"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607003202.07360.00000634@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >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.

then make the A8 wider, it's a big car why keep it skinny. the A8 sells
less than 10K a year that's only 850 a month I think AudiAG can produce
that. never said it wasn't a great car, past being a VW but it's not as
smooth as a VS.-12.

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607003202.07360.00000634@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >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.

then make the A8 wider, it's a big car why keep it skinny. the A8 sells
less than 10K a year that's only 850 a month I think AudiAG can produce
that. never said it wasn't a great car, past being a VW but it's not as
smooth as a VS.-12.

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607002940.07360.00000633@mb-m03.aol.com...
> > 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.

no there about 60 degrees or something close to this

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607002940.07360.00000633@mb-m03.aol.com...
> > 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.

no there about 60 degrees or something close to this

 

"Toby Groves" <news@iconia.org.uk> wrote in message
news:XxzG1KACxkwAFwaV@iconia.org.uk...
> 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

you do realize that a V-12 is nothing more than 2 I-6s attached at a proper
angle to quell vibration.

 

"Toby Groves" <news@iconia.org.uk> wrote in message
news:XxzG1KACxkwAFwaV@iconia.org.uk...
> 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

you do realize that a V-12 is nothing more than 2 I-6s attached at a proper
angle to quell vibration.

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607055128.09603.00000689@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >The engine family I referred to is the one used in the Mustang
>
> Yuck. They could've gotten the same power output and better fuel economy
from a 3.0 litre motor. A twin-cam, multi-valve setup would've been nice
too.
>
> >The 60 degree V-8 pretty much killed the SHO - along with its high price.
>
> That car was pitiful. An overpriced P.O.S. as far as I'm concerned, not to
> mention ugly and not particularly fast if memory serves me.
>
> >There's a new duratec 3.5L V-6 coming out within a year.
>
> I hadn't heard about that. I know that something based on the Futura
concept
> and built on the Mazda 6 platform is set to replace the Taurus and Sable.
A 3.5
> would be nice, if it's done right. But even the 3.0 in the 6 would be an
> improvement over the current Taurus mill.
>
> >If I coulda I woulda... 'course I tried to get into a used '00 S4, but
> >the new '02 WRX fit so much better into my budget.
>
> I came very near getting a 944 Turbo instead of my VW. But the high
maintenance and insurance costs put me off and the 968 would've been the
same scenario with a higher buy-in price. I thought the WRX was a great bang
for the buck but I thought the VW was more comfortable and already more than
quick enough to get me in trouble. I've been pondering buying a Grand
National from a local guy who's selling his, but I think it'd be a stretch
and I fear the car would spend most of the time in the garage thanks to gas,
insurance and registration costs.

the reason the big 3 try "not" to use OHC is because the like low slung
hoods and this is hard to achieve with a OHC arrangement. the V-60 SHO 2nd
gen Taurus was very fast, it had faster 30 foot times than a Mustang.

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607055128.09603.00000689@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >The engine family I referred to is the one used in the Mustang
>
> Yuck. They could've gotten the same power output and better fuel economy
from a 3.0 litre motor. A twin-cam, multi-valve setup would've been nice
too.
>
> >The 60 degree V-8 pretty much killed the SHO - along with its high price.
>
> That car was pitiful. An overpriced P.O.S. as far as I'm concerned, not to
> mention ugly and not particularly fast if memory serves me.
>
> >There's a new duratec 3.5L V-6 coming out within a year.
>
> I hadn't heard about that. I know that something based on the Futura
concept
> and built on the Mazda 6 platform is set to replace the Taurus and Sable.
A 3.5
> would be nice, if it's done right. But even the 3.0 in the 6 would be an
> improvement over the current Taurus mill.
>
> >If I coulda I woulda... 'course I tried to get into a used '00 S4, but
> >the new '02 WRX fit so much better into my budget.
>
> I came very near getting a 944 Turbo instead of my VW. But the high
maintenance and insurance costs put me off and the 968 would've been the
same scenario with a higher buy-in price. I thought the WRX was a great bang
for the buck but I thought the VW was more comfortable and already more than
quick enough to get me in trouble. I've been pondering buying a Grand
National from a local guy who's selling his, but I think it'd be a stretch
and I fear the car would spend most of the time in the garage thanks to gas,
insurance and registration costs.

the reason the big 3 try "not" to use OHC is because the like low slung
hoods and this is hard to achieve with a OHC arrangement. the V-60 SHO 2nd
gen Taurus was very fast, it had faster 30 foot times than a Mustang.

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607034924.07360.00000640@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >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.
>
> I seriously dislike the GM 3.8. I've driven an N/A version as well as two
> supercharged units (a 2001 Bonneville SSEi and a 2004 Grand Prix GTP) and
> disliked both. The supercharged version has a ton of torque but it did
very
> little to help get quick 0-60 times from the bloated Bonneville. The 3.1
in the
> Malibu was worse, although I've not driven the new version. But 170Hp from
a
> 3.1 litre V6 is stupid to say the least.
>
> > 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
>
> Does this include the unit (2.5 litres?) used in the Contour or just the
3.0
> litre used in the Taurus? I always liked the Contour, for what it was. I
> thought it was Ford's best sedan with the possible exception on the 2nd
Gen. V6 powered SHO.
>
> >Honda's 240hp V-6 is 60 degrees and is used in the Accord, Odyssey,
> >Pilot, others?
>
> The Accord is a 3.0 litre. The Odyssey and Pilot have a 3.5 litre engine,
as
> does the 3.5RL, but the Acura's is different. I drove a Pilot and liked
the
> 3.5, a friend's 2004 Accord is nice too, but a little more torque could be
> useful.
>
> >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.
>
> The H-4 is the WRX felt a bit gruff to me. But the boxer-sixes in Porsches
are
> made of automotive dreams.

GM uses these engines for their toque and good emissions. like Byron said
engine engineers do crazy things. The Pilot and MDX have the same engine,
so do the 3.2 Accord and T/CL. the Por. is a H-6 which was explained to me
as being different because of the two extra cylinders

 

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607034924.07360.00000640@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >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.
>
> I seriously dislike the GM 3.8. I've driven an N/A version as well as two
> supercharged units (a 2001 Bonneville SSEi and a 2004 Grand Prix GTP) and
> disliked both. The supercharged version has a ton of torque but it did
very
> little to help get quick 0-60 times from the bloated Bonneville. The 3.1
in the
> Malibu was worse, although I've not driven the new version. But 170Hp from
a
> 3.1 litre V6 is stupid to say the least.
>
> > 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
>
> Does this include the unit (2.5 litres?) used in the Contour or just the
3.0
> litre used in the Taurus? I always liked the Contour, for what it was. I
> thought it was Ford's best sedan with the possible exception on the 2nd
Gen. V6 powered SHO.
>
> >Honda's 240hp V-6 is 60 degrees and is used in the Accord, Odyssey,
> >Pilot, others?
>
> The Accord is a 3.0 litre. The Odyssey and Pilot have a 3.5 litre engine,
as
> does the 3.5RL, but the Acura's is different. I drove a Pilot and liked
the
> 3.5, a friend's 2004 Accord is nice too, but a little more torque could be
> useful.
>
> >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.
>
> The H-4 is the WRX felt a bit gruff to me. But the boxer-sixes in Porsches
are
> made of automotive dreams.

GM uses these engines for their toque and good emissions. like Byron said
engine engineers do crazy things. The Pilot and MDX have the same engine,
so do the 3.2 Accord and T/CL. the Por. is a H-6 which was explained to me
as being different because of the two extra cylinders