$74,000

Page 2 of 5  
Tha Ghee wrote:


Um, why? 12 cylinders is 12 cylinders. 6 liters is 6 liters. There is nothing inherently "better", performance-wise, about a V-layout vs. a W-layout, and the W has advantages in terms of package size.
-- Mike Smith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a V-8 the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine on the planet. when you take to buzzy VR-6s and put them at a weird angle they need to put different dampeners on them when a V-12 wouldn't need this appliance.
yes there are many differences in terms of performance for V-12 vs. W-12 just look at the charts.
if you look I said besides packing efficiency what are the major benefits of a "W" engine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suspect a good straight six engine such as a BMW one would be smoother than a V12, purely because the pistons are all moving in one plane and can therefore cancel out each other's momentum more easily than they can in a Vee engine.
--
Toby

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Toby Groves wrote:

An inline 6 is the engine configuration with the fewest cylinders that can be perfectly balanced. A V-8 can be perfectly balanced, and a V-12 can as well. If you can get an I-6 perfectly balanced, then you can also perfectly balance 2 I-6 engines joined together in one block.
I'm not sure if a W-12 can be perfectly balanced, as it's a configuration that is newer than my textbooks. And I think other configurations can be as well, such as a V-16.
However, just because the configurations I listed above _can_ be perfectly balanced, that does not always mean that every engine with those layouts actually are.
Engine designers can use a whole bag of tricks to make engines that are not inherently smooth feel quite good to the car owner. I-4, I-5, V-5, V-6, I-8, V-10 can use balance shafts to quell the noise. And for engines with a V or W configuration, designers can use the proper angle between the cylinder banks. 60 degrees is best for a V-6 - when GM converted it's cars from using V-8 engines (which are best balanced with a 90 degree configuration) to 6 cylinders in the 1980s, they didn't want to throw away the machinery that bored the cylinders out. So they made 90 degree V-6s, which were quite rough. That was one of the factors that gave rise to the increasing market share that foreign manufacturers now enjoy.
The VR-6 (I've owned two), with a 15 degree cylinder angle is quite a smooth engine, because its angle is close to the zero of the I-6. It's not perfect, but it is smoother than the Japanese I-4 I now use.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most V6s are 90 degrees, AFAIK.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Grauman wrote:

Many American V-6's _are_ 90 degrees for the reason I stated in my earlier post including the very popular GM 3.8 liter, now in it's 3rd or 4th generation. That engine was fitted with balance shafts in the mid '90s and it ran pretty smoothly in a rental car I drove.
But most modern V-6 engines that are developed from scratch will have a 60 degree angle. Even modular engine families, such as the one Ford developed in 1996 (which spawned a V-6, several V-8s, and a V-10) use a 60 degree angle for the 6 and a 90 degree angle for the others (even though 72 degrees is ideal for a V-10). http://www.mustangheaven.com/2005mustang/powert.htm Honda's 240hp V-6 is 60 degrees and is used in the Accord, Odyssey, Pilot, others? The 3.5L V-6 Nissan/Infinity puts into almost everything is 60 degrees.
I may be mistaken by saying that the I-6 was the configuration with the fewest cylinders that is inherently balanced. While writing this response I found a site that says all boxer engines, even the H-4 are perfectly balanced because the cylinders move in the same plane at the same time. But I think the H4 has second order harmonics that make the I-6 smoother. I do know that the H-4 in my WRX, while quiet and powerful, isn't as smooth at idle as the I-6 engines I've test driven.
By the way, this page http://www.ukcar.com/sframe.htm?/features/tech/engine.htm is pretty interesting.
And this page http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/engine/smooth1.htm has some of the physics behind it. The 5th page of the article has info specific to the VR6, W8, and W12 engines.
For a fairly in-depth engineering explanation, check this site out http://www.thrashercharged.com/tech_htm/adv_engine_design.shtm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I seriously dislike the GM 3.8. I've driven an N/A version as well as two supercharged units (a 2001 Bonneville SSEi and a 2004 Grand Prix GTP) and disliked both. The supercharged version has a ton of torque but it did very little to help get quick 0-60 times from the bloated Bonneville. The 3.1 in the Malibu was worse, although I've not driven the new version. But 170Hp from a 3.1 litre V6 is stupid to say the least.

Does this include the unit (2.5 litres?) used in the Contour or just the 3.0 litre used in the Taurus? I always liked the Contour, for what it was. I thought it was Ford's best sedan with the possible exception on the 2nd Gen. V6 powered SHO.

The Accord is a 3.0 litre. The Odyssey and Pilot have a 3.5 litre engine, as does the 3.5RL, but the Acura's is different. I drove a Pilot and liked the 3.5, a friend's 2004 Accord is nice too, but a little more torque could be useful.

The H-4 is the WRX felt a bit gruff to me. But the boxer-sixes in Porsches are made of automotive dreams. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The engine family I referred to is the one used in the Mustang and their truck lines. The duratec engines, which started with the 2.5 60 degree V-6 in the Contour, and was expanded to 3.0 in the Taurus and the 3.4 60 degree V-8 (a 2.5 with 2 extra cylinders) in the last SHO. The 60 degree V-8 pretty much killed the SHO - along with its high price. There's a new duratec 3.5L V-6 coming out within a year.

You're right. But they're all 60 degree V-6s.

If I coulda I woulda... 'course I tried to get into a used '00 S4, but the new '02 WRX fit so much better into my budget.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yuck. They could've gotten the same power output and better fuel economy from a 3.0 litre motor. A twin-cam, multi-valve setup would've been nice too.

That car was pitiful. An overpriced P.O.S. as far as I'm concerned, not to mention ugly and not particularly fast if memory serves me.

I hadn't heard about that. I know that something based on the Futura concept and built on the Mazda 6 platform is set to replace the Taurus and Sable. A 3.5 would be nice, if it's done right. But even the 3.0 in the 6 would be an improvement over the current Taurus mill.

I came very near getting a 944 Turbo instead of my VW. But the high maintenance and insurance costs put me off and the 968 would've been the same scenario with a higher buy-in price. I thought the WRX was a great bang for the buck but I thought the VW was more comfortable and already more than quick enough to get me in trouble. I've been pondering buying a Grand National from a local guy who's selling his, but I think it'd be a stretch and I fear the car would spend most of the time in the garage thanks to gas, insurance and registration costs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

from a 3.0 litre motor. A twin-cam, multi-valve setup would've been nice too.

concept
A 3.5

maintenance and insurance costs put me off and the 968 would've been the same scenario with a higher buy-in price. I thought the WRX was a great bang for the buck but I thought the VW was more comfortable and already more than quick enough to get me in trouble. I've been pondering buying a Grand National from a local guy who's selling his, but I think it'd be a stretch and I fear the car would spend most of the time in the garage thanks to gas, insurance and registration costs.
the reason the big 3 try "not" to use OHC is because the like low slung hoods and this is hard to achieve with a OHC arrangement. the V-60 SHO 2nd gen Taurus was very fast, it had faster 30 foot times than a Mustang.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ford has been using an SOHC design on the Mustang version of their 4.6 litre V8 since the mid 1990s, if memory serves me. And they use a 32-valve, DOHC version in the Cobra and the Mercury Marauder. The Navigator also gets a DOHC, 32 valve version of the 5.4 litre Triton V8 found in the Expedition.

I assume you mean 60-foot times. And I have a feeling that a 5.0 litre Cobra fro the same era would give the SHO a good run for it's money. I wouldn't call the car "very fast" but with a 0-60 time around 6.9 seconds it was definitely quicker than most other cars of it's size, type and price at new. Keep in mind though that the SHO engine was largely designed by Yamaha, not Ford. And most of their best turbocharged work has been the result of Cosworth's hand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

litre V8 since the mid 1990s, if memory serves me. And they use a 32-valve, DOHC version in the Cobra and the Mercury Marauder. The Navigator also gets a DOHC, 32 valve version of the 5.4 litre Triton V8 found in the Expedition.

than a Mustang.

Cobra
call
definitely
mind
most of their best turbocharged work has been the result of Cosworth's hand.
but look at the hood design of all the cars you mentioned, they have high hoods compared to other cars like the Camaro/Firebird.
the 1st gen, second series had better 60 ft time, that's pretty good for a 3500 sedan with only less than 300 HP.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

very
in the

a
3.0
Gen. V6 powered SHO.

as
the
are
GM uses these engines for their toque and good emissions. like Byron said engine engineers do crazy things. The Pilot and MDX have the same engine, so do the 3.2 Accord and T/CL. the Por. is a H-6 which was explained to me as being different because of the two extra cylinders
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The torque output from the Malibu's 3.1 litre and the N/A variant of the 3.8 have never been great. But it's enough to make point to point transporation workable. But their overall power output and fuel consumption are less than ideal. A twin-cam 3.0 litre utilizing a multi-valve head and a basic variable valve timing system could've yielded the same or better power output as the N/A 3.8 and been smoother to boot, not to mention, it probably would've gotten better fuel economy. The Opel/Saab sourced 3.0 litre in the Saturn L300 is actually their best V6, IMO.

No, the North American version of the Accord runs a 3.0 litre with 240Hp. The Acura TL gets a 3.2 litre version with 270Hp, both engines have VTEC. The European/Asian Accord, sold as the TSX in North America has a 2.4 litre, i-VTEC equipped I-4 with 200Hp.

Porsche uses a "flat" or "boxer" six, but it has the same number of cyllinders as any other 6-cylinder engine. Wanna guess how many?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Grauman wrote:

I certainly liked it in my LS2. I'd be curious, though, if the new 3.5L in the Malibu is better or not.
-- Mike Smith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I couldn't say, but I can tell you that the 3.1 was crap. The L300's 3.0 litre motor was/is a good one, albeit, a little more power would be nice. I always thought the Catera had a pretty good engine too (another Opel design), but apparently it suffered electrical problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

3.8
transporation
than
variable
the N/A 3.8 and been smoother to boot, not to mention, it probably would've gotten

The Acura TL gets a 3.2 litre version with 270Hp, both engines have VTEC. The

i-VTEC equipped I-4 with 200Hp.

cyllinders
the coupe Accord has the 3.2.
I know that, but Subie uses a H-4. they just now got H-6, and aren't using it as much as they can.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tha Ghee wrote:

Not in the US it doesn't.
http://www.hondacars.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName cord+Coupe&bhcp=1&BrowserDetected=True
-- Mike Smith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No it doesn't. Both sedan and coupe versions share the same 3.0 litre block. The NSX and TL are the only models currently produced by Honda/Acura with 3.2 litre motors. Why is it you refuse to check your facts Ghee? Try using the web once and awhile.

You don't know anything, otherwise you wouldn't have claimed that two "flat-sixes" have adifferent numbers of cylinders. Subaru has had the H6 since the 2000 Model Year, it's not brand new. And they aren't making much use of it because the 2.5 litre turbochnarged H-4 is a superior motor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

using
since
of it because the 2.5 litre turbochnarged H-4 is a superior motor.
what the hell are you talking about I never said the two 6's are different I said the 4 and 6 are different start reading. you know nothing about cars the H-6 is their feature engine, the H-4 turbo has three different levels so you can't say it's superior. if they put twin turbos on the H-6 I think it'll do well, look at Por.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.