V-2, V-4 do they exist?


Recommended Posts

Saab had a V4 in some of their cars until around the 1980s. They were made by Ford.

The cars ran fine, that "unstable" and "jerky" motion and being "uncomfortable" is just BS.

V4 technology just wasn't advanced very much by companies, which is why the cars had low power; on a side note they did get better gas mileage than an Inline-4 of the same power (usually). I4 just had more potential than a V4.

And whoever said that companies (GMC or whatever they said) are "just now" starting to use I6 in their trucks, almost all trucks from the 70-below had Inline-6 engines (Ford F150 had them, for example). Inline-6's are usually gas hogs, which is why they switched over to V6, and why they changed the Ranger into a whimpy I4 (it use to be a F150 Package, usually equiped with a huge V8, 360ci I believe)

Saab had a V4 in some of their cars until around the 1980s. They were made by Ford.

The cars ran fine, that "unstable" and "jerky" motion and being "uncomfortable" is just BS.

V4 technology just wasn't advanced very much by companies, which is why the cars had low power; on a side note they did get better gas mileage than an Inline-4 of the same power (usually). I4 just had more potential than a V4.

And whoever said that companies (GMC or whatever they said) are "just now" starting to use I6 in their trucks, almost all trucks from the 70-below had Inline-6 engines (Ford F150 had them, for example). Inline-6's are usually gas hogs, which is why they switched over to V6, and why they changed the Ranger into a whimpy I4 (it use to be a F150 Package, usually equiped with a huge V8, 360ci I believe)

Yeah they were not shakey because they had dual balance shafts, but believe me as far as shake compared to a inline and when comparing wear they were much worse off. Also twin balance shafts usaully equate to about 15+ horsepower loss. Once again proving that inline is a much better and slightly more powerful alternative.

How come Lancia had a 135bhp 1600 V4 in the 60's then? That's a pretty high specific output for any car engine of it's size, even today. I don't remember any 150bhp 1600 inline-4 road cars of the same era. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the Lotus Cortina (which was a high performance saloon in it's day), put out 105bhp from an inline-4.

Oh, and my V4 Fulvia is still on it's original engine, 40 years old, and still running smoothly.

So, that negates your higher specific output and vibration arguments.

Honda still utilise V4 engines in some of their bike for example the VFR800I uses an 782cc V4 VTEC 2v / 4v engine it changes the amount of valves used at 6600rpm and develops 107Bhp at 10500rpm.

Details as below

Engine Type Liquid-cooled 4-stroke 16-valve DOHC 90? V4

Engine Displacement 782 cc

Bore & Stroke 72 x 48mm

Compression Ratio 11.6:1

Carburation PGM - Fi Electronic Fuel-Injection

Max. Power Output 107 bhp at 10,500 rpm

Max. Torque 80Nm at 8,750 rpm

Also in the UK quite a few cars have 3 cylinder in line engines, The Vauxhall (opel) corsa 1.0 12v the Dihatsu Charrade, The Smart fourtwo and roadster, you get the idea.....

and large capacity V engines can rev quite highly, i believe it is mainly to do with the stroke of the engine, for example BMW's formula 1 engine is a 3litre V10 that was proven in race conditions to run up to 19500rpm

How come Lancia had a 135bhp 1600 V4 in the 60's then? That's a pretty high specific output for any car engine of it's size, even today. I don't remember any 150bhp 1600 inline-4 road cars of the same era. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the Lotus Cortina (which was a high performance saloon in it's day), put out 105bhp from an inline-4.

Oh, and my V4 Fulvia is still on it's original engine, 40 years old, and still running smoothly.

So, that negates your higher specific output and vibration arguments.

Incorrect and actually by taking a look at the cars you mentioned I can disprove exactly what you were trying to prove:

Lancia Fulvia 1.2 HF :

Engine Lancia V4

Bore and stroke 77,0 x 67,0

Size 1248 cc

Cams 2 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 108 HP/7000

Details 2 Weber carburettors

Transmission 4-speed

Weight 820 kg?

Brakes f/r disc / disc

(Ford) Lotus Cortina:

Engine Lotus-Ford 4 in line

Bore and stroke 82,55 x 72,75

Size 1558 cc

Cams 2 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 175 HP/7000

Details 2 twin Weber carburettors

Transmission 4-speed

Weight 751 or 828kg

Brakes f/r disc / drum

Wheels f/r 6,5 x 14 / 6,5 x 14

Tyres Dunlop

A few more from 1966 for ya:

BMW 2000 TI:

Engine BMW 4 in line

Bore and stroke 89,0 x 80,0

Size 1990 cc

Cams 1 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 175 HP/7000

Details 2 twin Weber carburettors

Transmission Getrag 5-speed

Weight 1050

Brakes f/r disc /

Alfa Romeo 1600 GTA:

Engine Alfa Romeo 4 in line

Bore and stroke 78,0 x 82,0

Size 1570 cc

Cams 2 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 170 HP/7500

Details 2 twin Weber carburettors

Transmission Autodelta 5-speed

Weight 760 kg

Abarth 1000 TC Berlina:

Engine Abarth 4 in line

Bore and stroke 65,0 x 74,0

Size 982 cc

Cams 1 OHV

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 85 HP/7600

Details 1 Weber carburettor

Transmission Abarth 5-speed

Weight 583 kg

Brakes f/r disc / disc

So who is discredited?

Incorrect and actually by taking a look at the cars you mentioned I can disprove exactly what you were trying to prove:

Lancia Fulvia 1.2 HF :

Engine Lancia V4

Bore and stroke 77,0 x 67,0

Size 1248 cc

Cams 2 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 108 HP/7000

Details 2 Weber carburettors

Transmission 4-speed

Weight 820 kg?

Brakes f/r disc / disc

(Ford) Lotus Cortina:

Engine Lotus-Ford 4 in line

Bore and stroke 82,55 x 72,75

Size 1558 cc

Cams 2 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 175 HP/7000

Details 2 twin Weber carburettors

Transmission 4-speed

Weight 751 or 828kg

Brakes f/r disc / drum

Wheels f/r 6,5 x 14 / 6,5 x 14

Tyres Dunlop

So who is discredited?

Emm, YOU.

That's the 1.2 HF, not the 1.6HF. Also, to my knowledge, there was never a 1248cc variant of the engine. The 1.6HF puts out 135bhp. - See http://www.alma.it/vanzettip/fulvia/fulviae.html

As regards the Lotus Cortina, I don't know where you are getting 175bhp from, but:

"The official Lotus performance figures were 105bhp at 5500rpm, with maimum torque of 108lb ft at 4000rpm. It's generally held that these figures are a bit hopeful (90bhp is quoted for the same engine in the Lotus Elan)" - http://www.pixelmatic.com.au/cortina/lotus.html

Road & Track review in 1964:

"Engine:

No. cyl, type: 4-cyl, dohc.

Bore x stroke, in: 3.25 x 2.86

Displacement, cc: 1558

Equivalent cu in: 95.06

Compression ratio: 9.5:1

Bhp @ rpm: 105 @ 5500

Equivalent mph: 95.5

Torque @ rpm, lb-ft: 108 @ 4000

Equivalent mph: 69.4

Carburetor, no., make: 2 Weber.

No. barrels, diameter: 2, 40 mm

Type fuel required: Premium."

Lotus Cortina Owners Club (I'd say they'd know the facts) - http://www.lotuscortina.net :

"The major changes involved installing the 1,558cc (105bhp) motor, together with the same close

ratio gearbox as the Elan."

Your BMW 2000ti facts are wrong as well as the name of the car...

The late 60's 2002ti put out 120bhp. The early 70's 2002tii put out 130bhp, and the early 70's 2002 Turbo put out your quoted 175bhp.

As regards the Alfa, technically you are correct. However, you are quoting figures from a competition version of the engine, and not the standard one, which was 115bhp.

So, wrong on every point there, pretty much.

And for those of you still interested in the topic, the Fulvia had a narrow angle V, an idea that was later delveloped by VW for the VR6 type engines.

awesome thread you guys have made this (Y)

now.. what about the "W" engines.. how are they different from the V, and the chances that the design will catch on with other auto makers.

lastly, are there any new engines being developed.. if i remember correctly from watching the history channel, they have been using the "reciprocal" engine since the begining.. well after going through steam first.. then to what we have now.. although much better and more sophisticated now, its still the same basic design.

awesome thread you guys have made this (Y)

lastly, are there any new engines being developed.. if i remember correctly from watching the history channel, they have been using the "reciprocal" engine since the begining.. well after going through steam first.. then to what we have now.. although much better and more sophisticated now, its still the same basic design.

Its actually "reciprocating."

Another design that has been around is the Rotary Engine, used by Mazda a while back. They are capable of obscene RPM ranges but don't provide alot of torque and tend to burn oil after a while. They're an ingenious design though. I don't see them becoming mainstream anytime soon.

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

Right now everyone seems to be dead set on hybrid technology, which is alrite. I heard from a guy on another forum who got to use one of GM's 5.3l hybrid trucks during the NE Blackout of 03'. They ran a refridgerator and some other stuff off it it the whole time on a 1/4 tank of gas. Between that and the Displacement on Demand system, we should see some interesting stuff in the next few years.

I saw this on slashdot today too...

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/

Ferrari Grand Prix cars in the 40's and 50's had 1.5 supercharged V12's, so, multi-cylinder cars of small capacity are more than possible.

Coventry-Climax built a Flat-16 1.5 in the 60's...

As regards W engines, there are 3 variations of them, a 3 bank layout, what is basically 2 V engines in a V layout with a single crank, and what is basically 2 V engines, each with a counter-rotating crankshaft - this is mostly used in bike engines.

I think VW/Audi have developed both sorts of the car type layouts, the first for the prototype Bugattis and the second for production cars (Phaeton, Passat, Bugatti, Bentley). Of course, the narrow angle V engine from VW is ideal for the 4 bank V layout, as having the normal 60 degree V layout would result in what would resemble a flat engine with a V above it - this would both be quite wide and tall, and thus not ideally suited to most designs.

There's a good article on VW's narrow angle V's and W's at http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/e...e_packaging.htm - it's not too heavy and explains things like why the W isn't suited for racing...

Edit:

Here's a link to a 100cc Flat-12 in a scale Ferrai complete with video! http://www.nmd.com.au/download_detail.cfm?id=7

Edited by Pilsbury

Ferrari Grand Prix cars in the 40's and 50's had 1.5 supercharged V12's, so, multi-cylinder cars of small capacity are more than possible.

Coventry-Climax built a Flat-16 1.5 in the 60's...

As regards W engines, there are 3 variations of them, a 3 bank layout, what is basically 2 V engines in a V layout with a single crank, and what is basically 2 V engines, each with a counter-rotating crankshaft - this is mostly used in bike engines.

I think VW/Audi have developed both sorts of the car type layouts, the first for the prototype Bugattis and the second for production cars (Phaeton, Passat, Bugatti, Bentley). Of course, the narrow angle V engine from VW is ideal for the 4 bank V layout, as having the normal 60 degree V layout would result in what would resemble a flat engine with a V above it - this would both be quite wide and tall, and thus not ideally suited to most designs.

There's a good article on VW's narrow angle V's and W's at http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/e...e_packaging.htm - it's not too heavy and explains things like why the W isn't suited for racing...

Edit:

Here's a link to a 100cc Flat-12 in a scale Ferrai complete with video! http://www.nmd.com.au/download_detail.cfm?id=7

excellent link. thank you

Piston configuration does not has as much to do with torque as displacement does.

And even more so bore and stroke. An oversquare engine will produce plenty of torque and down low in the rev range.

Omg dude, how old are you?

YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF A 4CYL car!?!??!

You just made yourself look stupid by trying(and failing) to make him look stupid. :laugh:

Edited by flightmike1

Another design that has been around is the Rotary Engine, used by Mazda a while back. They are capable of obscene RPM ranges but don't provide alot of torque and tend to burn oil after a while. They're an ingenious design though. I don't see them becoming mainstream anytime soon.

It wasnt just used a while back, it is used now in the RX-8 !! A current production car that won a lot of awards, in 2003 it won the International Engine of the year award for new engines, and in 2004 the best engine in the 2.5 to 3 litre category.

I totally agree, it has poor low down torque, however, it doesnt `burn oil after a while` it is DESIGNED to burn oil ALL the time as part of the lubrication process. It is not a fault or problem, just a characteristic of the engine.

The poor fuel consumption and poor emmisions will stop it becoming a mainstream engine anytime soon though, as you said.

Nige.

oh yeah, here is a link that mentions that 2.0 V10 I posted about 2.0 V10

It wasnt just used a while back, it is used now in the RX-8 !! A current production car that won a lot of awards, in 2003 it won the International Engine of the year award for new engines, and in 2004 the best engine in the 2.5 to 3 litre category.

I totally agree, it has poor low down torque, however, it doesnt `burn oil after a while` it is DESIGNED to burn oil ALL the time as part of the lubrication process. It is not a fault or problem, just a characteristic of the engine.

The poor fuel consumption and poor emmisions will stop it becoming a mainstream engine anytime soon though, as you said.

Nige.

oh yeah, here is a link that mentions that 2.0 V10 I posted about 2.0 V10

Yeah I realized that about the RX-8 about 10 minutes after I posted...stupid finals slows everything down.

Designed to burn oil? As in like a 2-stroke engine? That sounds kind of odd, but I guess it makes sense...

I totally agree, it has poor low down torque, however, it doesnt `burn oil after a while` it is DESIGNED to burn oil ALL the time as part of the lubrication process. It is not a fault or problem, just a characteristic of the engine.2.0 V10

uhhh i think you got it mixed up. it wasnt desinged to burn oil, it was the inherit design of the engine which made it burn oil. i dont think any manufacturer would design an engine to burn oil, thats ludicrous, its just that the rotary design wouldnt have it any other way. obivously mazda has tried to decrease the amount of engine oil burned ie: rx7 to rx8.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • KataLib 5.3.0.0 by Razvan Serea KataLib is more than just a music player — it's a complete audio suite designed for music lovers and creators alike. It combines a powerful audio player, a flexible metadata editor, a capable audio converter, and a music library manager into one streamlined application. Core Features: Audio Player Enjoy seamless playback of virtually any audio format or even streaming video files. DJ Mode lets you mix tracks with manual or automatic crossfades. You can also load and save WinAmp-style playlists for quick access to your favorite sets. Audio Converter Convert between a wide range of audio formats effortlessly. Trim or normalize your output automatically, and even extract audio from streaming video sources. Ideal for preparing files for different devices or platforms. Metadata Editor View and edit ID3v2 tags and other metadata. Batch edit multiple files at once, and fetch missing information directly from the MusicBrainz database. You can also apply or update album art with ease. Music Library Manager Organize your entire audio collection, search across tracks instantly, and download cover images from the internet — or use your own custom artwork. KataLib makes it easy to keep your library tidy and enriched with useful info. Supported Formats: KataLib supports a wide range of both lossy and lossless audio formats: Input: OPUS, AAC, FLAC, M4A, MP3, MP4, MPC, APE, AIF, MKV, AVI, MOV, FLV, WEBM, Ogg Vorbis, WAV, WAVPack, WMA, AC3, OGA, MP2, MPGA, MPEG, DTS, M4B, DSD (DFS) Output: OPUS, FLAC, M4A, MP3, Ogg Vorbis, WAV Under the hood, KataLib uses the trusted FFmpeg engine for audio conversion and media playback, ensuring compatibility with virtually all mainstream media formats. KataLib 5.3.0.0 changelog: Added Option to select the Zoom level of the Oscilloscope visualizer. The taskbar button of the app now displays the progress of its processing tasks. The metadata text of the Visualization Video can now be aligned by the user. We can now reorder the order of the Visualizers and Metadata, in the Visualization Video Setup dialog, by removing any item and adding it again. It will be added at the end. Changed The font size of the Visualization Video can now be more than 30 points. Updated yt-dlp library to version 2026... Fixed Opening the Visualization Video Setup dialog could fail if the settings were wrong. Sometimes there were false duplicates in the Rename Tracks dialog. Tracks without metadata appeared without title in the Recent menu. Download: KataLib 5.3.0.0 | 90.0 MB (Open Source) Links: KataLib Home Page | Github | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • EA Sports UFC 6 review: Brutal, satisfying, and surprisingly accessible to newcomers by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe EA’s UFC series of fighting games has been putting out games for over 10 years now, but it’s a series I have never spent any time with. As a PC guy, the series being console-exclusive is the primary reason for that. The latest entry to the series, EA Sports UFC 6, is still not coming to PC, but I have an Xbox now. When EA reached out to see if I could have a crack at the game and give my opinion about it, I finally got the chance to see what this franchise is about. I have spent about a week playing UFC 6 on the Xbox Series X. Despite my lackluster skill with fighting games, I still have fun with entries like Street Fighter and Tekken. I quickly came to realize this is a different kind of fighting game, not the arcade titles I am usually dabbling with. Most of the week that I spent playing UFC 6 was in the career mode, trying not to get knocked out while slowly improving my combos and reactions. The review below will be from the perspective of a newcomer to the series and an amateur fighting game fan, so please forgive any mistyped lingo or series-staple mechanics I am not comprehending. In the Ring Getting a solid hit in UFC 6 is satisfying. It’s probably the most satisfying impact reaction I have seen in a fighting game. The ripples in the muscles, the spray of sweat (and blood), the meaty sound, and the subsequent stumble all carry a lot of weight. If I miss a heavy swing like that, though, I already know that I'm in for a world of hurt from the incoming counters. The fighting is a real treat. The actions aren’t as snappy as arcade titles, so a miss feels like a much bigger mistake here. This slowness did take some getting used to, but I felt the improvement in my abilities even after a few drills with basic punch and kick combos. If I’m not deliberate with my actions in the ring, whether it be a hasty retreat or a flying punch, the possibility of getting instantly knocked out is always there. The head, chest, and legs all come with their own health bars, so guarding just one area is just asking for trouble. A few hits to the head, and it's game over. Meanwhile, you won’t even be able to stay on your feet if they get damaged enough, drastically lowering the total amount of stamina available for the rest of the match. I was also encountering a large range of fighting styles to customize my own fighter with. There are a huge number of real-life superstars here from multiple eras. It’s not as exaggerated as Street Fighter or Tekken, but the way they move, evade, throw punches, or even take steps is based on their real-life counterparts. I can see this being a big draw for any mixed martial arts fan. One feature I was surprised to see here was the 'Flow State' ability. As rounds progress, a power-up meter can give a temporary boost to the unique fighting style of the selected fighter, essentially boosting what they are good at. There is an entire visual effect that kicks in when activating this, too. The surprising part was seeing something like this in a game that feels like it’s aiming to be more of a simulator than an arcade fighter. My skill level is too low to use this exactly how the game wants me to, so I ended up triggering it whenever the opponent did it as well. Streamlined vs Authentic When I first started it up, UFC 6 asked me about my experience with the series. Being genuinely new, I took its advice and opted for a lowered difficulty level and 'Streamlined' controls. Quickly, I realized that this wasn’t for me. My chosen fighters were throwing random attacks, no matter what combination the game was trying to teach me. Win streaks were happening, and I was already getting bored out of my mind just a few matches in. Turning off this mode and switching to 'Authentic' controls fixed everything right up. I was now able to control my fighter with more precision than I expected. I could control each arm and leg, which body part my attacks would aim at, and the fully customizable controls for setting up unorthodox moves were a cherry on top. None of these made me an expert at the game, but at least I was being beaten up fairly. This is not a point against UFC 6, though. Giving the option for anyone to enjoy the game is always a good thing in my eyes. There is a lot of customizability in the difficulty, with everything from slow-motion reactions to specific assists being offered as toggles. If I had a friend coming over and wanted to try a quick 1v1, the streamlined controls option is one I’d consider to make it a light and fun fight. The one part of the fighting that did not click with me was the grappling. Being taken to the ground brings in an entirely new control mechanism involving mounts and submissions that feel more like quick-time events than the heavy, tactical fighting I had seen so far while standing. The game wants me to hold sticks in certain directions to change the position or pull off submissions, trying to do the opposite actions of the opponent. Even though I tried to get used to this gameplay, it just felt like a momentum killer, and I eventually just wanted to get back on my feet to get back into the action. Legacy and Career It was UFC 6’s career mode that I wanted to play the most when I started it up. I grew up with EA Sports games, and taking my team from the ground to the top has always been my favorite task. UFC 6 has that same option but also offers a more cinematic entrance to the career experience than I expected with ‘The Legacy’ mode. This mini-campaign follows an up-and-coming fighter, Chris Carter, who is attempting to reach the heights his father had reached in the sport. Starting with a small-time gym and coach, the story follows both his growth in the space as well as the growing rivalry with a friend and fighter, Danny Lopez. The fights in this mode are very good at introducing a newcomer like me to the sport and its varying techniques. Cinematics land between the major fights, showing the growing tension between the two fighters as the years go by, feeling the pressure to not miss out on the hard-earned chances. The dialogue can be a little corny at times, especially when the bar fights kick off, but I largely enjoyed the storyline. At the end of it, I was pretty much familiar with all the mechanics of the career mode, unlocking new skills and moves, and how I needed to approach fights, both outside and inside the ring. This story mode isn’t a very lengthy one, so don’t expect an hour-long campaign. Once the conclusion is reached, Carter’s journey continues as if it’s a normal career playthrough, though I decided to start over from scratch now that I have some know-how about the basics. The career mode is very streamlined, which is to be expected considering there isn’t a team to manage like in other EA Sports games. It’s the journey of one fighter. When a fight comes up in the calendar, I could choose how many weeks I dedicate to preparing for it at the gym. A longer prep time gives the opportunity to get my fighter’s fitness up (giving a bonus during fights), earn more money and points for unlocking new skills, and gain more fans to fast-track the rise to stardom. While that sounds like a lot of things to manage, it’s more like a few clicks. There is a social media menu that sometimes pops up with canned replies I can send to fans, and the sponsors are once again a single click away from being assigned as finished. It’s the training aspect that adds a gameplay angle. Using the money from winnings and sponsorships, I was hiring different types of trainers and learning fancier moves to use in the ring. One small thing I appreciated was that it was possible to injure each other during these training sessions. If a trainer goes down in a bad way while sparring, they won’t be available for the remainder of training. If my fighter is injured, it takes valuable time and resources to heal and recuperate. Just like in real life, it makes sense not to go so hard during training sessions and save that energy for the main event. Every training or sponsorship activity I took part in used up the days and weeks I had before the next fight, bringing a balancing element to the whole ordeal. There were times I simulated most of these to just get to the next fight, but the grind for gaining even the slightest bit of advantage while trying not to overdo it is an enjoyable one. Outside of quick fights and career modes, UFC 6 also introduces an almost museum-like mode to explore a trio of fighters considered to be legends of the sport: Max Holloway, Alex Pereira, and Zhang Weili. The aptly named Hall of Legends mode is unlike everything else seen in the game. Each of these fighters has entire levels dedicated to them that I could walk around in and explore their journey into the UFC. This includes footage from real-life fights and interviews about their original inspirations and training methods. Each of these spaces is almost like an interactive documentary. Once the highlights are done, the mode offers the opportunity to take over a deciding fight from the superstars. It’s an impressive transition. Going from the real-life televised event with crowds and commentary to immediately taking over in the game has some real hype behind it. Performance and visuals It’s clear to see that UFC 6 is going for a photo-realism look with its visuals compared to any other fighting game. The fighters don’t look great in selection screens. But inside the arenas, under the flood lights, surrounded by crowds, and facing an opponent, the visuals are more than impressive. As ghastly as it is to witness, things like blood spraying into the mat and muscles reddening as they get pummeled keep improving the immersion. The fluid animations help sell the illusion even further. A missed kick carries the momentum to require a corrective step. Hard punches that glance off blocks give off the air of a hit that still took some wind off the opponent’s guard. The special moves with flips and spins look mega awkward when missing, just as they do in real life. Suffice to say, the Frostbite Engine powering this game is one of the biggest strengths of EA development studios. Playing on the Xbox Series X, the 60 FPS gameplay did not miss the mark or cause any slowdowns that I could detect. I still wish this series were on PC to see just how far the developer can push the engine. One area I continue to have issues with, surprisingly enough, is the menus. The game has fast loading screens, but almost every menu I click through has a large amount of noticeable lag before it registers. This is immensely painful in the career mode, since I have to go through multiple menus between fights to train and do sponsorships, and having a 3-second pause when selecting a simple move between pages is the only time that made me quit the game. Thanks to Xbox’s quick resume, though, I was able to instantly jump back in the next day to the same point (and wade through more laggy menus). Conclusion My primary mission going into this EA Sports UFC 6 review as a newcomer to the series was to find out if this is a good jumping-in point for someone like me. Suffice it to say, the game passed that test with flying colors. Despite the high skill ceiling, the legacy mode introduction campaign, multiple types of accessible controls, and streamlined career had me picking up the basics and fighting styles much faster than I expected. I wish I had gotten to try out competitive multiplayer during my time with the game, too, but the lack of players in the pre-release version prevented this. The impressive visuals and animations, coupled with the impact physics that let me feel every punch and kick easily, made this the most immersive fighting game I have played. The only part that gave me pause was the grappling gameplay, which killed the momentum in most fights. The Flow State amplifying system didn’t hamper the experience, but I also felt like it made more sense for an arcade fighter, not this. Easily the most annoying thing about UFC 6 was its laggy menus, which I hope get some sort of fix later. Returning series veterans might have a completely different experience from me. But for a new fan like me looking to climb ranks and see fighters get floored in spectacular ways, UFC 6 doesn’t miss a step. EA Sports UFC 6 is releasing on June 19 across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5 for $69.99. Ultimate Edition owners can already jump in via advanced access. This review was conducted on the Xbox Series X version of the game provided by EA.
    • No, Microsoft is obviously just spending money on maintaining a product with 0 users.
    • I disagree here sorry. The majority of their customers are corporations who are locked in to their eco system and have no choice. Private individuals don't contribute that much to their income.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      ssd21345 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Contributor
      MarkHughes4096 went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Dedicated
      jordanspringer earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Rookie
      Rimplesnort went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Markus94287 earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      486
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      173
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      138
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      94
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      79
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!