I6 vs V6 - advantages/disadvantages of each

**crnchyfrog** · 12-05-2005, 01:05 AM

discuss.

**Mitch** · 12-05-2005, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by crnchyfrog

discuss.

search

/thread

**crnchyfrog** · 12-05-2005, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Mitch

search

/thread

You've been waiting a while to say that haven't you?

**ozbmw** · 12-05-2005, 03:14 AM

BMW don't make them so there can't be any advantage in owning a V6.
Inline six = silky smooth.

**sachin528** · 12-05-2005, 03:28 AM

I6 - better harmonics, better airflow (intake/exhaust), packaging difficult

V6 - better packaging, compact, ummmmmmmm.................

There are a few V6s that are excellent - the VQs from Nissan, the original SHO V6 that Yamaha built, GM's 3800 and the Vortec 4300, Honda's J30/32 and the C30/C32 to name a few but by in large the greatest 6's are inline....

BMW's I6's, RB26DE-TT, 2JZ-GTE....

However, if you want to get technical, the flat 6's in Porsches are considered V's (a 180 V)

**Rich V** · 12-05-2005, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by sachin528

However, if you want to get technical, the flat 6's in Porsches are considered V's (a 180 V)

Yet flat 6's (and all flat motors) are perfectly balanced like an inline 6 whereas the V6 is not and usually requires a balance shaft.

The main reason the v6 was designed is its small packaging, mainly for FWD vehicles. A V6 should have more energy loss due to friction than an inline 6 due to having twice as many camshafts and valve train gears. A V6 is typically a little more expensive to manufacture as well due to this.

One of the odd balls to mension is the Volkswagen VR6; which is a narrow angle (15*) v6. However, it maintains one cylinder head, and a crankshaft similar to that of a inline 6 rather than a v6 giving it most of the properties of the inline 6.

**DiScoTeknix** · 12-05-2005, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by Rich V

One of the odd balls to mension is the Volkswagen VR6; which is a narrow angle (15*) v6. However, it maintains one cylinder head, and a crankshaft similar to that of a inline 6 rather than a v6 giving it most of the properties of the inline 6.

Not to mention it sounds nice.

**Evel Knievel** · 12-05-2005, 04:31 AM

inline engines-more revs.

V engines-more torque.

Thats the general guideline...

**ILoveMPower** · 12-10-2005, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by Evel Knievel

inline engines-more revs.

V engines-more torque.

Thats the general guideline...

I beg to differ...

**SQ Bimmer** · 12-10-2005, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by ILoveMPower

I beg to differ...

Ditto.

**Croak** · 12-10-2005, 05:49 AM

It's deja vu all over again

**digger** · 12-10-2005, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by SQ Bimmer

Ditto.

ditto too.

I challenge anyome to find any production V6 engine with more torque/L than the I6 in the e46 M3 CSL.

370 Nm / 3.246 L = 114 Nm/L
273 lbft / 3.246 L = 84 lb-ft/L

in fact find any production engine with more than that. What does it show? That the i6's flows extremely well.

The E36 M3 euro 3.2 had 109 Nm/L (80 lb-ft/L) at 3250rpm so theres plenty available down low too.

I suspect that V6 are thought to be more torquey becasue they don't rev as well and don't make as much power so they just feel that way.

**Dnz** · 12-10-2005, 06:21 AM

I think the main issue is just the size and weight. For cramming in an I6, people can also pack in a V8 for the same space.

And because many japanese cars are FWD, mounting in an I6 wouldnt work...

**SS84** · 12-10-2005, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by digger

ditto too.

I challenge anyome to find any production V6 engine with more torque/L than the I6 in the e46 M3 CSL.

370 Nm / 3.246 L = 114 Nm/L
273 lbft / 3.246 L = 84 lb-ft/L

in fact find any production engine with more than that. What does it show? That the i6's flows extremely well.

The E36 M3 euro 3.2 had 109 Nm/L (80 lb-ft/L) at 3250rpm so theres plenty available down low too.

I suspect that V6 are thought to be more torquey becasue they don't rev as well and don't make as much power so they just feel that way.

Oh man that challenge was TOO easy. The very first car that I thought of beat your "challenge"

1987 Buick Grand National = 93.4 lb-ft/L
3.8L V6 Turbo 245 bhp @ 4400 rpm, 355 ft-lb @ 2000 rpm

1987 Buick GNX = 94.7 lb-ft/L
3.8L V6 Turbo 276 bhp @ 4400 rpm, 360 ft-lb @ 3000 rpm.

**Akumo** · 12-10-2005, 02:30 PM

^take off the turbo?

**GreekDriver** · 12-10-2005, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by SS84

Oh man that challenge was TOO easy. The very first car that I thought of beat your "challenge"

1987 Buick Grand National = 93.4 lb-ft/L
3.8L V6 Turbo 245 bhp @ 4400 rpm, 355 ft-lb @ 2000 rpm

1987 Buick GNX = 94.7 lb-ft/L
3.8L V6 Turbo 276 bhp @ 4400 rpm, 360 ft-lb @ 3000 rpm.

That's cheating. Turbo cars don't count.

**SS84** · 12-10-2005, 05:26 PM

Oh, I see. Once it is proven that a production engine (the only stipulation)delivers mote Tq, then the rules change----

Ok I will look again.

**Dnz** · 12-10-2005, 05:36 PM

hahah i cant believe you thought a turbo was included!

Meh, next M3 is a V8 anyway, leaving the current S54 for the Z4..The last survivor of performance 6's..

**ding** · 12-10-2005, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by sachin528

I6 - better harmonics, better airflow (intake/exhaust), packaging difficult

V6 - better packaging, compact, ummmmmmmm.................

There are a few V6s that are excellent - the VQs from Nissan, the original SHO V6 that Yamaha built, GM's 3800 and the Vortec 4300, Honda's J30/32 and the C30/C32 to name a few but by in large the greatest 6's are inline....

BMW's I6's, RB26DE-TT, 2JZ-GTE....

However, if you want to get technical, the flat 6's in Porsches are considered V's (a 180 V)

GM's 3.1 and 3.8 were beautiful motors, in comparison to other american small motors that is. but the Vortec 4300, is junk, the millage it provided for the power that it put out was horrible, the 350 was actually better in everyway, even tho the 4.3 was pretty much just a 3/4 350. and for the SHO V6, it was powerful but from what I hear ford mechanics didn't like them so much. not hating your a awesome guy, just putting in my bit of knowledge about these motors, i have had both the 3.1 and 4.3 and my 3.1 was unfucking breakable, owned it for 6 years, replaced a alternator, thats it, and i beat that car like it owned me money everyday, never let it warm up, bounced of rev limit like woah.

**ding** · 12-10-2005, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by digger

ditto too.

I challenge anyome to find any production V6 engine with more torque/L than the I6 in the e46 M3 CSL.

370 Nm / 3.246 L = 114 Nm/L
273 lbft / 3.246 L = 84 lb-ft/L

in fact find any production engine with more than that. What does it show? That the i6's flows extremely well.

The E36 M3 euro 3.2 had 109 Nm/L (80 lb-ft/L) at 3250rpm so theres plenty available down low too.

I suspect that V6 are thought to be more torquey becasue they don't rev as well and don't make as much power so they just feel that way.

I completely agree that the CSL motor is a great and powerful motor, but why don't we through cost of that production motor into the line up, for how much I could buy some random v6 motor brand new from the factory I could build it to have insane NA power too, for the cost of the factory CSL motor

**TAMUmpower** · 12-10-2005, 05:59 PM

I wish that BMW would have kept I6's in the M. I can imagine every redneck now saying "see, if you want to make somethin fast you got to put a V8 in."

**SQ Bimmer** · 12-10-2005, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by TAMUmpower

I wish that BMW would have kept I6's in the M. I can imagine every redneck now saying "see, if you want to make somethin fast you got to put a V8 in."

Sad but true. One of my best friends (who refers to me as a "bimmerfag," btw) is a Ford nut. As soon as he hears that a V8 is going into the new m3 (hasn't hit him yet), he's gonna give me crap for it.

**Dnz** · 12-10-2005, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by SQ Bimmer

Sad but true. One of my best friends (who refers to me as a "bimmerfag," btw) is a Ford nut. As soon as he hears that a V8 is going into the new m3 (hasn't hit him yet), he's gonna give me crap for it.

Just point out that its based on BMW's award winning V10 powerplant, and that its characteristics will be nothing like a low revving V8.

**digger** · 12-10-2005, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by ding

I completely agree that the CSL motor is a great and powerful motor, but why don't we through cost of that production motor into the line up, for how much I could buy some random v6 motor brand new from the factory I could build it to have insane NA power too, for the cost of the factory CSL motor

yeh i was only commenting on the torque aspect of an I6 over a V6 (NA is a given unless both are FI it should go without saying...lol). I in no way implied that one was more cost effective than the other. You can tune any engine but will it be streetable and be mass produced. If you don't like the CSL take the M3 the numbers aren't that much different and not as expensive.

btw, I am talking about torque (not power) too which predominantly is a function of displacement so the "I" configuration seems to have an advantage over the "V" in terms of flow.

I found a engine with 116Nm/L (86lbft/L) and its a V but its not a V6 (maybe 2 x V6's) or a typical mass produced or streetable (thats debatable) engine but it is produced by BMW M back in the 90's can you guess?

**calves2997** · 12-10-2005, 11:01 PM

Let's not forget that the primary reason that all BMW (I6 and V8s) have the best torque/liter figures is because they have, by a long shot, the most advanced variable valve timing mechanisms, allowing optimal cam timing for most of the rev range.

Thread: I6 vs V6 - advantages/disadvantages of each

Thread Tools

I6 vs V6 - advantages/disadvantages of each

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions