Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxer486
I value an inherently harmonically balanced and refined engine optimized for smooth and reliable power deliver without the weight, complexity and drag of using balance shafts.
I think the original fathers of the Supra, GTR and most BMWs value performance over accountants and eco freaks pushing V6s. I don't think anyone expects the Supra to be a go-kart, they expect massive reliable power, lots of speed , lots of aero efficiency and downforce, and tons of sheer mechanical grip. And a cockpit built around the driver.
People want this car to be tunable or factory competitive with the ZR1, ACR Viper, GTR, 911. Not the Elise, Miata, or even 86.
Nissan is the only factory supercar using a V6. Largely because it was cost effective for them.
Btw, those two extra cylinders (not 3) hanging off the back are at the least critical point of the polar moment being more centered to the car which is more than offset by the rear mounted transmission. I'll take the smooth turbine like revs of an I6 anyday over a V6. If they do that they need only make the block as robust or more robust than the 2JZ and everyone will cry for joy!
Plus longer cars have more capability to maintain high speed aerodynamic stability over shorter cars. Look at Le Mans cars and GT cars like the NSX, Corvette, Viper, and Aston. Those are cars built for high speed endurance races.
We're car guys and we want what we want, not what environmentalists want (for once).
|
Actually, that is wrong. BMW does not value I6 performance anymore. I6 is supported by accountants. For this reason Mercedes is also going back to I6 engine starting with the next E Class, because it will simply be cheaper to make. If V6 engine were cheaper, BMW would build them. BMW did build a V6 for the current M3/M4, but due to higher costs compare to the I6 that shares most parts with other engines, was the reason they chose I6 over V6.
But if I6 is cheaper to make, better for us.