99% of those trucks will never see a road or pull a load that puts that much stress on the frame anyways, people buy them for offroading and compensation. I agree that the F150 is the best of the bunch though.
Every Vauxhall ever, because they could just sell them as Opel and it would save them money on the mouldings where the cars are slightly different on the Vauxhall version. There's just no point anymore now that people in England don't hate the German Opel or whatever. I don't usually quote posts this old, but dayoumn... Had to quote for stupid-shaming I'm not even going to teach you why you're wrong, even though I had already typed it all out. Not even gonna tell you why V8s are such great engines compared to i6 and i4s. But dayoumn that's a stupid statement. Never heard someone so misinformed about both GM and V8s.
You should see the Skype group, something gets mentioned about Holden & its "lel HadACoolName your Opel is shit"
Not all V8's in general as a construction method, but lets say, What about that Cadillac 8.2 V8 that did under 240hp What sense does that make? none i guess. Yesh yeah i know these were the 70's smooth and shit but still. Even the 8.2's they were putting into the 90's passanger models and 6.2 in the brand new ones are a sin as it is. I didn't actually mean it by V8's being bad in general, but that it the relatively near future there won't be gas for these things, and i guess they have the freedom to use whatever engines they desire but that is none of my buisness. And i hope i don't have to explain the quality problems.
Go back a few decades and Opel were very unpopular in the UK, that itself is probably the main reason that GM thought to rebadge the Opel vehicles as Vauxhall when selling in the UK, Opel had a bad name, Vauxhall had a good one.
As far as I know, part of the reason they sold them as Vauxhalls is because Opel was German, and just after the war, people wouldn't buy German cars in England as much, so they rebranded them... Not sure how true it is, but regardless. Whichever reason Vauxhall has for still existing as Vauxhall, rather than Opel, is useless. You're really not as clever as you think. When that 8.2 liter was introduced in 1971, it made 400hp, 550lbft(700nm) torque, without accessories. Then they lowered the compression because there would be lower octane fuel, unleaded and such, so it made 365hp(still rather little for an 8 liter, but plenty for a Cadillac). Through the years, power dropped more and more for whatever reason. Then they wanted to save fuel, so they put a different head on it, and in the end, when it finally made it into a 1976 Caddy, you'd have like 190hp... Which is like, nothing. However... Ever heard that quote from Carroll Shelby? Horsepower sells cars. Torque wins races. That 190hp 8.2 liter, still made 490nm torque! FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY. Thats a LOT for a Cadillac. A Cadillac should be smooth, not fast. So 490Nm and 190hp is ALL it needs. A Cadillac, like a Jaguar shouldn't accelerate, it should advance(as MrRegular once said it). Why output more hp than you need? Just puts unecessary stress on the steel, wears it out quicker. There is no "but still". That's how car design works. You could be like the Mitsubishi Evo and throw 50 billion hp and a HUGE turbo on your engine just because you can, but then you end up having to give it an oil change every few thousand miles because otherwise the engine eats itself. Or you could design an 8 liter V8 with no horsepower but plenty of torques, and it'll last for freaking ever. Here's all your advantages on why V8s are so good: 1: V8 is as long as a 4-banger, shorter than a 6-cylinder, and generally makes more power than either. Width isn't an issue unless you go to a W16, pretty much any car is wide enough for a V8. 2: V8 is by design MUCH smoother(less vibrations) than both those engines, which puts WAY less stress on the engine, which means it lasts for a lot longer(see also: Boxer engine), and it improves drivability(which is why you find V8s in Cadillacs and such) 3: V8 has a smoother torque curve than a 4 or 6, because more cylinders = smoother torque curve. 4: V8 has way more torque than a 4, 5 or 6. and again, hp sells cars, torque wins races. The balance between power and torque in a V8 is therefore a lot better than a 4, 5 or 6. Modern V8s like the LS blocks are also no heavier than most inline-6s, but make way more hp and torque. 5: I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe the torque and hp curve on a v8 are also much flatter than in-line engines. More of an arc, rather than a spike. Also, V8s can be just as fuel efficient as any other engine design. A lot of modern v8s have the ability of just disabling a bank of cylinders. LS engines even without that technology get the same or better milage than a 90's petrol car. It's bullcrap that there won't be enough fuel for them. You're terribly missinformed if you think that's the case. Yes, GM has a lot of quality issues. The modern interiors are pretty bad, cheap materials and such(apart from the Vette), the rest though? Really dang reliable stuff. If you want one reason why you shouldn't hate on GM, it's muscle cars. If you want one reason why you should hate on GM, it's that they keep trying to advertise Opel with: "We make German engineering/reliability affordable".. Even though Opel has nothing to do with German Engineering, because that phrase refers to the other brands
Almost every car by Daewoo, the Lanos for example. (imported from here) It looks like a Geo Metro rip-off.
points 2, 4 and 5 are not due to a v8. The power curve is simply calculated from the torque curve. (RPM * Ft-lb torque) / 5252 = horsepower Not so much bought up in any of those points, but we'll roll with it for a second. "v8 is by design much smoother". in a 90 degree v with crossplane crank that is certainly true, shift away from a 90 degree v and you have to start doing some real funky stuff with balance shafts and bizarre cranks designs to retain a perfect power pulse every 90 degrees of crankshaft rotation, or just end up with rough engines (actually the reason for some v6's being so rough is that they are manufactured as a 90 degree v which is the wrong angle for 6 cylinders to maintain equally spaced firing orders). A 120 degree v6 is pretty damn smooth, boxer 4's are pretty smooth provided they use a tuning fork style con-rod to allow the cylinders to be truly horizontally opposed (the cylinder banks are typically offset slightly in these engines to account for fitting the 2 conrods in a line, however either tuning fork type rods that can overlap or bizarre bent rods have been used), and of course boxer 6. Although you get packaging issues with these engines. "v8 has more torque than a 4, 5 or 6". Its not the v8 that defines the torque curve. Its fully possible to design a 2 litre i4 and a 2 litre i6 with the same torque. "torque and power are flatter than inline engines", ok, power is derived from torque as we've established. But torque curve is not defined by it being a v8. Torque occurs due to variances in bore, stroke, compression ratio, fuel swirl, shape of the combustion chamber, intake port size (and quantity), exhaust port size (and quantity) and valve lift. Design a cylinder that produces 50hp, throw 8 of them into an engine, you theoretically have 400hp (ignoring losses, which are higher with increased cylinder counts), stick those 8 in a straight line, then rearrange them in a 90 degree v, then rearrange them as a boxer, what difference does it make? None at all, the torque curve will remain the same. In reality the difference it makes? You have double the number of camshafts on the v and boxer arrangements, this adds additional mechanical complexity and adds slightly more friction to the engine (even with same number of valves being actuated), and of course you might be able to easily package the v8 in one car but not the i8, boxers are often awkward to package regardless. There was always this misnomer that v8s produced power and i6s produced more torque. Reality was though, the i6 engines that were offered in trucks of the period did genuinely have a higher torque figure than the v8 engines available on the same trucks which in turn had higher power figures. It was just that though, those particular engines had different torque and power figures. It could have just as easily been the other way around (if not for v8 option generally being higher displacement, there is certainly a bigger correlation between displacement and power than there is layout and power) Higher cylinder count does tend to smooth out the power band a tad though. Power for a given displacement. I think we need to see the resurrection of the 2 stroke.
Yes, I know that the 2 curves can be calculated into eachother. Anyway, you say "points 2 4 and 5 are not due to a v8" , and then on your answers to points 2 and 5 you tell me I was actually kinda right in the end... Yes, they're not due to being a V8, but definitely one of the characteristics of most common V8s... As for point 4: It may be possible to have the same peak torque, probably by bolting a turbo onto it, but I'm not talking about peak torque. I'm talking across the rev-range, having a really flat torque curve like a big V8 would. You need large displacement to have a lot of torque across the rev-range. So again, it's not really due to it being a V8(look at the MCM boxer 6 with the turbo, really flat torque curve cause it's reasonably large displacement). However, it is per coincidence a feature most V8s have. Yes, it's defined by large displacement and other things, but most v8s, especially American ones, are reasonably to very large displacements, therefore it's still reasonable to use it as an argument why V8s are great. I'm not saying that the *design* in itself is necessarily great, but I am saying that the most common ones like a 350 smallblock or a 440 or a 426 Hemi are all really really great engines. Again, you do the same with your other point: You say it makes no difference wheither you put those 8 cylinders in a V shape or an in-line engine, yes, truth... But then you say "except for packaging reasons" ... Which is kind of important, so that's EXACTLY the reason that makes the V8 a great engine design. It gets the same power/torque as an inline-8 or a boxer-8, but only the size of a 4-banger(except for width, but the width of a v8, as I noted earlier, isn't an issue in most cars). Not many cars have room to fit an inline-8... There aren't many regular cars that would fit an i8 or a boxer 8, whereas you can throw a V8 into almost anything, even a Ford Anglia. As for some of the 6s making more torque: Yes, some 6 cylinders had great torque, 292 Chevy in particular. But from factory they had pretty low hp. As I said earlier, V8s often have a great balance between hp and torque. Basically it's per coincidence that the combination of a certain amount of displacement and a large amount of cylinders being most commonly found in a V8. They just happen to be V8s. It's still a reason for me to like V8s, because they just happen to be that way very often. But I'd like a V6 or i6 with the same displacement probably just as much. Also, Sound. Not many engines can top the sound of a 440/426Hemi. Except for that one engine from very long ago with an unconventional cylinder design. Trying to find it... Believe it was some racecar with like, 16 cylinders or something. EDIT: BRM H16 is I think the one... So many different sounds in those things. High revving they sound like an F1 engine, then low revving they sound more like a V8.
we had a yugo koral 55 (stronger model) and it lasted from 1989 to 2003 so kudos to yugo for lasting that long without major problems. sure trans was hard but it was made to be cheap so you wouldnt expect much from it. it wouldnt be called worst if it wasnt imported to usa, ruining people's opinions about the brand. it was just made for travelling from A to B. - - - Updated - - - It's MUCH better than geo metro you know. it came with airbags too while metro didnt. and it had at least some chrome while metro was plain plastic n metal
On the other hand, the Metro is (apparently) an excellent cheap autocross car, while I haven't heard the same about the Lanos.
So you think the 2CV should have never been produced because it's overrated and ugly? Explain, please. The 2CV was a brilliant car for its time. It was cheap: It gave people an opportunity to afford an automobile, just like the Dutch DAF cars. Also the 2CV was easy to drive and easy to fix. Fact: One of the design requirements was that it could carry four persons (farmers) and a basket of eggs across a field without breaking the eggs. The 2CV affected the way French people travelled. It is an icon, along with the VW Käfer, Mini/Austin Seven and FIAT 500. Same thing goes for the FIAT Multipla. The majority of the people think it's ugly, but it had a revolutionary design and it was very practical (big windows, two rows of three seats, ...).
I think you entirely missed the point of the post before yours. It's ugly, but it is practical, so we'll let it slide.
The BMW X6 M definitely has no reason to exist. Who would want to buy a SUV with a high center of gravity, a roofline out of a sedan, no off-roading capabilities, and a "M" badge? It's trying to accomplish everything, but doesn't accomplish anything well. To each their own I suppose.
except that its fast, comfortable, good looking, has the M badge, handles well and is a great alternative to getting a bland, boring SUV. OffRoad capabilities, yes...but who takes their SUVs off road anyway? they made a great car there. you are referring to the X5M i believe, cuz THAT sucks major ass.
