Friendly reminder, if you get a V6 """"""muscle car"""""" no amount of cope, shitposting or mental gymnastics will change the FACT that you're a poorfag in denial trying to deal with the shame of being a walking pile of shit or a jogger.
>>26452492How much do you make OP?
>>26452498Cope seethe and dilate
>>26452501I am just curious what kind of impotent transvestite is making a thread making fun of sub 30k cars to feel like a man.
>>26452510Keep seething poorfag trailer trash, speak when you stop being a subhuman.
It's the same as buying a n/a z32 Just shoot yourself in minecraft desu
>>26452513Wouldn't listing enough income to afford that car make me seethe anymore?
>>26452520You will never have a real muscle car deal with it
>>26452539Right - since the Mach 1 interior looks the same as the base without options, but what's your income and why did you make this thread?
>>26452544 >My poorfag machine is the same as the real one! Holy cope
>>26452611Except flip it - the Mach 1 is hardly worth it when the Supra is faster and has a real interior.
>>26452492>Friendly reminder...To be honest, that reminder didn't seem very friendly at all.It was rather mean, actually.
>>26452492I bought an ecoboost Mustang.
>>26452492ok, then i will buy a 4-cylinders one
>>26453458based
I've actually considered getting a mid 2010s V6 charger to build as a rally car. Cheaper buy and the V6 is lighter weight. Plus, those pentastar V6s sound niiiice when you put a proper exhaust on it.
>>26453626Get rid of the rear resonators and get magnaflows for the midpipe cans. Has a nice brap and upshift crackle totally stock.
>>26452492Post your car. I have a Coyote Mustang but I don't have the crippling self confidence issues to pick on those who get turbo or V6 versions of pony cars (which they are if you knew dick about cars). They're faster than the older V8 versions.
>>26453693>They're faster than the older V8 versions.How old are we talking about? Because V8 Mustangs were faster than this in the '80s.
>>26453698
>>26453693>They're faster than the older V8 versionsAnd evs are faster than both. Evs are still shit
>>26453698They weren't... Camaro or Mustang. For decades it was impressive of they could get below 7 seconds to 60.
>>26453700>Comparing any ICE to an EV.That's all we need to know.
>>26453711see>>26453699Retard.
>>26453726ok now find where the same people tested a V6 mopar instead of the video game journalist in >>26453698The curb weight of an sxt chally is 3810 by the door sticker, they seem to have added 200 lbs somewhere (driver?).newer models have an extra 100 lb of safety crap, but this isnt one, as it should be rated at 303.seems like they fudged those numbers, got a really fat and lazy driver and didn't even try to load the tc for the launch. Those are worse figures than any other review and are easily disproven by observing any Mopar forums.
>>26453726Is that Mustang a Cobra or some other special edition? The SS Camaro and Ram Air T/A were, to me, the return to fast pony cars. I thought the ones before these were fast for the time but not when you're used to today's cars. I'm not a fan of the new 4cyl/6cyl Mustangs/Camaros but they're still faster than a lot of the V8's going all the way back to their beginnings. I'd still take a slower 80's IROC-Z any day.
>>26453693>They're faster than the older V8 versions I sure would hope engine performance has gotten better since the 90s. Still doesn't negate the fact people think of a V8 engine under the hood when talking about a Mustang/Camaro/Challenger
>>26453788this is some weird cope for buying things specifically because you think other people will find them impressive which is turbo homogayin reality nobody cares or even thinks the way you do about it.the only people who act like you are legitimate autistic children.
>>26452510/board
>>26453774>hurr they weren't faster>ok they were, but let me move some goalpostsLol, retard. >>26453781Yeah, that's a '98 Cobra vs a '98 Camaro SS. >>26453805>cylinderlet copeThen why do people in places that aren't called the U.S.A. buy the V8 at a 7:1 ratio vs the Ecoboost? Just because cheap asses like you buy a car to look like the more expensive version to fool retards doesn't mean that stigma doesn't exist.
>>26453805I’m coming in this late but engine technology improves given time, a brand new V6 should easily beat a 30 year old V8. Its absolute cope to attempt to compare a modern engine to any antiquated engine on terms of performance.An engine is measured on terms of its contemporary peers. Else, every auto show would have inline 6 Mustangs/Chevelles/chargers with the owners telling everyone who wil listen their inline 6 beats a 1948 international harvester green diamond engine.
>>26453805>weird copeWhat? I just pointed out your argument isn't actually as good as you think it is. Those three car's marketing as reached just about every normal family in the US and the more well off families around the world. They associate muscle/pony cars with having big V8 engines that are loud and fast. Those same people are also well aware that a V8 is preferred and anything else is seen as settling
>>26452498>>26452510The prime cope of v6 muscle car defenders. Anyone who plays the "YEAH WELL YOU DONT MAKE ALOT OF MONEY" is trying to justify their or someone else's inheritly bad investment.
>>26453910>I’m coming in this late but engine technology improves given time, a brand new V6 should easily beat a 30 year old V8. Its absolute cope to attempt to compare a modern engine to any antiquated engine on terms of performance.This. The modern camaro v6 makes like 300 something, the 30 year old v6 made like 200 and those old v8's barely broke 300
>>26453940Comparing. Anew car to an equivalent old car is always a losing argument. Either it shows that engines have gotten better, which any retard would naturally expect, or that the car got objectively worse and they are a retard for defending an inferior model. It's a lose-lose arguement
>>26453949It’s a cope of the poor.>Muh $68k 4 cylinder Mercedes is faster than your 1981 Camaro V8
>>26453895Not them but sometimes people want a sporty car but don't need 500hp or the higher rate of insurance. Like I said earlier I have a Coyote Mustang but see no problem with an EcoBoost model. Hell, it's not breaking tradition. The turbo Mustang has been around since the 70's (aside from the years it disappeared) and the SVO is well respected (though I wish the new one were called SVO).>>26453910I imagine you weren't around in the 80's. Cars were weaker, slower and ran crappier than those of 15 years earlier. I remember talking to my friends at school about how great 60's and 70's were and how we'd never see cars and horsepower ratings like that again. Ford came close to killing the Mustang and replacing it with the Probe, Chevy would have killed the Camaro earlier and Chysler had no rear drive sporty cars. I know this era eventually saw fuel injection and more valves become more widely used but it still sucked. But we are in the golden age now. Soon the V8's will be gone. We'll mostly have undependable, over complicated engines with stricter emissions laws before EVs replace everything.
>>26452492I've come around on V6 muscle cars, since when Mustangs and Camaros were first made, the idea was to make affordable cars for teenagers to buy. So for me it's:>V6 muscle car at <= 18 years oldbased>V6 muscle car at > 18 years oldcringeAn 18 year old will have a much easier time buying a cheap V6 Mustang for around $2k - $3k with money from his summer job, rather than trying to buy a V8 at $5k - $8k. Seeing a young dude in a V6 S197 Mustang is perfectly ok by me.
>>26452498>>26452510He still hasn't posted his income or his car. This is the ultimate poser board.
>>26452492I wouldn't buy anything less than a V8 personally but if someone likes it who cares? That chally GT could be a good car for someone up north
>>26453910Imagine how quick and fuel efficient the v6s and 4bangers of today would be without being straddle with unnecessary and unwanted bullshit.Imagine Challengers and Chargers, Camaros and Mustangs shedding 500lbs overnight. and keeping the same power. Imagine that the facelifts all of them got weren't just cosmetics but vastly increased aerodynamics as well.we'd have 4 affordable sports cars doing 180 mph and getting 30+mpg at 75mph. Now imagine all these gars with ethanol banned and cornniggers getting slapped in the anus. Just go ahead and add 2% horsepower and about 2mpgs on averages, sometimes 3.Maybe the Charger isn't a fast car because its a family sedan, but the rest arent actually slow cars.
You don't need to post income to deduce someone's financial status. Just ask what their thoughts on Dave Ramsey are and you have your answer.
>>26452492the real problem comes from when you buy the v8 and you find yourself racing against 2.0s. Thats the really suicide inducing part.
>>26454549Name the actual point of the low end V8s. Because thats the thing. Dodge and Ford put out half a dozen tunes and vbariations of the thing, all of which get gapped by C5 with an LS.
>>26454274'79 was the first year of the turbo Lima so you might as well say since the '80s. Also, it was only produced for 5 years(remember they dropped the option in '81 and '82), then it went away for 20 years. I wouldn't call that "been around since the '80s", I'd call it "was a thing in the '80s". But I think you missed my point. That guy claimed new V6s are faster than the old V8s, I just pointed out multiple examples of that not being true. The other guy said the V8 stigma doesn't exist and I pointed out that V8s sell at a much higher rate outside of the U.S. purely because of this stigma. So what are you trying to argue exactly?
>>26452544Cloth seats are based. Leather is overrated.
>>26455582I'm not arguing and if I were it'd fly over your massively retarded head. Everything I just said can be easily looked. And if you're going to be autistically pedantic the first turbo Mustang was produced for 7 years.
>>26456225>Everything I just said can be easily looked. And if you're going to be autistically pedantic the first turbo Mustang was produced for 7 years.No retard. It was produced for 5 years over 7 ('79-'86) year time span. Like I already said the turbo Lima wasn't an option in '81 and '82. Everything I just said can easily be looked up. Also, you're the same retard that claimed that a modern V6 was faster than an old V8 >>26453693 which was proven wrong multiple times too. Maybe if you weren't retarded you wouldn't consistently need to be corrected Anon.
>>26452623Neat
The V6's and turbo fours are cool cars for sure. They aren't muscle cars, though.
>>26453910Then it is cope to compare a new car to an old car and say it has to have a certain type of engine because the old car did.>>26453895>why do people in places that aren't called the U.S.A. buy the V8 at a 7:1 ratiobecause they're consoomerist western culture obsessed homogays who want the car for how it makes them look, not because it's a reliable, stylish large sports car. The V6 Challenger outsells the V8 4 to one in America, the only county that matters.Importation costs are also a problem, even though a V6 or egoboob is cheap you might as well import a V8 because in the end that will cost almost the same and have higher resale value.the one thing engines have in common is cylinders make pressure, comparing the power output of an old engine to a new engine makes sense, especially if you drag race you may race against those "old" engines.further you moved the goalposts first by going and finding the worst possible, most apathetic test of that particular car and the best possible results elsewhere.>>26455582>stigmastigma balls retard naturally third worlders want the most expensive one. it does not help that the challenger and other Mopar products are not officially sold overseas or that egoboost stangs and GMHF camaros are sold though normal channels and are as expensive as usdm V8s.In European case the V8 makes more sense, it's a fashion statement not just an engine.
>>26452492this is like people who get bolt on tits and use a dilator.
I don't need a V8, I buy cars for their aesthetics. I don't care about the opinion of people who only care about the engine.
>>26453932America is not an episode of Speed Racer where everyone has an inner monologue about how they need to beat Neighbor X who is actually their long lost cousin Cleetus killed in a moonshine still explosion) down the street to Walmart. Nobody thinks beyond:>Can I afford it?>Can I store it?>Can I mod it?Everything that happens after that is the result of how hard that iron hammer hits the liberty bell in the soul. Some people like having bigger hammers, some like lighter hammers.
>>26456605>because they're consoomerist western culture obsessed homogays who want the car for how it makes them look, not because it's a reliable, stylish large sports car.You just described V6 buyers in the U.S. retard.
>>26452510>>26452498Post car
>>26456605>Then it is cope to compare a new car to an old car and say it has to have a certain type of engine because the old car didConsumers demand a certain type of engine, the thing is all engines benefit from technological advancements. Sure you can sell a 4 cylinder that meets the expectation of 1985 V8 owners. But no one wants to be stuck living in 1985, they want the best a modern drivetrain has to offer. Which a 4/6 cylinder can never offer, and engines over 8 cylinders have been mostly gatekeeped as luxury for a while now leaving 8 cylinder engines as the average middle class consumer option.
>>26458019except it's being argued the v8 has more social cachet and you should buy it because of that>>26458115>Consumers demand a certain type of engineyou are fucking retarded and debilitatingly autistic most consumers don't even know how an engine works thats why there is a stereotype of tards who buy the v6 and try and make it sound like a v8 with just an exhaust, they think the v8's sound is its bigger pipes, not the fact that a v8 has 8 cylinders, perfect balance, and the powerstroke overlap is ideal. the v6 doesn't have the same torque profile but it revs higher and faster, so the driving dynamics improve significantly despite the small loss of power.the v6 gets a bad rap because of morons doing it wrong, those same morons can (pay someone else to) make 1000 hp from a hemi with a fisher-price my first cam swap kit. there is nothing inherently wrong with either engine. the critical failure you have appears to be the assumption that everyone is as much of a trainspotting anorak about the genetics and heritage of a mechanical object as yourself. sorry but it's not the case. nobody elsethinks that way. the v6s are good cars, the v8s are wild cars, the big boosted v8s are insane cars. if you want cool ranch instead of flamin' hot doritos that is your choice. you're only the enemy if you don't like doritos.
>>26458189So what a small handful of idiots without fathers bought V6s and can’t figure out why it doesn’t sound like everyone else’s in the high school parking lot.I’ve also stumbled across a post on a pathfinder forum where some moron got his minivan stuck in the sand and couldn’t figure out why it wasn’t performing like an actual SUV.V8 cars aren’t supposed to appeal to people that know nothing about cars. Those people can buy 4 cylinder shit boxes with euro badges on them.
>>26453726Motorweek is absolute dogshit at performance test benchmarking if we're being honest.
>>26458223so we have established that idiots buy unsuitable cars and do dumb things with them. v6 american sports cars in particular benefit from the performance pedigree of being based off much faster, more powerful cars. they feel nimble from the reduced mass, stable at high speed and have precise handling and control you can't get in fwd shitboxes of similar power.these cars are like the inverse of a minivan where you have the utility and power of a large sedan in a tight-handling personal coupe. it's not going to win races, but it's reliable and fun to drive.>V8 cars aren’t supposed to appeal to people that know nothing about cars.but they do. at most the average v8 owner will throw on a couple of bolt ons and get it tuned if they even get out of pep boys first. the v6 owners are indeed normies either using it to step up into a v8 or are mad scientists who want to see how fast the hamsters will spin.
>>26458394You'll see quicker times for the later LS1s with the LS6 manifold but that Camaro was a 1st year LS1.
In the end this is why I despise car guys, it's always just about how much you spent. It's true from Fiat to Ferrari, yes I've talked to Ferrari club people.
