Talk:V6 engine

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1 2007-2013

Too negative?

Much of the text describing the technical details make sure to point out how the design is inferior to I6 or V8 layouts. Many, many qualifying weasel words like 'most of the vibration' 'some harshness' 'not as much as a I6' and to an automotive layman would give the impression that any v6 is a bad design. More time should be spent indicating that most modern designs have a achieved perfectly acceptable smoothness and performance despite what technical theory tells us.

V6 is the second most used configuration, after I4.

At the end of it all it makes the article sound biased against them.

Well, the V6 has an inherent secondary unbalance that cannot be gotten rid of. The older designs would vibrate the fillings out of your teeth if you were foolish enough to buy them. With computers and CAD software, designers have reduced it to much more reasonable levels although it will never achieve the turbine-like high-RPM smoothness of BMW and Mercedes I6's and V8's. In the old days the I6 and V8 engines were the only way to go - I remember a guy at an antique show balancing a nickle on edge on the exhaust manifold of an antique inline 6 while it was idling. It never fell over. That engine was in total balance.

A modern V6 is much more compact than an I6 or V8 and that is why manufacturers put them in non-luxury cars. As a substitute for the I4, the V6 has a lower secondary imbalance, especially at large displacements. However, the Mercedes V6 will never achieve the smoothness of the Mercedes V8 or the BMW I6. You pays your money and you takes your choice. If you're filthy rich it might not be your first choice, but otherwise otherwise.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone can egg on User talk:Yiba to go over the whole page I'm sure many issues can be addressed/corrected. The user re wrote the entire Engine balance.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's 100% correct about some things. He refers to the I3 as being in secondary balance (although primary imbalance), but then talks about the I6, which is essentially two I3's connected end-to-end, as not being in secondary balance. That would be wrong. The I3 has an end-to-end rocking motion, but if you connect two together, it translates into a bending motion, which is defeated by having a sufficiently strong engine block. All that means is that an I6 needs a stiff engine block to defeat the primary and secondary vibrations. It just costs a bit more metal and more money. Also, he talks about the I6 needing a smaller bore and longer stroke to fit in engine compartments. That is why it is only used in luxury cars and trucks these days - they have longer engine compartments than compact cars. Many truck I6s have long strokes, but that is just because they CAN have long strokes. You can scale them up to the size of diesel locomotive and ship engines without incurring vibration problems. It just makes the engine compartment taller - no big deal in a truck, locomotive, or ship.

Technically unbalanced, but commercially extremely successful, moreso in 2014 than many more inherently balanced designs. If we are going to mention flaws of the v6 compared to I6 and v8 designs it should be noted in this article more strongly that the others have drawbacks that the v6 does better at like lack of low rev torque of an I6 and cost and size penalties of V8s. There was a time the v8 was considered inferior to all straight designs from a smoothness standpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.167.79 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think the article is denigrating the V6, which has both benefits and liabilities in automobile use. It's just trying to put it in perspective. Of course the V6 is commercially successful in this age of high fuel prices and financially strapped consumers. It is smoother in large displacements than the I4 - which develops a really nasty vibration in large sizes. It is half the length of the I6, which is too long for most engine compartments. The 60° V6 is both shorter and narrower than the 90° V8 while having better fuel economy and lower manufacturing cost. Being nearly a perfect cube, it fits longitudinally and transversely in most engine compartments that will accept an I4, while having better fuel economy than a V8, which needs an oversize engine compartment. The point of the article is that it is adequately smooth for the average consumer, but not perfectly smooth. Those who are willing to pay extra for a perfectly smooth engine will want an I6, which has comparable fuel economy but better smoothness, which is why people buy BMW sixes, and those who don't care about fuel costs but want power will go for a V8. That is why Cadillacs always had V8s for generations. Those for whom money means nothing could buy a V12, which is the ultimate in smoothness and power, but also the ultimate in cost and fuel consumption. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

But a layman reading the article does not get that point as well as you have just laid out. There are multiple sections that go into technical shortcomings of the design, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.167.79 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This article does suffer from multiple edits from authors who didn't understand the issues with balancing the V6, particularly those who thought that the 120° V6 should be in perfect balance, whereas in reality it suffers from serious imbalances and vibration. I'm thinking of copying and pasting the text I put above into the header, since it seems understandable to the layman, and then deleting anything that is factually wrong or redundant, getting rid of a lot of bafflegab. The people who put in the erroneous and/or redundant information will no doubt be upset that their pet theories (see WP:NOR) have been blown away, but I think I might do it anyway.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on V6 engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024164433/http://www.rotax.com/en/Media.Center/Press.Releases/1/20061114.htm to http://www.rotax.com/en/Media.Center/Press.Releases/1/20061114.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Geographic (im)balance?

I see this article is Globalize tagged since 2015. I can't see any particular geographic imbalance issues now, so unless someone objects, I'll remove the tag... --Arny (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

History and the first production V6

Dhtwiki, the point of my edit was that the article contradicts itself.

The lede - as reverted - states that:

The first V6 was invented and placed into production by Delahaye in 1911 using a 30° 3.2-litre DOHC and it was installed in the Delahaye Type 44.

But the article itself under Use in automobiles states:

In 1906, a few years after V4 engines and V8 engines had come into existence, the first known V6 engine was built. This V6 engine was a single prototype automotive engine built by Marmon Motor Car Company in the United States. The engine did not reach production. Similarly, a single prototype engine was produced by Buick in 1918.

The first V6 engine to reach production was built from 1908 to 1913 by the Deutz Gasmotoren Fabrik in Germany. These V6 engines were used as the generator for gasoline-electric railway engines.

This entire section is also sourced, and predates the claim from Delahaye by three years for Deutz, and five years for Marmon. (Although I will concede that the Marmon engine was not placed into production, but it was built in 1906 and thus casts doubt on the claim that Delahaye invented it in 1911.) If the claim were for a single engine or manufacturer, I'd be willing to hedge my bets, but this is a claim that two different manufacturers both produced V6 engines prior to those built by Delahaye by some years.

Additionally, although the Delahaye claim is sourced - it is not further explored in the article itself. The lede (as you obliquely mention) is not the place for specific titbits of info, but is to summarise the article itself. That alone excludes this info, especially give that the claim is contradicted by sourced info that is contained in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: The Delahaye source isn't one I could view, but I hate losing sources, especially when the article is under-referenced as this one seems to be. So, there's that objection, which might have risen above all others. If you can't see your way to including Delahaye's claim, you might look to reconciling that company's article with this one. But take a look at the source, if you can (I think it's offline). See if we can make use of it somehow (I don't think it was used in other places). Dhtwiki (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC) (edited 21:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

I can't view the source for Delahaye either, which makes it even harder to verify. I have nothing against including Delahaye in the article under the history section, but it's clear that at the very least their claim of invention is disputed - and so should be modified if it's to be included. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to see its inclusion modified, as you've suggested, and have it taken out of the lead. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Updated. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional - I've just looked at the Delahaye article, and I suspect the issue is one of translation, or choice of words.

The article says "Delahaye invented and pioneered the V6 engine in 1911, with a 30° 3.2-litre twin-cam, in the Type 44; the invention is credited to Amédée Varlet, Delahaye's chief design-engineer at the time" - I wonder if the term "invention" means "design" and refers to the design of the car itself which included a V6 engine. But I cheerfully admit that's OR. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References