If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
>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? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Tha Ghee wrote:
> "Steve Grauman" > wrote in message > ... > >>>the A8 has or will very soon have a 12 cylinder engine in the US >>>it should be clear that the poster of the "W-16" comment made an >>>honest mistake >> >>However, a "W16" has been developed for the new Bugatti supercar. >> >> >>>[kinda big and piggish, but nevertheless, it will have a 12 cylinder, >>>I believe a "W" configuration, which is two VR6s together...] >>> >> >>Yupp. It's essentially two 24 valve VR6s mated at the crank. VW found the >>benefits of this engine years ago with the Corrado SLC. > > > 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
... > >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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Smith" > wrote in message
... > 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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Grauman" > wrote in message
... > >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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Tha Ghee
> 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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 ass before, right? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Toby Groves wrote:
> In article >, Tha Ghee > > 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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
>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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
> 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|