$74,000
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:10bnbigdpcq9p06@news.supernews.com...
> Tha Ghee wrote:
>
> > I think they should have ponied up a little money and made a true V-12.
>
> Um, why? 12 cylinders is 12 cylinders. 6 liters is 6 liters. There is
> nothing inherently "better", performance-wise, about a V-layout vs. a
> W-layout, and the W has advantages in terms of package size.
>
> --
> Mike Smith
>
no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a V-8
the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine on
the planet. when you take to buzzy VR-6s and put them at a weird angle they
need to put different dampeners on them when a V-12 wouldn't need this
appliance.
yes there are many differences in terms of performance for V-12 vs. W-12
just look at the charts.
if you look I said besides packing efficiency what are the major benefits of
a "W" engine.
news:10bnbigdpcq9p06@news.supernews.com...
> Tha Ghee wrote:
>
> > I think they should have ponied up a little money and made a true V-12.
>
> Um, why? 12 cylinders is 12 cylinders. 6 liters is 6 liters. There is
> nothing inherently "better", performance-wise, about a V-layout vs. a
> W-layout, and the W has advantages in terms of package size.
>
> --
> Mike Smith
>
no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a V-8
the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine on
the planet. when you take to buzzy VR-6s and put them at a weird angle they
need to put different dampeners on them when a V-12 wouldn't need this
appliance.
yes there are many differences in terms of performance for V-12 vs. W-12
just look at the charts.
if you look I said besides packing efficiency what are the major benefits of
a "W" engine.
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040529183044.15699.00000062@mb-m24.aol.com...
> >you do realize that a W-12 will never be as smooth as a V-12
>
> That's yet another ridiculous claim. What evidence do you have of this?
no it isn't a V-12 is in no the smoothest engine it's 1a, a W-12 can never
be as smooth, it's 2 VR-6s attached at a weird angle.
news:20040529183044.15699.00000062@mb-m24.aol.com...
> >you do realize that a W-12 will never be as smooth as a V-12
>
> That's yet another ridiculous claim. What evidence do you have of this?
no it isn't a V-12 is in no the smoothest engine it's 1a, a W-12 can never
be as smooth, it's 2 VR-6s attached at a weird angle.
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
In article <0Mpwc.575$w65.461@fe37.usenetserver.com>, Tha Ghee
<grewatson@yahoo.com> writes
>no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine on
>the planet.
I suspect a good straight six engine such as a BMW one would be smoother
than a V12, purely because the pistons are all moving in one plane and
can therefore cancel out each other's momentum more easily than they can
in a Vee engine.
--
Toby
<grewatson@yahoo.com> writes
>no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine on
>the planet.
I suspect a good straight six engine such as a BMW one would be smoother
than a V12, purely because the pistons are all moving in one plane and
can therefore cancel out each other's momentum more easily than they can
in a Vee engine.
--
Toby
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
Tha Ghee wrote:
> <>I think they should have ponied up a little money and made a true V-12.
>
>>You're potentially talking hundreds of millions of dollars in development costs.
>>
>>
>>>with this config what are the true benefits??
>>>
>>>
>> <>It's "footprint". The VR/W configurations make the engines narrower
>> and allows VW/Audi to squeeze them into places were an engine that
>> size normally would not fit. The 2.8 Litre VR6 fitted to the
>> Golf/GTi/Jetta is an example of this, as is the W8 in the Passat.
>>
>>>just take the V-12 from Lambo, and tune it for a luxo sedan.
>>>
>>>I understand the width & length angle, but what are any benefits, between
>>>some savings in development time, and small size. they seem to be a little
>>>low on power compared to a "traditional" layout, and they seem to have a
>>>little more harshness vibration.
>>>
So, Ghee,
What is it like owning both a V-12 Lambo and a W-12 A8? I mean, you
have driven both cars - you must have, or else your opinion on vibration
and harshness would have no basis in reality. And you never have pulled
a statement from your *** before, right?
> <>I think they should have ponied up a little money and made a true V-12.
>
>>You're potentially talking hundreds of millions of dollars in development costs.
>>
>>
>>>with this config what are the true benefits??
>>>
>>>
>> <>It's "footprint". The VR/W configurations make the engines narrower
>> and allows VW/Audi to squeeze them into places were an engine that
>> size normally would not fit. The 2.8 Litre VR6 fitted to the
>> Golf/GTi/Jetta is an example of this, as is the W8 in the Passat.
>>
>>>just take the V-12 from Lambo, and tune it for a luxo sedan.
>>>
>>>I understand the width & length angle, but what are any benefits, between
>>>some savings in development time, and small size. they seem to be a little
>>>low on power compared to a "traditional" layout, and they seem to have a
>>>little more harshness vibration.
>>>
So, Ghee,
What is it like owning both a V-12 Lambo and a W-12 A8? I mean, you
have driven both cars - you must have, or else your opinion on vibration
and harshness would have no basis in reality. And you never have pulled
a statement from your *** before, right?
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
Toby Groves wrote:
> In article <0Mpwc.575$w65.461@fe37.usenetserver.com>, Tha Ghee
> <grewatson@yahoo.com> writes
>
>> no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest
>> engine on
>> the planet.
>
>
> I suspect a good straight six engine such as a BMW one would be
> smoother than a V12, purely because the pistons are all moving in one
> plane and can therefore cancel out each other's momentum more easily
> than they can in a Vee engine.
>
An inline 6 is the engine configuration with the fewest cylinders that
can be perfectly balanced. A V-8 can be perfectly balanced, and a V-12
can as well. If you can get an I-6 perfectly balanced, then you can
also perfectly balance 2 I-6 engines joined together in one block.
I'm not sure if a W-12 can be perfectly balanced, as it's a
configuration that is newer than my textbooks. And I think other
configurations can be as well, such as a V-16.
However, just because the configurations I listed above _can_ be
perfectly balanced, that does not always mean that every engine with
those layouts actually are.
Engine designers can use a whole bag of tricks to make engines that are
not inherently smooth feel quite good to the car owner. I-4, I-5, V-5,
V-6, I-8, V-10 can use balance shafts to quell the noise. And for
engines with a V or W configuration, designers can use the proper angle
between the cylinder banks. 60 degrees is best for a V-6 - when GM
converted it's cars from using V-8 engines (which are best balanced with
a 90 degree configuration) to 6 cylinders in the 1980s, they didn't want
to throw away the machinery that bored the cylinders out. So they made
90 degree V-6s, which were quite rough. That was one of the factors
that gave rise to the increasing market share that foreign manufacturers
now enjoy.
The VR-6 (I've owned two), with a 15 degree cylinder angle is quite a
smooth engine, because its angle is close to the zero of the I-6. It's
not perfect, but it is smoother than the Japanese I-4 I now use.
> In article <0Mpwc.575$w65.461@fe37.usenetserver.com>, Tha Ghee
> <grewatson@yahoo.com> writes
>
>> no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest
>> engine on
>> the planet.
>
>
> I suspect a good straight six engine such as a BMW one would be
> smoother than a V12, purely because the pistons are all moving in one
> plane and can therefore cancel out each other's momentum more easily
> than they can in a Vee engine.
>
An inline 6 is the engine configuration with the fewest cylinders that
can be perfectly balanced. A V-8 can be perfectly balanced, and a V-12
can as well. If you can get an I-6 perfectly balanced, then you can
also perfectly balance 2 I-6 engines joined together in one block.
I'm not sure if a W-12 can be perfectly balanced, as it's a
configuration that is newer than my textbooks. And I think other
configurations can be as well, such as a V-16.
However, just because the configurations I listed above _can_ be
perfectly balanced, that does not always mean that every engine with
those layouts actually are.
Engine designers can use a whole bag of tricks to make engines that are
not inherently smooth feel quite good to the car owner. I-4, I-5, V-5,
V-6, I-8, V-10 can use balance shafts to quell the noise. And for
engines with a V or W configuration, designers can use the proper angle
between the cylinder banks. 60 degrees is best for a V-6 - when GM
converted it's cars from using V-8 engines (which are best balanced with
a 90 degree configuration) to 6 cylinders in the 1980s, they didn't want
to throw away the machinery that bored the cylinders out. So they made
90 degree V-6s, which were quite rough. That was one of the factors
that gave rise to the increasing market share that foreign manufacturers
now enjoy.
The VR-6 (I've owned two), with a 15 degree cylinder angle is quite a
smooth engine, because its angle is close to the zero of the I-6. It's
not perfect, but it is smoother than the Japanese I-4 I now use.
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
>no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a V-8
>the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
What the hell does the engine's firing sequence have to do with smoothness?
>no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine on
>the planet
What kind of B.S. generality is that? WHICH V12? The MB one? The BMW one? The
Lamborghini one?
> when you take to buzzy VR-6s and put them at a weird angle
The W12 uses the same 10 degree angle that the VR engines do.
> they
>need to put different dampeners on them when a V-12 wouldn't need this
>appliance.
I believe MB's V12 uses balance shafts, actually.
>yes there are many differences in terms of performance for V-12 vs. W-12
>just look at the charts.
Again, a generality. MB's V12 outperforms the W12 but it's fitted with Twin
Turbochargers so what do you expect?
>if you look I said besides packing efficiency what are the major benefits of
>a "W" engine.
>
It doesn't matter how you worded it, you were wrong.
>the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
What the hell does the engine's firing sequence have to do with smoothness?
>no on the V-12 vs. W-12, the V-12 is second most if not smoothest engine on
>the planet
What kind of B.S. generality is that? WHICH V12? The MB one? The BMW one? The
Lamborghini one?
> when you take to buzzy VR-6s and put them at a weird angle
The W12 uses the same 10 degree angle that the VR engines do.
> they
>need to put different dampeners on them when a V-12 wouldn't need this
>appliance.
I believe MB's V12 uses balance shafts, actually.
>yes there are many differences in terms of performance for V-12 vs. W-12
>just look at the charts.
Again, a generality. MB's V12 outperforms the W12 but it's fitted with Twin
Turbochargers so what do you expect?
>if you look I said besides packing efficiency what are the major benefits of
>a "W" engine.
>
It doesn't matter how you worded it, you were wrong.
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
>just take the V-12 from Lambo, and tune it for a luxo sedan.
>
It's not that simple. The Murcielago's V12 wouldn't have fit in the A8. Plus,
they can't produce them in great enough number for A8 application.
>I understand the width & length angle, but what are any benefits, between
>some savings in development time, and small size.
FITMENT. The A8 wouldn't have accpeted a V-12 of that displacement.
> they seem to be a little
>low on power compared to a "traditional" layout,
This is the result of Adui's tuning, not the engine type.
> and they seem to have a
>little more harshness vibration.
>
B.S. I've ridden in a W12 Pheaton and it was incredible.
>
It's not that simple. The Murcielago's V12 wouldn't have fit in the A8. Plus,
they can't produce them in great enough number for A8 application.
>I understand the width & length angle, but what are any benefits, between
>some savings in development time, and small size.
FITMENT. The A8 wouldn't have accpeted a V-12 of that displacement.
> they seem to be a little
>low on power compared to a "traditional" layout,
This is the result of Adui's tuning, not the engine type.
> and they seem to have a
>little more harshness vibration.
>
B.S. I've ridden in a W12 Pheaton and it was incredible.
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
Steve Grauman wrote:
>>when GM
>>converted it's cars from using V-8 engines (which are best balanced with
>>a 90 degree configuration)
>>
>>
>
>Most V6s are 90 degrees, AFAIK.
>
>
Many American V-6's _are_ 90 degrees for the reason I stated in my
earlier post including the very popular GM 3.8 liter, now in it's 3rd or
4th generation. That engine was fitted with balance shafts in the mid
'90s and it ran pretty smoothly in a rental car I drove.
But most modern V-6 engines that are developed from scratch will have a
60 degree angle. Even modular engine families, such as the one Ford
developed in 1996 (which spawned a V-6, several V-8s, and a V-10) use a
60 degree angle for the 6 and a 90 degree angle for the others (even
though 72 degrees is ideal for a V-10).
http://www.mustangheaven.com/2005mustang/powert.htm
Honda's 240hp V-6 is 60 degrees and is used in the Accord, Odyssey,
Pilot, others?
The 3.5L V-6 Nissan/Infinity puts into almost everything is 60 degrees.
I may be mistaken by saying that the I-6 was the configuration with the
fewest cylinders that is inherently balanced. While writing this
response I found a site that says all boxer engines, even the H-4 are
perfectly balanced because the cylinders move in the same plane at the
same time. But I think the H4 has second order harmonics that make the
I-6 smoother. I do know that the H-4 in my WRX, while quiet and
powerful, isn't as smooth at idle as the I-6 engines I've test driven.
By the way, this page
http://www.ukcar.com/sframe.htm?/fea...ech/engine.htm
is pretty interesting.
And this page
http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_s...ne/smooth1.htm
has some of the physics behind it. The 5th page of the article has info
specific to the VR6, W8, and W12 engines.
For a fairly in-depth engineering explanation, check this site out
http://www.thrashercharged.com/tech_...ne_design.shtm
>>when GM
>>converted it's cars from using V-8 engines (which are best balanced with
>>a 90 degree configuration)
>>
>>
>
>Most V6s are 90 degrees, AFAIK.
>
>
Many American V-6's _are_ 90 degrees for the reason I stated in my
earlier post including the very popular GM 3.8 liter, now in it's 3rd or
4th generation. That engine was fitted with balance shafts in the mid
'90s and it ran pretty smoothly in a rental car I drove.
But most modern V-6 engines that are developed from scratch will have a
60 degree angle. Even modular engine families, such as the one Ford
developed in 1996 (which spawned a V-6, several V-8s, and a V-10) use a
60 degree angle for the 6 and a 90 degree angle for the others (even
though 72 degrees is ideal for a V-10).
http://www.mustangheaven.com/2005mustang/powert.htm
Honda's 240hp V-6 is 60 degrees and is used in the Accord, Odyssey,
Pilot, others?
The 3.5L V-6 Nissan/Infinity puts into almost everything is 60 degrees.
I may be mistaken by saying that the I-6 was the configuration with the
fewest cylinders that is inherently balanced. While writing this
response I found a site that says all boxer engines, even the H-4 are
perfectly balanced because the cylinders move in the same plane at the
same time. But I think the H4 has second order harmonics that make the
I-6 smoother. I do know that the H-4 in my WRX, while quiet and
powerful, isn't as smooth at idle as the I-6 engines I've test driven.
By the way, this page
http://www.ukcar.com/sframe.htm?/fea...ech/engine.htm
is pretty interesting.
And this page
http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_s...ne/smooth1.htm
has some of the physics behind it. The 5th page of the article has info
specific to the VR6, W8, and W12 engines.
For a fairly in-depth engineering explanation, check this site out
http://www.thrashercharged.com/tech_...ne_design.shtm
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: $74,000
In article <20040607002822.07360.00000632@mb-m03.aol.com>, Steve Grauman
<oneactor1@aol.com> writes
>>no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a V-8
>>the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
>
>What the hell does the engine's firing sequence have to do with smoothness?
Err, everything!
Smoothness is all down to the movement of the pistons relative to each
other. They need to fire in a sequence such that their momentum
relative to each other balances out.
--
Toby
<oneactor1@aol.com> writes
>>no, not all engines are the same, if you drive a W-8 back to back with a V-8
>>the W-8 will not be as smooth, it has odd firing sequence.
>
>What the hell does the engine's firing sequence have to do with smoothness?
Err, everything!
Smoothness is all down to the movement of the pistons relative to each
other. They need to fire in a sequence such that their momentum
relative to each other balances out.
--
Toby