What's new

CAR BUFFS ..... a question please .

mcee_sharp

mcee_sharp

MCEAPWINMOLQOVTIAAWHAMARTHAEHOAIDIAMRHDAE
When I had the time and money to "invest" in cars, I preferred turbos with as little distance between turbo, intercooler and engine as possible. Less inherent power loss as a result of the elevation I live at, and for those trips to the mountains.

With enough garage space I'd welcome a powerful NA car as well though!
 
gpjoe

gpjoe

malocchio said:
What's your opinion ?
Click to expand...

If you're asking "why bother with twin turbos on a straight six?", I would say:

Because it's Dodge, the company which is largely (arguably) responsible for the resurgence of the muscle car, which was sparked across the industry by the Viper.

I think their design and development department fancies themselves as being innovators on the cutting edge of the performance market, and the performance (and selection) of their high-performance automobiles bears that out.

Obviously they are not in a league with Lamborghini, Ferrari, Porsche, etc, but it seems that they have been the performance car leaders among US domestic manufacturers over the last couple of decades, and spurred (forced?) the others to acknowledge by getting into the competition.

I would argue that the current Corvette and re-born Ford GT would not exist had the Viper never been produced and started the horsepower wars.

So, my answer:

Why not?

It's innovative and fun...and most of the buyers are purchasing a garage queen (or pleasure-only vehicle) that will not see daily commutes, so Dodge "reliability" is less an issue.
 
AndyPanda

AndyPanda

This isn't exactly the question you asked (at least I don't think it is) but the question I heard in my head was "why a straight six?" and the answer I heard in my head is that a straight 6 inherently has perfect primary and secondary balance. So my wild guess is that starting with a naturally balanced block and adding turbos has some big advantages over starting with a V8 that would have more power in a shorter block but would require more balancing complexity.

I've had many straight 6 engines and have loved them - a 50's Willy's jeep and an 80's Jeep and a 60's Chevy Nova --- an 80's BMW and a modern BMW. Straight 6 is (IMO) a terrific engine design.
 
Last edited:
malocchio

malocchio

Juanmosey said:
I had a Ford Falcon with a straight 6. I don't think it had 550hp though.
Click to expand...
My grandfather bought a brand new stripped Falcon straight 6 wagon in 1963 to replace his worn out 1958 stripped straight 6 Ranch Wagon ... They had a heater and nothing else. The Falcon was anemic compared to the stamina the 1958 had .
 
musicman1951

musicman1951

three-tu-tu, three-tu-tu
So many questions, from emissions to mpg, to Chrysler not being terribly competitive outside the muscle car area - which was fun in the 60s but doesn't seem to make a lot of sense now.

For me the bigger question is who needs 550hp? My A6 has 335 and rarely gets above 2,000 rpms in daily driving, and my wife insists I drive too fast. I do realize that I don't dictate choices for the rest of the world - although it still bothers me a bit - but it seems at some point we're going to have to realize we all live on the same planet.
 
Juanmosey

Juanmosey

malocchio said:
My grandfather bought a brand new stripped Falcon straight 6 wagon in 1963 to replace his worn out 1958 stripped straight 6 Ranch Wagon ... They had a heater and nothing else. The Falcon was anemic compared to the stamina the 1958 had .
Click to expand...
Ron, to answer your original question I read somewhere straights are more "balanced" than Vees. Sorta makes sense if you think about it. I guess.
PS: My dad's last car was a 1966 (I think) Rambler with a straight 6 or 8 with no power anything. I had to use both feet to stop the thing and use bodyweight to turn the steering wheel.
ranchwagon.jpg

This is nice.
 
Last edited:
Columbo

Columbo

Mr. Codgers Neighborhood
To the OP, a few thoughts on this topic.

Having owned a number of both types over the decades, a turbo is when you want to do more, with less. IMO, its biggest advantage is that the engine weight and displacement to power ratios dramatically improve, which can improve handling, some acceleration, and even mileage. I had one turbocharged aluminum 5 cylinder that was producing north of 350 hp, out of 2.5 liters. A big block V8 producing similar power can add hundreds of pounds to a front end. And all that extra weight needs to be hauled around with the car.

But pressurizing the intake end with a turbo presents a lot of disadvantages, too. They require more scrupulous maintenance habits, demand higher oil and fuel standards, and there are a lot more systems and components to go wrong. And they create much higher stresses on the engine, particularly on pistons and cylinder walls. I've seen cracked cylinder walls from turbocharging, particularly on deckless blocks. I've never seen that with an NA engine.

It's not so much of an issue now, but years ago turbocharging pushed many motor oils past their thermal limits, which caused various lubrication related failures a lot more frequently on them, especially where maintenance was lax. You've never seen sludge until you've seen a turbocharged engine that used subpar oils or went too long on them. VAG owners of about 10-15 years ago know exactly what I'm talking about. Under four quarts and turbos don't mix, and I don't care how good the oil is.

The Europeans have been doing turbos for many decades, both gasoline and diesel, and have that dance about perfected. A turbo Volvo can easily reach over 200,000 if maintained. About 10-15 years ago, GM and Ford took different routes to deal with fuel economy. GM opted to turn off cylinders with AFM. Ford opted to just slash displacement, and drop blowers on them. They both present their issues. GM's system is complicated and was very trouble-prone. Turning off cylinders causes all sorts of valve train and cylinder issues, and many complained of oil consumption and lifter problems. Ford's adds all that turbo equipment, and presents all those additional engine stresses. Time will tell if Ford has done it as well as the Europeans have.

Between NA and turbocharged, the NA is the better choice for longevity. The NA engines (without the AFM nonsense) will last longer, and they will require less maintenance and repair over their lives. It's just an easier engine to live with.

The classic and dependable standard American engine over the many decades has always been the straight six. The V-8 that we now look back on as ubiquitous was for most non-luxury and non-sports models up to the early 1970s almost always an optional engine choice. If you didn't pay the extra, you got a straight six on your new full-sized Chevy or Plymouth. The Chrysler slant six was legendary for its dependability and ruggedness. The Chevy 'blue flame' six was also quite good, and Chevy had a deep history with straight sixes going back to before 1930. It has only been in later years, with the increase of FWD and transverse power train designs, that the V-6 displaced the old straight blocks.

And among Europhile car owners, the old BMW six is still considered a benchmark engine.

But for me, my preference remains a V-8. Quiet, silky smooth, powerful, and very durable, with relatively easier maintenance standards. It's what I drove in the 60's and 70's, and what I drive now. And if you maintain them, getting over 300,000 miles out of one with minimal repairs is quite normal. Change the oil on them regularly, and it is usually the chassis or body that wears out first. Both my Chevy truck and my MB convertible have modern V-8s. Both loaf around most of the time, yet can deliver over 300 hp if called on. And those extra two cylinders generally transform the driving experience.

If I could have only one engine, it would be a NA V-8.
 
malocchio

malocchio

Juanmosey said:
Ron, to answer your original question I read somewhere straights are more "balanced" than Vees. Sorta makes sense if you think about it. I guess.
PS: My dad's last car was a 1966 (I think) Rambler with a straight 6 or 8 with no power anything. I had to use both feet to stop the thing and use bodyweight to turn the steering wheel.
View attachment 1836348
This is nice.
Click to expand...
I learned to drive at age 12 on my grandfather's stripped 1958 Ford Ranch Wagon... Straight 6 , no power anything , 3 on the tree , no radio , it had a heater and nothing else.
 

Attachments

  • 1812652650_7a5ef4a984_b.jpg
    1812652650_7a5ef4a984_b.jpg
    473.7 KB · Views: 0
DesertIguana

DesertIguana

Today you need computer to fix most modern cars.

When I started driving you would replace spark plugs, points, and reset timing. Then be good to go for 15,000 plus miles.

Most thing like breaks, gas filter, water or fuel pump could be replaced with few tools.

Today Car are a big pain to work on, and many simple projects take special tools to tackle.
 
Tirvine

Tirvine

ancient grey sweatophile
malocchio said:
Growing up in the 1960s many of us drove straight 6 motor cars . My first car was a 1949 Chevy , stripped , stick with the big 6 ..... Ran great, certainly enough power for those days and super reliable. I must add to work and maintain these 6's was fairly easy for a young teenager . I just read that Dodge is producing a straight 6 Charger for 2025 ...I couldn't believe my eyes . I read on ... 550 horsepower ...I knew what was coming next , the inclusion of 2 massive superchargers to , IMHO , beat the crap out of the 6 to make it run like a Hellcat V-8 .... My question is this ....why hook 2 huge turbochargers to a 6 when you can just use a naturally aspirated , View attachment 1809066 IMHO the best type , motor to achieve even better results and add better reliability ??... Save a little gasoline perhaps ???... lower insurance ??.. What's your opinion ?
Click to expand...
For the same reason a kid gets 15" subwoofers and tints the windows as dark as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom