• KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    V8s have a great sound, but americans have historically been very bad at getting any kind of fuel mileage out of them.

    downsizing would be an idea, you could technically make a 2-3 Liter V8, but then you have the complexity of two equally performing 4-cilynder engines.

    and especially ford doesn’t do mechanical complexity very well, look at the 1.0 ecoboost.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There’s nothing more American than a V8 that churns out a shockingly small amount of power and turns petrol into literally nothing.

      7.2L V8 producing 200HP 💪🦅🇱🇷

      • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        i mean… they do pay around 4 bucks per gallon. if you do a bit of math, we europeans pay double.

        and then it has like 600 nm of torque, but it’ll do burnouts at 2000rpm.

        and they wonder why even some americans don’t want their cars.

      • 🖖USS-Ethernet@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        In…the…60s-70s maybe. Today’s V8 mustangs and camaros pump out 400-700HP depending on model. Yea fuel mileage still sucks but it’s improved from those old models. Definitely not something you should get if you want fuel efficiency.

        I can’t tell if you’re just being facetious.

      • dmtalon@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Certainly not a priority, but Ford still has to meet certain standards that as I understand it keeps getting tougher.

    • Trollception@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      The 6.2L LT1 in the Camaro SS I owned got about 16-18 mpg city and 27-30mpg highway. Its actually comparable to the 2.5T SUV I drive now with the city mileage being a bit better in the SUV and the highway mileage worse than the Camaro.

      • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        30mpg is actually impressive for 6 litres of displacement, well done chevy! but i imagine that was the stick shift one.

        • Trollception@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          It was an automatic. It had active fuel management which included cylinder deactivation. When it was cruising on the highway it was running in V4 mode. That and it was a coupe and far more aerodynamic than most SUVs.

          • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            so it basically ran as a 3 litre 4 cylinder, but still. my mom gets 25-30mpg out of her 1.8L automatic avensis, so that camaro is up there with “decent” fuel mileage.

    • spider@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      americans have historically been very bad at getting any kind of fuel mileage out of them…you could technically make a 2-3 Liter V8,

      Remember this little 3.5?

      The Rover V8 began life as the Buick 215, an all-aluminium OHV pushrod engine introduced in 1960 for the 1961 US model year (it was on their drawing boards in the late 1950s).