V-6 engines begin long fade into history

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by jyl

A friend just received a convertible Mustang from her husband, who bought himself a Shelby. He wanted to buy American and not from a bailout company, so that was Ford (note F units +33% in Dec). I got to check out her car - very nice. But I didn't like the big LCD screen - distracting. Does your Bullit have that, or is that something new?

Nope..no LCD screen. Maybe she has the sat/nav option?

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by dd74

Your 4.6 is going to become weak sauce when Ford installs the Coyote 5.0 in their new Mustangs.

You got that right! I figure one will be coming to a wrecked-em yard near me soon enoigh. Thinking swap, but really dunno...The car is so well balanced the way it sits. (edit) Or...a simple bolt on for even more power than the 5.0 will have...several superchargers available in the aftermarket. After all, I didn't dump a 911S just because the Turbos came along...

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

While I agree that 4-cyls make good power, the V6 is inherently more stable/balanced.

I think I disagree.
Any I4 or V6 has to have a balance shaft or other mechanism to counteract secondary dynamic imbalance.

The most balanced and durable design is the I6. This is one of the reasons that BMW and road trucks both use the I6.

[exitwound]

Here's a complete guide to every type of engine configuration's balancing operations, from the single cylinder to the big boys:

AutoZine Technical School - Engine

Inline 2-cylinder engines
As the engine fires once every revolution (or 720° / 2 = 360° crankshaft angle), the two pistons run exactly in the same direction as well as position. That means the total vibration will be twice the magnitude of that generated by one cylinder. The direction of vibration is mostly upward / downward.

This is the worse engine configuration for refinement, therefore only the cheapest mini cars in the past employed it, such as Fiat 128, entry-level Fiat Cinquecento and Honda Today etc. Today, I'm afraid there is probably no mass production car still use twin-cylinder engines, not even the smallest Japanese K-cars. Although the displacement of K-cars is 660 c.c. and is theoretically more suitable to twin-cylinder, they employs 3-cylinder or even four-pot to avoid the severe vibration problem of twin-cylinder.

[legion]

The only engine configurations I know of that don't require some sort of harmonic balancing device are the I6, O6, and the V12. Because a V12 is two balanced I6's, a V12 can have the cylinder banks at any angle and have little vibration.

The V8 usually has a harmonic balancer mounted to the front of the crankshaft.

Engine balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and the V8 in my Chevy will run in either 8 or 4 cylinder modes. It currently only cuts 4 cylinders when the engine is under light load, but it could in theory be switched so that it only fires all 8 cylinders when that amount of power is needed.

I posted a thread a few years ago about designing a V8 engine like in my Chevy, except that it uses the unused four cylinders as a supercharger and switches between that mode and full V8 mode. (Yes, I know, a plumbing nightmare.)

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by exitwound

I never understood the need for 'power'. There are autophiles, of course, but there are also mom and pop going to the grocery store. They don't need power. They shouldn't have power. There is no need for 500HP on a 65mph limited network. There are so few situations in which you absolutely *need* that power that it's not worth the price, pollution, weight, etc in my opinion. Too many inconsiderate jerks with macho complexes have these powerful engines. *shrug*

But of course you could handle all that power, and are worthy of it, right?

You smack of elitism and socialism.

[exitwound]

Dude, stay out of my threads if you're just gonna crap on them with politics. I said nothing of the sort. *I* don't need 500 horses either. I don't want 500 horses to go buy milk. Don't care about it. I left PARF over those types of arguments.

I like the idea of dropping 4 of the 8 cylinders when they're not needed. I think that's one of the best technological advancements in engine design in a long time.

[pwd72s]

I need a minumium of a 300 horsepower V-8...so I can get to the pool hall faster!

I find it funny that anybody on a Porsche board would argue against performance.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by dd74

True. But I thought I read in one of the car mags, Ford's going to a V8 Eco-Boost engine, while the majority of the Eco-Boost motors will be four cylinder.

Ford's goal with the Ecoboost V6 was to replace most of their V8s.

Many modern V6s make nearly 300 HP at almost 30 MPG in a sedan. That's not too shabby. You can get similar output with a turbo 4, but not everybody likes the power delivery of a turbo motor. I'm also curious if a high output turbo 4 is cheaper than a V6, I suspect not. I don't see the V6 going anywhere.

With that said, my old '93 Saab 9000 Aero had 250-ish HP with light mods, got 32 MPG on the highway, and was a blast to drive. That was 1993, sometimes I wonder how hard the automakers are really trying.

[Normy]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

The turbo 231 V6 was a great engine. I'd love to put one into a boat for fun.

While I agree that 4-cyls make good power, the V6 is inherently more stable/balanced. It sounds better too. This was a huge factor in my deciding to go with the normally-aspirated V6 Mercedes SLK-320 versus its supercharged counterpart, the inline 4-cylinder SLK-230. The 320 sounded WAY better and had the torque/muscle that the smaller 4-cyl just didn't. The 6 has soul. V8s have more of it and V12s are ALL soul like James Brown baby!

Some day I'll get my hands on an old Jag XJS V12 or a BMW 850 V12. I'd love to have either just for how smooth they are and how bloody great they sound!

Dude, you can't be serious! V6 -wise, the Volkswagen VR6 is a far better choice than the 1.8t. The four cylinder with its turbocharger can make twice the horsepower for half the price, but it sounds like CRAP while a VR6 sounds like a cross between Modena and Detroit.

-Add boost to a VR6 and your next question is tires. You'll need racing slicks to handle a force-fed VR6~

[rammstein]

I am about 6 months into my BMW affair, and I have to say that the I6 engine is seriously awesome. Its the first car I ever had that makes me constantly run through the rev range just to hear it.

[porsche4life]

But normy. A VRsex isn't a v. The cylinders are staggered.

[Schumi]

This is why everything needs to be turbocharged with sophisticated computer engine control. Going to get groceries and wanna get 50mpg? No boost... putt around, no problem.

Getting on the highway on-ramp like I do? Crack the knob, plant the throttle, and unleash 700 horses.


There's also a thing called a throttle. If you don't want a 500HP and just want fuel mileage, don't use so much right foot. I know a guy who has a newer 6L GTO, he can pull down 23-25 MPG on the highways.

A small, 2.4L turbo 4 or 6 can get 30+ MPG on the highway and still make 500HP at W.O.T.... it's all about gear ratios and driving style.


If everyone had to drive the same car on the entire planet, I'm convinced it would be a mildly tuned 951 for this reason.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by Schumi

If everyone had to drive the same car on the entire planet, I'm convinced it would be a mildly tuned 951 for this reason.

It'd certainly lead to more opportunities for impromptu roadside marshmallow roasts.

[quaz]

Originally Posted by Normy

Dude, you can't be serious! V6 -wise, the Volkswagen VR6 is a far better choice than the 1.8t. The four cylinder with its turbocharger can make twice the horsepower for half the price, but it sounds like CRAP while a VR6 sounds like a cross between Modena and Detroit.

-Add boost to a VR6 and your next question is tires. You'll need racing slicks to handle a force-fed VR6~

I agree, when I drove my old VR6 Jetta it sounded like sex. My 2.0t GTI sounds like ever other Honda on the road. I used to drive the Jetta a certain way just to hear the exhaust note. I could care less if I ever hear my GTI.

In my opinion the worst sounding 4 banger is in the WRX/STI. That flat 4 sounds like poop until 5K. However it goes like stink.

It is like the difference between a 951 and 928. If you modify a 951 just a little you can beat any stock 928, but it will never ever sound as good.

[Schumi]

Subaru flat-4's sound like ass due to the unequal header lengths, among other things.

Their flat 6's with some open, equal length headers sound damn good however.

[petrolhead611]

V6 engines are alive and well in Europe, but here they are twin-turbo diesels in cars such as Jaguars, Mercedes. The torque delivery makes a petrol V8 seem puny, it is after torque rather than power that acelarates the vehicle, and if you have a flat torque curve from say 1500 rpm that all you need. Many cars sold in Britain are 4 cylinder turbo diesels, and the driving ease afforded by creamy torque is appealing, as is the 500-700 miles between refuelling.Admittedly the engine noise is not Corvette like, but during everyday driving that would become wearing.

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by KaptKaos

I have always wondered why 3 cylinder engines haven't become more common. It's my understanding that a 3 cylinder engine is smoother because of the balanced firing order, like an inline-6. Large 4 cylinder engines (Porsche, Mitsubishi, etc..) have had to use balance shafts to correct this issue.

I don't see how an inline 3 would be balanced at all.
At any given time, when a piston hits TDC the other 2 pistons are enroute and not countering the forces from the other piston.

Unlike a Flat 4 or 6 inline 6, or V12 (2inline6'es in V)
Those engines are naturally balanced by design
When one cyllinder fires, there will be another one doing the opposite
Inline 3, or 4 or V6 V8 V10 could never do that.

And the bigger the bore, the worse it get's, hence balance shafts...
Inline 3 is probably the worst case scenario for vibrations..

[lm6y]

All of these posts are moot. Exit wound has decided for all of us what we need, and can have. Thank You oh Wise One. We will try to see the errors of our ways.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by exitwound

Dude, stay out of my threads if you're just gonna crap on them with politics. I said nothing of the sort. *I* don't need 500 horses either. I don't want 500 horses to go buy milk. Don't care about it. I left PARF over those types of arguments.

I like the idea of dropping 4 of the 8 cylinders when they're not needed. I think that's one of the best technological advancements in engine design in a long time.

You are making very political elitist-socialist comments.

So it is you that has infected your own thread with politics. This is America, you don't "need" something to have the right to buy something.

Be it an assault spoon or a 500hp mustang.