I said "my definition". Your definition says otherwise and I very much respect it. --- Post updated --- Nice meme this one, I didn't know Spongebob diaper memes ever existed. So, by comparing 6-cylinder Supercars to diapers, does this mean you think they're crappy? Cause if you do, then you confirm my definition!
It's just used as a meme to show someone showing someone things, but your idea that a supercar needs at least a V8 is really weird considering there are a lot of more efficient engines. Sure, it's the most popular engine but that shouldn't mean anything.
Ok then, it seems I didn't happen to know it until now! The point of existence of Supercars doesn't revolve around efficiency. If it did, then they wouldn't exist as we know them in the first place.
Yes, with lighter materials, components and more compact designs and packaging methods. But I still believe having a Supercar with fewer cylinders than 8 doesn't automatically mean that it's gonna burn less fuel than the said 8-cylinder when driven like it is meant to be driven. No engine can be efficient and economical when you're a lead-foot of a driver. I mean, even Diesels can't be frugal when driven like this.
That's probably because the regulations say so "All engines must have six cylinders arranged in a 90° 'V' configuration" Otherwise I'm sure some manufacturers would have experimented with different configurations --- Post updated --- I see what you mean, and I'm totally one of those who like it when the devs take some freedom in designing a new car, but honestly i wouldn't mind a V6 in the new Civetta, the Maserati MC20 and the Ferrari 296 GTB convinced me it can totally work
That's because it's in the current rule set? I can almost guarantee if the mid-90's rule set didn't explicitly state V12 engines were to be used, then no manufacture would have used them.
Koenigsegg.. three cylinders, 600 horse power, with some innovation, you can make a supercar have some wild engine that makes horses from pure freaking air. To be fair it's 1.7 million usd to buy the car it comes in..
That reason is because it's dictated by the current F1 rules that they use V6s. If they had a different engine dictated, then it would be otherwise. --- Post updated --- Yeah yeah, 2000hp by 3 electric motors and a 3-cylinder that's been tuned like Stewie on steroids. Everyone can do that.
The V6s in these cars sound great actually (plus the one in the new NSX, but that also needs a good aftermarket exhaust to sound as good as it does on the inside). But I'm all for a V10 or a V12 engine in the new Civetta because, well, we hadn't had a car like this until now. And your V6 Supercar idea can be used for a baby Civetta Supercar, like the 296 GTB/S (we've also not had a baby Civetta supercar until now). That baby Civetta supercar can also be used in some driving tests/challenges in Driver's training or Career mode! --- Post updated --- "Rant Mode" On! Ok, this has gone way too far, don't you all think? I can only imagine what would've happened in this thread had I NOT made that citation about what I personally truly like/want my Supercar to be like and sound like. Dodged a 50-caliber for getting away with only a Spongebob meme and some answers commenting on/critiquing my personal Supercar preferences (and some others being very well put, gotta recognize this). Also, F1 cars aren't Supercars. They're race cars. Supercars are a road car category. "Rant Mode" Off! Calming down, moving on!
Yes, imo a twin turbocharged high HP V6 will more than likely use more fuel than a N/A V8 in the same car. It's just what makes sense, more boost = more fuel required to not run lean and burn a hole in pistons. And yes, lead foot will get terrible mileage in any relatively powerful car. My FBO tuned Elantra barely gets 400kms on a tank of 93 if I'm lucky. I could run a map tuned for 89 and get 500+ kms on a tank...but that's boring lmao. I would not be surprised if the new civetta has a twin turbo V6 option, with the top engine being a v10 instead of a v12. Based on the only teaser we have of it, in my opinion a v12 just wouldn't be reasonable based on how the car is probably designed.
Apart from economy, some old-school mechanics also say that it's good for a big engine to burn more fuel and oil because heat dissipates in a more balanced manner across the bigger block and it also gets weaker while doing so - and consuming more oil substantially helps to preventing overheating in that respect. So the "Power Capsule" phrase seems to be perfectly describing the small turbocharged engines with high power and torque figures. Add to this the fact that modern engines are programmed to work on some slightly higher temperatures for enhancing efficiency and we have the picture. So the car companies passing us these smaller turbocharged engines as "fuel efficient" seems like marketing gobbledygook. As for the new Civetta, yes, I wouldn't mind seeing it with a Twin-Turbocharged V6 either (provided that it has a different/unique V6 sound, of course, because the existing V6 sound is just unsuitable - but that seems a bit unfeasible in the current development stage of the game) but ok, it's just that my mind thinks a Flat-Plane V8 (at least) would be a more logical choice because of its notable operational characteristics. It all remains to be seen though!
I recall at some point that TDK posted videos of a moonhawk and a rally bolide with different sounds, If I recall correctly the bolide was using a really good, raspy Dino/Stratos V6. (it's entirely possible however, that these samples were just ones TDK still had after working on F1 and DiRT)
But what is the reason it's in the current rule set ? Maybe i got a bit ahead of myself here, i'll let more knowledgable people explain.
Well ford GT is a V6 its hell fast Some are Hybrid Some are V12 some V8. What ever the case it will be a sexy thing. That will be a car i will wish was real. It will be hell fast to. and i can not wait so when its ready it will blow our minds