V6 vs. I6 vs. Flat 6

V6 produces more horsepower.

Sorry.

>>17442687
>citation needed

6 in a row, ready to go
6 in a V, you sit down to pee
(^;

If it's straight 6 it better be at least 6 liters and diesel. A V6 does everything a I6 does better.

The barra is a piece of shit btw.

>>17442764
V6 feel like trash at high RPM, IMO. The I6 is much smoother, for a variety of system mechanics reasons I won't go into but are available on Wikipedia if you would like to peruse. You can shove as much power as you need into the block through forced induction.

>>17442764
>what is 2jz
>what is 1jz
>what is rb26
>what is n54
>what is m50,m52

I can continue but I wont.

>>17442647
>Shoehorn into a FF car
Volvo did it
twice
and also a V8, not a pushrod one, but an actual DOHC V8 made by Yamaha

I miss crazy volvo

>>17442687
No it doesn't. the config of an engine has very little to do with its output. It can effect things that effect the output though (revs, head flow, firing order).
>>17442764
The barra is awesome aside from the obvious packaging issues that any 4L inline 6 would suffer from.
seriously that are like australia's LS
>>17442647
At the end of the day I6's will always be smoother, especially at high rpm. But no one buys cars for high revs or even feels anymore. they just want the fastest way from stoplight to stoplight and lots of torque. also normies can't distinguish between good sound and loudness so there goes the sound argument for i6's. Then when you get to driving dynamics its a no brainer that a shorter engine with less weight in front of the axle is better. easier to use that same engine in a fwd if needed as well.

Only some cars are suitable for I6's. I love them but most of my cars don't have the room between the axle and firewall to make it worthwhile. A good v6 is better for a drivers car.

Flat 6's only really make sense in a mid engine or rear engined car.

a small degree v6 would be alot better suited to front engined cars, something like 20 to 30 degree v for a low center of gravity whilst still fitting between the strut towers

>>17442818
>Flat 6's only really make sense in a mid engine or rear engineed car.

Subaru did a FR flat six, and it looked great

File: bobby-tanner-on-his-rock-bouncer.jpg (243KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1920x1080px

>>17442776
Modern V6's are silky smooth. High rpm's are kinda irrelevant when your adding twin turbo's tuned for torque, You don't need to rev high... So why use the long ass engine design?

>>17442783
They're all too tiny to compete in motorsports that matter that's what they are.

File: 1456974304167.gif (66KB, 259x198px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 259x198px

>>17442840
SVX reboot with factory 6 speed when

>>17442840
all I'm saying is that there are better alternatives. A flat 6 FR with the engine completely behind the front axle would have a fucking long hood.

>>17442848
every combustion engine i am aware of produces more power and torque at higher RPMs. If I want to drive fast, that's where I drive it in the rev range

File: 546b4884c21f2_-_roa100114dpt_boot-enginerdy-lg.jpg (190KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1280x720px

>>17442647
v6 is cheaper and easier to fit in engine bay
flat six is impossible to work on
inline six is the best out of all three but expensive for manufacturers to make so they just chuck some garbage v6 in there

It's because of packaging. The v6 is easier to use in fwd and Rwd. The gm 3.8v6, 3.4v6, 2.8v6. Nissan also uses the vq for both. Inline 6 doesn't go in very well sideways.

File: Bait_3d5a71_5515578.jpg (33KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 625x626px

>>17442764

>>17442818
>Flat 6's only really make sense in a mid engine or rear engined car.

>every BMW E30 325

>>17442999
No BMW has ever had a flat 6....

>>17442741
I'm a dude and I sit down to pee because it's relaxing as fuck and my toilet stays wayyy cleaner. I also have a V6 though...

>>17443231
100 % pussy detected !

File: IMG_2507.jpg (55KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 400x300px

>>17442954
This.
V6 are compromise aka cuck engines and they sound like shit.
Everyone defending V6's itt should literally commit sudoku.

>>17443985
/thread

Packaging isn't the only problem with the i6, it's also the weight. Remember that formula one uses v6 engines exclusively, so they obviously have some merit.

>>17444082
If F1 teams were given the option to choose their engine types they would probably be turbo charged fours.. or rotaries.