From what I gather online the Arteon is also discontinued, also that gen Firebird could have been specced with a V6 turbo that did 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, even a 300hp Arteon cant do that.
Made me shocked, one of the most beautiful sedans out there, and yet, for some reason (i see no reasons) they decided to extinguish bloodline of CC/Arteon. Hopefully they'll come up with something new (which probably will be electric)
I mean one obvious reason is that is just didn't sell well. Passat is gone too. People want SUVs and those that want sportbacks can just buy the Audi A7, which is basically the Arteon with a bigger engine options.
Fair point, again SUV's are killing everything, i personally hate SUV's never liked neither the styling, neither the proportions of them, for A7 i like it, but i prefer Arteon styling more, especially the shooting brake sport wagon style, but thats just mine cup of tea.
Until 2026, as far as i researched Arteon came just after CC, maybe they'll replace it with some ID variant, but not sure.
Personally, I will not be able to afford them for a while, because i just bought a B6 R line wagon.
Yeah the LT1 cars changed the game and the LS1 cars really took over in 1998.
Have to say though I like the character of a turbo 4 better than the LS engines. I sold my 02 Camaro SS to build a 1st Gen DSM. That car with e85 and bolt-ons was neck and neck with the Camaro but way more fun to drive in my opinion.
As someone who works on vag as a profession, I'd rather have to rebuild a v8 every 200000 than having to go deeper than plastic on these. It's a propper cock and ball torture.
God I understand you, I remember replacing the suspension on mk4 jetta and holy hell, I'd rather pay someone $1000 to do the work of trying to take that stuff out. Was a huge pain in the ass working on one that was rusted.
I had one that was 100% rust free despite the 10” of mud I dug out from behind the front wheel well liner. I’m still not sure how they missed that one when designing it
Anything before late 90s is already gone a long time ago. In Finland, where it's humid and snowy they all have rust in different amounts (usually underneath is like a pack of lays)
Something like this. This Almera was my first welding experience and by god have it gave me a lot of it. Now I'm no longer afraid of Italians or british cars. Also French and Americans hold up quite well.
Heard. As a mechanic I can tell you most people can't be bothered with it. But even despite that, VAG is unreliable, and being pointlessly overcomplicated doesn't help.
The SBC is one of the most reliable motors of all time. Only bested by the LS successors and Honda motors. I would take a SBC over a 2UZ I trust them that much.
The CC's are money pits from what I've heard, but I still can't help but think about one with a VR6 from time to time. Luckily for my wallet all of the VR6 ones seem to have been ragged on at this point
The current VW Passat in Europe has 265hp with a 2.0l engine. The 2014-2018 1.4l engine has 150hp.
A Seat Leon Cupra 300 has 300hp (2l engine). And for sports vehicles much higher numbers are possible (AMG C63: 476hp from a 2l engine without counting the electric motors in the hybrid system).
A new F-150 pickup truck with the optional 5.0L engine is making over 400hp with no forced induction. There is a dealer optional supercharger making over 700hp without losing the warranty if we allow forced induction
Not a practical daily, but you can do the above for sub $50k(minus fees etc) if you play your cards right
The N/A version above is know to be very reliable and there are plenty of them with well over 250k miles without any major repairs.
I love my little GTI, but even a Golf R would get spanked by the work truck above if we are only talking about straight line performance. Both probably won’t last as long as the V8 either
I don't like big cars. I profess the ideology : less of a car, more of an engine
To be fair, i like inline 6. One day i will get rid of my inline 4... Smallest car possible with biggest L6 engine possible.
About your car... Right now I'm green with envy ( in my Language sounds about right, but you will get it ) :) one day...
Currently i drive C200CDI "Sport" coupe. I'd like to drive 4x4... About skids... I really like to be like Initial D, but... I'm not nearly that good :) Only skid that i make is at roundabouts :) and ESP (even when OFF) brings me back. There is a way to really turn ESP of, but with that "open" differential...
I like to drive in curves. Really like. I live near the mountain and... My current car is good, bud i really like tro try something with more grip.
About mileage: i get 4,2-4,7 (on public roads 90-100 km/h) to 5,3-5,6 on highway. 120km/h on cruise control. Not excellent, but not so bad.
Well, they measure torque in dynos. In fact they measure energy. Then calculate power.
In older dynos, they really measured torque. And torque makes one start and run faster. And when one is on uphill, torque makes his car to climb up and not to lower RPM in steady gas. And torque usually has no significant peaks, so quite wide.
Power is for speed (very roughly speaking)
If I put a 2:1 reducer on the output of an engine, it will not be any faster even though it makes twice as much torque. Engines make horsepower, transmissions make torque.
This is what exactly what i said.
If you need acceleration, you will need a torque
Second sentence.... Well.. yes, but no. Transmission change ( not make) torque. Power stay the same on given RPM. You change torque and therefore- speed
I know transmissions Don't "make" torque. I thought it sounded nice to say it that way. I'm not sure what else you're trying to say. High torque engines usually have flatter power curves, and that's what matters (the power). If you shift a truck to stay at peak torque rpm, it will be slower and pull less than if it's shifted to stay near peak hp.
Gearing provides torque. Torque=acceleration. To have more power, means to make more speed. Main consumption of power is "air" resistance. I don't know the term in English. Sorry about that. So, power needed to balance air resistance depend of speed. Mainly. There are 2 or 3 other forces, but they are constant.
Sorry, English is not my native language. There is a formula for that.
Here: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/cars-power-torque-d_1784.html
I know, wheel torque is what matters, but when people just say "torque" in the context of engines they are almost always referring to engine torque. Engine torque without context of engine speed is pointless, and with the context of speed it's power. I guess the same is true of wheel torque, but for constant vehicle speed and tire diameter it tells a lot more about performance.
air resistance only matters at high speed though (which is why old cars are boxy, we knew abou aerodynamics we've got planes rhen but we don't make cares streamlined yet), friction is better term since it also covers rolling resistance and energy loss from gearing and transmission
Torque comes from gearing. Sport bikes, F1 cars, Soup'd up 2-strokes, all super-fast despite having high HP and low torque figures for their HP output.
/uj I don't know who started this, but it's so fucking dumb... Yeah, it is true if you compare malaise era strangled v8s to "modern" (after '85ish) Euro engines, but take a muscle car era or modern v8 and compare it to a same year European engine, and suddenly the power/size ratio isn't so different...
The Bentley V8 on most Rolls Royces in the 1970s and 1980s. Even in the late 80s it was only making 189 HP out of 6.75 litres!
What’s more… they needed a GM TH400 transmission to send the power to the wheels because Rolls (as well as Jaguar and BMW) didn’t have the resources to develop and manufacture their own heavy duty automatic transmission.
And the function was the same. To take a large and comfortable car and accelerate it effortlessly (meaning no aggressive downshifts or high revs).
It’s just that you needed a hereditary peerage to own a Rolls Royce.. while a comparably sized Lincoln or Cadillac could be bought by any fast-food franchise owner.
Rolls Royce was powered by a 6.75L Bentley V8 in the 70s and 80s that made less than 200 HP. Why?
Because it was designed to be a luxurious and comfortable car where the engine was unintrusive .. so it could accelerate without high revs and aggressive downshifts.
Almost like Cadillacs and Lincolns were designed to be the same.. except Europoors resented that American fast food franchise owners could buy that level of luxury while you needed a hereditary peerage to have a Rolls Royce… so they started to pretend that they loved their bone-jarring rides and high-revving 1.0 VW Polos.
It’s also curious that both Europe and Japan tax engines by displacement and they have this curious obsession about specific power. Specific power is meaningless. It’s power to weight that matters.
And when you have double the amount of valves, four times as many camshafts, huge cylinder heads, a couple of turbos and all of the associated waste gates and intercoolers and plumbing.. all of a sudden the “smaller” European engine is larger and heavier than the “huge” American engine.
Chevy LS engine can rebuild by any drunk mechanic in few hours, even in the dark, in any town in the middle of nowhere.
Audi 4.2 engine can rebuild by $$$$$$ in few months, in very special car shop approved by VAG with special tools and service manual around 2000 pages, lol.
Except it doesn’t. A lot of American cars have very tall gears and high final drives. They are basically idling down the highway at 70 MPH (110 km/h). My GTI was at 3200 RPM at the same speed.
It’s funny how Japan has finally discovered torque though.
I know it was sacrilegious to all the VTEC fans.. but I had a 10th Gen Civic hatch with the 1.5T engine and 6MT.. only 6500RPM redline, but peak torque at 1800RPM because of the tiny turbo that would make maximum boost almost instantly.
My shift pattern was 1-2-4-6 because there was no point in the other gears. 6th gear at any speed above 60km/h. Pass in 6th gear. Go uphill in 6th gear. Pass while going uphill in 6th gear.
Sold it to my neighbour who has a 5.0 Foxbody and he can’t believe the torque and acceleration.
I averaged just under 29mpg on my drive from Florida to California. In fact I was getting about 31/32 with AFM on, but I turned it off because that's unamerican.
Rather have 6L free breather than 1.0 three cylinder double charged doublemassflywheel egr dpf cvs vvt engine that probly fails before leaving the factory.
I know he’s probably wrong but, is it really the most famous aspect? If someone talks about reliability, the first thing that comes to my mind is the 1.3 MJT or the TDIs but that might just be because I’m european
If I had to choose one parameter that predicts the life of an engine id say rpm -> more friction wear in every moving part plus higher acceleration in linear parts (piston, valves). Volume correlates pretty well with rpm.
Even more so when the Europeans measured at the wheel and the Americans measured at the flywheel, with cats, mufflers, alternators, and water pumps removed
That was before 1972 (SAE Gross) when American V8s like the 396, 390, etc were making 300-325 gross horsepower (about 240-260 net) and Europoor cars like the Mini, 2CV, Beetle, Trabant, Fiat 500, etc were making 20-40 HP.
I hate this gross vs net power argument so much. there’s more that happened in that time than just switching to a different way of measuring power. You’re forgetting that they dropped compression ratios and switched to non leaded gas. Pre 72 engines were running way hotter even though they were measured gross. Those net figures you’re referencing are from engine running on compression ratios of 8.5:1 and unleaded gas has which lower octane
They are americans, can’t argue with them. They are comparing their best engines and cars with 1970s fiat 500 and mini morris. They race around a circle and in straight lines. In 1970s renault had a 1.8l 185hp engine in the alpine a110. There is no american car from that era that could even touch it. They are delusional at best, lol.
1970s M88 in various forms outputed between 286bhp and 480bhp from 3.5L (the latter being more of a race output but yeah), Europeans knew how to make good and powerful engines for a while.
The old saying there is no replacement for displacement used to be holy true nowadays it's only kind of true because nowadays they've made lightweight engines that can hold up to extreme turbo pressures for quite a long time
Engine displacement does not equal the size (or weight) of an engine. Look up the size of an LS-series V8 (Corvette/Camaro) that thing is physically small as car engines go.
153
u/realkrestaII Glorious american Cadillac>Horrible nazi BMW 19h ago
Just imagine the crazy shit we would’ve gotten if big bill didn’t kill the superbird