Dawelio
Active member
Dumb question, but which one is which in the video?... the first, red one, sounds awesome to the ears!
Car photos/discussion thread
- Thread starter barnsley
- Start date
Dumb question, but which one is which in the video?... the first, red one, sounds awesome to the ears!
MrKambo
New member
Dawelio
Active member
I just did a simple Google Image search, nothing more than that I have no knowledge of them
MrKambo
New member
I just did a simple Google Image search, nothing more than that I have no knowledge of them
Lucky for you im in a mood to educate
E-Cossie = AWESOME!
S-Cossie = Holy mother of fucking god the power!!!!!
Me personally i prefer the E-Cossie, why? Because of Whale Tail
Dawelio
Active member
Lucky for you im in a mood to educate
E-Cossie = AWESOME!
S-Cossie = Holy mother of fucking god the power!!!!!
Me personally i prefer the E-Cossie, why? Because of Whale Tail
Right this is just basically looking like a match test to me... show me vids and pics of the beauties, if you say "Holy mother of fucking god the power!!!!
"... then fucking shoooooooow meee!
MrKambo
New member
Right this is just basically looking like a match test to me... show me vids and pics of the beauties, if you say "Holy mother of fucking god the power!!!!
All you need to know is here
What you need to remember in the 90's these were the pinnacle of design and tech, now they're dated as fuck and worth about £70K in good nick :lol:
When they are getting 320hp from a 2.0 in a family SUV perhaps dropping the T5 and T6 is sort of forgivable.
JR
barnsley
born in a.....
Sort of, they could make the T6 a real v8 killer.
SPS
Moderator
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Not at all
Only reason they put out 300hp was because they were turbo'd. They would need to add another to compete with a v8. But at that rate it's probably more expensive to twin turbo them instead of a simple v8. For the savings they would get they could probably get even more out of the v8. Plus V8's sound far better.
barnsley
born in a.....
Not at all
Only reason they put out 300hp was because they were turbo'd. They would need to add another to compete with a v8.
nah, the V8 that it'd compete with is much heavier. Just because it says 'v8' doesn't mean its any good/fast.
you do realize an 850R will beat a '06 mustang GT?
This is mental. Do want
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riwL2-lR-GM&feature=youtu.be
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I never said v8 automatically meant it was good. Most are great and fast anyways. Only takes a quick look at an LS7 for example.
Doubt that. Also that mustang uses a smaller v8. 4.6l and and still 300hp and 320ib-ft. Thats as much as those turb'd engines you were talking about earlier. Now imagine if you turbo'd those.
That is pathetic, Volvo get 320hp and 400nm from an engine with less than half the displacement and half the cylinders.
American engines are optimised for different fuels, different power delivery and different critically emissions standards. While they are well engineered for what they need to achieve the sophistication and specific output is comparatively poor when you start looking at European engines.
Volvo don't need a V8 killer, at least rocking a 4 cyclinder and making up the power deficit with electric motors they have more packaging freedom. Plus they can build much safer cars with the smaller transverse mounted engine.
JR
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
400nm=295ib ft. So it is less powerful. Ya you get roughly the same power because you guys turbo the hell out of them. Take out those tubro's and they are nothing.
Not different fuels. They are the same. You use the RON system and we use the AKI system. Still the same just different measurements, the AKI is harder test and the AKI system is why the US equivalent is lower. Our emission standards are extremely fucking ridiculous(mainly CA). Makes it harder to get more out of the engine, now its just mpg mpg mpg. Now power these days and if you do want the power, have to pay a tax on that alone just to buy that car, not including the other taxes. I wouldn't say the outpower power is worse. Its the same really. You guys use turbo's to make up for power loss, we don't. On same cars we do, Ford is really moving towards that. Just a different way of doing things. Hell most V8's still get amazing fuel economy these days too outside of the Trucks we have, but they aren't meant for that in the first place.
We use electric motors too.. and many of our cars are traverse mounted too. I don't know where you get your info. I can walk outside right now and find plenty of traverse mounted engines. Hell my sister has one. Can't really compare safety since there's not much you can compare. We have a different safety rating system that you do.
Last edited:
I'm aware that I quoted the torque value in SI units, that is just easier for me to relate to and generally the unit used throughout Europe. And yes i'm also aware that 295 is slightly less than 320, the power incidentally was higher but anyway I think it's safe to say they are of comparable output and application. Considering the Volvo engine has under half the displacement (2.0 compared to 4.6) I think you will agree that is an impressive achievement. Your correct they would probably be comparable to US engines had turbochargers not been implemented, but from an overall performance angle why would you not want a turbocharger (ignoring extreme applications).
While California certainly pioneered emissions standards they aren't particularly extreme. Euro 6 standards allow only 1.6 CO (g/mi) and 0.008 PM (g/mi), lower than California's ULEV50 standard of 1.7 and 0.01 (g/mi) respectively. And LEV160 which I believe is the current minimum requirement is 4.2 CO (g/mi). Not many US vehicles would meet Euro 6. Engine development has been driven by emissions for decades, they've just never been as tight in America. With far fewer taxes on fuels you are under less pressure to buy efficient vehicles and until recently the manufacturers really haven't delivered that at all which is understandable.
I never said electric motors weren't used in America, nor did I say you don't have transverse mounted engines. I've been studying for an Automotive Engineering Degree for coming up to 3 years and I can assure you that I have a balanced perspective on global developments. I think your reading into something I never said with that last paragraph. I was referring to Volvo's decision to drop the T5/T6/V8 engines and move forwards with only 2.0 engines on the XC90 and the design freedom that gives them from a safety perspective. It's much easier to keep a smaller lighter engine block from intruding on the passenger compartment during a head on collision. I would be very interested to see US vehicles taking part in EU safety tests.
I'm not slagging off the US in any way you have very different requirements and as such different products to suit them. I've always admired American engineering and i'd far sooner live in a country with NA V8's lurking beneath everyones hood. Ignoring efficiency is an efficient way to get the job done
JR
