room for twin turbs with a big v6. Supercharged is very possible with the v6, I'm just saying it's a disappointment to see the straight 6 go after their recent success with turbocharged models.

Edited by BAMR33
Yeah, this is all the talk around my work at the moment.

Gunna be a big seller me thinks....

but argh.... so many god damn new parts :)

Ahh... yeah no....

That is an offical release from Ford itself, so I doubt they've simply photoshopped a Holden pic.

Ever thought they may have taken elements they liked from other vehicles and incorporated it into a new model/look?

hmm so many monkeys on here, spunkey and plunk alike.

no they are not official pictures at all.

What a fcking stupid comment. Of course it's possible, but it isn't practicable for what is essentially a family car. Besides the weight issue there's no room for twin turbs with a big v6. Supercharged is very possible with the v6, I'm just saying it's a disappointment to see the straight 6 go after their recent success with turbocharged models.

No room? What are you talking about, people have bin puttings twin turbos on Commodore V6 + V8's for years now!!

Weight is a non issue because its massively offset by the power increase you get with turbocharging.

I heavily doubt Ford will drop their brand spankers high-tech straight 6 in the bin for a V6. That is one of, if not the most powerful mass production turbo straight six in the world!

No room? What are you talking about, people have bin puttings twin turbos on Commodore V6 + V8's for years now!!

Weight is a non issue because its massively offset by the power increase you get with turbocharging.

I heavily doubt Ford will drop their brand spankers high-tech straight 6 in the bin for a V6. That is one of, if not the most powerful mass production turbo straight six in the world!

:laugh:

No shit, 'putting turbo's on' I'm talking about cars coming factory turbo, this simply won't happen if the straight six is replaced with the v6. Look at past makes and models, only commodore with a turbo was straight 6, as soon as skylines went to v6 no turbo, 300zx was twin turbo and look at the mess they were, then the 350z no turbo.

Performance comes second to handling, emissions, efficiency and safety in modern family cars today. 'Weight is not an issue' listen to yourself speak... Of course it's an issue hence why big family cars are not selling well.

Of course it's possible, but it isn't practicable for what is essentially a family car. Besides the weight issue there's no room for twin turbs with a big v6.

You keep telling yourself that. If it wasn't practical to turbocharge a V6, they wouldn't have turbocharged an I6 either. Its just as "practical" as each other for a family car. They didn't turbo the I6 to make it a better towing vehicle.

As for the size, it depends on how big they make the V6's block. The V35 twin turbocharges just fine with a pretty cramped engine bay, and the VQ block goes up to 4.0L (as per the Pathfinder) so the size of the engine is only an issue if they make it one.

They could just run a big single if the plumbing for twins is too much of an issue. There are also some single turbo kits for the V35 that have good drivability and flow reasonably well.

You can't reasonably tell me that a V35 is bigger than a Falcon, but then being able to use reason doesn't seem to be one of your attributes.

Look at past makes and models, only commodore with a turbo was straight 6, as soon as skylines went to v6 no turbo, 300zx was twin turbo and look at the mess they were, then the 350z no turbo.

Yes, lets have a look at past makes and models.

The last generation of Audi S4 and RS4 were twin turbo V6's. I'm pretty sure the Mitsubishi Galant / Legnum were running twin turbo V6s for a while (I haven't looked into them since 2000 or so), if not currently. Saab runs single turbo V6's in their range. Nissan also has a VQ30DET in its JDM range.

Since you've also named dedicated sports car, lets see what we have in that space. Porsche runs a boxer 6 with twin turbos in their 911. Noble runs a twin turbo Ford V6 in their M12. And the last spy photos of the GT-R engine bay I saw had a pair of blow-off valves under the hood.

Its true that Nissan dropped a lot of its turbos from its range because of emissions, but that was also due to the age of the engines they were on. The SR, VG and RB engines were well over 10 years old when they got dropped, and were showing their age. Plenty of companies still get around with big bore forced induction cars. If Mercedes Benz can make a 6.5L V12 with twin turbos meet European emissions requirements, making a 4L V6 with forced induction do so isn't impossible.

I'd say the main reason why Nissan didn't twin turbocharge the VQ35DE in the Z33 (and, by extension, the V35, since they're both the same platform) is because of the stigma the Z32 TT had. It'd be a tough marketing job to sell another twin turbo after that debacle, and in 2002 the 350Z was "fast enough". Without spreading the R&D costs across both models it wouldn't have been financially viable.

You keep telling yourself that. If it wasn't practical to turbocharge a V6, they wouldn't have turbocharged an I6 either. Its just as "practical" as each other for a family car. They didn't turbo the I6 to make it a better towing vehicle.

As for the size, it depends on how big they make the V6's block. The V35 twin turbocharges just fine with a pretty cramped engine bay, and the VQ block goes up to 4.0L (as per the Pathfinder) so the size of the engine is only an issue if they make it one.

They could just run a big single if the plumbing for twins is too much of an issue. There are also some single turbo kits for the V35 that have good drivability and flow reasonably well.

You can't reasonably tell me that a V35 is bigger than a Falcon, but then being able to use reason doesn't seem to be one of your attributes.

I believe I said 'practicable' as in feasible not 'practical'.

I6 = straight six = easier and cheaper to turbo charge. If it was so easy to turbo charge a v6, holden would have done it to compete with the turb falcons. That's why I'm saying they'll either be na or some form of piss weak supercharged motor. And of course a v35 CAN be turbo'd, but it wasn't... proving my point more, if was easily possible and Nissan thought it was profitable I'm sure they would have been turbo'd.

Hmm, don't know when I ever said v35 is bigger than a falcon, but proportionally they'd have about the same amount of room under the bonnet. Smaller car, smaller motor only needs smaller turbos...

Come on, you can't seriously think a 4WD applies to this situation... Under bonnet is huge and the turbo's are usually small and aimed at torgue rather acceleration and performance.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • As I've said elsewhere, I am using the stock intercooler piping path in the engine bay, and a return flow cooler, and making ~250 rwkW (without any effort put into trying to turn it up past there just yet) and expect to be able to make some more, and frankly, I would be perfectly happy with 260-270rwKW. This is peak road Skyline usability territory. You go past there and, sure, the car will snap necks more when it's on boost, but it will also break shit all the time, cost a (even larger) fortune in tyres, etc etc. Anyway, I also do not like the over-the-fan pipe path, and you don't have to do it.
    • I see, honestly I’m not too fussed about the looks. The only reason to go plenum is to make the piping easier instead of the classic over the rad etc. 
    • Not easy to quantify wrt something like how many fractions of a second slower it would be over 0-100. But given that a 250-300rwkW car is able to do that launch sprint in 5-6 sec (and faster with appropriate tyres, and surface)..... giving up as much as a second would feel like torture. A ~450HP capable turbo is not going to make lots of boost in the 2000-3000 rpm range. So, whilst with some boost on hand it will be faster accelerating in that rev range than your engine currently is NA, it will not feel like a fast car until the boost is solidly in. You know what your car feels like right now when you open it up at 2000rpm. if you've ever been in an actual fast car, you will appreciate that the NARB25 is.... not exciting. Well, add some boost and it will be better. But shorten the intake runners and it might not be better at all. It might come out better, but it could end up feeling the same. For me, it's not the 0-X km/h sprints that matter. It is easy to fry the tyres with anything over 200 rwkW. You can't use all the power available in 1st and 2nd anyway, you have to modulate the throttle. What matters is how the car reacts when you're driving in traffic in 4th or 5th and have maybe 2000 rpm on board, and you want/need to add some speed quickly, and don't have time for the downshift. It won't make boost, it will be all NA (at the speeds we're talking about - remember how fast you're going at 2000 in 4th! and don't plan on breaking the limit by too much.) So giving away NA torque is not what I would consider practical for a street car. And retaining that NA torque builds boost faster which makes the car faster. The flashy plenum is not actually better, unless you're looking at a track car where you can keep it on the boil all the time.  
    • So how much difference does it make you think? Like 1 second in the 0-100?  I was have smaller turbo so hopefully that spools quick GTX2871.  currently it’s NA so you can imagine pretty slow, but I do want fast accusation a little as there’s not many places I’ll be driving where I go over 80 even near me. So 0-60 and 0-80 targets   
    • Short inlet runners cost quite a bit. Dulls off the off-boost torque, and delays boost onset, because arrival of boost is driven by gas flow is a product of the ability to flow air which is torque. This is the reason that the stock manifolds have longer runners. On a 3L, or bigger, you can usually accept the compromise of giving away some torque because the extra capacity gives you a little extra to waste. But on a smaller motor, there's not a lot there to start with. Example, I swapped RB20 out of my R32, 25NeoDET in its place. The "wall of torque" that I experienced afterwards made it all worthwhile. That's because I came from RB20 land where torque is not a thing. But I would not do anything, anything at all, to reduce the low/mid torque I have now, because I remember what it is like to not have it!
×
×
  • Create New...