Show Us Your Motors!
- Thread starter Lopéz
- Start date
Soldato
Saying that, I always liked the look of the FTO.
Soldato
Clio V6 
Metro 6R4
Metro 6R4
Soldato
Where are the GTR owners with their slow cars
Caporegime
Found nothing wrong with the performance or noise of the VR6 in my R36, 300hp and 0-60 in 5.4 seconds, seems fine for a car built in 2009!
Soldato
I think one of the amendments to his statement was NA V6. Then any NA 6cyl after that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 7,606
Metro 6R4
Someone has won the winnings right here!
Soldato
Haha! I wish!! It was in reference to the "V6's are slow" comment.
Which was further amended to "run of the mill NA 6 cylinder motors" The sort of stuff you actually can reasonably expect to see day to day. I mean, I don't see 6R4's every other day. Maybe I'm too remote, but I don't see 911's everyday either. I also then made the further exception of the likes of the 350Z as it makes 300 BHP which would be quick enough, as would an R36 with circa 300 BHP. But then you certainly don't see them everyday either.
I thought it was obvious I was talking about cars you DO see daily, hence "run of the mill" R32's, 330i's, ST220's, Jag XJ's or whatever etc... But apparently not. Not quite sure how to accurately represent what I mean then obviously, I could say "mass market V6's" but then some clever guy will come along and tell me the ST220 is rarer than a 911 of same age.
I'm really just talking about MY own experience of NA 6 cylinder motors. As I said, the sort of stuff that you see everyday, the stuff you would likely be able to look at several examples of before buying one to drive daily, rather than one off Rally Homologations, or £20k+ 15 year old Clios, or proper "Sports cars". And I'm not really saying they are slow either. Just that for the amount of fuel they consume, you are often not far off V8 levels of consumption, but without the power that goes with (I also did mention having slow V8's too).
I thought it was obvious I was talking about cars you DO see daily, hence "run of the mill" R32's, 330i's, ST220's, Jag XJ's or whatever etc... But apparently not. Not quite sure how to accurately represent what I mean then obviously, I could say "mass market V6's" but then some clever guy will come along and tell me the ST220 is rarer than a 911 of same age.
I'm really just talking about MY own experience of NA 6 cylinder motors. As I said, the sort of stuff that you see everyday, the stuff you would likely be able to look at several examples of before buying one to drive daily, rather than one off Rally Homologations, or £20k+ 15 year old Clios, or proper "Sports cars". And I'm not really saying they are slow either. Just that for the amount of fuel they consume, you are often not far off V8 levels of consumption, but without the power that goes with (I also did mention having slow V8's too).
I think V6 are very efficient versus my v8!
Seems an odd comment to be honest. Today everything is 4cyl turbo offering performance and economy. However they won’t ever match the noise or refinement of a V6.
Sometimes there is more to a car than numbers on paper...
The VR6 is such an example. What a noise !
Seems an odd comment to be honest. Today everything is 4cyl turbo offering performance and economy. However they won’t ever match the noise or refinement of a V6.
Sometimes there is more to a car than numbers on paper...
The VR6 is such an example. What a noise !
Caporegime
Just admit your point is null and void. 
Soldato
I find my V6 fairly good on fuel. average 28mpg and i give it a hoon at least once per journey.
Averaged 36mpg from derby to devon on cruise control which i thought was quite decent considering every says how thirsty the 370z is. WOT obviously is a different kettle of fish though.
Averaged 36mpg from derby to devon on cruise control which i thought was quite decent considering every says how thirsty the 370z is. WOT obviously is a different kettle of fish though.
I think it's a fair point tbh. I drive an NA V6 car, it's a bit gutless and a bit thirsty. I'm a turbo guy through and through though, would prefer a turbo 4 hands down but I've had a lot of bad luck with turbos hence wanting a simple and reliable NA car for a daily.
Soldato
Breaking news, big NA engines are less efficient than Turbo/Supercharged engines.
Trying to think of some frugle NA V8's of similar era of popular "run-of-the-mill" NA 6cyl.
@Simon You probably have one of the best examples of efficient NA V8 I would have thought.
Trying to think of some frugle NA V8's of similar era of popular "run-of-the-mill" NA 6cyl.
@Simon You probably have one of the best examples of efficient NA V8 I would have thought.
Last edited:
Soldato
Amen. The C63 is currently getting 18mpg on my short (thankfully) commute. All worth it for that NA V8 roar.
If anything, I would expect the relative power to efficiency of an engine to stack up more favourably for the V6 than the V8 in general.
It seems generally manufacturers are opting for less and less cylinders in their drive for efficiency for given power levels, so I'd be surprised if for some reason 8 cylinders inherently bucks that trend and is better than 6.
It seems generally manufacturers are opting for less and less cylinders in their drive for efficiency for given power levels, so I'd be surprised if for some reason 8 cylinders inherently bucks that trend and is better than 6.
19.53mpg over the last 19,500 miles with relatively steady driving most the time would suggest otherwise
Soldato
19.53mpg over the last 19,500 miles with relatively steady driving most the time would suggest otherwise
Oh...
Caporegime
19.53mpg over the last 19,500 miles with relatively steady driving most the time would suggest otherwise
In fairness thats probably the same as mine is going to average, with 130 less horses and 120 more KG's.
Caporegime
My average on my T5 has gone up to 32mpg over the past 40k! I think I need to bring it down a little