why doesnt the inline 6 get anymore love in the us, and really

We have v8s and don't pay a metric fuckton for gas. Really no point. More power. More torque. Better power curve. No need for high revs.

>>13997135
The i6 is dying because bean counters consider it a longer v6 that's harder to package in FWD crossovers.

File: 20.jpg (19KB, 575x323px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 575x323px

>>13997081
>surely extending the car an extra foot or so to fit the engine isnt THAT big of an issue?

>>13997144
vs dropping in an i4/v6/v8

>>13997142
the sad reality

>>13997135
i6 >>> v6 tho

>>13997081
I think the prevailing belief is that cars need to be so complicated anyway the added simplicity makes no meaningful difference

File: IMG_5492.jpg (471KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1500x1000px

>>13997081
There is no need to make the car longer to fit I6 engine.

>>13998620
I was thinking about that. Surely the fact that so many vehicles are FWD has something to do with it. Packaging an I-6 horizontally like that cannot be easy. Plus working on it. It is much easier in a RWD vehicle or even 4WD SUVs.

Also OP, what about Jeeps? Muh 4.0L I6. But that is also dead now.

File: 4541.jpg (579KB, 2200x1464px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 2200x1464px

>>13998649
That's why they have engineers and designers to make it fit.
I don't think so that the orientation of the engine automatically makes it easier to work with when it is longitudinally mounted. It sure looks quite tight fit in this BMW.

quick stupid question.

the fuck is going on with the firing order?

wouldnt it be best to have it firing in the order of
1,2,3,4,5,6 ?

why all the random hopping around?

>>13998735
That BMW probably isn't bad to work on at all. Take off that air box and intake and a couple plastic panels and you are straight. Until you need special BMW tools to take a part off/out.

Turn the engine 90* there goes your whole front suspension design. Then have fun chainging the water pump or anything else the belt is connected to.

Actually, thinking of all this stuff, I'm suprised BMW still mounts their engines the right way. I thought they hated ease of maintenance.

>>13998735
there is lots of space in the 1 series bay, there are lots of v10 swapped 1 series coupes and hatchbacks

>>13998774
the strain on the crank wouldnt be equal
imagine putting a piece of wood
now on that wood place weights on it on concentrated areas
increase presure in a singular area makes it more liable to snap
now spread the weight
less likely to snap
something like that

>>13998735
i like it that the engine gets its cold air straight from nostrils, not from the engine bay or some small split between the bonnet and the bumper. its just nice.

File: image.jpg (86KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x398px

>>13998813
>stolen from Chebby

It is intersting where they do the air filter box on that BMW tho. Older models had it up towards the grill on the drivers side I believe. The V8 and V12 models had 2 filter boxes for some time.

File: image.jpg (397KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1632x1224px

>>13998861
E39 M5

They should be putting i6 in the mustangs. They have a motor they put in australian cars.

>>13998873
A 4.0L ~350hp I6 Mustang would be pretty neat, but it would be more expensive than the V6 they currently use, and the V6 is the base model, so it has to be cheap. A smooth, powerful I6 would certainly go along with the refined design of the newest Mustangs though. Now that they have the Ecoboost model, the V6 doesn't have a lot going for it except price. I could see them ditching it for something else, but it's unlikely.

>>13997081
With me being an auto dealer and buying alot of cars....most people have no fucking clue what they want...they want something but thats about as much as they know.....

I drive a inline 6 and love it and don't see me changing any time soon...The Cummins motor is one hell of a motor btw...

Now...thats not saying some v8s are not good..they are but I HATE the dual head...thats double the head gasket trouble, oil blockages and just...over all work on a rebuild where a inline six I can get done MUCH faster...

ford makes one

I have a dream of making a 6.5L I6 gasoline engine for puckup trucks.

>>13997081
The American i6 died with AMC I guess.

>>13997142
I don't see how it could be any harder to package, unless you were dealing with some ridiculous compact. A longer hood and longer crumple zones are better anyway. More auto manufacturers need to put some serious fucking work into improving their frontal overlap crash test performance.
Actually I'm pretty sure Volvo has a 3.0L i6 thats transverse mounted, so hood length isn't even much of an issue.

>>14002174
i dont think American cars with I6 from the 60's and 70's cared about developing those engines, and it was more or less a throwaway only for the sake of having a 6 cylinder option for fleet/fuel economy minded buyers

Honestly, they could have made them so much better

>>14002217
The AMC I6 lasted well into the 90's though, didn't it? Americans just like their v8's more. That, and v6's got better.

>>14002277
Yep, the AMC 4.0.
I'm pretty sure some were still being used in the early 2000s. I remember you could still find them in the Jeep grand Cherokee at least.

>>13997081
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_Dancer
This shit except the crankshaft in that gif

File: Toxic xr6 turbo.jpg (68KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1280x720px

>>13997081
Because Americans don't like hearing turbo noises for some reason, they are all like "mah big block v8 no replacement fo displacement"
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vb5LwKHFDg

>>14002304
People are stupid. Its the same mentality of people who think Harleys are cool despite making laughably shit power for their size and weight. They just think the sound means power.

>>14002288
The GMT-360 platform used the Vortec 4200 until the end of production in 2009 or so.

>>13998774
>>13998799
had a great idea looking at that
big bang firing order on an i6 if it could be done

>>14002304
>hearing turbo noises
the best i6 is the tvr speed 6 4.0l 420hp all na

>>14002174
>I don't see how it could be any harder to package, unless you were dealing with some ridiculous compact.
The only straight six I've seen in a small sedan is one of GM/Daewoo's shitty little things. We call it an Epica in Australia, dunno about the rest of the world.

The reality is that most conventional straight sixes will not fit in a transverse configuration without some serious engineering to get around the packaging problems, and a lot of cars these days use transverse drivetrains so manufacturers can stick them in FWD shitboxes, sedans, crossovers, and SUVs, sharing a whole lot of parts between them and making AWD easy to add on.

>>13998775
>That BMW probably isn't bad to work on at all.
>electric water pump fails
>takes 6 hours to replace
>probably going to fail again in 5 years once the warranty runs out

Yeah, nah.

>tfw no more i6 Mustangs

>>14002581
well an i8 with 90degree firing order would have a near constant firing cycle with constant torque output. an i6 would have to be something like 120 degree firing order. or maybe im thinking about this all wrong.

>a i6 can't fit transversely in a fwd car

Then just mount it longitudinal like Audi used to do with a lot of the i4/5 on their older cars

>>14002710
Then you'd have half the car hanging out over the front wheels.

>>14002715
You say it like it's a bad thing

>ease of enginebay access

>>14002636
Why would an electric water pump be hard to replace? Probably easier than a standard one.

File: photos_bmw_5-series_2005_8.jpg (196KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x960px

>>13998735
Are you blind? there is plenty of space. The empty space in front of the engine is just covered by the intake snorkel plastic. Longitudinally mounted i6 BMWs are actually pretty nice to work on. Everything is in the right place.

>>14002718
>ease of enginebay access
>designers demand that as little of the car appears to be hanging out front as possible because styling
>front of engine is jammed up against radiator
>rear of engine is jammed up against firewall
>gearbox is also jammed up against firewall
>everything becomes a headfuck like an Audi R8 because /o/ wanted an i6 in a fwd shitbox

>>14002174
Volvo has side mounted their T5/T6 engines for 10 years atleast now, if not since the beginning of S60/S80's

>>14002739
Nobody wants a fwd i6

But the designers should want the i6 because of all the positive qualities of the engine.
And then they should fuck off with making everything fwd and just make them rwd like people want

>>14002748
>just make them rwd like people want
The only people that want it are enthusiasts, and they make up fuck all of the market.

Soccer moms and CEOs couldn't care less if their new BMW had an i6 under the hood or a turbo 4, FWD or RWD, all that matters to them (the majority of the market) is that it has a BMW badge, looks cool, goes fast, and has all the new gadgets.

These days, you don't need an i6 to achieve any of that. They're fine engines, but there's no place for them in the general market.

>>13997081
Inline 6 is a god tier configuration, that's why I went with a 523i (yuropfag) even though everybody here buys larger sedans in diesel variants only (because fuel is expensive). It's got that dense sound and it revs for "longer" than an i4. It's kinda hard to explain but it revs from 600 rpm (idle) to 6000 rpm and it feels like it's got twice the rev range of an 4 cylinder.

Practically looking V12 have too large a displacement for an everyday car, so I6 is actually the best configuration all things considered. Why did the automakers switch to V6? Because making cars is about making profit and if the customers don't care it's stupid not to do it. The same with FWD.

But these days, because of the turbos, 6 cylinder engines are getting too large/powerful for normal everyday cars (except for sporty variants). It's sad but well have to live with 4 cylinder turbo engines for quite a while now. They provide enough power and give good fuel economy + torque down low is good for everyday driving - no need to rev it out for overtaking. So inline 6 and even V6 are on its way out, at least in yurop. The only thing I'm hoping for is that we get a lot of affordable RWD small economical cars like the Toyota S-FR. For true I6 greatness we have to go with used E46 M3 I guess.

>>14002767
>The only people that want it are enthusiasts, and they make up fuck all of the market.

AND often the enthusiasts buy used, because we're not in it for the luxury but for the technical side of cars. And usually enthusiasts are young guys, not 50 year old men. The car makers target the first buyer ONLY. They are the ones that make the company money.

>>13998873
>They should be putting a heavier and objectively worse engine in the mustangs.
The V6 they use now performs much better than the atmo 4.0L, and the V8 options are miles ahead of the turbo six anyway. Not to mention the current V6 is just as "smooth" regardless of its arbitrary layout.

>>14002581
>big bang firing order on an i6 if it could be done
...And completely defeat the one and only benefit of an inline six. Good job, genius.

>>14002647
>tfw the current V6 is better than any I6 ever put in a Mustang anyway

>>14002866
>tfw nobody has put a cummins i6 in a stang to roll massive coal

File: GMKILRFG_04.jpg (174KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1024x683px

>>14002866
Why don't they put the Australian ford 4 litre in the mustang lol? It is easily the best engine ford has ever made so the decision to not use it in any American cars or ya know... just bring over the Australian fords boggles my mind.

>>14003075
>Why don't they put the Australian ford 4 litre in the mustang lol?
Because, to repeat myself, the current V6 is an objectively better engine in every single measure than the comparative prehistoric long stroke N/A 4.0L. That, and the V8 is miles better than the turbo six again.
>It is easily the best engine ford has ever made based on the uncitable encyclopaedia of me
Cool story.

>>14003128
>195kw
>391Nm
>8l/100km
How is it a bad engine?

>>14002998
Yes, yes they have. Check YouTube.

>>13997081
If you watch this .gif through a mirror it becomes rather fun to observe.

>>14003223
For a start, your fuel economy is quite optimistic.
>230kW
>380nm
At the extremely marginal expense of a lower torque curve, I see absolutely no benefit to the 4.0 in a sports car apart from an arbitrary cylinder configuration.

File: 1372015333904.jpg (156KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1440x1080px

>>13998861
>Stolen from Chevy
[citation needed

A lot of car history and simple ass thoughts have to be dis-proven first. An engineer(¡dios mio!) placing air hoses from the front of a car connecting directly to the engine is not a huge mental leap. Add to the fact that cars have been around for 100+ years...Com'on lad, use the internet correctly.

>>14003489
>380 nm
What sort of miracle engine is this? Which dimension is that?

>>13997081
v6s can be naturally balanced, it depends on the angle they're fabricated at

>>14003427
Well that means
>>14002998
>>14002866
are both incorrect statements.

>>14004591
Zero degrees?

>>14002174
Most cars are fwd. You don't put an i6 in fwd.

>>14001714
>4 litre i6 with 340 hp
e46 is 3.2 i6 with the same power

>>13997142
The i6 is dying because like >>13997135
Said, we like v8s in america. V6s are easier to fit in engine bays that were originally designed to house a v8.

I thought Mercedes were ditching the V6 in favor of an Inline 6 in their future models?

>>14004944
They do since theyre cheaper and easier to turbo than a v6. Their only drawback is the size.

>>13997081
BEEMER = motorcycles
BIMMER = cars

The things you learn on the internet

>>13997081
WHO WANTS TO HEAR WHAT AN INLINE 7 GASOLINE AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE WOULD SOUND LIKE???? (THEY DONT EXIST)
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IYKArSYYtQ

BONUS: THE INLINE 11 !!
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfVWtxrA0u4

>>14001714
I wonder if you can turbocharge a v6 mustang for the price of an ecoboost.

>>14007183
go wonder somewhere else faggot

>>14007183
Don't see why a 3.5 ecoboost wouldn't be a realistic conversion.
Then you'd have a better engine than a turbo 4.0L anyway.
>inb4 but mah dyno queen

I like I5s because they're special snowflake engines and sound great

my current automotive fantasy is engineering a twin turbo I5 that runs timing gears like a ford 300 I6

>had a 2001 intec 4.0l 157kw versino
>was unreliable turd
>had multiple rebuilds only had 200k km on it
>ended up giving the whole car away to a mate
LS1 shits over the Aussie i6 and dont get me wrong i love the barra but all the ones worth getting (turbo) are raped and not maintained

AMC i6 is also a unreliable turd but i love it

>>13997081
V8s are easier to package and "V8" looks better on paper than "I6"

>>14008397
>and "V8" looks better on paper than "I6"

And it's a better engine in practise.

>>14008860
This [spoiler]desu[/spoiler]

File: lel platers.jpg (80KB, 620x348px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 620x348px

>>14003075
Too late matey, Ford USA shut all that shit down, 7 October 2016 and its all over

>>14004799
Actually made me chuckle...

File: Lancia-Aurelia_B20_GT.jpg (1004KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1004KB, 1600x1200px

V6's are better than I6's though, it's why they were first used despite being more expensive to make. For you americans out there, it was on the FR lancia aurelia together with a transaxle transmission in order to achieve a 50:50 weight distribution and a small polar moment of inertia.

They are also perfectly balanced, as long as they have a 60º degree angle and a properly designed crankshaft or their at their natural angle, 120º degrees. (which is too wide for most production cars)

>>14002842
>more cylinders
>more bangs
>more better noise
i see no downsides

>be lel plater
>do speed limit
>people tailgate me like nobodies business
>do 5 over
>still tailgated
this is gay as shit

>>14002701
would be like a 3 cylinder with hektic torque

>>14002701
V12's have a net positive torque through the entire rotation cycle (no need for a flywheel), are perfectly balanced regardless of angle between the banks, and sound better.

File: SM engine bay.jpg (200KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 640x480px

This engine bay is pretty easy to work on, no less terrifying to the average mechanic though.

>>14009559
>turn an inline six into a triple with twice the complexity
Well done genius.

>>14003489
>optimistic
Not when a 1.8t sedan can do it. You'd see 8L combined in a mustang.
Now let's see what happens when use the aus equiv of the US measurement system (octane):
>208kw
>420nm

Make the barra out of aluminium and give it a little bit more cam so it's happy to rev above 6000 and you're doing 220kw and 410nm, while sounding better, being an order of magnitude more reliable and having the ability to use the turbo engine, good for 530rwhp (and 9999 torques) on the stock internals.

>>14003075
Weight.
They are fucking immensely heavy due to being so large and having a block so strong it allows aftermarket tuners to give 1 year warranties at 998kw/1338hp.
That's no bullshit, either.
http://www.atomicperformanceproducts.com/998gta_long.html
>12 months warranty
>seen power levels in excess of 1350KW (1800+HP)

>>13998774
It's a shame nobody actually answered your question.

Inline 6's fire in that order because it is a natural harmonic balance (nearly as perfect as a motor can be balanced). The forces from one piston are evenly countered by the forces from the other firing piston.
Essentially, it's easier to make an inline 6 spin faster without damaging something than any other engine design.

The list of how an engine is balanced by natural design is

I6 > V12 > V8 > V10 >>> POWER GAP >>> V6 > I4 > I3

File: mercedes om606.jpg (856KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 1600x1200px

This is literally one of the best engines ever made.

>>14009796
>All of these incredibly small distances
What is specified to the nanometre on a modern automobile?