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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom