No enginelets

>>17669637
M52?

>>17669637
Literal semi truck design/tractor design v6 is superior in everyway.

>inb4 V8 fags say 6 cylinders is small
M20 here

>>17669660
Enjoy your inefficient counter weights

>>17669637
N52 - I6 master race

>tfw you gap a prehistoric I6/v8 land yacht with your turbo 1.6 I4

>>17669641
It says right at the bottom you nonce

>>17669711
But is it tho? Cant tell

>>17669672
>counter balance meme
60 degree v6's is naturally balanced ill enjoy my engine fitting behind axles.

>>17669637
Which is the reliable bmw engine? The twin tarbo? Or was it the other one? N53 i think?

>>17669637
6cyl would be nice, but I'm happy with my 320HP/540Nm 2.3L 4cyl.

>>17669768
The N52

The newer turbo I6's are okay, the N54's are unreliable as hell

File: 4b5c0a1d9787f.jpg (65KB, 567x449px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 567x449px

>>17669637
Am I welcome here guys?

File: image.jpg (94KB, 792x563px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 792x563px

The weak should fear the strong.

>>17669722
enjoy your van powered """""sports car"""""

>>17669722
No retard, they are not. You still need split pin cranks, and then secondary/primary is off balance.
You literally need at least an i6 to be harmonic
V6 is dumptruck trash.
The back of it.

>>17669672
Enjoy your boat anchor.

>>17671899
Enjoy your forward polar moment of inertia and the resulting understeer.

>>17672489
>implying balance is relevant in modern engines
Engineering has caught up, and V6 packaging is superior. V6 > I6.

File: 1370647578127.jpg (172KB, 1188x792px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1188x792px

>>17669899
what do you need that for

>>17669829
>HP/Nm
Why? Why not just use either HP/ftlbs or kW/Nm like a sane person?

Remember kids, mixing imperial and metric is why we can't have nice things.

File: s54.jpg (854KB, 1600x1179px) Image search: [Google]

854KB, 1600x1179px

>>17669637
Is 3.2 I6 large enough?

File: gaa_v6pb.jpg (74KB, 600x454px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x454px

cosworth v6 is bad?

>>17672511
>Horsepower (hp) is a unit of measurement of power (the rate at which work is done). There are many different standards and types of horsepower. Two common definitions being used today are the mechanical horsepower (or imperial horsepower), which is approximately 746 watts, and the metric horsepower, which is approximately 735.5 watts.

>>17672516
externally? hell yes. its also not very light.

>>17672520
>Look ma, I can post from wikipedia!
HP and ftlbs are imperial units.
W and Nm are metric units.

Mixing them is stupid.

Oh and metric horsepower is just a redefinition based on existing European (mainly German) standards. It has nothing to do with actual ''metric'', and is heavily frowned upon in the scientific community.

File: jeepsnow1.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

I6 is honestly one of the engines I've owned.

Had an old 70's F150 with the 300 as well. Such a tough engine, no matter which brand.

>>17669722
>naturally balanced
Lol no its not retard v6s are the least balanced engines made today aside from the v twin which is for even bigger fags.

>>17669637
1.6 I4 here

I guess i'm an enginelet then

>>17669637
Ford 300 I6 a best

File: drz400-engine-2[1].jpg (184KB, 957x719px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 957x719px

>>17669637
s. s. ssingle cyclinder m. m m.m mmmasterrace?

>>17672806
>not 2-smoke

>>17669637
Had an old I-5 Colorado. Really bad everything.

Along that path, I have two OM617 Inline-5s. One turbo in an old Merc sedan and another one NA out of a 81 G-Wagon. Land cruiser has a 4.5litre Inline 6. Unfortunately it is gasoline.

File: IMG_1281.jpg (79KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1280x720px

Ford made the best inline 6 desu

>>17669637
15L Detroit 60 here. Detuned to 515hp 1650lb/ft.

>>17672508
>forward inertia
>understeer
Non existent in i6 powred BMW's thanks to superior 50/50 weight balance.

>>17672846
meanwhile a V6 Audi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmQAUJmvoBc

>>17672533
>I6 is honestly one of the engines I've owned.
For me, I6 is one of the engines I've honestly never owned

>>17672846
>50/50
>Superior
Pick one. If you don't want understeer in a RWD vehicle, you'll want at least 55% on the rear wheels. 50/50 is hardly optimal except for consumer-grade shitboxes.

Also, not even all BMW's are 50/50. Most are front heavy, like the current M5 (52/48).

>>17672862
how did he not even scratch it?
is audi paint that good?

File: IMG_20170722_145014392.jpg (3MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x2340px

Picked up a 7mgte for my mk3 project. Going to rebuild when I get some dosh.

>>17669637
5cyl volvo reporting in.

File: 4-liter-cutaway.jpg (54KB, 646x418px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 646x418px

>>17672516
no

>>17672846
http://automotivethinker.com/chassis/stop-and-weight-a-5050-weight-distribution-is-not-optimal/
50/50 isn't superior.

Also,
>E30 6cyl models were 54/46
>E90 6cyl was 52/48
>F80 M3 is 52/48
Most of them are front-heavy, thanks to that long I6. A V6 would reduce understeer. Only BMW M3 I know of with (((perfect 50/50))) were the E36 and E46.

>>17673202
>Only BMW M3 I know of with (((perfect 50/50))) were the E36 and E46

>Only BMW M3 I know of with (((perfect 50/50))) were the E36 and E46

so... the only m3's with i6's?

>>17674992
What is the F80?

>>17672508
>engineering has caught up
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Just because you can't feel it inside the cabin (soft rubber mounts) doesn't mean that engineers changed how goddamn nature works, you goddamn retard
You could, at max,complain about torsional rigidity, but you're too dumb to do that


Oh, and on that torsional rigidity note?
Engineering has caught up :V
Crossmembers, son.

>>17677823
Back in the 60's, engineers couldn't properly make a V6 with a lifespan that easily exceeded that of the vehicle it was put in, mostly because of internal balance.
Nowadays, engineering has caught up. The old problems of NVH and lifespan have been solved by proper engineering. Hell, modern NVH engineering is so good enthousiasts are complaining about it.

Torsional rigidity? Yeah, sure, put a crossmember inside your I6 to fix the problem.

V6 is better at packaging and weight. I6 is better at internal balance. You can engineer a V6 to negate the lack of balance, but you can't make the weight and shitty packaging of an I6 disappear.

>>17677847
N&V has not been solved, anon.
Just look at any gtr video, or any car with a v6, and look how everyone will still comment
"sounds like garbage"
"Here comes the dumptruck "
"Is it a diesel"
It never will on a v6. If you have less primary vibration, you get more secondary. If you have less secondary, you get more primary. V6's have the same problem as v2's in that regard
But I disagree when you say i6 have shotty packaging. They are longer and flex a bit more when you get a 5.1 6banger, but beemer made 2.0 i6's too. Those things are way shorter than you'd expect from a 6pot.
It is not internal balance, that's grinding connecting rods and making your crank look like a piece of swiss cheese. They are harmonically balanced, anon.

>>17677847
(Extra) yeah you can make the weight go away.
Small displacement + turbos and a cast magnesium block.

>>17669708
.tfw your exhaust note sounds like a whoopee cushion

>tfw enginelet
Maybe in 5 years when my insurance is lower I can upgrade

>400 i2 45hp
>450 i2 45hp
>2.0t i4 300+hp
>3.0 v6 150hp
Tfw Bab engines across the board. At least my dad has a zl1...

>>17678003
Then use a proper exhaust system on one. A Busso doesn't sound bad - and not all I6 engines sound good.

BMW even makes a 1600cc I6. It's still pretty long, and your argument that a small I6 will be smaller than a big V6 is true. However, that is literally comparing apples to oranges. For any given bore, stroke and cam layout, a V6 will be more compact than a comparable I6.

>>17678008
Well what if you make a small displacement, twinturbo cast magnesium V6? It'll be lighter than the I6, and it'll package better with less weight over the front axle in a front-rear setup.

V6>I6 in everything but balance (irrelevant nowadays) and sound (subjective), deal with it.

>>17678044
>Then use a proper exhaust system on one.
If it doesn't at Least sounds passable with straight pipes, literally the purest form of sound coming from the engine, then it objectively sounds like shit
>Busso doesn't sound bad - and not all I6 engines sound good.
Just because you don't like the tractor thump doesn't mean it sounds bad
>BMW even makes a 1600cc I6. It's still pretty long, and your argument that a small I6 will be smaller than a big V6 is true. However, that is literally comparing apples to oranges. For any given bore, stroke and cam layout, a V6 will be more compact than a comparable I6.
Shorter yes, wider no, heightwise probably not
>Well what if you make a small displacement, twinturbo cast magnesium V6? It'll be lighter than the I6, and it'll package better with less weight over the front axle in a front-rear setup.
And cost 10x more for all of that technology to beat what the i6 is naturally, do the same to an i6 and come back to me
>V6>I6 in everything but balance (irrelevant nowadays) and sound (subjective), deal with it.
Wrong (wrong), wrong, and no

>>17678044


>>17678044
Balance isn't, and never will be irrelevant.
Of course a v6 will always be smaller than an i6, it's why sometimes v's are used. But if we're talking 2, 1.6l engines, it is small and light enough to where the differences in size and weight between v an I would be small enough not to matter over smoothness
You gain a little bit of extra linearity, and extra power from a properly balanced engine. If a design is inherently smoother, it inherently has more power (inherently more powerful? Not native English speaker)
and I mean linearity on power delivery, not on power curves (same thing as v2 problems)

File: 1380bb3f644eb12c1de6814cdc4c75dd6c1338876d724e56365a1a2f93685fc8.jpg (27KB, 350x335px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x335px

>>17672508
>backpedaling this hard

>>17669722
You must be at least 18 to post here

>>17677847
V6 is obsolete, manufacturers are making turbocharged i4s instead
and about packaging on i6s, "engineering has caught up" lmao. Just look at Mercedes-Benz, they dumped the V6 because thanks to electrification they have short i6s and don't need to engineer their vehicles around the shortcomings of V6s. Luxury is back.

>>17678061
>>17678059
>>17678044
>>17678003
>>17677847
>>17677823
>>17672508
>engineering has caught up
>balance is irrelevant

You know this is actually true, modern v6s are built so well it doesn't even matter that they aren't perfectly balanced - they still rev quite cleanly. It's like the i4, try telling a bikefag their i4 isn't properly balanced and they'd be better of with an i6! They'd tell you the i4 is balanced enough for very high rpm and any gain from an i6 balance would be negated by the extra length.

Now I live the straight six as much (more) as they next guy, my first car was an RB30e and nothing comes close to that sound, but one day I got a vg30e (basically identical engine but v6) and let me tell you there is not much difference between the two.
And the v6 can sound pretty good too!

>>17678059
>Just because you don't like the tractor thump doesn't mean it sounds bad
Are here we have the main problem:liking an engine's sound is subjective.

>Shorter yes, wider no, heightwise probably not
Twice as short, a bit wider, and always shorter. Guess what you need for packaging? An engine that's as square as possible, and the inline six in long and narrow. It therefore does not optimise the available space.
In terms of vehicle dynamics, wider doesn't matter as much too. A shorter engine will result in a lower polar moment of inertia, which makes for less understeer in a front-engine car. Packaging for any given V6 is better than for any comparable I6.

>And cost 10x more for all of that technology to beat what the i6 is naturally
The I6 is naturally more heavy.
The I6 is naturally longer.
The I6 has a naturally higher polar moment of inertia, even around it's own center axis.
The I6 is naturally more expensive to make.
The I6 is naturally harder to package, thanks to it's awkard long/narrow shape.

The only things an I6 does better is internal balance.

>>17678061
Balance is utterly irrelevant when we're making 15K RPM V6 engines, and we are so good at suppressing NVH that we need to pump engine sound into the cabin.
Especially in a small engine, the V6 would be noticable smaller and more compact. I don't know if you've ever seen a Laverda V6 for example, they're noticably smaller and shorter than a CBX or Z1300. This allows the V6 be be used both longitudinally and transversely, where an I6 can only fit transversely in motorcycles (unless you want a ridiculously long wheelbase).

>>17678148
>a bit wider
>a bit
lel

File: 1920px-Barra_245T_Engine[1].jpg (407KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 1920x1280px

>>17672516
>3.2
no. 4.0 or bust

>>17678148
>transversely
literally irrelevant unless you want a FWD shitbox

>>17678085
V6 is not obsolete in turbo form. Sure, for commuter cars, a turbo I4 will be better (in both packaging and power) than an n/a V6, but the V6 is supreme anywhere where you need a compromise between 4 an 8 cylinders.

Both Mercedes and Jaguar are now moving to inline sixes... why exactly? Not for power, or packaging. They're both moving towards inlinse sixes, because they stopped looking at the sixbanger as a bad eigh cylinder. Mercedes used to rip two cylinders off their V8, and Jaguar didn't even bother casting different blocks for their V6. This, of course, hampered the V8 designs, which means that AMG will now be moving solely to V8 and V12 development. Mercedes (the main company) will develop the 4 and 6 cylinder engines. Now, both Mercedes and Jaguar have created a succesful line of inline four cylinder engines (look up Ingenium), and it is much easier to just scale those to an I6 than it is to make a V6 out of them.
tl;dr new I6 engines are scaled up economy I4's, not patrician V8's scaled down

>thanks to electrification they have short i6s
Please explain how hybridisation can make for a shorter I6, and how that same tech would apply to a V6.
>and don't need to engineer their vehicles around the shortcomings of V6s.
The shortcomings are balance and sound. Both have been engineered out of their latest vehicles. They can romanticise the I6 all they want (I don't blame them), the V6 would be the superior engineering choice. The shortcomings of the I6 are myriad, but then again, BMW and Mercedes clearly need their USP's.

>>17678164
>straight six
>can't rev
That really defeats the purpose....

>>17678166
>tl;dr new I6 engines are scaled up economy I4's, not patrician V8's scaled down
that's the most retarded thing I've ever read
>This, of course, hampered the V8 designs
that's retarded too
>Not for power, or packaging.
actually yes, for packaging. Electrification makes engines much shorter. Sperg more.

>>17678162
Wider doesn't matter as long as it doesn't intrude into the shock towers.
Longer on the other hand is critical, since it determines the weight over the front axle in FR vehicles.
V engines are always lower than their inline counterpart. That's simply how geometry works.

>>17678164
Anon this is an engine thread. Boat anchors need not apply.

>>17678165
Packaging is always relevant. It took Volvo several decade to fit an I6 transversely.

Anyways, for any given front engined, RWD vehicle with a fixed transmission, a V6 will result in less weight over the front axle than a comparable I6. It is therefore superior.

>>17678180
Transverse engines are inferior.

File: A6%204.2%20engine[1].jpg (74KB, 782x510px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 782x510px

>>17678180
Someone say boat anchors?

>>17678180
>muh front axle

Hey but I'm with you on the v6 packaging but the main reason manufactures like that is for crumple zones and cabin space. Weight over the front axle isn't as important as you might think.

>>17678017
>tfw you get passed by a rolling whoopee cushion
Embarrassing!

>>17678166
>Please explain how hybridisation can make for a shorter I6, and how that same tech would apply to a V6.
See this:
>Mercedes-Benz’ brand new inline-six petrol is arguably one of the most technologically advanced new engines set to be introduced in the S-Class facelift next year. Besides reworking the six-cylinder configuration, boosting efficiency and output, this particular engine was chosen to host a bunch of new innovations including the new 48V system, Integrated Starter-Alternator (ISG), and an electric auxiliary compressor (eZV). The new inline-six is set to blur the boundaries with today’s V8 engines in terms of performance while offering much more fuel efficiency, as well as redefining the boundaries with hybrid powertrains.

>The new six-cylinder engine has been systematically designed for electrification, with the 48V system playing a key role. Its performance too comes fairly close to that of the current eight-cylinder. The new sixer produces 408 hp (300 kW) and more than 500 Nm of torque. That’s a considerable increase compared to the outgoing V6 (M 276) which was rated at 333 hp (245 kW) and 480 Nm of torque. Besides being as much as 15 percent more efficient as its predecessor, the new inline-six is by all means a much more compact engine, with cylinder spacing having been reduced from 106 mm to just 90 mm.
>As said before, the 48V electrical system plays a key role in powering high consuming components such as the ISG, water pump and air conditioning compressor. The ISG takes over the responsibilities of the conventional drive belt as it recuperates energy straight into the car’s battery. This liberated a significant amount of space in the engine bay, making the setup much more sophisticated and less complex. The 12V system is still in play too, powering the car’s lights, cockpit, control units and infotainment system.

http://gtspirit.com/2016/10/30/special-report-mercedes-benz-tecday-engines/

>>17678178
>that's the most retarded thing I've ever read
Then go read the MB and Jaguar press releases. They don't mention a single performance advantage except ''muh balance'' and ''muh heritage''.
>Electrification makes engines much shorter.
The only way this can happen is if it replaces the belt drive. Guess what, removing the belt drive off a V6 with similar electrification makes it even more shorter compared to the I6.

>>17678181
I agree. You should agree that the V6 is superior to the I6 in longitudinal layouts.

>>17678196
Guess what, for any given crumple zone and cabin space, the V6 also has less weight over the front axle.

>Weight over the front axle isn't as important as you might think.
Newton would like a word with you. Not only is weight ON the axles bad (poor mass centralisation and therefore poor moment of inertia), it's also on the front axle -exactly what you don't want in a RWD vehicle, where you're always pushing for that slight rear weight bias.

I6 N53 here
wish it were a 54 or 55 desu

>>17678205
>The only way this can happen is if it replaces the belt drive.
that's what it does.
> Guess what, removing the belt drive off a V6 with similar electrification makes it even more shorter compared to the I6.
it's much more complicated on a V6, because there's two cylinder banks.

>>17678205
>Newton would like a word with you. Not only is weight ON the axles bad (poor mass centralisation and therefore poor moment of inertia), it's also on the front axle -exactly what you don't want in a RWD vehicle, where you're always pushing for that slight rear weight bias.
lol, tell that to the Audi A6 V6 owners

>>17678205
I'm telling you mate I've seen too many cars (v6, v8 even the new ft86) where they mount the engine several inches off the firewall - further forward than they need to - because they mant the weight over the frontwheels.

>>17678219
>lol, tell that to the Audi A6 V6 owners
any Audi owner*
they'll defend their understeering VWs no matter what

>>17678225
>any Audi owner*
I mentioned the V6 A6 because it's the Audi you can get with a V6 and torsen
>they'll defend their understeering VWs no matter what
kek, sad but true

>>17678205
OH MY FUCKING GOD
every god damn time we have a engine discussion thread and someone points out how retarded v6's are for sporty cars you show up and shill you retarded minivan engines
And every time you do you get BTFO and fall back on the "le balance is irrelevant" meme
you don't know what the fuck you're talking about so fuck off and stop shitting up our threads with your sperging

>>17678232
you can get the A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, Q5 and Q7 with a V6 and AWD

>>17678241
>Q7
ayyy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8plO4AeKNU

>>17678204
So it replaces the drive belt. For any given length reduction in an I6,that ISG would result in even more length reduction (as a percentage) on a V6.

>>17678208
Actually, Mercedes uses timing chains, and the belt drive only power accesories. The belt drive has nothing to do with those cylinder heads. Again, the system is just as easy to implement on a V6 as on an I6, and it makes the V6 even shorter, relatively speaking.

>>17678219
A lot of Audi longitudinal AWD systems are the textbook example of where NOT to put an engine -right over the front axle.

Now imagine the A6 with an I6, bolted to the same transmission location. Imagine the understeer.

>>17678247
>Now imagine the A6 with an I6, bolted to the same transmission location. Imagine the understeer.
it would actually be better as the weight would be more distributed as opposed to concentrated in front of the axle

>>17678247
>-right over the front axle.
AHEAD OF the front axle*
I seriously cannot fathom why they ever thought that was a good idea

>>17678246
BTFO by the Italians, like always

File: 3f0eb71afe9b4d065d981e26806f8115[1].jpg (123KB, 800x553px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 800x553px

>>17678252
there's a reason they moved away from the inline 5

File: audi.png (182KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 750x600px

>>17678247
>>17678253
Pic related
>>17678253
>BTFO by the Italians, like always
ikr
hell, my 156 is FWD and steers way better than the average quattro Audi

>>17678257
yeah, no replacement for displacement
V6 is heavier than i6 for the same displacement though

>>17678258
even the """"mighty Quattro"""" got BTFO by the 2WD Lancia 037, yet the 037 is forgotten and the Quattro is remembered as the greatest Group B car
fucking krautcuck shills

File: DSC00752.jpg (286KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 900x1200px

>>17678266
i-italybro?

>>17678220
>because they want the engine to function as a part of the crash absorption, diving underneath the vehicle as to not go violently into the cabin
>because they want a bit of understeer because that;s safer for consumers
FTFY. Proper RWD racecars have their weight as much rearward as possible.

>>17678240
Not an argument, sperg more.

>>17678252
No, it'd actually stick out further over the front axle. Hell, it might not even fit within the stock bumper. Have you ever see those original Quattros, with the I5 engine way ahead of the front axle? Like that, but with another cilinder sticking out even further. A V6 would be more compact.

The same point applies to Porsches. That pendulum effect all journalists whine on about would be even worse if they had an inline six.

File: cant make this shit up.png (145KB, 300x641px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 300x641px

>>17678265
why do you think Audi never used inline 6s?
right, because they'd stick out too far, putting the center of mass even further ahead of the front axle and causing even more audisteer
the inline 5 could make tons of power, but a cast iron block sticking out that far from the front wheels is a recipe for disaster so instead they chose to concentrate the weight closer to the front axle, and with that ever so slightly closer to the center of the car

>>17678273
nah, author of pic related though

>>17678265
>yeah, no replacement for displacement
Cocaine, 110 RON race fuel and several Bar of boost would like to disagree with you.
>V6 is heavier than i6 for the same displacement though
Not true. Imagine slicing an I6 in half widthwise, slightly canting one half around the crankshaft axis, and then sliding the two together to form a V6. You now have a lot of overlap in the bottom end of the engine block, which means you don't need as much material anymore as you would with an I6. You can also use a much shorter crank, which is under much lower torsional stress. Look up installing 2JZ cams for example, due to their length they can easily snap in half. Those same stresses are working on the crankshaft, and it's why I6 cranks have to be overbuilt quite a bit compared to V6 units.

>>17678282
>right, because they'd stick out too far, putting the center of mass even further ahead of the front axle and causing even more audisteer
wouldn't it force them to move it a bit back?
>the inline 5 could make tons of power, but a cast iron block sticking out that far from the front wheels is a recipe for disaster so instead they chose to concentrate the weight closer to the front axle, and with that ever so slightly closer to the center of the car
why not make an aluminum i5 too? Also I don't recall the UrQuattro having an understeer reputation, but that could be because I'm a youngfag and my only experience with it is second-hand comment at best
>nah, author of pic related though
ayyy, not the first time I confuse you for him, we're the audi-hater trifecta
where are you from anon so I can give you some name (not to namefag but for reference purposes)? That picture when it was first posted was probably the best post in my thread lol

>>17678301
you're ignoring all the duplicated gearing and components there though m8

>>17678386
>wouldn't it force them to move it a bit back?
can't do that, because that'd require the transmission to be moved back since it contains the differential
>I don't recall the UrQuattro having an understeer reputation
I know Röhrl described the final, craziest iterations of the Quattro as "nearly undrivable", an understeer doesn't matter as much in rally since you have almost no traction anyway, it just requires a different driving style

and I don't actually hate Audi, it's just easy (You)s

>>17678392
In a DOHC V6, only the timing gears are duplicated (compared to an inline six). These components only need to drive a camshaft that's half as long - and can therefore be made to weigh roughly half as much. Even if they were just as heavy as their I6 counterparts, the massive weight savings in the block would easily offset that.

>>17678386
>wouldn't it force them to move it a bit back?
Basic vehicle dynamics would force that, but Audi never listened to those either. However, for the sake of comparison, we're considering the input end of the transmission to be fixed here (which is actually a part of Audi's gearbox design iirc).
>why not make an aluminum i5 too?
They did that for the B4 S2 and RS2. The lasteest I5T in the RS3 actually uses CGI, which is a very high quality cast iron. This makes for a good weight reduction over regular grey cast iron, while still being a lot cheaper than aluminium.

>>17678407
>I know Röhrl described the final, craziest iterations of the Quattro as "nearly undrivable", an understeer doesn't matter as much in rally since you have almost no traction anyway, it just requires a different driving style
interesting
>can't do that, because that'd require the transmission to be moved back since it contains the differential
how about moving the axle forward?
>and I don't actually hate Audi, it's just easy (You)s
Well, I guess I don't hate it either, but it annoys me quite a bit that most people get fooled by their marketing and think they're on the same level as the brands that provide cars that are luxury cars in everything but price and exclusivity (thinking Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Jaguar here). I don't like nu-BMW (post E34) but I admit that they're on a much higher level than Audi for about the same money, only a deluded badgewhore would get an Audi. That said, they jumped the shark with the 4 series. I was appalled watching this review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wJIge6bnd8
Shitty interior quality (silver painted plastic where previous ones had aluminum, fake wood, fake ugly leather on the wheel, shitty plastics that creak on the dashboard, creaking steering wheel, basically it's anything but solid), shitty transmission, shitty sound (although it's kinda justified because it's a diesel).

File: IMG_20161108_163239~01.jpg (2MB, 2651x1810px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2651x1810px

>>17669637
Muh 5.0

File: 01E_trans[1].jpg (43KB, 600x275px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x275px

>>17678465
>how about moving the axle forward?
again, nearly impossible with how their AWD system is laid out
the front diff is integrated in the transmission (pic related), so you'd need driveshafts running at odd angles to power the front wheels if you moved them forward, resulting in more wear on the parts involved

>>17678481
lol, thanks for the reminder
i had forgot how retarded Audi's engineering was

File: 872307[1].jpg (210KB, 1024x663px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1024x663px

>>17678494
it's fascinating how they can do such great things (old inline 5 turbo, belt-driven 4.2 V8, 1.8T 20V) and make such colossal fuckups (chain-driven 4.2 V8, engine ahead of the front axle, front control arm-eating B5) at the same time
hilariously they managed to wipe the floor with the entire Trans-Am field and got AWD banned there

>>17678530
I think the angular design is what prevents me from seeing how far forward the i5 is.
Also aren't B5s the same generation from the longitudinal Passats?

>>17678541
>aren't B5s the same generation from the longitudinal Passats?
yep, that's the one
the cheap A4 that every poorfag can afford but somehow makes people think they're hot shit

File: 1988-AUDI-200-TRANS-AM-11[1].jpg (209KB, 893x596px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 893x596px

>>17678541
here's a nice shot of how far forward the engine actually sits, it's way up in the front bumper

>>17678575
>spaceframe
amazing, I didn't know audi made these

File: 2009-06-08_1449[1].png (372KB, 793x352px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 793x352px

>>17678621
that thing basically used a production 200 unibody with tube frame front and maybe rear
the 90 IMSA GTO was a full silhouette racer though

>>17678204
>The new six-cylinder engine has been systematically designed for electrification, with the 48V system playing a key role. Its performance too comes fairly close to that of the current eight-cylinder. The new sixer produces 408 hp (300 kW) and more than 500 Nm of torque. That’s a considerable increase compared to the outgoing V6 (M 276) which was rated at 333 hp (245 kW) and 480 Nm of torque. Besides being as much as 15 percent more efficient as its predecessor, the new inline-six is by all means a much more compact engine, with cylinder spacing having been reduced from 106 mm to just 90 mm.
V6 cucks completely BTFO
how can they recover from this?

>>17678738

They literally can't. V6 is a shit platform fit for minivans

>>17678738
>>17678754
V6 is short, I6 is narrow.
Both fit in different cars.
A more narrow small sports car may be suited better with a inline engine and a van with a V-type engine.

>>17678738
B T F O

>>17669668
Ayyy m20b25 here

>>17669668
>>17679191
how is that big? it's barely bigger than the 1.8 i4 my dad's VW Fox had

>>17679191
a 2.0 is a fucking i6-let

File: 1992_MX3_V6_24V.jpg (258KB, 640x467px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 640x467px

>>17679320
>not liking CUTE! engines

>>17678738
>how can they recover from this?
There's several turbo V6 engines that make more horsepower than that.

If you applied the same tech (48V system, more efficient cylinders, lower cylinder spacing), a comparable V6 would be even smaller and more compact.

>>17678796
Not really, since V engine are never so wide that they intrude on shock tower. Maybe in a single seater, but most sportscars with ameneties like a cabin have enough space to fit the width of a V6. The lack of length on the V6 proves a performance advantage there.

>>17679564
If they applied the same tech a comparable V6 would fall apart. Thin cylinder spacing needs smoothness.

File: IMG_5381.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>17678575
Damn. Are there more pics? It would be cool to see the underside of the engine and trans and where the CV shafts are. Also the engine is so far forward because of that. With RWD, much easier to slide the engine back.

>tfw was hanging around in fleet all morning playing at stuff
Thinking about how cool it would be to buy a DT466E or similar engine and drop it in an old F-250. They are so tall tho that you would have some fun cramming it all in there. To keep the stock hood you would have to lift the truck and still have the oil pan almost on the ground with some crazy front suspension engineering I'm sure.

Also babby 3-cyl diesel engine, I wanted to take it home. But dude said he was going to build an air compressor out of it and bolt everything to a pallet so they can just slide it in a pickup truck if they need an air source out on the road to fix something.

>>17678738
>go from an oversquare Chrysler to a modern undersquare Mercedes design
>decrease bore spacing
>add a 48V system
Well of course it'll be more efficient and more powerful.

Also the outgoing M276 makes 367hp in the 43 AMG models. Total system output on the new M256 is 408 hp - but 20 of those are coming from the electric motor. That means the ICE is making 388hp. I don't know about you, but 21hp (less than 6%) improvement in 7 years sounds like regular engineering improvement to me. Mercedes has certainly made larger improvements when they've introduced new engines in the past.

File: 754179audi200quattrotransam[1].jpg (447KB, 914x609px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 914x609px

>>17679616
Here's a cutaway that gives a pretty good impression of how the entire thing's laid out. As said before, the front (and center) diff is integrated into the transmission, so it has to be positioned right between the wheels, leaving the engine to stick way out the front but keeping all that mass down low.

>>17679614
Citation fucking needed. If you're realying on the cylinder walls to keep your pistons from vibrating, you dun goofed.

Also, the bore is 12mm smaller, which accounts for 75% of that lower bore spacing. The other 25% comes from not using a DaimlerChrysler block design that dates back to the M112 (introduced in 1998).

File: IMG_5395.png (386KB, 404x527px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 404x527px

>>17679640
Here's another good one to show how far forward that engine sits,

>>17679652
>Citation fucking needed. If you're realying on the cylinder walls to keep your pistons from vibrating, you dun goofed.
that's not what I said lol, what I was saying is that thinner walls won't be as durable when they're vibrating as much as in a V6
>Also, the bore is 12mm smaller, which accounts for 75% of that lower bore spacing.
That's retarded. The spacing is between bores, not center-to-center.

File: _1qJLukACE8[1].jpg (84KB, 604x403px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 604x403px

>>17679659
Even in the regular road car it's pressed way up against the radiator. Pretty cool how the 200 Trans Am used a straight up production 200 unibody with relatively minor modifications, and completely destroyed the rest of the field purely due to its AWD traction (and drivere that knew how to handle the thing).

>>17679683
>CIA

Am I the only one who finds small engines cute?

It's kind of super cool to be able to do so much with so little cc.

File: vg33e from r50 nissan pathfinder.jpg (372KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1500x1125px

These things will last forever if the owner actually remembers to change the timing belt.

Nissan sure used to make some damn good engines.

>>17679678
>that's not what I said lol, what I was saying is that thinner walls won't be as durable when they're vibrating as much as in a V6
And I'd still like a citation of that. Unnatural imbalance causes added wear on bearings unless you design for it, it does NOT transfer into the cylinder walls.

>Bore pitch is the distance between the centerline of a cylinder bore to the centerline of the next cylinder bore adjacent to it in an internal combustion engine. It's also referred to as the "mean cylinder width", "bore spacing", "bore center distance" and "cylinder spacing".

>>17679678
How can you make sweeping statements about cilinder walls (without any evidence, too), while you lack the basic knowledge of the definition of cylinder spacing?

>>17679758
>it does NOT transfer into the cylinder walls.
lel
if only the bearings were affected by it cars wouldn't need so much dampening

>>17679802
>no source
Not an argument.

>>17679779
it was the product of the linguistic barrier, I'm not a native English speaker

>>17679808
Then what's the equivalent of bore spacing in your language? The concept will probably translate pretty well.

Anyways, if you've ever done engineering work, you'll know that you never use the distance between the bores themselves - common practice is to use the distance between the centers.

>>17679822
It would be literally "space between cylinder centers"

>>17679853
Well then you're literally stupid by not understanding that definition.

>>17679861
I assumed that "bore spacing" was the translation of "space between cylinders"