V6 or I6 Engine

[mcnews]

Well let's hope it doesn't have the same firing order as the Commonwhore V6. God those things are horrible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V6

[guzzis3]

Well I studied engineering 20 years ago so I can't remember off the top of my head, but I do recall that regardless of firing order if you take 2 engines of the same capacity, piston/rod weight and matched/balanced to the same extent a V6 will always vibrate more. I should clarify when I say balanced I don't mean balanced the same way. The factors for a V6 are different than an I6. Hence "all else being equal".

While the ford i6 isn't perfect it doesn't suck and it's pecularities are well known and easily addressed.

I'd also like to say, when I post to these threads I'm just trying to be helpful. I am not however prepared to spend hours re reading my text books and writing a proper cited essay on the topic. Your quite right to pull me up, because my wording is sometimes less than perfect, but my idea is I give you a clue and if you really care you go read up on it. If that's not good enough I'll just keep quiet. Also note I'm not cranky or anything, just making the point.

Edit: Should also point out vibration is a complex area. Waay too much to know for this forum.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Well let's hope it doesn't have the same firing order as the Commonwhore V6. God those things are horrible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V6

Great link at the bottom to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...configurations

lots of reading there as to why in a RAW form the V6 is not as well balanced as the I6.

But to make a fun comparison Compare similar sized V6 from Merc against I6 from BMW.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

Great link at the bottom to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...configurations

lots of reading there as to why in a RAW form the V6 is not as well balanced as the I6.

But to make a fun comparison Compare similar sized V6 from Merc against I6 from BMW.

Yes.. there are plenty of examples of V6 engines throughout the automotive industry that lay rest to the popular belief that all V6's are coarse or "vibrate"....

[guzzis3]

Those articles are a good start. Unfortunately they are just a start. You need to look at for example losses and cost due to balance shafts and other secondary mechanisms.

I should also mention that a flat 6 is a nice thing, but I think of them as something else to the V6.

I would be surprised if anyone had built a non 180 degree 4 liter V 6 that without the complication, expense and power losses of a balance shaft or complex crank had achieved a very smooth result. I am prepared to be proven wrong though.

[4Vman]

Most V6's are under 4l..

Mercedes 3.5L engine:
Cylinder arrangement/number V6
Displacement (3498cc)
Rated output (224kW at 6500rpm)
Ive driven a SLK350 and its velvet smooth...

Drove a V6 Passat the other day too, surprising amount of go, and velvet smooth too...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

350Z has the same ADR fuel consumption as the XR6T and less torque than the XT.

Great engine for the application but it would be no match in a fleet car.

True. 350Z VQ35HR 358Nm, FG I6 391Nm.

But that is comparing a 3.5 litre capacity to 4 litre. The V6 actually produces more torque per cc than the I6.

The point I was making was that technologically the V6 is not necessarily inferior to the I6. The issues of Australian made and suitability for the type of driving done in this country are a whole other issue.

What if Ford did not import any engines for falcons and made them all here? Would that be a good idea?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by guzzis3

Well I studied engineering 20 years ago so I can't remember off the top of my head, but I do recall that regardless of firing order if you take 2 engines of the same capacity, piston/rod weight and matched/balanced to the same extent a V6 will always vibrate more. I should clarify when I say balanced I don't mean balanced the same way. The factors for a V6 are different than an I6. Hence "all else being equal".

While the ford i6 isn't perfect it doesn't suck and it's pecularities are well known and easily addressed.

I'd also like to say, when I post to these threads I'm just trying to be helpful. I am not however prepared to spend hours re reading my text books and writing a proper cited essay on the topic. Your quite right to pull me up, because my wording is sometimes less than perfect, but my idea is I give you a clue and if you really care you go read up on it. If that's not good enough I'll just keep quiet. Also note I'm not cranky or anything, just making the point.

Edit: Should also point out vibration is a complex area. Waay too much to know for this forum.

From what I remember form TAFE (also a long time ago) you are correct. It has to do with the number of big end journals with most V configuration motors having two con rods per journal (V6 has 3, V8 has 4, V12 has 6 etc). An I6 has 6 big end journals and a lesser angle between the spacing of those journals, giving less vibration. I distinctly remember our lecturer stated that without the use of aids, just the engine layout characteristics, the V8 due to the same issue is not as smooth as the I6, I4 are smoother than V4, I12 would be smoother than V12, I am sure you get the picture.

Yes there are some very smooth V6's, we test drove a Chrysler 300c V6 and that was way smoother than a commodore V6. The down side is due to the design limitations for the V6 in NVH properties, the manufacturer has to employ technologies such as hydraulic engine mounts and balance shafts. These crank driven balance shafts cause parasitic losses from the output of the motor, just think about why we all fit underdrives to illustrate the point, to decrease parasitic losses. I can not think of a V6 that is main stream production (discounting hipo sports and turbo etc) that compares to the Ford I6 for torque. The highest torque V6 I can think of is the Merc 3.5L which although to its credit achieves 350nm (ford 390nm) on half a litre less capacity, has to use DI and a host of other technologies to do it. Most of the mainstream V6's are 3.5L and achieve in the realm of 330nm, compare to the BMW I6 that achieves 315nm out of 3L.

To me it is plain to see that for a 6, the I6 is the hands down winner for ouput and NVH characteristics. Its downfalls now are it is not freindly to low bonnet lines, short overhangs and FWD to name a few. The V configuration has never been due to power production or NVH characteristics, it has always been about fitting large numbers of cylinders in small spaces, this is true for 6,8,10,12 and 16 cylinders. All through history this has been the compromise of lots of cylinders and shorter cars (just think of the length of the bonnet on the old boys like some of the straight 8's).

[drew`SEVNT5]

V6's can be great: Alfa V6, 350z, etc etc

V6's can be bad: Ecotec/Alloytec, etc.





aaaand on the flipside....


I6's can be great: BMW, Nissan RB, BA-onwards Ford etc

I6's can be bad: 202, EA 3.2, etc etc

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

V6's can be great: Alfa V6, 350z, etc etc

V6's can be bad: Ecotec/Alloytec, etc.





aaaand on the flipside....


I6's can be great: BMW, Nissan RB, BA-onwards Ford etc

I6's can be bad: 202, EA 3.2, etc etc

Interesting you mention the 202 as bad, one of the leaders of the 6 cylinder market between 1971 through to 1985, including some Bathurst wins.

I see your point though, no set rule that applies to all and that is so true. Even in severely compromised configurations, you will find a diamond in the rough.

[guzzis3]

A smaller engine will tend to get smoother all else being equal (there's that phrase again). If your considering the merits of one layout against another you should eliminate all other contributing factors. I took the question to be V6 vs I6, not mercedes vs ford or 3.5 vs 4.0. At the larger displacement the vibration issue becomes more noticable.

Specific HP is no mystery. The falcon engine is set up to deliver adequate power and torque with longevity. I would be surprised if an engine tuned to deliver maximum hp at 6500 rpm will last as long as one tuned to deliver it at lower rpm, again all else being equal. To make a higher revving engine last as long you need to go to better metals and that usually increases cost. It would be a trivial thing to slot a F1 engine into every production car, but who would pay the price ?

Your wadeing into the sorts of decisions people like me have to make every day. I'm a design/research engineer. Every design decision no matter how trivial is a balance of many conflicting factors. Manufacturing cost, customer expectations, all sorts of priorities. Ford and Holden have some outstanding f*wits working for them who have produced some spectacular failures, but overall the Falcon is a good design that serves it's intended purpose well. Pity most people don't seem to realise it...

By the way I don't wish to imply "I'm an engineer and I know everything". I know enough to know that I very much don't know everything.I'm prepared to believe I'm wrong, but you have to offer some proof.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Interesting you mention the 202 as bad, one of the leaders of the 6 cylinder market between 1971 through to 1985, including some Bathurst wins.

I see your point though, no set rule that applies to all and that is so true. Even in severely compromised configurations, you will find a diamond in the rough.

That's correct, there are good and bad examples of most engine configurations, you cant lump every one in the same basket, hey just look at the harley V twin V a Ducati, Honda or Suzuki V twin??!!
Lets see what Ford do with the V6, it will certainly be interesting...

[FTE217]

Just a heads up I had just come back from the US after visiting one of our suppliers who earlier this year gained approval for their part on the FOA Duratec motor, Falcon and Terri.
No orders as yet they advise me.....I agree with 4Vman its premature condemming the V6 before she even turns a cog in a Ford here.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Paxton

It may turn out to be cheaper to assemble the V6 here in Australia rather than the I6, as with the current sales levels, it doesn't make sense to keep the I6. The V6 can be built here as is, however the I6 needs modifications to get it through Euro IV, which costs something Ford doesn't have - Money. Ford Australia could even cast the motor here.

This could be a possibility, as last year Ford was looking into upgrading the broady plant to build the engine there and moving some of the plant to Geelong.
With the doller in the toilet, this may be considered feasible.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by flappist

Why is it that everyone thinks that the V configuration is so bad?

According to what I have read on AFF it is underpowered, unreliable, vibrates, emasculating and makes baby jesus cry UNLESS of course it has 8 cylinders in which case it is powerful, reliable, thunders, empowering and makes ricers quake in their boots.

Funny thing is that my little bog standard 3.5 litre V6 makes more power than ANY Falcon I6 and any Falcon 5 litre V8.

V6s can't be that bad can they?

X2

The big reason why people think the V6 design will be so crap is because they think the Holden V6 is.

I think everyone needs to get the over it :

[boss-290]

V6 Fwd Ftl!

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by auslandau

My reason is the fact that these are made here, if its a V6 it wont be ...... another impact to Geelong.

The I6 has been around for donkeys and hs proved to be a good engine with so much potential as shown from the early days to the F6. It is an icon to Aust Ford and will be sorely missed.

Give it 12 months into V6 production (import) and I dare say things will be forgotten and they may be the best thing since sliced bread!

Most people who buy cars would hardly even know the specs.
They want a car that is reliable, quiet, and fuel efficient.

The Duratec deserves a go.

Whether we like the switch or not, it's necessary on a cost-basis, so rather than strangle the baby bird before it's hatched, let it fly.

It will be better than the Alloytec, and that is something already to be thankful for.

[Gobes32]

People need to stop thinking this V6 will automatically drive like a commodore.

Also, just a thought. If Ford could make the I6 direct lpg injection, sip less than 12 ltrs per 100k would it not qualify as a "green" motor?

What if Ford could produce an export plan for this motor? A low aussie dollar makes it an inticing offer.

If you start making 120,000 motors a year and are sending half o'seas then surely that would make the fed government happy. An aussie manufacturer sending "green" motors to the rest of the world. Also keeps 600 (or more) people in a job. Can only be a good thing.

By no means am I sharing "inside" information, just an optimistic punter really. Would kill to know what Uncle Kevin and Marin Brunela talked about..............

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

People need to stop thinking this V6 will automatically drive like a commodore.

Also, just a thought. If Ford could make the I6 direct lpg injection, sip less than 12 ltrs per 100k would it not qualify as a "green" motor?

What if Ford could produce an export plan for this motor? A low aussie dollar makes it an inticing offer.

If you start making 120,000 motors a year and are sending half o'seas then surely that would make the fed government happy. An aussie manufacturer sending "green" motors to the rest of the world. Also keeps 600 (or more) people in a job. Can only be a good thing.

By no means am I sharing "inside" information, just an optimistic punter really. Would kill to know what Uncle Kevin and Marin Brunela talked about..............

There is no other vehicle, save for say the F series trucks that have already been mentioned, that the I6 would fit into. The design of the rest of Ford's cars worldwide have been optimised for compact V6's and front wheel drive.

Interesting to know, however, that Detroit is still hell bent on making the V6 engine in the Falcon 'work' - seems there's a lot riding on it. Why would Dearborn be pushing it so much if the Falcon now has a (supposedly) limited lifespan?

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

Also, just a thought. If Ford could make the I6 direct lpg injection, sip less than 12 ltrs per 100k would it not qualify as a "green" motor?

What if Ford could produce an export plan for this motor? A low aussie dollar makes it an inticing offer. ...........

Problem is gas is still frowned upon overseas compared to diesel (Europe) and petrol everywhere else .....



| [/url] |

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Care to explain how a V6 vibrates more? there are 3 different firing orders commonly used for V6's.. not all V6's are "coarse".. a well balance V6 with a symetrical firing order will rev and feel as smooth as any I6.
Fords I6 has had its fair share of issues too.. its no where near as bullet proof as many make it out to be..

Alot more bulletproof then anything on the otherside of the fence, and alot more engines aswell.

[Tles]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

There is no other vehicle, save for say the F series trucks that have already been mentioned, that the I6 would fit into. The design of the rest of Ford's cars worldwide have been optimised for compact V6's and front wheel drive.

Interesting to know, however, that Detroit is still hell bent on making the V6 engine in the Falcon 'work' - seems there's a lot riding on it. Why would Dearborn be pushing it so much if the Falcon now has a (supposedly) limited lifespan?

Don't really think the rumoured saving of the I6 would have much to do with expanding the engine to fit other vehicles, ultimately a Direct injection turbo'd 3.5-3.7 V6 and global 6 speed autos and manuals would be fitted to any new big One Ford Fords, Lincolns, Mercury. Saving the I6 would only be about Falcon and Territory, and minimising cost and investment outlay in this economic environment. It would also be about Ford maintaining good relations with this Country and supporting a local workforce through a hard period until Focus rolls out of Broadmeadows.
Certain though, that with Aurion/Camry and Commodore already announcing future LLPG versions, this would be part of the Falcon plans. That should please Kev 'n Kim either way.

Hopefully the Commodore export markets would be opened up to LHD versions of Falcon and update Territory with no real Crown Vic replacement on the horizon, and dodge recalling their Challenger cop cars. If Ford Aus play the right cards in the right order, then maybe Dearborn will give them the opportunities they needed 5 years ago. All looks a long long way away atm though. Ford needs to make the most of what they've already got IMHO, and the Falcon is a great product, hampered by previously forced isolation only.

[Richmalbill]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I agree with you completely, they are good engines and I have nothing against japanese imports (I don't like the term ricers).

The reason I said the two that I did is they are one of very few that are still building I6. Soon to be just BMW and they have said that fomat is here to stay because the V6 layout is mechanically inferior.

Maybe you've forgotten Holden currently sell an inline 6. Oh and Volvo!

[Mick K.]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

V6's can be great: Alfa V6, 350z, etc etc

V6's can be bad: Ecotec/Alloytec, etc.

aaaand on the flipside....


I6's can be great: BMW, Nissan RB, BA-onwards Ford etc

I6's can be bad: 202, EA 3.2, etc etc

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Interesting you mention the 202 as bad, one of the leaders of the 6 cylinder market between 1971 through to 1985, including some Bathurst wins.

I see your point though, no set rule that applies to all and that is so true. Even in severely compromised configurations, you will find a diamond in the rough.

Interesting you mention Alfa v6s as good and Alloytech as bad - don't Alfa v6s use the Alloytech these days?!?

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The V6 production ended in 2005 at Alfa Romeo's Arese plant, replaced in the 159 and Brera by a new 3.2 L V6 unit combining a General Motors-designed engine block with Alfa-Romeo cylinder heads and induction.

MK

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Richmalbill

Maybe you've forgotten Holden currently sell an inline 6.

What....................?

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

What....................?

He would be correct. The Epica has an inline 6.

[data_mine]

It's a daewoo donk.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

He would be correct. The Epica has an inline 6.

inline 2 litre.

I thought I was going mad for a minute - a bit of back to the future !!

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Mick K.

Interesting you mention Alfa v6s as good and Alloytech as bad - don't Alfa v6s use the Alloytech these days?!?


MK

Yeah you have to know the story behind that one to get it Mick K. You see alfa had the alloytec forced on them (sound familiar) to save money back when GM owned their bum via Fiat corp. Fiat (alfa included) was losing money hand over fist so they had to save cash. Turned out alfa was not to plussed on the motor (i think the 3.2 version??) and basically ripped the heads off and reworked them (leaving the block intact) They did the usual speal about changing it to suit their needs etc. Only evidence to this day it is a GM engine originally is the tiny GM stamp down on the block!!!

When GM got out of Fiat (caus it was a basket case) they severed all ties except one or two platforms and kept supplying the block and ancilleries for the Alfa 3.2. This was when the alfa engineers basically came out and said that the alloytec was rubbish in many areas and there were shocked they had to do so much work to make it competitive given it was a GM global engine (big money spent). This was around the same time the alloytec was getting put in commodore and that was the first alert anyone got that maybe this new great engine was a dog. Having driven an alloytec i agree with the alfa engineers....smart blokes LOL!

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

inline 2 litre.

I thought I was going mad for a minute - a bit of back to the future !!

It might be a Daweoo Engine, but they didn't design it. Take a guess who did.