time to PO the ricers

2wd or 4wd

  • 2wd

    Votes: 43 13.2%

  • 4wd

    Votes: 282 86.8%
  • Total voters
    325
...back to Skylines for a sec...
The new one is going to have a V6 I think. At any rate, pretty much every carmaker has figured out how to make a V6 that can smoothly and easily rev to 7000RPM or so. Some more, some less. The New Wrangler engine IS a minivan engine after all. Minivan engines have to be reliable and quiet. Balance shafts can fix the vibration problem if you build something like a V10 or odd angle V6.

Volkswagen and all of the F1 engine builders have shown that narrow and wide angles can be dealt with...even in the same motor. Say hello 1000hp Veyron. :D

Regarding V-shaped diesel engines, the 4400hp (at about 1000RPM) locomotive that I ran tonight didn't give me any problems. Of course its only a 12 cylinder GEVO. 367hp per cylinder. Lots of boost. And it can put all the torque to the ground as slow as you can walk. I think these engines are good for a million miles or something. Not sure. It isn't a V6, but I think it's a good example of how reliable and powerful a V engine can be.

The V shape is easier to fit in the car. Look at GM's inline six and Ford or Australia's FANTASTIC turbo inline six. Too long for most cars. So sad.

Inlines sixes are also cheaper (only one head) and easier to upgrade to state-of-the-art technology (just like a 4 cylinder, but longer). The notable exception here is the Jeep 4.0L. C'mon guys? No crossflow head?

The 4.0L is a shortstroke motor, NOT square. It is closer to a Subaru EJ25 (100mm bore x 79mm stroke) or 302Ford, than its 258 cousin. I think you have the terms 'oversquare' and 'undersquare' backwards. Oversquare=shortstroke. Undersquare=longstroke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke_ratio
The 258 is undersquare, like a tractor. :D

For balance, I'd chose a flat 4. Balanced by design. Short crank. Lots of journal overlap, due to short stroke. Lots of main bearings...clamped between the block halves. The Jeep's I6 on the other hand has very long noodle of a crank. Torsional vibration. Don't use an aluminum crank pulley.

...back to the Skyline for a sec...
The RB26 has another trick card to play. Turbos love 6 cylinders due to the pulse patterns.
 
oh crap, that under/over is bass-ackwards ain't it?(sorry):doh:

for those small japanese i-6 motors, they don't vibrate much at high rpm.. but the jeep does... it's the "squareness" and designed use of the inline motor that's proportional to rpm.
my point on the v6 is that it is not a performance motor. it is an economy motor. sure, you can band aid it, to HELP(not solve) the vibration problem at high rpm. it will assurably still be there, even though you might not "feel" it. there is no way to totally solve 3/6 rotating points on a 360* scale.:confused1
another thing, did you know that most plastics have an "intended lifespan"? plastic starts to slowly break down from the day it is made. now. keep in mind how much plastic is on new vehicles. like the motors in a lot of them, the whole vehicle has an intended lifespan. sure, the v6 will likely last the "useful life" of the minivan, 240,000 or so miles, if you don't run it hard and 10 years or so. but forget reliability if you try to change the design, and try to hop it up. that motor has got about all the reliable power that can be squeezed out of it. sure, you can race a v6. chevy guys have been doing that for years. just grab one out of a truck for dirt cheap, boost the hell out of it, and when it blows, just get another. :firedevil the v6's that came in the stang's for a little while would rev pretty high; and then go boom!:shocked:

interesting info on the train deisel. but that tops out at just under 2000 i'm gonna guess. sure you can compensate, but there's always a trade off. plus that motor prolly weighs 50,000 lbs ish-? in a train engine, weight is an asset. the engine needs to be incredibly heavy to help with the momentum of pulling all that weight.

the flat four in my opinion will always be the most energy efficient design. it's just the best balence of rotating mass to inertial energy- but doubling that motors size, splice in another identical one in tandem, and now you have a v8. now it will rev almost as high, but you have 4 times the displacement, and a lot more weight/space effecient per ft-lb.what i don't think that you realize, though, is that the # of combustions on 1 complete revolution of a 4cyl is 2. on a v8 it's 4. :)

what i'm getting at is that 4 popper has only half the internal rotating components as a v8. so of course they can spool up quick. but for say a v8 topped out at say 7500 as opposed to a 4 popper topping out at 8500, that v8 has almost twice the number of combustions occuring per any given timespan as that little 4 popper. not to mention that each combustion in that big motor uses twice the air and fuel as the 4 popper. so basically that v8 is got twice as much goin' on inside for a given rpm. :D
sure, a 4 popper would be fun to "play with" and hop up. fairly simple design, and managable size. but as far as a hardcore race machine, forget it. :nono:
 
WOW who would have thought this thread would still be going. AS far as the 3.8 in the new wrangler it might not be all that bad, I have spent many miles driving loaded down minvans with that basic motor and ya they are a little low on low end power but they will get up and go pretty good. it wasn't hard to get the town and country up to triple digits. Lately it seems all i end up with is a 4cly Jeep nad they aren't to bad aslong as they are running good and you not in a big big hurry and that v6 has a lot more than the 2.5. but why that thing wieghs so much more I just can't figure out since the 3.8 is lighter than the 4.0
 
IF all things are the same, THEN the larger V8 will make more horsepower. And IF the cars are identical, THEN the larger V8 will accelerate quicker.
The problem is that many domestic V8 engines are in heavy cars or trucks and are what I call 'low pressure' engines. They don't have any boost. Often they don't rev or flow very well, either. Those flaws are what help level the playing field for 4cylinder (not ideal) FWD (not ideal) cars. They have room for a turbo and can flow. These high pressure engines can move a little car pretty well.

Now, the whole reason that big V8 engines are in domestic cars is because of trucks. Until recently, Japanese companies didn't make large V8 truck engines.

They do now. Nissan has a 5.6L Titan V8. Toyota is putting a 5.7L V8 in the new Tundra. I pray that they both make muscle cars.
 
yes. if acura actually put a 350 in a 2400-sh lb integra, that would rock. you bet your ass it would be quicker than the stock 128 ft/lb naturally asperitated motor. of course those small motors flow. they would not have any top end if they didn't. a stock 350 won't flow quite as well in high rpm volumetric effeciency because they don't need to. plus they like their torque. sure, you can make them flow as well as those little 2 litres, and then run a turbo setup. saw a vette like that at a car show a while back. said it dynoed at just under 1100 hp. :D if you were running an all out race setup, you could get twice that.:firedevil
if there were japenese muscle cars, those motors would need to be around for a while and make enough v8's to allow a market for aftermarket. sure, even with all built motors using metric specs, they would be competitive, but forget using domestic parts in them, and i can not see them having any real advantage over domestic v8's. chevy and ford have been doing this for a long time. not to mention that there is basicly everything out there for them aftermarket wise. :)

i'm not trying to rag on the japenese cars or anything, it's just that soo many "youngsters" :laugh3: these days have the wrong idea about these little cars. that's what the "tuner revolution" is about these days. convincing people who don't know any better that these cars are the best thing ever, and taking these poor teenagers $$$ on what's 95% usless junk that doesn't really do anything. then all the real power gain stuff is wayyy overpriced. that's why i give respect to those who build and wrench on their own junk. that's what it really should be about. :patriot:
 
It is, isn't it. :laugh3:

One of the things that I like about the design is that the engine could be mounted anywhere. It could be shifted front or rear.

A version of this layout could be used on an offroad buggy. Replace the chains/belts with shafts.

I like how the designer mounted the inboard brakes, both front and rear. You don't see that very much. Something like this would make a fantastic hotrod as well. I'd like to see a '32 Ford roadster body on that thing.
 
that's pretty cool. not really into the bikes, though. those things scare me. :laugh3: no place for a cage either.:laugh3:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top