Is a V6 better than an I6?

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Lampredi was in charge of converting the racing Dino 196 motor to road car use. Of course, Lampredi had his hands on just about every Fiat and Ferrari motor of that era.

But afaik he didnt design the V6 from the dino 206/246

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But afaik he didnt design the V6 from the dino 206/246

As far as I can tell, no, he didn't design the 196 engine, but he was responsible for converting it to road duty. The Fiat Dino engine and the 206GT are identical, even though there was a claimed hp difference. Apparently they were directly grabbed off the Fiat production line and installed with no modifications.

[GuidoK]

Yes that engine is a design from Dino himself (and Jano).
But it sounded strange to call an engine a lampredi engine when he didnt design it and only adapted it to a less powerful spec, certainly in regard to that he did design multiple engines. When people talk about the 'Lampredi engine' they usually refer to his twincam I4 that was used over 30 years.

Its like talking about a busso and referring to a 50's F1 v12 engine. (and bringing up Busso: what an engine, probably the most beautiful v6 to look at from the modern era! Sounds really good too)

[FrostyDC4]

Originally Posted by aaaaah

Packaging yes.

Driving experience no.

^^^this I agree with


The V-6 car I have does not have a viscous coupling between the motor and the rest of the drivetrain so I can feel the individual firing pulses as I take it to 8200rpm (feels kinda gritty past 5k although it makes power to 7500rpm). The N55 feels turbine smooth by comparison.

Also the V-6 car has a decent set of multilinks up front with the majority of the drivetrain behind the front wheels. This wouldn’t be possible with an I-6.

[1MOREMOD]

Isn't that 23 ignitions per second? You can feel that, powder?

[FrostyDC4]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Isn't that 23 ignitions per second? You can feel that, powder?

With any 6MT VQ35 or VQ37 you can feel it through the shifter at idle & at highrpm because of how the shifter is configured. That was one of the main criticisms of that powertrain.

[The Choosey begger]

Originally Posted by FrostyDC4

^^^this I agree with


The V-6 car I have does not have a viscous coupling between the motor and the rest of the drivetrain so I can feel the individual firing pulses as I take it to 8200rpm (feels kinda gritty past 5k although it makes power to 7500rpm). The N55 feels turbine smooth by comparison.

Also the V-6 car has a decent set of multilinks up front with the majority of the drivetrain behind the front wheels. This wouldn’t be possible with an I-6.

I'm gonna assume some of you haven't driven a R35 GT-R.

[damnitBobby]

Meh. Had a e92 335i N55 for years and now have an Audi SQ5 with the new V6T. It's just as buttery smooth and has a very similar power band, with the V6T having a slightly better top end.

Had a VQ35HR in my 350z years ago and that motor was like a vibrating blender when revved up (but was a solid engine otherwise). But that's a thing of the past. Now you got those two MotorTrend reviewers making comments on how the V6TT in the Alfa QV feels smoother compared to the M3. And you've got Chris Harris saying the V6TT in the QV has a more linear power delivery compared to the M3.

Not a fanboy of any car make here. But it's funny to see you BMW fanboys over-analyze stuff and come to conclusions that don't align with reality at all. Now you have Cadillacs that handle dynamically superior to BMW's and Alfa's with better powertrains. lulz

[FrostyDC4]

Originally Posted by anglo

I'm gonna assume some of you haven't driven a R35 GT-R.

I have lots of experience with the R35 GTR. Ideal engine placement & excellent driving dynamics but a little too 'clinical' for me.

[Captain Blood]

I always thought there was a torque advantage to the I-6, all other things being equal.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

I always thought there was a torque advantage to the I-6, all other things being equal.

No not really.
But as especially bmw engine have a fairly long throw, they usually do give more torque than their v6 competitors that usually have an oversquared setup, especially in the lower rpm's (This goes mainly for NA).

[TampaF87]

For packaging and displacement size, and crank rigidity, the V6 is going to be the ticket. Big displacement cylinders can't be lined up in a row without considerable length on top of a long block.

I6 is the way to go for driving experience (buttery smooth, inherently balanced), but crank length becomes a weak point at high power levels, and it requires a long front end, and placement can effect chassis dynamics.

Someone mentioned the Flat 6, which is great for chassis balance, and packaging but they still suffer from balance issues like opposed V engines do and they usually have oiling issues because, you know, gravity. This was a big problem on old airplane motors. Porsche has done really well with them, but Subaru is notorious for having ringland issues.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by TampaF87

but they still suffer from balance issues like opposed V engines do

And what balancing issue might that be?
Remember, we're lining the i6 up to a v6, NOT a v12 (or a V8 for that matter)

Also crank rigidity isnt really a problem, as there are loads of v12's around, with way more force on the crank.
Look at how long cranks can get if you look at shipbuilding.
The key issue is using enough crank bearings. Other than that there is absolutely no reason why an I6 crank would be weaker than a v6 crank (certainly not with all the various split pin v6 cranks around)
Oiling issues only come down on using an inadequate oilpump, too small oil passages and such. I mean serving 2 banks on a v6 isnt an issue either is it?

[The Choosey begger]

Originally Posted by FrostyDC4

I have lots of experience with the R35 GTR. Ideal engine placement & excellent driving dynamics but a little too 'clinical' for me.

You can't be serious if you think a silky smooth linear inline six is more wild than a twin turbo v6.

[FrostyDC4]

Originally Posted by anglo

You can't be serious if you think a silky smooth linear inline six is more wild than a twin turbo v6.

I was not talking about the drivetrain alone but the whole package. It was kinda dull and didn’t offer up any drama unless you were hooning around at 8/10+.

[The Choosey begger]

Originally Posted by TampaF87

For packaging and displacement size, and crank rigidity, the V6 is going to be the ticket. Big displacement cylinders can't be lined up in a row without considerable length on top of a long block.

I6 is the way to go for driving experience (buttery smooth, inherently balanced), but crank length becomes a weak point at high power levels, and it requires a long front end, and placement can effect chassis dynamics.

Someone mentioned the Flat 6, which is great for chassis balance, and packaging but they still suffer from balance issues like opposed V engines do and they usually have oiling issues because, you know, gravity. This was a big problem on old airplane motors. Porsche has done really well with them, but Subaru is notorious for having ringland issues.

The number #1 type of engine in general aviation today is the horizontally opposed engine, Lycoming, Continental etc mainly because of reliability.

Most Inline6 M engines BMW designed have rod bearings issues, so.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by anglo

The number #1 type of engine in general aviation today is the horizontally opposed engine, Lycoming, Continental etc mainly because of reliability.

Most Inline6 M engines BMW designed have rod bearings issues, so.

I have a 18 year old Honda F6 Valkyrie Interstate 68,000 miles. Runs like a top. It's all in the engineering.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by TampaF87

For packaging and displacement size, and crank rigidity, the V6 is going to be the ticket. Big displacement cylinders can't be lined up in a row without considerable length on top of a long block.

I6 is the way to go for driving experience (buttery smooth, inherently balanced), but crank length becomes a weak point at high power levels, and it requires a long front end, and placement can effect chassis dynamics.

Someone mentioned the Flat 6, which is great for chassis balance, and packaging but they still suffer from balance issues like opposed V engines do and they usually have oiling issues because, you know, gravity. This was a big problem on old airplane motors. Porsche has done really well with them, but Subaru is notorious for having ringland issues.

Nah.

[Blackraven]

Hmm....
All this talk about 6 cylinder engines...........yet no mention of the VR6.

Anyways:
Rumors are that Volkswagen is working on a 400 HP version of this engine in one its Arteon prototypes (for a possible "R" performance version).

According to Mr. Martin Hube (product-line spokeman at Volkswagen), they said that their prototype with a new VR6 engine is currently undergoing evaluation.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Then there was Buick's straight eight... What a Fireball!

The first car I ever drove was a '48 Pontiac with a straight 8. I'll bet a few on this forum ever heard of this configuration since straight 8's have not been around since the 1950's. Since I was curious, I Googled it and found out that in the 50's Mercedes put a straight 8 in a formula one car and in the 300SL.

Our family '48 Pontiac was a hell of a car with "3 on the tree" and enough room in the back seat for......whatever. The good old days.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

The first car I ever drove was a '48 Pontiac with a straight 8. I'll bet a few on this forum ever heard of this configuration since straight 8's have not been around since the 1950's. Since I was curious, I Googled it and found out that in the 50's Mercedes put a straight 8 in a formula one car and in the 300SL.

Our family '48 Pontiac was a hell of a car with "3 on the tree" and enough room in the back seat for......whatever. The good old days.

Just the very different 300SLR. Nothing like inboard discs to cool your inline 8.

[IMG]https://www.mdiecast.com/pictures/_u...639_M-076d.jpg[/IMG]

Oops, make that drums. Got ahead of myself.
[IMG]https://www.supercars.net/blog/wp-co...SLR-5-1024.jpg[/IMG]

[bobert]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

A flat 6 is nothing more than an inline six laid down flat, which is why flat sixes are low vibration designs.

Nice post - just this one statement that isn't quite accurate - a flat six is actually a lot different than an inline six laid down flat - if an inline six was laid down flat, it'd have all six cylinders pointing/firing in the same direction, rather than three cylinders pointing in one direction and the other three in the opposite direction. It's also much shorter in length, as you pointed out a little later:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The block is shorter because the cylinder spacing can be almost halved, but the crank pin positioning is the same as far as cancelling vibrations.