What if we take an L6 and mount it horizontally?

What if we take an L6 and mount it horizontally?
This engine setup would basically have the pro's of the boxer engine setup ie. perfect secondary and primary balance and low center of gravity and the pro's of the inline engine setup ie. not needing separate camshafts for the two different cylinder banks in the case of overhead camshaft arrangement, and therefore being simple, lightweight, cheap to manufacture, and reliable.

Still very heavy and long. Lowers the center of gravity for sure, but doesn't get away from the large amount of weight over the front end, and makes it very hard to work on.
Just use a v6

What if we took that, and just chopped it into smaller parts?

L6 ought to be slightly lighter than a similar power V6 due to all of the cylinders sharing cylinder walls and it requiring only one line of camshafts in the case of overhead camshaft arrangement. Also here's another crazy idea, how about not only mounting the L6 horizontally but also transversely.

...

What the fuck is a L6?

Mid engine vertical L6 is clearly the best choice
>Sacrifice less than half of your trunk, get entire frunk
>God tier handling
>Pretty nice sound

Longitudinal 6-cylinder.

Why vertical tho? Why not horizontal?

Transverse mid engined I6 then

I really want to see this. It would be cramped as hell but god damn would it be cool.

>transverse mounted engines
Is there anything more beta?

>Transverse mid engined I6 then
It's not mid-engined, but it is a transverse I6.

And the Miura used a transverse V12.

>lightweight
>I6
No. The sheer length of them just makes them heavy.

The shared cylinder walls actually make a V6 lighter. The crank is short too, making for less torsional load and lower rotating weight.

>4L
Basically two 2L inline sixes stuck together, and therefore pretty damn short. Still a fucking idiotic way of mounting a V12.

Look at this picture, the L6 uses less material for the same thickness cylinder walls.

>cramped
I mean not necessarily, just place the engine under the rear passenger seats, very functional usage of space and a center of gravity very low and very close to the middle of the car.

Volvo already did that with the T6 lineup a couple of years ago, it's the reason why they went to twin charged 4 cylinder engines

That only applies to siamesed blocks (shared cylinder liners). Most engines don't have this, because it severely weakens the cylinder liners.

Anyways, cilinder liners are pretty insignificant in terms of weight. I thought you were talking about shared block walls (webbing?), which makes the V6 block a lot lighter. Also, less torsional load on components and bearings.

Horizontally =/= transversely.

>Horizontally =/= transversely

We're you dropped on your head as a kid?

>Sacrifice less than half of your trunk

Also weight distribution.

A turbo 4 beats an inline 6 in most applications nowadays.

A turbo V 60° 5-cyl would be rad

>A turbo V 60° 5-cyl would be rad
Close enough

Longitudinal mounted engines

But isn't a cg that's lower better?

Not this retarded shit again!

this is what the NSX should have came with...

never understood the 2.5 vr5
>less power than 2.8 vr6 or 1.8 turbo
>heavier than 1.8 turbo
>worse fuel consumption than 2.8 vr6 or 1.8 turbo
>less torque than 2.8 vr6

>L6 ought to be slightly lighter than a similar power V6 due to all of the cylinders sharing cylinder walls
Wut. You got that the wrong way around. That's literally why a V6 block is substantially lighter than an all things equal i6.

Not him but he was right, you're just daft so don't argue

kbukuivb