:-) I'm happy with the cheeky growl from my 3 Cyl 1L Focus.
:-) I'm happy with the cheeky growl from my 3 Cyl 1L Focus.
Nedavno Mrcheerful napisa:
So does my '87 BMW E30:
There seemed to be a lot of basic spec US vehicles around in the 60s and early 70s. I did wonder if they were brought over by US airmen, etc, stationed here. And sold when they went home.
Yuk, that's nuts. For posers only. For that you don't need a car at all, you can just sit at home and turn up the hifi. For toddlers...
I'm trying to relax in my car. You can hardly hear the engine in my
4cyl 200hp 2.3 saab, that's what I like, that's my ideal. Maybe because it's balancer shafts, how many engines have balancer shafts these days?
It's right up there with the turbo dump valve Ph-tish sound effect box.
Anything that is over 2L should have.
If it doesn't its fit only for pickup truck or suv or other commercial vehicles.
You don't need them on a proper engine.
It doesn't need them, but it makes the 'proper engine' even smoother.
The saab 2.3 had balancer shafts from the start, saab also introduced them on the 2.0 engines from 1994 Model year. I had a 1993 2.0 Saab without, but my 2.3 is a whisper, it completely lacks the motorway resonance in comparison.
I don't know about the modern saabs, they use essentially Vauxhall engines, sadly with timing belts instead of tinimg chain of the olds.
Right. V6 has a rocking couple, each end moves in a circular motion, 180 degree out of phase. The nose dips and the other end rises, the nose goes left the arse goes right. It needs heavy balance weights on crank and for perfection a balance shaft. As with I4 up to about 500cc/cyl they can get away with just the crank weights. But as with I4 makers are now going to ~600cc/cyl without. (better engineering of mounts?)
But I think he's saying get an I6 or H6. They have perfect primary and secondary balance so don't need balance shafts. At the expense of cost and size.
When I had the old 2.0 LPT saab I was smug that it didn't have balancer shafts, because it adds complexity and supposed to sap efficiency.
However, it turns out that my present 2.3 turbo auto has about the same consumption of 35 mpg, so everything is well. However, the 4-gear only auto can be caught out at about 40mph, so somtimes need to push the auto into "3" at that speed. Even the manual recommends this. Interestingly enough, saab also made a 3.0 V6 "Griffin" model with almost the same power from a NA GM engine, but less torque 270 Nm /3300 against 323 Nm /1800rpm for the 2.3 turbo.
I don't consider a large four cylinder a proper engine. ;-)
IIRC reliability issues with the shafts, too, and the general "wisdom" over on the Saab forums being to leave the shafts out.
It will do nicely, almost silent at motorway speed, and some nutcases have tuned this engine to over 600 bhp.
Or could have been from bulk used car shipping, as new car turnover in the US were high in 50-60, but nevertheless the cars were solid. Style changed quickly, and the affluent US customers wanted the latest. I remember that all taxis in Istanbul ~1970 or so were solid old american iron. You jumped into such a taxi in Istanbul, but the driver waited until more arrived so they could share the fee...
Make your own.
1: chose car. 2: chose engine. 3: make it fit.MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.