Mercedes, Jaguar switching to L6, Ford doing opposite

[FalconXV]

What I'd really like to see is a very thorough comparison, either by an American publication (MT, Jalopnik, R&T) or one of ours- between the 3.5 Ecoboost and Duratecs versus our straight sixes, sometime before the latter dies.

It's a very long shot but if the straight six had better fundamental qualities (noise, idle, moving parts); and the data showed it would could be less costly to make it a class leader then perhaps Dearborn could take the dies somewhere and continue its development instead of the larger V6.

It just seems ironic that the engine with the superior layout dies , while Jaguar and Merc see the error of their ways and are switching back.
Just a thought, maybe we could start a petition for the comparo- it would get noticed and, while a long shot, stranger things have happened.

[Crazy Dazz]

When was the last (or even the first) time you saw a FWD with an I6???

[FalconXV]

Austin Kimberley, Austin Freeway X6, Daewoo Tosca/Holden Epica, Volvo S60, S80 ( two generations), LR Freelander, Alec Issigonis' 9x prototype.

All the Fwd models are switching to Turbo fours anyway. I'm talking about F-series, explorer etc which has large enough volume to justify such a move. And then it would open up doors for Lincoln etc- they need every head start they can get, after finally realising they took the wrong approach.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by FalconXV

I'm talking about F-series, explorer etc which has large enough volume to justify such a move.

Well I guess Mercedes and Jaguar must be chasing a more sophisticated breed of Redneck for their pickup trucks...

It's not rocket science.
An I6 is inherently better balanced, so gives you a better starting platform, but modern V6's can overcome that, up to a point.
a V6 is cheaper to make, lighter, more compact, can be mounted transversely for FWD applications.
Even in RWD applications they allow a much more compact design than an I6, and importantly can share a platform with I4's and V8s.

[FalconXV]

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...t-six-revival/

The V8 engine has long ruled the world of luxury cars, thanks to glass-smooth grunt and a delicious howl under duress. But tightening fuel-economy regulations are encouraging the use of smaller piston counts, and on the standardized tests that automakers use for fuel-efficiency ratings, the average downsized, turbocharged V6 uses less fuel than an equally powerful V8. That may seem win-win, but don't be won over. Engineers don't fantasize about V6s—accountants do. The V6 layout has proliferated because it "packages well," a sexless industry term that's code for "easy to cram into a variety of engine compartments."

It's also incredibly easy to build a V6 from an existing V8. Jaguar, for example, doesn't even bother changing the outside dimensions of its block. The company's V6, available in every new Jag sold in the U.S., is simply its V8 with shorter cylinder heads and balancing weights on the crankshaft where the last two piston throws should be.

It works, but not without compromises. Like all V8-derived V6s, Jaguar's has a 90-degree angle between its cylinder banks. That works well for a V8, but it's the wrong angle for a six, because it means the engine will fire at uneven intervals, and odd-fire engines run rough and make terrible noises. A V6 will fire at perfectly spaced intervals (read: smoothly) with its banks splayed to 120 degrees, but that's too wide to fit in most cars. Halving that angle keeps the even firing order and, with a couple of crank counterweights, it allows for smooth running. Toyota's ubiquitous 3.5-liter V-6 is a 60, and it's as creamy as they come.

But a 60-degree six negates the economic advantage of basing the engine off an existing V8. So luxury brands tend to stick with the 90-degree architecture and apply various tricks to make it work for a V6. The big one is using split, offset crankpins. These are impossible to fully understand without a physics degree and a stiff drink, but in essence, they slightly offset opposing pistons, forcing them to move in such a way that the engine fires evenly. But these are difficult to engineer and expensive to manufacture. Plus, the 90-degree V6 usually has an engine-driven balance shaft to prevent the whole complicated mess from vibrating itself apart. All of this adds expense, hurts efficiency, and requires royalty payments to Rube Goldberg.

That lack of internal dissonance gives the same perfect balance as a V12.

That complexity, however, masks the problem instead of solving it. The mass of the pistons moving up and down in an internal combustion engine creates enormous forces, which cause the engine to vibrate. The most effective way to reduce that vibration is to use the force of one piston to cancel out the force of another; in other words, as piston A moves in one direction (up), piston B moves in the exact opposite direction (down) at exactly the same time. But that's only possible for engines with an even number of pistons in a single plane, like an inline-four-cylinder. When you have an odd number of cylinders, as with an inline-three, the force moving in one direction (say, up) is almost always imbalanced compared with the force moving in the opposite direction (down). This makes the engine rock back and forth. Now think about a V6, which is essentially two three-cylinder engines joined at the crank—it's like having a pair of amped-up pit bulls on a shared leash. And that typically means a whole lot of unpleasant mechanical noise, to boot.

You can avoid the drama by arranging the pistons in one line. A straight-six doesn't need split crankpins, balance shafts, or big counterweights, because each of its cylinders has a twin that's doing the opposite thing, at the same time and in the same plane, canceling out the other's forces. That lack of internal dissonance gives the same perfect balance as a V12. There's a reason museum-piece marques like Rolls-Royce, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, Aston Martin, and Alfa Romeo earned their reputations with inline-sixes.

At the moment, BMW remains the sole champion of the straight-six. Munich engineers admit that they regularly develop and test prototype V6s, per internal policy, but say the results don't come close to meeting company noise and harshness standards. Mercedes-Benz must not have such stringent benchmarks. Once renowned for its silken inline-sixes, Stuttgart phased out those engines and began building V6s out of its V8s during the dark, cost-cutting days of the marque's DaimlerChrysler ownership. As the sting of that failed merger continues to fade, so will the company's coarse, complex, 90-degree V6, which is being retired in favor of a 60-degree unit. This stopgap engine, which fits into the vee-focused packaging of Mercedes's current lineup, is noticeably smoother than the 90-degree unit, but its exhaust still sounds like Fran Drescher on Spanish fly—not the voice you want your luxury car to sing with.

That's likely one reason Mercedes is rumored to be developing a new family of inline-sixes. And because accountants, not engineers, usually run the show these days, you can be sure there's an economic incentive as well. As tightening fuel-economy standards encourage four- and six-cylinder engines where sixes and eights once lived, an inline layout becomes the norm and it makes financial sense to develop a modular family of inline-threes, fours, and sixes. Add the straight-six's other cost-savings (half as many cylinder heads, camshafts, and turbos), and suddenly, tougher emissions mandates have the unintended consequence of unifying the dreams of engineers and bean counters alike. It's a dream aligned in one straight line.

[Express]

BMW makes a nice I6

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Express

BMW makes a nice I6

Even the diesel one is a good engine too.

[FPV GTHO]

I think Ford are a few steps behind Mercedes and Jaguar when it comes to going back to straight sixes, such as having suitable passenger vehicles that would demand an I6.

With the 2.7 Ecoboost coming I'd even be willing to bet Ford will stop making their large capacity 6's altogether, unless they keep the 3.5 to replace all future V8's.

[malazn mafia]

Could probably forgive MoFoCo for axeing falcon. But discarding the I6/i6t would be the ultimate insult to Aussie ingenuity..

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

When was the last (or even the first) time you saw a FWD with an I6???

Forget an FWD I6, how about a FWD I8 -
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...-drive-program

Ford Australia mucked about with the T Drive concept back in the EA days, there was a drivetrain pic floating around of the EA I6 in a 'T config' too, stuffed if I could find it though :(

Edit, found these pics of a TBird with what looks like the EA I6 -

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Could probably forgive MoFoCo for axeing falcon. But discarding the I6/i6t would be the ultimate insult to Aussie ingenuity..

In it's current form what other application could the I6 (Barra) be used?
It's a physically large (and heavy) engine and would limited to application.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Forget an FWD I6, how about a FWD I8 -
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...-drive-program

Ford Australia mucked about with the T Drive concept back in the EA days, there was a drivetrain pic floating around of the EA I6 in a 'T config' too, stuffed if I could find it though :(

Edit, found these pics of a TBird with what looks like the EA I6 -
image

image

Cadillac Seville STS - FWD V8

[Kieron]

Late 60's Toronado (Cadillacs from the same era got this too) V8/FWD -



Some weird stuff out there!

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

a V6 is cheaper to make.

BMW have based their new family of engines around a common 500cc cylinder layout. This allows them to scale engine capacity up or down to suit the application. So 1.5 I3, 2.0 I4 and 3.0 I6 can be made of the same production line reducing complexity and cost when compared to building separate "families" of engines. Those I3 and I4 engines are being fitted to both transverse FWD vehicles (Mini, 2 Series Active Tourer) and RWD vehicles (1 series, 3 series ect).
I can only assume Mercedes and Jaguar have similar intentions with their new engines.

[Express]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Could probably forgive MoFoCo for axeing falcon. But discarding the I6/i6t would be the ultimate insult to Aussie ingenuity..

Originally Posted by Wretched

In it's current form what other application could the I6 (Barra) be used?
It's a physically large (and heavy) engine and would limited to application.

Add to the mix the local engine falls far too short for the euro emission standards used in many other countries.

[Raptor]

I love the I6

But the current 4.0l is just too big and too heavy to have a future in passenger cars/CUVs/SUVs as we all chase efficiency.

I still think it should have found a home in the nose of the F150 (or smaller F100) though. Efficiency isn't always the highest priority

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Forget an FWD I6, how about a FWD I8 -
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...-drive-program

Ford Australia mucked about with the T Drive concept back in the EA days, there was a drivetrain pic floating around of the EA I6 in a 'T config' too, stuffed if I could find it though :(

Edit, found these pics of a TBird with what looks like the EA I6 -
image

image

That T-bird grille looks like the AU ute egg crate grille

[Eaturbo]

I reckon the i6 would be cheaper to build than the v6 as well. 2 cam shafts not 4, only one timing chain or belt not two. One single head casting not 2, more simple exhaust manifold and no need for a crossover. I could be wrong but this would have to mean cheaper build cost

[mik]

the big problem with the inline 6 is the package, its a long bugger, the v engine in comparison is just so much easier to fit in a small engine bay.

[Express]

Originally Posted by mik

the big problem with the inline 6 is the package, its a long bugger, the v engine in comparison is just so much easier to fit in a small engine bay.

You have a point and you’d think an inline 6 would be longer than a V8 as well which made me wonder why the nose on my Merc looks longer than my BMW so I measured the engines plus a couple of others.

The measurements are rough but accurate enough for argument sake to show there is not much in it when it comes to a V8 comparison.

BMW I6 measured 75cm
Merc V8 measured 80cm.
Commodore V8 measured 70cm
Cleveland V8 measured 70cm to water pump
Cleveland V8 measured 80cm to fan

It would be interesting to know the length of the Ford six and the Commodore V6 as a further comparison.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Express

You have a point and you’d think an inline 6 would be longer than a V8 as well which made me wonder why the nose on my Merc looks longer than my BMW so I measured the engines plus a couple of others.

The measurements are rough but accurate enough for argument sake to show there is not much in it when it comes to a V8 comparison.

BMW I6 measured 75cm
Merc V8 measured 80cm.
Commodore V8 measured 70cm
Cleveland V8 measured 70cm to water pump
Cleveland V8 measured 80cm to fan

It would be interesting to know the length of the Ford six and the Commodore V6 as a further comparison.

i can tell you right now , once or twice a year i have to help the neighbor across the road with their commy v6 that has starting problems, and it is diminutive/tiny/compact compared to the falcon six, there is just so much room in the commy engine bay it is ridiculous.

[FalconXV]

Polestar Ovlov has a transverse i6 and it's a Swedish monster. Lol I know it won't happen I just think it's a crap go the superior engine is dying.
Don't like the direction major car companies are going but I applaud Mazda for having the gonads to champion natural aspiration.
It's just harder to find the ideal car as an enthisiast. I loved the FGII I had to bits, but the BA 5-speed just had a lovely shift action and was just the best car I've ever owned.

[XG_Falcon]

The Barra I6 could possibly have found a place in the niche euro luxury car market, however BMW already builds the best straight six engines any way so why bother competing in a contest you'll never win?

As previously mentioned, the aussie six needs a lot of work (big $$$ investment) to pass euro emissions standards. It's also simply too big to fit into anything other than a large vehicle. I love my I6's but unfortunately Ford Australia's product has never really been world class, it has always been a step (or two) behind the real competition.

It's time to accept it.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by mik

the big problem with the inline 6 is the package, its a long bugger, the v engine in comparison is just so much easier to fit in a small engine bay.

How big

See Barra vs Windsor below



Even more so with inlet manifold one side and ideally a turbo on the other


.

[Elks]

The I6 is long sure. But the new efficient V6 needs two turbos to work without lag and suddenly the V6 is quite wide. So still packing problems.

The Benz I6 is being designed with things like water pumps off to the side to reduce overall length.

[XG_Falcon]

Originally Posted by Elks

The I6 is long sure. But the new efficient V6 needs two turbos to work without lag and suddenly the V6 is quite wide. So still packing problems.

The Benz I6 is being designed with things like water pumps off to the side to reduce overall length.

The Barra I6 is rather tall as well as long. This creates another packaging concern, especially if aerodynamics are important (they always are).

[Express]

Originally Posted by Raptor

How big

See Barra vs Windsor below



Even more so with inlet manifold one side and ideally a turbo on the other

The Barra is huge.


My BMW has two turbos tucked in under the left hand side and looks a midget compared to that.

Originally Posted by Elks

But the new efficient V6 needs two turbos to work without lag and suddenly the V6 is quite wide. So still packing problems.

Do what Merc has done with its new twin turboed V8, slot the turbos in the valley.

[FalconXV]

http://youtu.be/ppKy6Qp5pLU This would sort that out ( Hopefully straight sixes are still around when it becomes mass-market).

[OzJavelin]

If they are going to do away with I6's then they might as well just standardise the platform and not bother with V6's and just build small V8s? Effectively the same length, probably slightly lower hood height, just a bit wider.

Surely they can build them for roughly the same build price (maintenance might be slightly more) .. and with small capacity should be reasonably good on fuel.

3.5L to 4.0L would be nice .. with twin turbos even nicer.

I4's for the economy minded .. I4T's for the enthustiast .. V8 N/As for luxury and V8T for enthusiast on steroids. Package them up as FWD if they must; i.e. enough longitudinal and transverse V8s as examples.

Oh well .. can only dream.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by XG_Falcon

As previously mentioned, the aussie six needs a lot of work (big $$$ investment) to pass euro emissions standards. It's also simply too big to fit into anything other than a large vehicle. I love my I6's but unfortunately Ford Australia's product has never really been world class, it has always been a step (or two) behind the real competition.

It's time to accept it.

Actually the I6 is quite capable of going Euro 5, with and without DI. It had been done and proven, but did require further dollars to get it into production. But never had the opportunity to happen. If Falcon did continue it would have been done.