To be honest, If I had the means to put in a twin turbo 3.6 SIDI engine out of Jay Leno's 5th gen, I would.

Aftermarket swaps and performance add ons are different then the rules that the major automakers have to play by when they have to make vehicles that meet the various goverment mandates for economy and effiency.

In before hp per liter argument that ricers used to use to illustrate "better" performance.

Its really not a hp/liter, its hp per car.
Hyundai Sonata is a perfect example. The new turbo 2.0 is making 274hp, beating everyone of the other automakers V6's. And its MPG rating is outstanding considering most V6 cars are putting down mid to high 20's highway, this car is putting down low 30's!!
The horsepower war is on all the way around, not just V8's anymore. GM should show its Ecoboost beating turbo 3.0 in a year or so. I believe it will debut in either the upcoming Cadillac XTS or ATS.

Right, but even a 10 year old LS1 car with a T56 can hit high 20s, low 30s and that's with 90's tech and 305 hp. Given that, I'm still not impressed. Hell, my GTP hit 30+ before I dicked with it and that's a 97.

not if your mark :lol:

He has 3.73s man. And a cooler, for the cooler.

comparing apples to oranges.
You must compare EPA numbers to EPA numbers. Not everyone pulls down 30's with LS1's, highway or not. Maybe with 2.73's and 245/50-16 tires on it infated to 35psi, doing 55mph, sure.
I can say that someone can hypermile a Sonata 2.0T into 40mpg. And thats not with 2.73 drive ratio.

Again, you are comparing how some people drive vs EPA numbers.
Compare EPA to EPA.

http://www.paduiblog.com/uploads/ima...fect%20BAC.jpg

I see. So a ten year old car is bad. Crappy 4cyl NEW car is good. Gotcha.

That was with a T56 and 3.42s, stock tires. When I drove the 2000Z it got 33 on the highway with 2.73s and 235/55's. Nothing special. No hypermiling. Rt 95 from PHL to DC. And both had more power and torque than said 4cyl.

I get what you are saying- but I have never really though too highly of the EPA numbers. I've seen cars get much better than rated, and also significantly worse, with a "normal" driving style.

I guess all of us that LOVE the sound of V/8 rumble (with an aftermarket exhaust) will have to go out to pasture and shoot ourselves. I would also guess that all those people will have to learn that "FOUR IS MORE", and get to love the way a FOUR sounds (ricer garbage can muffler). I loved the performance of my 1989 TTA, but could never get it to sound just right (even with a Flowmaster muffler). Don't get me wrong, I'am all for the new tech age, but pop open the hood and look at a HUGE piece of plastic housing that covers a "Mini Four" will never attract a crowd to see what makes it go. Just my :2cents:

http://www.skymall.com/images/produc...102252990x.jpg

Its a high tech shovel Al.

Let me state that the 4th gen got very good MPG for its size and power. It has very good aero and a very efficent engine. When you pair it with the double overdrive, it was a match made in heaven.
Its a reason I want one in my 87. Its a fantastic engine, and I look forward to the Gen V's.
But the point still stands that the age of the V6 being dominate, especially in this segment, is over.

I never said that teh turbo 4 will replace any and all engines Ed. I said that the turbo 4 will become a bigger part of cars due to its power and economy. The 35mpg CAFE regs is forcing everyone to rethink cars, and we are getting some really cool results.
We will still have V8 cars around, but they will be rare in the market. We as part of the car buying culture are a small percentage.
If you take two cars, both the same only one has a 400hp V8 getting 16/25mpg, and the other has 400hp Twin Turbo V6 getting 18/29mpg, on top of reduced emissions, the TT V6 will win.

No argument there. I just don't buy into the whole ultra efficiency they are peddling now. I am in awe of the DI V6 in my dad's Caddy. REAL nice. But it seems to me that even though power numbers for smaller engines are higher, the fuel economy is right where it would be in a engine with more cyls. So what's the point, really? Weight savings? Production costs? Neither of which probably matter much to joe average car buyer.

Another case in point

2002 Camaro Z28
3500-3600lbs or so
305hp V8 with 6spd manual trans, 3.42 rear gears
EPA numbers converted to the new standard is something like 16/24

2010 Mustang GT
3500-3600lbs
315hp V8 with 5spd manual with 3.31 gears
EPA numbers was somethng like 17/25

2010 Camaro LT
3700-3800lbs
312hp V6 with 6spd auto or manual with 3.45 rear geras
EPA numbers 18/29

GM and everyone else have to meet 35mpg across the board.
The 3.6SIDI probably cost as much to make as the LS3, especially when you bring in the cost of the super high output fuel pump and fuel system that has to handle the now thousands of PSI that is being pumped, but the engines are producing equal power to V8 couterparts of several years ago. But yes the fuel economy and the lower emissions via the direct injection help out the whole cause.

Everyone will start rolling out new and better systems on how to make more power out of much smaller packages. 300hp turbo 4cyl are only a step away.

Al:

EPA numbers are not of my concern in this case. Realized MPG is what I care about. Do you have info on that? Would be cool to see. Same with torque numbers.

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/att...ing-supra2.jpg

That is how you sound Al.

bring back the iron duke! :nod:

Again, Im not bringing up hp per liter or even saying that its a good thing.
What Im telling you is what is happening across the board. Not with just GM, not with Ford, not with Honda or Toyota.
EVERYONE is finding a way to make the cars as efficent as possible. Porsche showed a flywheel based hybrid system for its GT2 production car where you dont need battery power to store the energy. I believe is very similar to the stuff used in F1. It can give you a quick squirt of energy.
The 918 Porsche concept was a showcase to show off future technology for Porsche vehicles.

Buses have been using that technology for years. If you look up the Chrysler Patriot WSC race car, it was to use that technology, but due to the fact that for it's power it had a potential of breaking, which it did during a test, killing an employee. they cancelled the project before it couldget on a track under its own power. the photos they shot of it were from the car being towed cause the drivers and Chrysler were too scared of the flywheel.

Yeah, someone was talking about that, but it was a supplier that was developing the system, not Chrysler.
I think its a pretty cool system and if done right can give a hybrid advantage without having an expensive battery pack.

The 918 concept is really friggin cool.

Yes, the 918 uis the greatest road car they rolled out of their shop since the 911 GT1. I like the Carrera GT, but as much as was put into it, it's $400,000 price tag was not worth it. They should of kept the pneumatic lifters in it so it could rev higher. Screw maintenance costs, when your blowing that kind of money on a car, might as well go all out.

I want a 918 badly, hope there's one at Monteray this year.