Can an engine be created to be both transverse and longitudinal?

[zipnzap]

Could an engine possibly be designed to be mounted in both longitudinal and transverse positions?

[Versa-Tech]

Could an engine possibly be designed to be mounted in both longitudinal and transverse positions?

Is that a serious question?

[StevenCaylor]

From Ford, the 4.6 DOHC V8, the 3.8 and 4.2 Essex V6s, the 3.0 Vulcan V6 and the new 3.5/3.7 Duratec V6s. Any others?

[zipnzap]

I meant efficiently in a universal manner. Something like a basic architecture that can be made into any engine type. For example, although it could be done, something like a flat six would be difficult to mount in a transverse style with on certain drive configurations.

[Noah Harbinger]

Is that a serious question?

 

I'm not always up on the physics of engines, either -- having never thought of the question before seeing it here, I would assume the answer is, "Why the heck not?". But I have an open mind, so I'll repeat the question as I see it: Apart from dimensional constraints, are there any fundamental properties of engines that restrict their suitability for being mounted one way or the other?

[Edstock]

Ford even made an inline engine run vertically, in a late 30's test vehicle, after the FWD Cord appeared. It was thought that it would help with traction.

[RichardJensen]

I meant efficiently in a universal manner. Something like a basic architecture that can be made into any engine type. For example, although it could be done, something like a flat six would be difficult to mount in a transverse style with on certain drive configurations.

1) the 3.5 engine was designed for both transverse and longitudinal applications.

 

2) Austin, probably, is your best source for an explanation of what, exactly, needs to be taken into consideration when designing an engine for transverse and longitudinal placement.

 

I would speculate, however, that the engine would need to be designed to accept engine mounts both on the sides and at the front and back--but more than that I couldn't really say.

[papilgee4evaeva]

From Ford, the 4.6 DOHC V8, the 3.8 and 4.2 Essex V6s, the 3.0 Vulcan V6 and the new 3.5/3.7 Duratec V6s. Any others?

 

From Nissan, the VQ engines. Interestingly, they detune them for FWD applications (the VQ35 makes 270/290 HP in the Altima/Maxima, and 306 HP in the G35 and M35).

 

GM uses the 2.0 I4T in both transverse and longitudinal applications (Cobalt and HHR SS, and Solstice/Sky).

 

Chrysler uses the same 3.5 V6 in the Avenger/Sebring (235 HP) and Charger/300 (250 HP).

 

So... yes, to the OP.

[7Mary3]

I don't know what the first engine designed for both longitudinal/RWD and transverse/FWD was, but I think it might have been the 60 degree Chevy V-6. In any event, there have been many longitudinal engines modified for transverse mounting, and vise-versa. A case could be made that the Modular/Triton V-8's are an example of a transverse design modified for longitudinal mounting, and GM has used the LS V-8's in FWD applications. Probably my favorite example would be the old Detroit Diesel 6V-71 and 8V-71 big truck diesels, which were often mounted transversly in transit buses.

[matthewq4b]

The very simple awnser is yes.

 

Think what changes between alaerally mounted engine and the conventiianl longitudanal mounted one.

 

 

Intakes manifolds and motor mounts.

 

It is possible to to put a conventianal block in a laterial application in soem cases (i've seen it done.)

 

Most latererally mounted engines are hung from lower back mounts and A torque strap and A lower central motor mount The mounts usally bolt to brackcets that use holes that are common in both engine lay outs. The mounts in laterla mounted engines are usally on the tranny by the bell housing the torqure strap on the intake manifold or cylinder head and central front one utilizing a braket the mounts tot he timing cover and cylinder head or bosses on the block.

 

The rear drive aplications have bosses cast in the sides of the block to accept the motor mounts that attach it to the K frame.

 

So it is already done in a simple manner

 

All engines can be laterally or longituadlly mounted. It is just a matter of bolting on appropriate motor mounts

 

Longitudanal (rwd) engines need to ususally have bosses cast in the block to accept the side mounted motor mounts. And even then this is not nesessary as you can use a torque plate that bolts behind the timing cover and sits on the frame rails Some of the old F 600 and 700's that used the FE enngines did exactly this.

 

So to awnswer your question it is already done in an efficient and universal manner.

 

 

Matthew

[rkisler]

I meant efficiently in a universal manner. Something like a basic architecture that can be made into any engine type. For example, although it could be done, something like a flat six would be difficult to mount in a transverse style with on certain drive configurations.

 

I won't pretend to be an expert here (I hope Wizard will comment as he knows a lot more about powertrain specifics), but a few comments:

 

Designing engines that mount both EW and NS is already is done in an efficient manner

 

It's always better if the basic engine design has been planned to go both ways. What you want to is to minimize the investment cost of turning the engine. Read Matthew's post; he's on the right track. You want to have the block casting capable of accepting mounts for either case, as Richard also mentioned. Then you are limited to "just" a machining operation. Also, you have to ensure that the block is capable of accepting rear-face-of-block machining for different transmission matings. But at the same time, you don't want to be using excessive material (material=$$) or carry around extra weight (weight=less vehicle fuel economy). The key, though, is to keep the block casting and machining as common as possible. Wizard can tell us, but I'm sure there were lots of CAE hours put into the 3.5 to ensure the best possible flexibility.

 

You will have some changes on the intake/exhaust manifolds. I'm not sure about heads, but casting and machining heads is very expensive, so I would imagine they are common (Wizard?).

 

We have all read that Ford seems to be finally waking up to flexibility in vehicle assembly, but the same can be true of Ford's new powertrain plants. Flexibility is always a tradeoff. If you are absolutely certain of the future, you can hard tool and punch 'em out by the millions. But if changes take place in the marketplace, you can get stung because your ability to change is more limited and expensive. I'm going to guess that Ford's latest engine plants are using more CNC cells; if that assumption is correct, you could potentially machine the exterior of both FWD and RWD blocks in the same cell. But....I'm just guessing as I don't know any of the specifics.

 

Another thought. With "drive by wire", some of the physical connections to the engine that used to cause problems have been eliminated.

 

When you think about the ability to turn engines from EW to NS and vise versa, you can understand why 60 degree V6's dominate this arena, and why I4's are also relatively easy, but other arrangements like I6's or 90 degree V8's are not so easy and hence not as popular to "go both ways".

[Critic]

With "drive by wire", some of the physical connections to the engine that used to cause problems have been eliminated.

I need to be enlightened on this. Please explain what vehicle is using a drive by wire tech.? As far as I know each and every vehicle still has a physical connection from wheel (steering) to wheel. And as the second point, Hydraulics are such that fluid power transfer is seamless vs. a physical torque transfer. Their is only one reason their going to electric motors to assist steering and that is to eliminate a power loss on an I.C.E and improve fuel mileage. You won't see a true drive by wire, for the fact that you lose total electrical systems while driving you would lose the ability to control a vehicle to a stop. Fed. reg's are the last word about wire / wireless driving.

[NickF1011]

I need to be enlightened on this. Please explain what vehicle is using a drive by wire tech.? As far as I know each and every vehicle still has a physical connection from wheel (steering) to wheel. And as the second point, Hydraulics are such that fluid power transfer is seamless vs. a physical torque transfer. Their is only one reason their going to electric motors to assist steering and that is to eliminate a power loss on an I.C.E and improve fuel mileage. You won't see a true drive by wire, for the fact that you lose total electrical systems while driving you would lose the ability to control a vehicle to a stop. Fed. reg's are the last word about wire / wireless driving.

 

He was referring to connections to the engine, not the steering. In the case of the engine, many of them are using electronic throttle links now with no physical linkage at all anymore to the accelerator pedal.

[Critic]

As vehicle size is shrunk to attain a 35+ avg. CAFE fuel standard, I wonder if a V-4 Engine will be developed that will give an easy ability to drop the engine in either the front or rear of a vehicle in either crankshaft orientation. Not only will the cylinders run up and down perpendicular to the curvature of the earth, but it could be mounted in parallel to it also. Someone, somewhere will try it.

[zipnzap]

...

...

 

I wanted to be certain. Thanks for the info.

 

So would things like flat-sixes still be trouble?

[lfeg]

Flat sixes? as in the old Corvair? The engine does not care if it is NS or EW, but transmissions could get complex when you have to change directions of power flow. For a good example of unusual engine mounting orientation look into the WW2 era Chrysler multi-bank tank engine.