V6 hate

I hate cucked V8s ( V6s based off V8s)
I love purpose built V6s though, some of my fav engines

>don't talk to me or my daughter ever again

4.3's are based.

>people are not into turbo flat-7
:^)

Generally they sound shit.
The exceptions are Alfa and NSX V6s.
I6s are just cooler

>I4 are light, often high reving, and do well in turbocharhed applications
>I6 is neato and makes gud noises
>V8 makes lotsa power and sounds bretty gud too
>V6 usually sounds worse than an I6 and is the cheapskate version of a V8

Not saying there aren't good V6s, because there are. The Alfa V6s are glorious. The VR6 that VW has is pretty damn cool. The 90s Ford SHO had a SWEEEEETT V6 tuned by Yamaha. Jaguar now has a fantastic V6. The Ford Ecoboost V6 is actually pretty impressive as well.

V6s just catch a bad rap because no one's has really used them in the past as a top of the line engine. They've always been one of the lowest options, and the only time they are an upper option is when the car isn't sport (Accord or Camry V6).
When it's done right like the Alfa or the SHO or the VR6, obviously great things can be had.

said the man replying to a pic of an alfa 155 V6

EVERY
FUCKING
TIME

I hear the V6 Busso I have goosebumps.

youtube.com/watch?v=hl19l_9VvBQ

youtube.com/watch?v=YXPplUFXOvA

Screams with passion and soul.

Pic related is the man who gave the name at this engine (Giuseppe Busso) and the father of generations of Alfa Romeo cars. He's a god.

It isn't MURRIKA like a V8.

It doesn't sound as well as an I6.

It doesn't fit everywhere like an I4.

It's the most heavily compromised engine layout that currently exists. This means that it's naturally un-sexy. However, some ones are pretty damn good at performance, and once you design them right, you can make them sexy again. See: Busso V6.

>V6 just seems like a poor engine layout.
It's actually an automotive engineer's wt dream in terms of packaging.
>6 cilinders
>square packaging
>will fit transversely
>really short longitudinal layout -> better mass centralisation
>easy to supercharge, thanks to the V valley
>n/a: more power than 90% of consumers need
>boosted: more power than 99% of consumers need
>can easily share parts with existing V8 layouts

An engineer can easily balance an engine. You can't fix packaging though.

To be honest the new 4.3 aluminium V6's are great. Cheap, small, and a great power density.

>The VR6 that VW has is pretty damn cool
It's shit though. Cool engineering, but inferior to a V6 in every. single. way.
>Jaguar now has a fantastic V6.
No. V8 packaging, V8 weight, and only some fuel savings. That thing deserves to be shot and left in an alley.

>you will never, ever, own a 4C, ditch the shitty 1.75L turbo & DCT, and throw in a proper 3.2L Busso with a manual gearbox
Why live?

>VR6 is shit
It's worse in a lot of ways, but it's a great form factor and a single head gasket is really nice I bet. Cool idea, I wonder if it could ever be properly executed again.

>Jaguar V6 deserves to be shot
Yeah that 380hp out of a supercharged 3.0l V6 is real sad. It actually makes more power per liter than their supercharged 5.0l V8 that makes 575hp.
It's also the only F-type you can buy with a stick. But yeah it makes me mad they used the same block. But hopefully they used the savings to keep the price down.

>but it's a great form factor and a single head gasket is really nice I bet.
Actually, the single head is detrimental since you have to get three of the intake runners through the head, and the pistons are shaped wierdly.

...

Because MOST of them sound like rank shit, and they're common in really god-awful cars. The only people into I4s are people who bought a car with an I4 and now want to modify it, hardly anyone chooses to be into I4s.

A shitty engine layout that sounds like shit and is naturally unbalanced. Literally the only reason that stupid layout exists is because it's easy to fit into an engine compartment. The inline 6 is superior in literally every way to the stupid v6 performance wise

>The inline 6 is superior in literally every way to the stupid v6 performance wise
Except that in a longitudinal RWD setup, the V6 centralises mass, shifts weight rearward (where it belongs), and reduces the polar moment of inertia compared to an I6.

A V6 is superior to an I6 in every single way except sounds (subjective) and internal balance (irrelevant in modern engines).

Isn't Mercedes moving away from a V6 and toward an I6, though?
If what you're saying is true then why would they do that?

make the car longer retard. If you're that worried about trying to make a front mid engined car the best you can do is a rotary or an inline 4.

Yes they are and jaguar is rumored to be making a 3 liter inline 6 soon.

He's spouting nonsense

>make the car longer retard.
This further increases polar moment of inertia, and hurts corner enry (turnin).What you want is a short chassis with the engine between the axles. In front of or behind the driver doesn't matter, you want the polar moment as low as possible to reduce the amount of force needed to turn - that's just basic physics. For any given transmission location, the I6 will be longer, and create a larger PMI.

>a rotary
We're talking about practical road cars here.
>or an inline 4.
Which is actually longer than a V6.

Mercedes is indeed moving away from the V6. They used to make 4 cilinders, V8's and V12's, and then they based their V6 off the existing V8. This creates several problems, mainly imposing limits on the construction of the V8. Now, AMG is going to do V8 and V12 development, while regular old Mercedes has made a scalable architecture for I4 engines. This scaling means you can easily turn it into an I6 - it's an upgrade from the I4, not a downgrade from the V8 like the V6 used to be. Bottom line is that there's not a single Mercedes engineer stating that it's an I6 because that layout is better than a V6. The I6 is used for economy in manufacturing, and of course marketing. Outside of BMW, nobody really has the USP of an I6 RWD luxury vehicle.

>Yes they are and jaguar is rumored to be making a 3 liter inline 6 soon.
Same reason as Mercedes: Ingenium will easily scale to I6, and their current solution for a 6 cylinder engine is rubbish. If you can find me a single reason that an I6 is better than a V6 outside of sound (arbitrary) and internal balance (irrelevant nowadays), go right ahead.

They're more sexy, they're just not better.

Mercedes doesn't care about polar moment of inertia dude they make luxury cars

I6 has so much wasted space on each side of the engine too. Wider and shorter cars are grippier and handle better, so why not put a wide/short engine in

If this is true then why does the viper, with its massive 8.4 liter v10, Handle better than any v6 Mercedes ever built? The only v6 high performance cars are the Nissan gtr, which only handles so well because of its fantastic awd, and the Ford gt, which picked the 3.5 liter ecoboost so that they didn't have to develop a while new engine.

Internal balance is clearly not irrelevant seeing as how Mercedes wants to switch to inlinex, citing bad balancing.

youtube.com/watch?v=q2nULkMNtXQ

Duratec 2.5 sounded pretty good. Had fuck all power mind you, 168bhp i think.

Have you ever noticed how long the hood is on that car? The viper has it's whole engine behind the front wheels. That's the main thing. That car is also extremely wide. Like really fucking wide

Also the balance issues are due to sharing architecture with the V8, namely the bank angle. That's not inherent to the V6. The V6 in the OP revs to 12k, I'd hardly say that's unbalanced

Are you retarded Mercedes makes so!e of the best performance sports cars in the world, such as the amg gtr. They care about that stuff

It's a 2.5L engine from the 90s, what do you expect?

That's how sports cars are supposed look lol. Long hood with two seats.

And as to the high revving car,
>what are balancing shafts
>what are short stroke pistons with low inertia?
You have to put a lot of money into a v6 to get it to do that.

afaik the only car getting the new I6 is the S class. I highly doubt merc cares about quick turn in and centralized weight in an S class luxobarge

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Apples to orange trees even.

>Mercedes vs. Viper
Has there ever been a Mercedes with Viper-ish goals? No.
The trick of the Viper isn't it's massive engine, but the great chassis that underpins it. That chassis manages to put the engine between the axles - a front-mid engined setup, which is both stable and can have a great turnin, due to a rearward weight bias and a low polar moment of inertia.
A Viper with a V6 would turn in faster, since it'd take about 4 cylinders of weight off the front axle, and you could even shorten the chassis to increase that turnin. You could even make a twinturbo V6, which would have all the power, but less of the weight of the Viper V10, and a Viper ACR like that would absolutely punish everything this side of a Radical on track. However, it wouldn't be a Viper anymore, just an empty (really fast) husk with FCA badging on it. This sadness will probably happen within a decade. Thanks, Sergio.

>GT-R
Switched to a V6 because it was better. If they still used an I6, that thing would be even more pigfat.

>Ford GT
They could have used a twinturbo version of their existing V8, like they did in the GTR1. They didn't because then they couldn't use it in racing, which would have been a severe blow to their marketing angle. Remember, the GT is a halo car meant to push the entire company forward, so marketing and racing are pretty important.

>Internal balance is clearly not irrelevant seeing as how Mercedes wants to switch to inlinex, citing bad balancing.
This is marketing bullshit. If the V6 wasn't up to Mercedes' standards, then they wouldn't have used them for decades. None of the press releases I'm reading actually cite this, so I'd like a source.

Anyways, their halo car will have a V6.

FRS shoulda came with a V6. Huge torque and still pretty light.

youtube.com/watch?v=D2OlsCu1tfc
I'm biased towards V6s thanks to their pairings with wedge cars.

>Are you retarded Mercedes makes so!e of the best performance sports cars in the world, such as the amg gtr.
AMG isn't Mercedes though.

Mercedes makes luxury vehicles.
AMG takes those, and makes them brutishly fast.

Now, no AMG vehicles will have 6 cylinders engines. The I6 as developed by Mercedes is an upgrade from the I4, and will not be offered in any AMG products, because those will be exclusively V8 and V12. Like the AMG GT for example, which is a V8.

>That's how sports cars are supposed look lol.
And very few are actually built like that because it heavily compromises interior room.

Balancing shafts can go take a walk when modern V6 F1 cars will go up to 15000 RPM. For the record, a properly built V6 will rev higher than any mechanical DOHC set of heads will go, you need pneumatic valvesprings for that level of insanity.

Besides, for any given level of money invested into the developmetn of the bottom end of an engine, V6 or I6, their net redline will be identical, because of warranty issues.

The new I6 will trickle down to the E and C class, but it'll be an economy option. It won't be a true AMG thing, since AMG is only doing V8 and V12.

JUN built a V8 toyobaru. Although they cheated by using two bike engines.
speedhunters.com/2015/01/kiwi-flavoured-lemon-jun-synergy-brz-v8/

I fucking love small V8s holy shit.

because stuff like American V6s exist and are awful enough to make anyone hate them through ignorance if thats what theyve dealt with

Jap and Euro V6s are alright

V8 > V6 > I4 > I5 > H6 > I6 > H4

Yeah the majority of American V8s are trash but Ford has it down. The 2.7 and 3.5 are both pretty good engines. Also GM's V6 in the Camaro is revvy af and super fun

I know! The single head is better for matinence when things break. I completely understand that it's a detriment to performance.
But it's a very cool way to fit a large engine in a small space. It takes up the space of a 4cyl but has the displacement characteristic of a 6cyl.
This is going to sound kind of silly, but you shouldn't judge it as a V6. You should judge it as an alteration of a 4cyl, because that's what it's directly replacing. So while it's not great among other V6s, it's pretty damn good among 4cyls.

Porsche and Subaru would like to talk to you.
I guess all of the wins they've accumulated throughout the years had nothing to do with their engines...

>You should judge it as an alteration of a 4cyl, because that's what it's directly replacing.
It's a terrible I4 though. It's an awful lot bigger, way more complicated, a lot less efficient (thanks to bad head and piston design), and it just packages badly.

A turbo I4 does the VR6's job a lot better: better fuel economy, more power, and way better packaging.

It sure wasn't their chassis. Both the 911 and AWD Impreza have the engine way outside of the axle line (thanks, boxer engines), which makes them oversteery and understeery, respectively.

But wouldn't a Turbo VR6 > Turbo IT ???
Honestly just speculating, I don't own a VW much less a VR6.

Boost actually helps to reduce the affects of a poorer flowing head. You'd have better low end torque and faster spool. Only at the cost of a little bit of added weight. And let's not even begin to talk about the small amount of added complexity compared to the overall complexity of an engine.

>revving to 6000 is just as good as revving to 9000
ok lad

>But wouldn't a Turbo VR6 > Turbo I4???
No. The entire point of a VR6 is to mount a single-head six cylinder transversely. Have you ever seen the piping on a turbo'd transverse six? It's a huge mess - part of the reason why Honda decided to mount the second gen NSX V6 longitudinally, especially so because it's a mess with cooling. If you've ever seen one of those Polestar V60/S60 T6 units with the twinturbo transverse I6, you'll have nightmares for days.

Boost is just a bandaid that can help against the bad engine design and poor head flow. Even worse, a VR6 is pretty bad to boost. You can't supercharge it easily, because it has no valley to put a supercharger. Turbos are a piping mess, and you're losing a lot of exhaust entropy into those long exhaust runners, which means your turbo wouldn't spool as quickly as it would in a V6. What's worse is that the poorer your head flow, the more compression (boost pressure) you need to achieve a certain amount of total airflow, which equates to power. If you need to compress the air more, thermodynamics bites you in the ass and heats up the air, which will cause premature detonation if you don't pull some timing. Basically, poorer head flow is a restriction even under boost. If you want a really good boosted VAG engine, you'd be better off with a 20v - either the 1.8 4cyl or 2+ 5cyl.

>His I6 only revs to 9K

Can some explain this pic to me? The arrows and such how it works?

Also what are valves?

>This is your average Veeky Forums poster
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

Pretty much this. The VR6 is heavy, doesn't make a lot of power, gets really hot, and is a pain to boost. I still love my car and personally think it sounds amazing

Its odd to see high revving inline 6 too, jack-o.

Inlines 6 are also unbalanced. the secondary vibrations are only balanced for like 1 or 2 thirds of the entire crank travel. The only fully balanced engines are V8s and flats.

My accord is a sports car. I can't handle the truth ;_;

>v8
>balanced
>wat

it should have came with a flat 6

I'm sorry user, but it's not.

But that doesn't mean it's not a great car that you love to drive. My first car was a 93 Corolla and I loved it and drove it till the engine blew. I will have another one.

V8 is naturally balanced

Some V6 cars are alright.

But some only exist because of complete cuckoldry.

group b v6

You dipshit just cuz it worked in Forza doesn't mean it works in real life. Boxer layout was a bad choice for the 86 from the get go... any V engine or an I4-I6 would have been better.

The engine bay is longer than it is wide. Sure, the concept of an F4-F6 is appealing cuz you can say it was done to lower the COG. But to be honest, a V or I layout wouldn't have disturbed it much and if they were totally concerned with COG they would've mounted the engine lower and chase dry sump lubrication. That's how you do flat-format.

So that means it was done only as a marketing ploy to set itself apart from the rest of the field... which it did in many regards, cheers to them. But maximum efficiency it is not.

I do love her, she's so good to me, much better than I deserve

V6 is better fhan I6 because it doesn't fit behind axles. Modern V6's make amazing power this isn't the 1990's anymore.

The Lexus IS series had a great reliable yet fun V6

>3.5 L 2GR-FSE V6

But V6's these days are found in minivans and crossovers.
If you have the money to play with an engine, people usually chose the sporty I4 or double down and use the V8

>toyota's face when they figure out the demand they would have to keep up with

6 cylinders is objectively the best amount of cylinders

My C30A V6 revs to 8k. ^)

Crossplane V8s are balanced, Flatplane V8s are unbalanced as they are essentially I4 x2