Speaking of cars...
 

"Tom Francis" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:32:41 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Tom Francis penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:53:14 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...

US cars are routinely getting over 100K miles now, many over 200K
miles.
Keep up with the oil changes and you can almost run them forever.
Nothing
like the cars of the past...........


I still have a 1985 F150 straight 6 that runs fine at 170k miles

Those 300 ci Ford engines were excellent.

There was nothing to compare to the old Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth in
line 220 cui slant six.

It is my belief that certain engines are timeless. Whether it's
because of design, confluence of engineering ideas or just plain old
design luck, certain engines are always good, efficient and bullet
proof.

220 cui slant six
383 cui V8
283 cui V8
220 cui International straight six

etc., etc., etc.

The slant six was a 225 cu in...

yeah - my fingers got all bollixed up.

don't forget the Chevy 250/292 engines.

Here's hoping that you, in time, will add the 5 cylinder GM's to this
discussion....

heh - er...huh?

Now I remember them. They were the straight 6 engines that burned up
valves.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...

Eisboch wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...


Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?



There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.

An inline six has inherent balance & even firing.

A V-6 needs extensive balancing & requires offset crank journals for even
firing, considerably weakening the crankshaft.

Rob


Plus I think ... as someone else pointed out ... the whole purpose of a V
configuration is to reduce the overall engine size to fit the engine in
smaller compartments, thus the stroke is typically shorter and resultant
torque is less.
The old Ford 300 ci straight six used in full sized cars and trucks was
every bit as strong or stronger as a small V8. And then there was the 225
ci slant six from Chrysler ...

Eisboch


That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.

Speaking of cars...
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...

Eisboch wrote:

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...


Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.


I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?



There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.

An inline six has inherent balance & even firing.

A V-6 needs extensive balancing & requires offset crank journals for even
firing, considerably weakening the crankshaft.

Rob


Plus I think ... as someone else pointed out ... the whole purpose of a V
configuration is to reduce the overall engine size to fit the engine in
smaller compartments, thus the stroke is typically shorter and resultant
torque is less.
The old Ford 300 ci straight six used in full sized cars and trucks was
every bit as strong or stronger as a small V8. And then there was the
225 ci slant six from Chrysler ...

Eisboch
That slant six was the best part of my 1977 Dodge Aspen SW.

That's "Aspirin", not Aspen.

Speaking of cars...
 

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.

Speaking of cars...
 

Bert Robbins wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...
Eisboch wrote:
"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:IDTXg.24$cQ5.14@trndny06...

Thanks. I haven't been able to find a "review" with the v6 engine.

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?


There's a good reason for it.
I just wish I knew what it was.
An inline six has inherent balance & even firing.

A V-6 needs extensive balancing & requires offset crank journals for even
firing, considerably weakening the crankshaft.

Rob

Plus I think ... as someone else pointed out ... the whole purpose of a V
configuration is to reduce the overall engine size to fit the engine in
smaller compartments, thus the stroke is typically shorter and resultant
torque is less.
The old Ford 300 ci straight six used in full sized cars and trucks was
every bit as strong or stronger as a small V8. And then there was the 225
ci slant six from Chrysler ...

First time I looked under the hood of a Dodge Dart I thought the motor
mounts had broken.

Figures.......

Speaking of cars...
 

Tom Francis wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:32:41 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:06:38 GMT, Tom Francis penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:53:14 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

US cars are routinely getting over 100K miles now, many over 200K miles.
Keep up with the oil changes and you can almost run them forever.
Nothing
like the cars of the past...........


I still have a 1985 F150 straight 6 that runs fine at 170k miles

Those 300 ci Ford engines were excellent.

There was nothing to compare to the old Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth in
line 220 cui slant six.

It is my belief that certain engines are timeless. Whether it's
because of design, confluence of engineering ideas or just plain old
design luck, certain engines are always good, efficient and bullet
proof.

220 cui slant six
383 cui V8
283 cui V8
220 cui International straight six

etc., etc., etc.

The slant six was a 225 cu in...

yeah - my fingers got all bollixed up.

don't forget the Chevy 250/292 engines.

Here's hoping that you, in time, will add the 5 cylinder GM's to this
discussion....

heh - er...huh?

New Chevy Colorado has the 5 clylinder engine as an option, for one....

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


The problem is you have it backwards. A typical Nissan V6 engine
(3.3-liter SOHC 12-valve) has a bore of 3.602 inches and a stroke of
3.268 inches. This is called "over square" and is typical of high reving,
low torque engines.

Eisboch

Speaking of cars...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


Torque is relative to crank throw- longer stroke = more torque, not less as
you've stated.

Now will you shut up?

Speaking of cars...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


The problem is you have it backwards. A typical Nissan V6 engine
(3.3-liter SOHC 12-valve) has a bore of 3.602 inches and a stroke of
3.268 inches. This is called "over square" and is typical of high reving,
low torque engines.

Eisboch

With the Nissan, yes. but not typically. 170 slant six had a bore of
3.40 inches and a stroke of 3.125.

Speaking of cars...
 

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

CR wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

I haven't encountered many good V6 engines, I'm not really sure why
but
they seem to be much less robust than inline 6's, perhaps it's the
compact shape?

Depends on where in the power band. Inlines, because of the relatively
short stroke, and big bores, have a lot of low end torque. Modern V6's
on the other hand, because of the configuration, are longer stroke,
smaller bore. Top end torque. Nissan makes a bitchin' V6

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

Show me. Or shut up.


Torque is relative to crank throw- longer stroke = more torque, not less as
you've stated.

Now will you shut up? Hmm, so I take it that you think torque is relative to ONLY stroke?? Are you REALLY saying that?