Mercedes, Jaguar switching to L6, Ford doing opposite

[FalconXV]

What I'd really like to see is a very thorough comparison, either by an American publication (MT, Jalopnik, R&T) or one of ours- between the 3.5 Ecoboost and Duratecs versus our straight sixes, sometime before the latter dies.

It's a very long shot but if the straight six had better fundamental qualities (noise, idle, moving parts); and the data showed it would could be less costly to make it a class leader then perhaps Dearborn could take the dies somewhere and continue its development instead of the larger V6.

It just seems ironic that the engine with the superior layout dies , while Jaguar and Merc see the error of their ways and are switching back.
Just a thought, maybe we could start a petition for the comparo- it would get noticed and, while a long shot, stranger things have happened.

[Crazy Dazz]

When was the last (or even the first) time you saw a FWD with an I6???

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

When was the last (or even the first) time you saw a FWD with an I6???

Forget an FWD I6, how about a FWD I8 -
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...-drive-program

Ford Australia mucked about with the T Drive concept back in the EA days, there was a drivetrain pic floating around of the EA I6 in a 'T config' too, stuffed if I could find it though :(

Edit, found these pics of a TBird with what looks like the EA I6 -

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Forget an FWD I6, how about a FWD I8 -
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...-drive-program

Ford Australia mucked about with the T Drive concept back in the EA days, there was a drivetrain pic floating around of the EA I6 in a 'T config' too, stuffed if I could find it though :(

Edit, found these pics of a TBird with what looks like the EA I6 -
image

image

Cadillac Seville STS - FWD V8

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Forget an FWD I6, how about a FWD I8 -
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...-drive-program

Ford Australia mucked about with the T Drive concept back in the EA days, there was a drivetrain pic floating around of the EA I6 in a 'T config' too, stuffed if I could find it though :(

Edit, found these pics of a TBird with what looks like the EA I6 -
image

image

That T-bird grille looks like the AU ute egg crate grille

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Forget an FWD I6, how about a FWD I8 -
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...-drive-program

Ford Australia mucked about with the T Drive concept back in the EA days, there was a drivetrain pic floating around of the EA I6 in a 'T config' too, stuffed if I could find it though :(

T drive Engine, sounds problematic, perhaps that could be why it never took off..

[FalconXV]

Austin Kimberley, Austin Freeway X6, Daewoo Tosca/Holden Epica, Volvo S60, S80 ( two generations), LR Freelander, Alec Issigonis' 9x prototype.

All the Fwd models are switching to Turbo fours anyway. I'm talking about F-series, explorer etc which has large enough volume to justify such a move. And then it would open up doors for Lincoln etc- they need every head start they can get, after finally realising they took the wrong approach.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by FalconXV

I'm talking about F-series, explorer etc which has large enough volume to justify such a move.

Well I guess Mercedes and Jaguar must be chasing a more sophisticated breed of Redneck for their pickup trucks...

It's not rocket science.
An I6 is inherently better balanced, so gives you a better starting platform, but modern V6's can overcome that, up to a point.
a V6 is cheaper to make, lighter, more compact, can be mounted transversely for FWD applications.
Even in RWD applications they allow a much more compact design than an I6, and importantly can share a platform with I4's and V8s.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

a V6 is cheaper to make.

BMW have based their new family of engines around a common 500cc cylinder layout. This allows them to scale engine capacity up or down to suit the application. So 1.5 I3, 2.0 I4 and 3.0 I6 can be made of the same production line reducing complexity and cost when compared to building separate "families" of engines. Those I3 and I4 engines are being fitted to both transverse FWD vehicles (Mini, 2 Series Active Tourer) and RWD vehicles (1 series, 3 series ect).
I can only assume Mercedes and Jaguar have similar intentions with their new engines.

[FalconXV]

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...t-six-revival/

The V8 engine has long ruled the world of luxury cars, thanks to glass-smooth grunt and a delicious howl under duress. But tightening fuel-economy regulations are encouraging the use of smaller piston counts, and on the standardized tests that automakers use for fuel-efficiency ratings, the average downsized, turbocharged V6 uses less fuel than an equally powerful V8. That may seem win-win, but don't be won over. Engineers don't fantasize about V6s—accountants do. The V6 layout has proliferated because it "packages well," a sexless industry term that's code for "easy to cram into a variety of engine compartments."

It's also incredibly easy to build a V6 from an existing V8. Jaguar, for example, doesn't even bother changing the outside dimensions of its block. The company's V6, available in every new Jag sold in the U.S., is simply its V8 with shorter cylinder heads and balancing weights on the crankshaft where the last two piston throws should be.

It works, but not without compromises. Like all V8-derived V6s, Jaguar's has a 90-degree angle between its cylinder banks. That works well for a V8, but it's the wrong angle for a six, because it means the engine will fire at uneven intervals, and odd-fire engines run rough and make terrible noises. A V6 will fire at perfectly spaced intervals (read: smoothly) with its banks splayed to 120 degrees, but that's too wide to fit in most cars. Halving that angle keeps the even firing order and, with a couple of crank counterweights, it allows for smooth running. Toyota's ubiquitous 3.5-liter V-6 is a 60, and it's as creamy as they come.

But a 60-degree six negates the economic advantage of basing the engine off an existing V8. So luxury brands tend to stick with the 90-degree architecture and apply various tricks to make it work for a V6. The big one is using split, offset crankpins. These are impossible to fully understand without a physics degree and a stiff drink, but in essence, they slightly offset opposing pistons, forcing them to move in such a way that the engine fires evenly. But these are difficult to engineer and expensive to manufacture. Plus, the 90-degree V6 usually has an engine-driven balance shaft to prevent the whole complicated mess from vibrating itself apart. All of this adds expense, hurts efficiency, and requires royalty payments to Rube Goldberg.

That lack of internal dissonance gives the same perfect balance as a V12.

That complexity, however, masks the problem instead of solving it. The mass of the pistons moving up and down in an internal combustion engine creates enormous forces, which cause the engine to vibrate. The most effective way to reduce that vibration is to use the force of one piston to cancel out the force of another; in other words, as piston A moves in one direction (up), piston B moves in the exact opposite direction (down) at exactly the same time. But that's only possible for engines with an even number of pistons in a single plane, like an inline-four-cylinder. When you have an odd number of cylinders, as with an inline-three, the force moving in one direction (say, up) is almost always imbalanced compared with the force moving in the opposite direction (down). This makes the engine rock back and forth. Now think about a V6, which is essentially two three-cylinder engines joined at the crank—it's like having a pair of amped-up pit bulls on a shared leash. And that typically means a whole lot of unpleasant mechanical noise, to boot.

You can avoid the drama by arranging the pistons in one line. A straight-six doesn't need split crankpins, balance shafts, or big counterweights, because each of its cylinders has a twin that's doing the opposite thing, at the same time and in the same plane, canceling out the other's forces. That lack of internal dissonance gives the same perfect balance as a V12. There's a reason museum-piece marques like Rolls-Royce, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, Aston Martin, and Alfa Romeo earned their reputations with inline-sixes.

At the moment, BMW remains the sole champion of the straight-six. Munich engineers admit that they regularly develop and test prototype V6s, per internal policy, but say the results don't come close to meeting company noise and harshness standards. Mercedes-Benz must not have such stringent benchmarks. Once renowned for its silken inline-sixes, Stuttgart phased out those engines and began building V6s out of its V8s during the dark, cost-cutting days of the marque's DaimlerChrysler ownership. As the sting of that failed merger continues to fade, so will the company's coarse, complex, 90-degree V6, which is being retired in favor of a 60-degree unit. This stopgap engine, which fits into the vee-focused packaging of Mercedes's current lineup, is noticeably smoother than the 90-degree unit, but its exhaust still sounds like Fran Drescher on Spanish fly—not the voice you want your luxury car to sing with.

That's likely one reason Mercedes is rumored to be developing a new family of inline-sixes. And because accountants, not engineers, usually run the show these days, you can be sure there's an economic incentive as well. As tightening fuel-economy standards encourage four- and six-cylinder engines where sixes and eights once lived, an inline layout becomes the norm and it makes financial sense to develop a modular family of inline-threes, fours, and sixes. Add the straight-six's other cost-savings (half as many cylinder heads, camshafts, and turbos), and suddenly, tougher emissions mandates have the unintended consequence of unifying the dreams of engineers and bean counters alike. It's a dream aligned in one straight line.

[Express]

BMW makes a nice I6

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Express

BMW makes a nice I6

Even the diesel one is a good engine too.

[FPV GTHO]

I think Ford are a few steps behind Mercedes and Jaguar when it comes to going back to straight sixes, such as having suitable passenger vehicles that would demand an I6.

With the 2.7 Ecoboost coming I'd even be willing to bet Ford will stop making their large capacity 6's altogether, unless they keep the 3.5 to replace all future V8's.

[malazn mafia]

Could probably forgive MoFoCo for axeing falcon. But discarding the I6/i6t would be the ultimate insult to Aussie ingenuity..

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Could probably forgive MoFoCo for axeing falcon. But discarding the I6/i6t would be the ultimate insult to Aussie ingenuity..

In it's current form what other application could the I6 (Barra) be used?
It's a physically large (and heavy) engine and would limited to application.

[Express]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Could probably forgive MoFoCo for axeing falcon. But discarding the I6/i6t would be the ultimate insult to Aussie ingenuity..

Originally Posted by Wretched

In it's current form what other application could the I6 (Barra) be used?
It's a physically large (and heavy) engine and would limited to application.

Add to the mix the local engine falls far too short for the euro emission standards used in many other countries.

[Kieron]

Late 60's Toronado (Cadillacs from the same era got this too) V8/FWD -



Some weird stuff out there!

[Raptor]

I love the I6

But the current 4.0l is just too big and too heavy to have a future in passenger cars/CUVs/SUVs as we all chase efficiency.

I still think it should have found a home in the nose of the F150 (or smaller F100) though. Efficiency isn't always the highest priority

[Eaturbo]

I reckon the i6 would be cheaper to build than the v6 as well. 2 cam shafts not 4, only one timing chain or belt not two. One single head casting not 2, more simple exhaust manifold and no need for a crossover. I could be wrong but this would have to mean cheaper build cost

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Eaturbo

I reckon the i6 would be cheaper to build than the v6 as well. 2 cam shafts not 4, only one timing chain or belt not two. One single head casting not 2, more simple exhaust manifold and no need for a crossover. I could be wrong but this would have to mean cheaper build cost

Nahhh...

one timing belt on a V6, (all depends on the valve technology)
one head casting, both heads usually identical,
no need for a crossover exhaust manifold,
smaller length crankshaft, smaller rotating mass.



instead of saying Ford is behind Mercedes and Jaguar it just might be that they are well ahead.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by zilo

instead of saying Ford is behind Mercedes and Jaguar it just might be that they are well ahead.

Well ahead in building cars to a (cheaper) price to increase their own profits at the direct expense of driver enjoyment? Yeah, maybe, probably.

[Express]

Audi readying to drop V8s


New V6 developed in conjunction with Porsche to power Audi performance models.

Toby Hagon
August 5 2015


Audi is looking to replace its current V8 - which is used in the RS4 - with a turbocharged V6.

Audi is developing a new turbocharged V6 engine to be used in a range of models, including some high performance RS variants.

The new engine, referred to internally as Kovomo, is expected to be used in a more affordable version of the second generation R8 supercar, which arrives in Australia in the second quarter of 2016 - initially only with V10 engines.

The new V6 engine is also likely to feature in upcoming high performance RS models, including possibly the RS4. The RS4 and V8-powered R8 previously shared the same non-turbo V8.

"We are planning another engine (for the R8)," said the man in charge of marketing for the R8, Stevan Holischka, confirming the new R8 would not get an eight-cylinder option.

The new V6 engine will get turbochargers for extra pull, especially in the low- to mid-rev range. It's not known whether the engine will use an electric turbocharger; Audi is developing an electric turbo that will work in unison with a traditional exhaust-driven turbo with the aim of reducing lag and improving driveability and performance. The electric turbo is expected to debut on a diesel engine.

The new generation V6 petrol engine is also being developed in conjunction with Porsche for use in some of its models.

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/a...05-giruok.html

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by Express

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/a...05-giruok.html

Tabloid sensationalist headline ?
In reality They are dropping a V8 in entry level version and replacing it with a V6.
The real R8 is still V10 standard :-) .

[zilo]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Well ahead in building cars to a (cheaper) price to increase their own profits at the direct expense of driver enjoyment? Yeah, maybe, probably.

A driver enjoys a straight 6 more than a V6?

I find that comment quite silly .

[SensationFG8]

Originally Posted by zilo

A driver enjoys a straight 6 more than a V6?

I find that comment quite silly .

That's a bit harsh, the BMW m3 i6 was widely regarded as a great drivers engine. Many were upset when other power plants made it into that car.

Of course there are some nice v6 engines too, but I can't think of too many that get the same praise as some of the i6's throughout motoring history.

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by zilo

A driver enjoys a straight 6 more than a V6?

I find that comment quite silly .

Toyota certainly went backwards from the bulletproof 2JZ to the weak 2GR..

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by zilo

A driver enjoys a straight 6 more than a V6?

I find that comment quite silly .

Quite silly hey? So to take it further it must not matter what engine is under the hood at all. 3 cylinders, 4, 6, 8, 12... doesn't matter to the driver. Inline, V, boxer? Configuration obviously doesn't matter either, just silly to even think about it really. Right?

The inline 6 is an inherently superior configuration compared to the V6. Compare the Holden V6 to the Ford I6 - which do you think the driver would enjoy more, all other things being equal?

[mik]

the big problem with the inline 6 is the package, its a long bugger, the v engine in comparison is just so much easier to fit in a small engine bay.

[Express]

Originally Posted by mik

the big problem with the inline 6 is the package, its a long bugger, the v engine in comparison is just so much easier to fit in a small engine bay.

You have a point and you’d think an inline 6 would be longer than a V8 as well which made me wonder why the nose on my Merc looks longer than my BMW so I measured the engines plus a couple of others.

The measurements are rough but accurate enough for argument sake to show there is not much in it when it comes to a V8 comparison.

BMW I6 measured 75cm
Merc V8 measured 80cm.
Commodore V8 measured 70cm
Cleveland V8 measured 70cm to water pump
Cleveland V8 measured 80cm to fan

It would be interesting to know the length of the Ford six and the Commodore V6 as a further comparison.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Express

You have a point and you’d think an inline 6 would be longer than a V8 as well which made me wonder why the nose on my Merc looks longer than my BMW so I measured the engines plus a couple of others.

The measurements are rough but accurate enough for argument sake to show there is not much in it when it comes to a V8 comparison.

BMW I6 measured 75cm
Merc V8 measured 80cm.
Commodore V8 measured 70cm
Cleveland V8 measured 70cm to water pump
Cleveland V8 measured 80cm to fan

It would be interesting to know the length of the Ford six and the Commodore V6 as a further comparison.

i can tell you right now , once or twice a year i have to help the neighbor across the road with their commy v6 that has starting problems, and it is diminutive/tiny/compact compared to the falcon six, there is just so much room in the commy engine bay it is ridiculous.