Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Don't Buy These 7 Engines For Performance" video.

  1. The PRV V6 actually gained quite a reputation as a race engine. It could sustain massive turbocharging, and had the advantage of the 90° banks, that kept the center of gravity low.
    3
  2. Jαѕσи Tσdd. That's why the Porsche 2.0l that produced not spectacular but decent 125hp in Europe, produced only 95hp in the US, or the Lancia Scorpion/Montecarlo, that was equipped with a 130hp 2.0l in Europe, only had a 1.8l 84hp engine in the US. However, those engines states that around 50hp/litre in a naturally aspirated production engine were still easily achievable (and those were adaptations, they had not being designed for catalitic converter and unleaded fuel). The US "high performance" engines producing 30hp/l naturally aspirated and 40hp/l turbocharged were a bit of a disappointment and smelled of lazy designing.
    2
  3. Infact I'm not comparing an inline 4 banger 2.0L with a "7L (or larger) engine that makes literally almost three times as much torque as horsepower". I'm comparing it with engines with comparable specific displacement. A 2.0L I4 and a 4.0L V8 (and similar. A 5.0L V8 only have 125cl more displacement for cylinder, not enough to ruin anything) have the same specific displacement. The second is supposed to have the same specific power and the same specific torque of the first. If it fails at it (we are talking of engines put on supposedly sporty cars, not trucks), well, see above.
    1