I'm asking the mechanical gurus here.
Imagine you have a 2.4 i4 like the ld9, and an imaginary v6 that is 2.4 liter also. In terms of performance, whether it be n/a or boosted, which would have the most potential and why ?
I'm asking because there are smaller v6s, like the vw vr6 and the tiburon v6, which are pretty interesting cost-wise and AFAIK yield great potential, even though they are only .3 and .4 liters more than a 2.4.
Well considering its a v6, it has 2 heads, 4 cams(considering it is DOHC), and 2 exhaust manifolds so itd seem to me there is alot more airflow than an inline engine. Granted the i6's around make alot of power as well, but that could be a reason to the small v6's making more power than ud think. Just like the porsche flat 6's and subie flat 4's, 2 heads 4 cams.
Dreams do come true....
<img src = "http://registry.gmenthusiast.com/images/96sunfireconvt/ModdedFireBlue.jpg">
Look at the new VW phaeton and you will understand.
www.vw.com
96sunfireconvt wrote:Well considering its a v6, it has 2 heads, 4 cams(considering it is DOHC), and 2 exhaust manifolds so itd seem to me there is alot more airflow than an inline engine. Granted the i6's around make alot of power as well, but that could be a reason to the small v6's making more power than ud think. Just like the porsche flat 6's and subie flat 4's, 2 heads 4 cams.
Still a N/A engine will only be able to move so much air on its own. A bigger engine will always be able to move more air than a smaller one. If a 4 cyl and a 6 cyl are the same size both should only be able to move the same amount. After that it depends on how much you feel like spending.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
a lot would depend on the bore/stroke and breathing capabilities. For the same breathing capabilities and same displacement, the v6 would be slower because the rotating assemble has to be heavier.
2004 Cavalier, 2.2L Ecotec
1965 El Camino, 396 BBC, 14:1, 800 BHP
what about teh v6 mazda mx3's? aren't they 1.8L? i'll have to check when i get back to work.
04silvercavy wrote:Look at the new VW phaeton and you will understand.
www.vw.com
aren't eh engines in those a 'w' configuration? where in each bank of cylnders, they are offset from each other to allow closer spacing?
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~dslabuda/dsltwist.gif" border="0">
<a href="http://www.modasylum.com">www.modasylum.com</a>
the V6 will have a wide torque band , and make more usuable tq
the mx3 has a 1.8 v6 , and the probe/mx6 share the 2.5 v6
what about a cadillac 4.1 or 4.5 liter v8, and a chevy s-10 4.3 v6? I wondered this when I had a FWD caddy?
so v6 more torque, but slower because of the rotating assembly ? and the v6 has more breathing capabilities because of dual headers and such. anymore ideas ?
Well first off, an I6 is better than a V6 because it is a much more balanced design. The only reason anyone makes a V6 is because it can be made to fit in a more compact space.
Now as for the same displacement with more cylinders idea, you have to realize that with more cylinders you can better time the firing order and get a smoother running engine. This may actually provide more torque as well, though I'm not sure on that one.
As far as I can think of off the top of my head, that's the only real advantage. Having more headers and what not isn't all that relavant. You've got bigger ones on the 4-cylinder so they should be able to flow just as well if designed properly.
Remember that power is all about being able to efficiently burn the most fuel so if the displacement and compression is the same, they should be making the same power. Then it's just a matter of which one runs smoother or better fits into the space you've got for it.
An example is the Mercury Cougar they are V-6 with about the same displacement as the 2.4 and they run 16's in the 1/4 mile.
2004 Grand Prix GTP (Competition Group)
SOLD-->1999 Z24 5M-#30 to register on JBO
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people'
all the time
try this, die:
for the same valvetrain configuration (dohc, for example), the v-6 would have a higher proportion of the area above the pistons utilized by valving, thus higher breathing. however, the v-6 will have more friction due to the higher proportion of ring/bore contact, etc.
however, the breathing will dominate, more power for the v-6
more parts means less reliability, edge 4-cyl
since more pistons are used to cover the same displacement, then the v-6 pistons would be lighter, thus higher revs due to less accelerative force that is needed to be controlled by con-rods
ferrari used to make v-12,s with less thatn 3.0 liters, they were howlers.
think in the relation of length to area to volume, L to L squared to L cubed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my new favorite quote, up from franklin roosevelt's mistake/modification quote:
"Dan thanks for the entertainment... but I think someone is going to own you.... "
--CarbonFire (i think he's getting a little ticked over this one............)
'03 eco coupe
'02 z24 wheels
buzzwerdz are conjecture, mathematical certainty defines mechanical results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Weasel said pretty much what I was going to say abot a inline 6, the supras with inline 6's are super fast, cause of the smoothness (if thats a word) of having all the cylinders inline and you get less friction. but the 6 would rev up fast er cause of the shorter stroke cause theres more pistons in there so they need less stroke to reach the 2.4 L it all depends if its done by bore or stroke, I'd go with a 4 cyl just cause theres less friction in it and I think it has more potential, even breathing wise it can be the same as the 6 I dont see the advantage there if a inline 6 is faster than a v6 then also haveing the intak and exhaust on oppisite sides helps too.
I hope that all made sence I'm in a hurry, lol
So it ends up being with personal preference really no REAL significant advantage for either.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
except for weght difference
hp/and tq might be damn close but which can propel its own weight faster?
I am by no means an expert, but this is a very complicated topic. For a v6 to have the same displacement as an i4, either the bore, stroke, or both have to be reduced. If only the stroke is reduced, then a well designed engine should be able to run at higher rpms, resulting in higher horsepower, but low torque output when compared to to the i4. However, for the same rpm, the i4 is producing more power.
If only the bore is reduced, the peak power would probably drop, but the torque would increase.
If both the bore and stroke are reduced, the power curves would fall some where inbetween the two extremes.
Now the most important part of this post: This is an extremely hypothetical and impossible situation. Engine design is very dependent on implementation, so there are way too many other factors to consider. Even assuming the two engines are designed using all available modern technology by the same people, they still would be uncomparable.
Well let me put it very simply : my 2.2: 115hp, my friend's 2.8 VR6: about 160hp
thats the easiest explanation i can come up with
"Official Jewish J-Body"
Here are some overriding factors as well:
a v-6 would be relatively smoother (than an 1-6 or an 1-4)--because if i'm not mistaken, unless the engine is perfectly balanced, v-6's require 1 balance shaft, while i-4's require 2. (boxer engines and rotaries don't require any)
the 6-cylinder engines will have more smoothness because in a 4-cycle engine, some of the cycles will slightly overlap--wheras in the 4-cyl one is always in one of the 4 cycles--exhaust, intake, compression, combustion.
However, torque is produced by the combustion stroke, and is produced by the force of the explosion and how much force it can put on the face of the piston AND the amount of time it can force it--as such, the v-6 will have less torque.
There is probably some overriding point where a certain configuration becomes less useful besed upon what you're doing. After all, the standard semi diesel engines are i-6's (i belived and each cylinder has more displacement than most of the engines offered for the J's.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
its rare to see a decent question that yeilds actual articulated thoughts and no bull@!#$ting and fighting.
i'd rather have a V6 just so i don't have to say that i drive a 4cyl. i grew up on big V8 muscle cars so it kills me to drive a 4cyl.
GO PATS!!!
I think I'd rather have a v6 for the better low end torque. But I like my eco for now lol
Quote:
a v-6 would be relatively smoother (than an 1-6 or an 1-4)--because if i'm not mistaken, unless the engine is perfectly balanced, v-6's require 1 balance shaft, while i-4's require 2. (boxer engines and rotaries don't require any)
That would depend on the V6 in question. The 3.1, being a 60 degree motor has no balance shafts, since it fires every 120 degrees in sequence (1,2,3,4,5,6). the 3.8 is a 90 degree V6, but still fires every 120 degrees. Because of this, it uses balance shafts too overcome vibrations present because of the relation of the V angle and the firing angle. The older 3.8's used too be odd fire (they actually had a V8 Distributor with 2 plug's missing) and they ran real rough.
Curtis
91' Turbo Z24
http://www.turboz24.com
Sparks wrote:its rare to see a decent question that yeilds actual articulated thoughts and no bull@!#$ting and fighting.
i'd rather have a V6 just so i don't have to say that i drive a 4cyl. i grew up on big V8 muscle cars so it kills me to drive a 4cyl.
Yes I am also surprised no one started fighting yet, this is what a reasonable debate should be like. To the point I would drive a V6 if it had significant power differences than a four. Just my preference. Good Job guys.
____________________________________________________________________
Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.
the 6 is going to have some advantages right off the bat.
a strait 6 is a fully balanced engine and the inline 4 isnt.
to be the same displacement most things per cylinder will be smaller. the 6 will have smaller valves, thus needing lighter valve springs to keep its mass in check, reducing frictional losses but most importantly, allowing higher redlines.
the shorter stroke of the 6 would also mean less stresses on the bottom end from moment of inertia, and also piston speeds would be lower, again allowing higher redlines.
with more ports for the intake and exhaust, it would be easier to keep port velocity up because of their smaller size, while still allowing a high maximum amount of airflow due to having more cylinders.
also, the smaller size of the combustion chamber in general would allow higher redlines, due to the cumbustion event completing itself faster, cause it has less air/fuel per cylinder.
.
<a href="http://www.j-body.org/members/speedvisioncavalier"><img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/speedvisioncavalier/new%20sig.jpg"> </a><img src="http://www.precizion.org/animatedz.gif">
"What are we going to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night, try to make the SVC go faster!"
