V-2, V-4 do they exist?

By kombolcha
in The Neobahn

 Share

Recommended Posts

Rookie

degrassi

Posted
Posted

Saab had a V4 in some of their cars until around the 1980s. They were made by Ford.

The cars ran fine, that "unstable" and "jerky" motion and being "uncomfortable" is just BS.

V4 technology just wasn't advanced very much by companies, which is why the cars had low power; on a side note they did get better gas mileage than an Inline-4 of the same power (usually). I4 just had more potential than a V4.

And whoever said that companies (GMC or whatever they said) are "just now" starting to use I6 in their trucks, almost all trucks from the 70-below had Inline-6 engines (Ford F150 had them, for example). Inline-6's are usually gas hogs, which is why they switched over to V6, and why they changed the Ranger into a whimpy I4 (it use to be a F150 Package, usually equiped with a huge V8, 360ci I believe)

Rising Star

mntbikeracer1

Posted
Posted

Saab had a V4 in some of their cars until around the 1980s. They were made by Ford.

The cars ran fine, that "unstable" and "jerky" motion and being "uncomfortable" is just BS.

V4 technology just wasn't advanced very much by companies, which is why the cars had low power; on a side note they did get better gas mileage than an Inline-4 of the same power (usually). I4 just had more potential than a V4.

And whoever said that companies (GMC or whatever they said) are "just now" starting to use I6 in their trucks, almost all trucks from the 70-below had Inline-6 engines (Ford F150 had them, for example). Inline-6's are usually gas hogs, which is why they switched over to V6, and why they changed the Ranger into a whimpy I4 (it use to be a F150 Package, usually equiped with a huge V8, 360ci I believe)

Yeah they were not shakey because they had dual balance shafts, but believe me as far as shake compared to a inline and when comparing wear they were much worse off. Also twin balance shafts usaully equate to about 15+ horsepower loss. Once again proving that inline is a much better and slightly more powerful alternative.

Veteran

Pilsbury

Posted
Posted

How come Lancia had a 135bhp 1600 V4 in the 60's then? That's a pretty high specific output for any car engine of it's size, even today. I don't remember any 150bhp 1600 inline-4 road cars of the same era. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the Lotus Cortina (which was a high performance saloon in it's day), put out 105bhp from an inline-4.

Oh, and my V4 Fulvia is still on it's original engine, 40 years old, and still running smoothly.

So, that negates your higher specific output and vibration arguments.

Enthusiast

wildk

Posted
Posted

Honda still utilise V4 engines in some of their bike for example the VFR800I uses an 782cc V4 VTEC 2v / 4v engine it changes the amount of valves used at 6600rpm and develops 107Bhp at 10500rpm.

Details as below

Engine Type Liquid-cooled 4-stroke 16-valve DOHC 90? V4

Engine Displacement 782 cc

Bore & Stroke 72 x 48mm

Compression Ratio 11.6:1

Carburation PGM - Fi Electronic Fuel-Injection

Max. Power Output 107 bhp at 10,500 rpm

Max. Torque 80Nm at 8,750 rpm

Also in the UK quite a few cars have 3 cylinder in line engines, The Vauxhall (opel) corsa 1.0 12v the Dihatsu Charrade, The Smart fourtwo and roadster, you get the idea.....

and large capacity V engines can rev quite highly, i believe it is mainly to do with the stroke of the engine, for example BMW's formula 1 engine is a 3litre V10 that was proven in race conditions to run up to 19500rpm

Rising Star

mntbikeracer1

Posted
Posted

How come Lancia had a 135bhp 1600 V4 in the 60's then? That's a pretty high specific output for any car engine of it's size, even today. I don't remember any 150bhp 1600 inline-4 road cars of the same era. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the Lotus Cortina (which was a high performance saloon in it's day), put out 105bhp from an inline-4.

Oh, and my V4 Fulvia is still on it's original engine, 40 years old, and still running smoothly.

So, that negates your higher specific output and vibration arguments.

Incorrect and actually by taking a look at the cars you mentioned I can disprove exactly what you were trying to prove:

Lancia Fulvia 1.2 HF :

Engine Lancia V4

Bore and stroke 77,0 x 67,0

Size 1248 cc

Cams 2 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 108 HP/7000

Details 2 Weber carburettors

Transmission 4-speed

Weight 820 kg?

Brakes f/r disc / disc

(Ford) Lotus Cortina:

Engine Lotus-Ford 4 in line

Bore and stroke 82,55 x 72,75

Size 1558 cc

Cams 2 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 175 HP/7000

Details 2 twin Weber carburettors

Transmission 4-speed

Weight 751 or 828kg

Brakes f/r disc / drum

Wheels f/r 6,5 x 14 / 6,5 x 14

Tyres Dunlop

A few more from 1966 for ya:

BMW 2000 TI:

Engine BMW 4 in line

Bore and stroke 89,0 x 80,0

Size 1990 cc

Cams 1 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 175 HP/7000

Details 2 twin Weber carburettors

Transmission Getrag 5-speed

Weight 1050

Brakes f/r disc /

Alfa Romeo 1600 GTA:

Engine Alfa Romeo 4 in line

Bore and stroke 78,0 x 82,0

Size 1570 cc

Cams 2 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 170 HP/7500

Details 2 twin Weber carburettors

Transmission Autodelta 5-speed

Weight 760 kg

Abarth 1000 TC Berlina:

Engine Abarth 4 in line

Bore and stroke 65,0 x 74,0

Size 982 cc

Cams 1 OHV

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 85 HP/7600

Details 1 Weber carburettor

Transmission Abarth 5-speed

Weight 583 kg

Brakes f/r disc / disc

So who is discredited?

Veteran

Pilsbury

Posted
Posted

Incorrect and actually by taking a look at the cars you mentioned I can disprove exactly what you were trying to prove:

Lancia Fulvia 1.2 HF :

Engine Lancia V4

Bore and stroke 77,0 x 67,0

Size 1248 cc

Cams 2 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 108 HP/7000

Details 2 Weber carburettors

Transmission 4-speed

Weight 820 kg?

Brakes f/r disc / disc

(Ford) Lotus Cortina:

Engine Lotus-Ford 4 in line

Bore and stroke 82,55 x 72,75

Size 1558 cc

Cams 2 OHC

Valves per cilinder 2

Power 175 HP/7000

Details 2 twin Weber carburettors

Transmission 4-speed

Weight 751 or 828kg

Brakes f/r disc / drum

Wheels f/r 6,5 x 14 / 6,5 x 14

Tyres Dunlop

So who is discredited?

Emm, YOU.

That's the 1.2 HF, not the 1.6HF. Also, to my knowledge, there was never a 1248cc variant of the engine. The 1.6HF puts out 135bhp. - See http://www.alma.it/vanzettip/fulvia/fulviae.html

As regards the Lotus Cortina, I don't know where you are getting 175bhp from, but:

"The official Lotus performance figures were 105bhp at 5500rpm, with maimum torque of 108lb ft at 4000rpm. It's generally held that these figures are a bit hopeful (90bhp is quoted for the same engine in the Lotus Elan)" - http://www.pixelmatic.com.au/cortina/lotus.html

Road & Track review in 1964:

"Engine:

No. cyl, type: 4-cyl, dohc.

Bore x stroke, in: 3.25 x 2.86

Displacement, cc: 1558

Equivalent cu in: 95.06

Compression ratio: 9.5:1

Bhp @ rpm: 105 @ 5500

Equivalent mph: 95.5

Torque @ rpm, lb-ft: 108 @ 4000

Equivalent mph: 69.4

Carburetor, no., make: 2 Weber.

No. barrels, diameter: 2, 40 mm

Type fuel required: Premium."

Lotus Cortina Owners Club (I'd say they'd know the facts) - http://www.lotuscortina.net :

"The major changes involved installing the 1,558cc (105bhp) motor, together with the same close

ratio gearbox as the Elan."

Your BMW 2000ti facts are wrong as well as the name of the car...

The late 60's 2002ti put out 120bhp. The early 70's 2002tii put out 130bhp, and the early 70's 2002 Turbo put out your quoted 175bhp.

As regards the Alfa, technically you are correct. However, you are quoting figures from a competition version of the engine, and not the standard one, which was 115bhp.

So, wrong on every point there, pretty much.

And for those of you still interested in the topic, the Fulvia had a narrow angle V, an idea that was later delveloped by VW for the VR6 type engines.

Grand Master

kombolcha

Posted
  • Author
Posted

awesome thread you guys have made this (Y)

now.. what about the "W" engines.. how are they different from the V, and the chances that the design will catch on with other auto makers.

lastly, are there any new engines being developed.. if i remember correctly from watching the history channel, they have been using the "reciprocal" engine since the begining.. well after going through steam first.. then to what we have now.. although much better and more sophisticated now, its still the same basic design.

Experienced

Whiffle

Posted
Posted

awesome thread you guys have made this (Y)

lastly, are there any new engines being developed.. if i remember correctly from watching the history channel, they have been using the "reciprocal" engine since the begining.. well after going through steam first.. then to what we have now.. although much better and more sophisticated now, its still the same basic design.

Its actually "reciprocating."

Another design that has been around is the Rotary Engine, used by Mazda a while back. They are capable of obscene RPM ranges but don't provide alot of torque and tend to burn oil after a while. They're an ingenious design though. I don't see them becoming mainstream anytime soon.

http://travel.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

Right now everyone seems to be dead set on hybrid technology, which is alrite. I heard from a guy on another forum who got to use one of GM's 5.3l hybrid trucks during the NE Blackout of 03'. They ran a refridgerator and some other stuff off it it the whole time on a 1/4 tank of gas. Between that and the Displacement on Demand system, we should see some interesting stuff in the next few years.

I saw this on slashdot today too...

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/

Veteran

Pilsbury

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ferrari Grand Prix cars in the 40's and 50's had 1.5 supercharged V12's, so, multi-cylinder cars of small capacity are more than possible.

Coventry-Climax built a Flat-16 1.5 in the 60's...

As regards W engines, there are 3 variations of them, a 3 bank layout, what is basically 2 V engines in a V layout with a single crank, and what is basically 2 V engines, each with a counter-rotating crankshaft - this is mostly used in bike engines.

I think VW/Audi have developed both sorts of the car type layouts, the first for the prototype Bugattis and the second for production cars (Phaeton, Passat, Bugatti, Bentley). Of course, the narrow angle V engine from VW is ideal for the 4 bank V layout, as having the normal 60 degree V layout would result in what would resemble a flat engine with a V above it - this would both be quite wide and tall, and thus not ideally suited to most designs.

There's a good article on VW's narrow angle V's and W's at http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/e...e_packaging.htm - it's not too heavy and explains things like why the W isn't suited for racing...

Edit:

Here's a link to a 100cc Flat-12 in a scale Ferrai complete with video! http://www.nmd.com.au/download_detail.cfm?id=7

Edited by Pilsbury
Grand Master

kombolcha

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ferrari Grand Prix cars in the 40's and 50's had 1.5 supercharged V12's, so, multi-cylinder cars of small capacity are more than possible.

Coventry-Climax built a Flat-16 1.5 in the 60's...

As regards W engines, there are 3 variations of them, a 3 bank layout, what is basically 2 V engines in a V layout with a single crank, and what is basically 2 V engines, each with a counter-rotating crankshaft - this is mostly used in bike engines.

I think VW/Audi have developed both sorts of the car type layouts, the first for the prototype Bugattis and the second for production cars (Phaeton, Passat, Bugatti, Bentley). Of course, the narrow angle V engine from VW is ideal for the 4 bank V layout, as having the normal 60 degree V layout would result in what would resemble a flat engine with a V above it - this would both be quite wide and tall, and thus not ideally suited to most designs.

There's a good article on VW's narrow angle V's and W's at http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/e...e_packaging.htm - it's not too heavy and explains things like why the W isn't suited for racing...

Edit:

Here's a link to a 100cc Flat-12 in a scale Ferrai complete with video! http://www.nmd.com.au/download_detail.cfm?id=7

excellent link. thank you

Mentor

Michael_C

Posted
Posted (edited)

Piston configuration does not has as much to do with torque as displacement does.

And even more so bore and stroke. An oversquare engine will produce plenty of torque and down low in the rev range.

Omg dude, how old are you?

YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF A 4CYL car!?!??!

You just made yourself look stupid by trying(and failing) to make him look stupid. :laugh:

Edited by flightmike1
Contributor

nigel.pinder

Posted
Posted

Another design that has been around is the Rotary Engine, used by Mazda a while back. They are capable of obscene RPM ranges but don't provide alot of torque and tend to burn oil after a while. They're an ingenious design though. I don't see them becoming mainstream anytime soon.

It wasnt just used a while back, it is used now in the RX-8 !! A current production car that won a lot of awards, in 2003 it won the International Engine of the year award for new engines, and in 2004 the best engine in the 2.5 to 3 litre category.

I totally agree, it has poor low down torque, however, it doesnt `burn oil after a while` it is DESIGNED to burn oil ALL the time as part of the lubrication process. It is not a fault or problem, just a characteristic of the engine.

The poor fuel consumption and poor emmisions will stop it becoming a mainstream engine anytime soon though, as you said.

Nige.

oh yeah, here is a link that mentions that 2.0 V10 I posted about 2.0 V10

Experienced

Whiffle

Posted
Posted

It wasnt just used a while back, it is used now in the RX-8 !! A current production car that won a lot of awards, in 2003 it won the International Engine of the year award for new engines, and in 2004 the best engine in the 2.5 to 3 litre category.

I totally agree, it has poor low down torque, however, it doesnt `burn oil after a while` it is DESIGNED to burn oil ALL the time as part of the lubrication process. It is not a fault or problem, just a characteristic of the engine.

The poor fuel consumption and poor emmisions will stop it becoming a mainstream engine anytime soon though, as you said.

Nige.

oh yeah, here is a link that mentions that 2.0 V10 I posted about 2.0 V10

Yeah I realized that about the RX-8 about 10 minutes after I posted...stupid finals slows everything down.

Designed to burn oil? As in like a 2-stroke engine? That sounds kind of odd, but I guess it makes sense...

Grand Master

linsook

Posted
Posted

I totally agree, it has poor low down torque, however, it doesnt `burn oil after a while` it is DESIGNED to burn oil ALL the time as part of the lubrication process. It is not a fault or problem, just a characteristic of the engine.2.0 V10

uhhh i think you got it mixed up. it wasnt desinged to burn oil, it was the inherit design of the engine which made it burn oil. i dont think any manufacturer would design an engine to burn oil, thats ludicrous, its just that the rotary design wouldnt have it any other way. obivously mazda has tried to decrease the amount of engine oil burned ie: rx7 to rx8.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.