Why aren't inline 6s more common in modern sports/pony cars? They just seem so perfect

>all your points
I am laffin

>Well balanced
Irrelevant in a world where the VR5 exists, and I6's want to make a perfect sine out of their crankshaft (pic related), which due to the excessive length of the thing means you need a lot of material.
>Simpler/cheaper/lighter than V6
No, no and no. You can discuss cheaper, but V engines are always lighter: think of a V6 as an I6 cut into two I3's, which then share block material to save weight. Cheaper? Hell no, especially not when you consider the fact you need a bigger chassis to put them in.
>not much more expensive or worse on gas than a turbo four
Citation needed.
>easily matches V8 with a turbo
But Ivan, what if I stick turbo on V8?
>plenty are RWD so length isn't an argument
But it is. Assuming a regular FR coupe or sedan with the engine over the front axle, you put less weight on there with a V6, and more weight gets shoved backwards. So much so that changing from an I6 to a V6 can actually make a car FMR, setting the engine completely behind the axle. This is of course great for mass centralisation and the car's polar moment of inertia.
>great for SUVs/full size cars too, versatile design
They are equally shit for big cars as they are for small cars
>can put two together for your supercar/luxury car
Or you could just slap two V6's together.
>can chop off two or three cylinders with optional turbo for all your smaller cars
No, it's the other way around. Mercedes used to make their six cylinder engines by taking a V8, cutting off two cylinders, and calling it a day. Now, their six cylinders need to be more economical, so their new I6 is an upscaled I3/I4 design. This leaves AMG to do the V8 development without being hampered by V6 compromises.

Attached: Knipsel.jpg (1121x501, 63K)

FMR > FR

>I6s are too long

Attached: 95550f4s-960.jpg (960x720, 251K)

Too long
>easily matches v8 with forced induction
Lmao what happens if you turbo the v8?

I'm really glad you took the time to respond to OP. While I wanted to I knew I'd just be wasting my time responding to a false shitpost.
I'll offer you a "this" for you galant efforts.

Obviously their not too long when you're restricted to a retarded undersquare bore/stroke.

V6+turbo is probably cheaper to manufacture than V8 let alone V8+turbo.

>transverse
Unlikely. Ls are cheap as fuck

Attached: 1519540985043.jpg (736x741, 88K)

>I6 thead
>v6
>>/out/

because BMW have taken a lot of compromises. they invested in a long front end, RWD, and tilted the engine so it could would have a lower profile. so they have a smooth engine in a sporty layout, but they can't use that engine for a FWD layout and they can't use that chassis for a FWD layout

Yeah this. Ford uses V6 because they like to turn their engines 90 degrees and put them in their SUVs/crossovers. For example the 3.5 and 2.7 ecoboost is mounted transverse in the explorer and longitudinally in the F150. Neither are sports cars but you get the point. Maybe a better example would be the FoRS and ecoboost mustang

i dont see how long front and rwd is a compromise
all bimmers have a low cog and 50/50 weight balance, that is the best you can get for a f/r car

Attached: 80589763-E6F3-47C6-AD6F-EE13F8FA3067.jpg (1280x960, 178K)

sex

Attached: 1516378463532.jpg (1920x1280, 713K)

because not everyone wants an expensive RWD car. most people look for a FWD car that is cheaper

thats why bmw uses their mini platforms for shitboxes

idk if you could call a mini a shitbox. they're pretty fun to drive

And that FR configuration works even better with a shorter, more centralised mass V6.

My nigga

God's gift to mankind coming through

Attached: 19059672_811478529011997_8686271464824979243_n.jpg (510x473, 34K)

Is this some sort of prank?
I mean VR5? Seriously?

There is a reason they don't make them any-more, user. They have shit efficiency and even with DOHC and 20 valves they only managed to get 168 hp and 220 nm (162 lb ft., I assume you're a yank since you have absolutely no idea how absolute shit that VAG piece of garbage is) out of them. Which is nothing more than appalling for a 2.3 litre 5 cylinder.

Still better and smaller than their small 60 degree V6 at the time. Almost as efficient as the 1.8T.

Don't get me wrong, this engine never had to be made, but it works as well as any other configuration they had at the time, and it's turned out quite reliable.

While I'm not advocating the VR5 design, those figures are more than compatible with any other shitbox 2.5L at the time, looking specifically at Mazda's SP25 and Subaru's 2.5.

Fact of the matter is that the 4A-GE blacktop (Yes I know, muh meme engine) achieved similar outputs, with the same amount of valves, but with one less combustion chamber and a much lighter block. And hey, it has only 1.6 litres of displacement. All I'm saying VAG couldn't (And in my opinion can't) build petrol engines for shit.

>Fact of the matter is that a performance tuned engine with a wild camshaft profile and 5 valves/cylinder made the same power
So, apples and oranges then. A 1000cc sportsbike engine from 15 years ago makes similar peak power too, but that's hardly a discredit to both the VR5 or the Blacktop.

yeah with shit balance.
H6 would be better if you could fit it in a f/r layout.

I also heard VR5 tears itself apart prematurely due to some balancing issues.

Sounds nice tho.

>VR5
>Not performance tuned

Choose one

>yeah with shit balance.
It actually makes for a much better balanced platform.
Problem with an H6 is it physically impedes greatly on control arm design.

It's tuned for the same task as a Mazda SP25.

Sounds nice having the intake for 2 cylinders right next to the combustion chambers of 3 cylinders. Which pretty much limits the performance of the platform, thanks to unequal intake air temperature of 2 of the cylinders. VAG really outdid their-selves with the VR5.

e46 m3 has rear weight bias with a straight six.
i cant think of a better balanced v6 f/r sports car.

VR5 was VW's sporty engine.

It's just that VW can't make gas engine for shit.

This is why here in Europe we're now choking in diesel fumes and ash.

Volkswagen Golf V5 GTI does not have a sporty tune.

>GTI
>Not a sporty tune

Sure thing user.

And it'd be even better off with a more compact engine configuration. Proof to this being the fact BMW themselves snubbed the inline six for their E46 M3 GTR program.

M3 GTR pushed more power, sure.
Is the M3 GTR better balanced though?

The Mazda 3 SP25 does not have a sporty tune

>Sports Package
>Not a sporty tune

Sure thing user

It has a better polar moment of inertia, along with a good f/r balance that's arbitrary without context.

Are you actually retarded? Or is VAG's dick so far up your ass that it's typing through your mouth?

You argued that the 4A-GE wasn't a good comparison because it's tuned "too sporty". I merely said that the VR5 is tuned sport as well. So it's fair play to compare them. Not once did I say anything about the SP25.

You ought to get yourself checked out user, I'm worried.

Attached: STR-97111801-kW-Nm-C.png (400x531, 153K)

>You argued that the 4A-GE wasn't a good comparison because it's tuned "too sporty".
No, I argued it was unfair as it's a performance tuned engine with a relatively wilder camshaft profile which is aimed to make peak power around 8000rpm.
>Not once did I say anything about the SP25.
No, but I did in the post which was replied to here in which the irrelevant 4AGE was used as a reply. I used it as such because it was a similar engine in a vehicle with a similar target audience.
Again, I'm not advocating VR5s, just arguing the criticism of power output here is unjust.

>muh i6 cant be used in fwd applications
>what is volvo s60
its just that companies would rather take the short and surefire method than to develop somehting great
also
>h6 gimps suspension
show source, please, because last time i checked, the suspension is only gimped in cheap cars, since porsche uses macphearson struts in the front and multilink in the rear, along with its h6
the i6 is the cheapest to develop because its indefinitely scalable. right now there's a 1.65l i6 and a 11000l i6 being produced. the problem is flex at low egine speeds. the crank/camshaft flex can ge gnarly, especially since they tend to be lugged due to their smoothness (lower revs at the same load mean more time at peak compression, which means more exposure time to the forces that the crank wants to get away from)
each platform has its benefits, and people are moving away from i6's because the v6 is the modern surefire method.

Daily reminder benz is going back to i6

>what is volvo s60
Something that can't manage an oversquare bore/stroke
>show source
The fact any consumer vehicle with a boxer made in the last few decades requires the engine to be mounted in a retarded position either hanging over the front axle or hanging over the back axle.
A couple obvious exceptions to this flawed engine location would be the Toyobaru twins, which are limited to a McPherson front setup where engine clearance was priority (pic related), and the Boxter/Cayman which manages to package the configuration better than most by way of allowing enough real estate between the cabin rear bulkhead to the axle line.

On a different note, it's interesting you bring up the crank/camshaft flex being more prone at lower engine speed/lugging scenarios which is fair enough, but the majority of 5th cylinder failures I've seen with inline sixes have generally been well higher in the rev range under wide open throttle where forced induction is involved, although while the crank whip may not be as bad as it is at lower RPM, the combustion forces are far greater and less tolerant to a piston that's effectively running retarded compared to timing.

Attached: modp-1209-06+2013-scion-fr-s+front-suspension.jpg (586x439, 31K)

and for reference the 986 engine subframe assembly. A gorgeous little piece of kit.
And glorious it'll be. Sounds very similar to what Tata are doing with the Landrover/Jaguar engines. A modular inline series based on 500cc cylinders having either a 2L four cylinder and a 3L six with speculation a 1.5L 3 cylinder to be used for their shitbox Indian domestic vehicles.

Attached: Build2_zps1386d6e9.jpg (800x539, 366K)

The I6 barras used in Australian fords can take lots of boost with a bit of work. They are quite long and tall though

yes, of course the more common failure will be at high revs, loads, and turbo applications, due to the turbo itself overloading the engine. not exactly the i6's fault.
but the gimping of the h6 layout is why i mention 911's especially. it really doesnt gimp the suspension, it just makes rnd more expensive. what gimps the suspension is corner cutting, which porsche tends to (read, tends to) not do on 911's due to that being basically their brand name.

>not exactly the i6's fault
Well it is due to the very nature of an I6. The fact 1st and 5th cylinder fire in sequence (with any reasonable firing pattern) leaving a sizable length of crankshaft between cylinder one (which has just fired) and cylinder five (which will be upper half of compression).
>it really doesnt gimp the suspension in relation to Porsche
I won't argue that, but I guess my whole point comes from packaging a flat engine the vehicle as a whole, and that's evident of where Porsche engines are typically packaged (obviously excluding the Boxter/Cayman twins). As you've said however Porsche is more than capable of finding solutions to this compromised engine location.

>Almost as efficient as the 1.8T
The 1.8T is fucking shit tho, it literally needed .2 liters more displacement AND a turbo to almost make as much power as a 4AGE blacktop

Got em!

Why aren't inline 8s more common in modern sports/pony cars? They just seem so perfect.
>well balanced, simpler/cheaper/lighter than V8
>not much more expensive or worse on gas than a supercharged eight
>>easily matches V12 with a turbo
>>plenty are RWD so length isn't an argument
>>great for SUVs/full size cars too, versatile design
>>can put two together for your supercar/luxury car
>>can chop off two or four cylinders with optional turbo for all your smaller cars
This is how retarded you sound OP.

Daily reminder that the best BMW's have V engines, not inline shit.

Ever worked on a transverse I6 Volvo? They are utter shit in terms of packaging, especially the turbo models.

Inline 6s will hopefully make a comeback.

autonews.com/article/20171024/BLOG06/171029886/six-cylinder-inline-engine-jaguarlandrover-ford

>Daily reminder that the best BMW's have V engines, not inline shit.
false.
E30 M3 and E46 M3 CSL are the best BMWs.

>Low CoG
Not with the engine standing up.
>50/50 meme
You should learn some vehicle dynamics, 50/50 is not optimal.

Daily reminder that both Mercedes and Jaguar are going to the I6 because they are scaling up their inline four families. It's not an upgrade, it's a cost saving measure.

daily reminder that nearly every V6 in existence is a cost saving measure.

I was trying to say that the argument ''I6 has perfect balance'' is invalid in a world where the pants-on-head-retarded VR5 exists and had a place in the market. Thankfully, there was only so much coke to sustain VAG engineers in that period of time, and they hav esince ditched that monstrosity, just like the idiotic VR6: a six cylinder compromise that managed to have all the downsides of both an I6 (long crank, heavy, long packaging) and a V6 (imbalance) PLUS the idiotic head flow that was not only bad but prevents seperate cam phasing.

>Internal balance
>Relevant to performance
Pick one, and only one. Meanwhile, the chassis balance is much better.

You could literally throw an S65 into an E36/E46 M3 and improve both the kerb weight AND weight distribution, since the S65 is lighter than the S54. Never fuckign mind using a V6 with two cylinders less than the S65.

>>what is volvo s60
A great example of a Volvo that never even had an inline six to begin with.

because benchracers think more is better
i4
>>well balanced, simpler/cheaper/lighter than engines with more cylinders
>cheaper and tech is very developed than any other engine
>easily matches V8 with a turbo
>small and compact so it fits everywhere
>great for SUVs/full size cars too, versatile design
>trackrecord of beating supercars with a turbo/sc
>can chop off two or three cylinders with optional turbo for all your smaller cars and bikes and lawnmovers and rc cars and so on
>weight rivals that of a rotary, making it IDEAL for anyone who cares about cornering
>regularly break 100hp per litre

>the suspension is only gimped in cheap cars
Which basically proves that a flat six with good suspension is either impossible or expensive.
>the i6 is the cheapest to develop because its indefinitely scalable
If you think that you could scale even the 1.6 out of the BMW K1600 into the N55, you're dead wrong. Scaling doesn't work that way, you're only building a similar engine with the same cylinder configuration at that point.

>They are quite long and tall though
And boat anchor heavy.

>50/50 meme
Fuck off 50/50 is good for a F/R car.

If he was talking FWD or mid engine rear then you have a point, but you're just being a pedantic fag boy.

Both cars would have been better with a contemporary version of the S65.

True, any six cylinder is cost saving compared to the glorious V8 master race.

How did Mercedes build a perfectly acceptable, fun to drive, comfortable, adequately powered (for the time), reasonable interior space vehicle with an inline 6 through the 80's and 90's yet we can't now? I never feel like my 124 compromises interior space or serviceability for the sake of the I6 M104 engine. It's a perfectly fine car as it is. You get used to the "long" hood which isn't even that long. Plus it gives you the option on certain euro models to get an even easier to service 4 cylinder or to pack a V8 in a small chassis if wanted. It's literally fine.

Any performance car with driven rear wheels should have a rear-biased weight distribution, this makes for better braking, acceleration and cornering. Read this:
automotivethinker.com/chassis/stop-and-weight-a-5050-weight-distribution-is-not-optimal/
And read up on the concepts of mass centralisation, polar moment of inertia, and static vs. dynamic weight distribution. Vehicle dynamics like this don't just apply to racecars, but to your car as well.

The W124 isn't a performance car though, maybe in a straight line in the proper trim, but not in most I6 models. It would have probably been an objectively better car as a V6, but then again it is a great example of Sacco styling, Mercedes at their peak and an elegantly deautiful yet indestructible drivetrain.

E46 M3 is the only F/R car with rear weight bias I can think of, and guess what it has an inline 6.

That very inline six is heavier than a 4.0 V8, nevermind a 3.0 V6. If you think that the E46 M3 would not have a better weight distribution with a V6, you're delusional, it might even be mid-engined depending on the install.

No one gives a fuck about engine weight you autist they only care about fuel efficiency and pass emissions testing

>Have a civilised discussion over how weight distribution is influenced by engine weight
>''No one gives a fuck about engine weight you autist''
No u

The S65 was a gem thanks to BMWs involvement in F1 during the period when the S65 was developed.
S54 began development in the mid 90's - it is an older, less advanced engine of course it is inferior to the S65.

It's also a fucking 4L V8 which still manages to come ahead of the 3L S54.
>5.0L S85 V10: 240kg
>4.0L S65 V8: 240-38=202kg
>3.0L ''S55'' V6: 202 - 38= 164kg
Meanwhile the S54 weighs 217kg, that's not just more than the S65, but also more than 50kg a theoretical Sx5 series V6 would have weighed. If you think BMW can solve a 50+ kg weight difference with F1-tier engineering (which is plain unrealistic for road cars), you are in denial of reality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_S60#Second_generation_(2010–2018)
>engines: turbo 6
wew buddy

S54 was an updated S50 which is a early 90’s engine.
S65 is a early 2000’s engine with 0.8 liters of displacement more.
That’s what years of constant advancements bring you.
Don’t say the S65 wasn’t an incredible engine when introduced.

>Newer more advanced engine is better than old engine
No fucking way stop the presses btw bmw didn't bother trying to make the s54 lightweight it uses a fucking iron block like the 2jz and rb engines and guess what the s55 is lighter than the s65 with the twin turbos, plumbing and all the other necessary shit for it

The S85/S65 were incredible engines when introduced, but not incredible enough to explain a 50kg difference. A V6 S55 would have been even lighter than the current model.

That's not even the best E46.

Attached: BMW-M3-GTR-Road-version-1900x1200-images-05.jpg (1900x1267, 461K)

there is like one road legal gtr.
at least csl’s are being actually driven

i6s need half as many cylinder heads as V6s, making them simpler and cheaper

Instead they need bigger components. Two halves are easier and cheaper to make than one whole, ask any casting facility.

Is there any down-side to an i6 vs. a v6 besides packaging?

Longer crank, cams and head.

you had your chance

No i doubt the v6 would be lighter they would weigh in the same v6 are more complex you're now working with 2 heads so now you need another timing chain and gears, add balance shafts and counterweights or you'll vibrate itself to destruction, etc. that's why i6 are easier/simpler to work also why even that 3.5l ecomeme engine isn't even lighter

>Daily reminder that the best BMW's have V engines, not inline shit.

You very clearly have never driven a bmw with either of those engines or are trolling. BMW makes horrible V8 engines, and the V12 is literally two I6s stapled together which makes it twice as good as the already great I6 engine.

t. Independent euro shop mechanic

Attached: tumblr_m8pz01jptu1qk65n6o1_128-56334274175a6.jpg (700x525, 47K)

Daily reminder the greatest car on earth from the greatest manufacturer chose a V8.

Attached: 16495029857x640.jpg (640x480, 49K)

you're wrong and even you know it

Attached: P1180174-01.jpg (1080x811, 723K)

daily reminder that mercedes is the reason you can't have non-USDM cars

>Retarded undersquare
Boy I sure do hate torque and efficiency

They make poor horsepower and they’re heavy while also being fragile

You'd have a point if we were talking about a pickup truck engine.