6 versus 8

[Bigbuck15]

MKS did real good check it out.

 

http://www.6versus8.com/showdown/intro/index.html

If the link doesn't work just put 6versus8.com

Edited October 3, 2009 by Bigbuck15

[rmc523]

The link is not working for me.

[sullynd]

Yeah, I get placeholder, just like I did earlier in the week. Kinda carpy to be excited to read it in a magazine, get ticked it's not in the magazine, and then get a placeholder when you go to the webpage.

[Bigbuck15]

It was working earlier the video was real good

Edited October 3, 2009 by Bigbuck15

[Versa-Tech]

Well since we can't see it, let's argue over it.

 

Engine Platforms in order of superiority first to last.

 

90 Degree V8

180 Degree F6

Inline-6

60 Degree V6

180 Degree F8

120 Degree v6

[jpvbs]

Well since we can't see it, let's argue over it.

 

Engine Platforms in order of superiority first to last.

 

90 Degree V8

180 Degree F6

Inline-6

60 Degree V6

180 Degree F8

120 Degree v6

 

what about the 8 cylinder radial? Where's that fit in?

 

[jafo]

what about the 8 cylinder radial? Where's that fit in?

 

 

 

I think they only fit in aircraft. I am pretty sure a radial engine will not fit under a car hood.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Also, most radials are air cooled. IT would be difficult to get the airflow needed for a hi-po radial in an automobile.

[jpd80]

Narrow V engines can be built easily as 4, 5 or 6 cylinder configurations in the one engine plant.

The slight V also acts to smooth out the vertical shake in large four cylinder engines.

Imagine a 5.0 litre narrow V6 engine with DI and Turbocharging - perfectly at home in trucks and cars.

 

 

[Versa-Tech]

Narrow V engines can be built easily as 4, 5 or 6 cylinder configurations in the one engine plant.

The slight V also acts to smooth out the vertical shake in large four cylinder engines.

Imagine a 5.0 litre narrow V6 engine with DI and Turbocharging - perfectly at home in trucks and cars.

 

 

Meh... too much heat soak from exhaust manifold to intake manifold. Perhaps if you used silicon carbide it could work... but that's wildly experience.

[jpd80]

Meh... too much heat soak from exhaust manifold to intake manifold.

How could that be, exhausts and inlet manifolds are on opposite sides of the engine?

[Versa-Tech]

How could that be, exhausts and inlet manifolds are on opposite sides of the engine?

On narrow angle V8s they're usually cross fed or stacked. You example above appears to be cross fed. Buguttia Veyron is a cross fed as well. In any case, it makes for a very tall head, which doesn't help as far packing.

[matthewq4b]

Also, most radials are air cooled. IT would be difficult to get the airflow needed for a hi-po radial in an automobile.

 

 

They Managed to do it within the confines of a Sherman Tank I'm pretty sure an auto would be easy in comparision.

 

Matthew

[matthewq4b]

On narrow angle V8s they're usually cross fed or stacked. You example above appears to be cross fed. Buguttia Veyron is a cross fed as well. In any case, it makes for a very tall head, which doesn't help as far packing.

 

 

It does not help but the narrow width would allow for them to be tilted for a lower installed hight. Not that that has ever been done before. (Cough, Cough, 255 Slant six)

 

 

Matthew

[2b2]

They Managed to do it within the confines of a Sherman Tank I'm pretty sure an auto would be easy in comparision.

 

Matthew

makes me wonder about using a radial layout for a very small engine used just to generate electricity like in an Extendz/Volt

 

&

for the list

would a v12 be overkill?

 

&

for the topic

What are we gonna do if that site gets up & running :eek:

[silvrsvt]

They Managed to do it within the confines of a Sherman Tank I'm pretty sure an auto would be easy in comparision.

 

Matthew

 

Yes they did, but the other issue is that Radial engine is really tall, and the main reason the Sherman was so tall in relation to other tanks of it day.

 

Another issue with Radial engines is oil...it drains down to the lowest cyc and there is also alot of oil loss due to the design.

Edited October 5, 2009 by silvrsvt

[Bigbuck15]

Site finally works

[jpd80]

On narrow angle V8s they're usually cross fed or stacked. You example above appears to be cross fed. Buguttia Veyron is a cross fed as well. In any case, it makes for a very tall head, which doesn't help as far packing.

The pictures I put in my original post are of a VW VR6 Narrow V engine which

idefinitly has a cross flow head, none of the inlets/exhausts are staggered either side.

The head is no taller than conventional, just fatter.

 

When I'm talking about a narrow V engine, I mean one that's around 10 to 15 degree splay,

In that instance it looks and behaves like a short inline engine. When you combine two of these

engines together in a V formation, you get a W engine like your Veyron. You can even get a W18

with three banks.

 

 

Here's a W12 Block:

 

Here's a W18:

Edited October 5, 2009 by jpd80

[Hoser768]

Site finally works

 

12000 ft? That's going to give a tiny bit of advantage to something equipped with a couple hairdryers. :reading:

[Cougarpower]

Whats interesting its that they had the cream of the cream in luxury makers MB,BMW,Masserati and Jag and where is the standard of the world brand lol, but its really nice that the MKS this damn well considering its not RWD with a v6 and cost less than all of those cars, keep it up Ford just bring the MKR and maybe a Coupe for Lincoln and you can have a nice Lincoln lineup

[mercury]

I'd love to see that motor in an MKZ.

[Deanh]

Well since we can't see it, let's argue over it.

 

Engine Platforms in order of superiority first to last.

 

90 Degree V8

180 Degree F6

Inline-6

60 Degree V6

180 Degree F8

120 Degree v6

no boxers?

[theoldwizard]

Saw the videos. Very cool done on a "real road" !! I'm impressed, even though the MKS came in second.

 

Yes, the turbos had an advantage at altitude.

 

I would love to see a similar test done at sea level. Unfortunately, I don't the MKS would do as well.

[jpd80]

Saw the videos. Very cool done on a "real road" !! I'm impressed, even though the MKS came in second.

 

Yes, the turbos had an advantage at altitude.

 

I would love to see a similar test done at sea level. Unfortunately, I don't the MKS would do as well.

I'm not so sure Whiz, I think anytime the air is not good, the turbo cars will have an advantage.

Go to the drags and ask what the air is like and racers will give you an altitude equivalent that's

either above or below seal level depending on how dense the air is due to temperature and pressure.

 

I there will be a lot of times where the are is not as good for the atmo cars but this will have little

effect on turbo cars like Ford's Ecoboost engines. I think the disparity will grow as vehicles with

not so good power to weight ratios are compared.

 

In those circumstances, the driver's seat of the pants feel would change for atmo cars but not for Ecoboost.

Edited October 5, 2009 by jpd80

[Versa-Tech]

no boxers?

Boxers and Flat's (180 degree) are one in the same. I consider boxers far superior to Vs in theory. However they compromise suspension geometry in front and mid engine platforms. They also compromise rear diffuser geometry in both aft-mid engine and rear engine platforms. This is why formula and Endurance prototypes stopped using them a couple of decades ago when diffusers became a staple of performance aerodynamics. Porsche has proven that boxers are still viable platforms in motorsports, but only with the use of massive upper wings to compensate. Whether it be a classic ducktail, or a modern twin tier, massive rear wings have now become synonymous with the Porsche name.