I don't have a "redneck" aversion to six cylinder engines. But I do have an aversion to new technology that is unproven, where I have to buy it and become responsible for the Beta testing. And I speak with some experience with Ford engines in that regard.
They can make very good stuff, and I've bought some of it, so this is not a brand war comment. But I've also paid the price for buying a 3.8 liter V6 and an old 6.9 diesel. The list of problems from the blue oval is legendary. Spitting out spark plugs, blown head gaskets, head bolts, EGR coolers, thin film ignition, weak 400CI pistons, and court ordered manufacturing, etc., to name a few. Now the new "breakthrough" is a small highly stressed V6. I say "show me". If it is good, great, and I hope it is. All of this is moot to the loyalists who will stand in line to get one. I say great, do it, and I can see from a distance if they are as good as the seller is claiming.
I'm a diesel guy, so it really doesn't matter to me, unless it proves to be a very good new trend that reduces overall fuel consumption and cost for the same amount of work. Then I might consider one for a car.
In this era we need to do more with less. Fuel efficiency is increasingly important. But it's false economy to pay a lot for something because of advertising and find out there can be heavy hidden costs, or a very limited benefit and shorter overall life.
The second thing is it's a mistake to lump all 6 cylinder engines into one set. Inline 6 is a very well balanced, durable and simple design. It lends itself to being easy to work on and leaves room under the hood for accessories. And as you know, it's no slouch. The V6 is inherently hard to balance and has more parts to do the same thing. Minivans can use the V6 because it's so short, but nearly impossible to change the plugs. Pickups and rear drive cars fit the inline well. It's apples and oranges.
I don't make the mistake of confusing the number of cylinders with the power output, although many do. I also have decided to let others do the Beta testing for me. Finally, the experience of towing in the mountains with an inline 6 diesel is incredibly relaxing. 25% fewer power strokes per minute than a V8 means a relaxed sound. The engine is pulling well at 1,800 RPM and will pull grades without downshifting. There's no foot to the floor and winding it out to get the job done. No selecting premium fuel in advance of a pull. And no extreme heat under the hood from twin turboes and lots of exhaust tubing.
Here's a good blurb from Wikipedia about the problems with the V6:
Balance and smoothness
Due to the odd number of cylinders in each bank, V6 designs are inherently unbalanced, regardless of their V-angle. All straight engines with an odd number of cylinders suffer from primary dynamic imbalance, which causes an end-to-end rocking motion. Each cylinder bank in a V6 has an odd number of pistons, so the V6 also suffers from the same problem unless steps are taken to mitigate it. In the horizontally opposed flat-6 layout, the rocking motions of the two straight cylinder banks offset each other, while in the inline-6 layout, the two ends of engine are mirror images of each other and compensate every rocking motion. Concentrating on the first order rocking motion, the V6 can be assumed to consist of two separate straight-3 where counterweights on the crankshaft and a counter rotating balance shaft compensate the first order rocking motion. At mating, the angle between the banks and the angle between the crankshafts can be varied so that the balancer shafts cancel each other 90° V6 (larger counter weights) and the even firing 60° V6 with 60° flying arms (smaller counter weights. The second order rocking motion can be balanced by a single co-rotating balancer shaft.).
A 90° V6 can use almost the same technique that balances an even firing 90° crossplane V8 in primary and secondary order. A flatplane V8 is in primary balance because each 4-cylinder bank is in primary balance. In a crossplane V8, balance is achieved at each cylinder pair, since the primary imbalance of a 90° pair is a special case that can be cancelled with a crankshaft counterweight. Secondary balance is achieved by the staggered arrangement of the crossplane crank. A simple 90° V6 with crankshaft counterweights achieves good balance for similar reasons, although the uneven firing intervals will be perceived as roughness at low RPM, making this an unpopular solution. Therefore, designing a smooth V6 engine is a much more complicated problem than the straight-6, flat-6, and V8 layouts. Although the use of offset crankpins, counterweights, and flying arms has reduced the problem to a minor second-order vibration in modern designs, all V6s can benefit from the addition of auxiliary balance shafts to make them completely smooth.[6]
When Lancia pioneered the V6 in 1950, they used a 60° angle between the cylinder banks and a six-throw crankshaft to achieve equally spaced firing intervals of 120°. This still has some balance and secondary vibration problems. When Buick designed a 90° V6 based on their 90° V8, they initially used a simpler three-throw crankshaft laid out in the same manner as the V8 with pairs of connecting rods sharing the same crankpin, which resulted in firing intervals alternating between 90° and 150°. This produced a rough-running design which was unacceptable to many customers. Arguably, the roughness is in the exhaust note, rather than noticeable vibration, so the perceived smoothness is rather good at higher RPM. Later, Buick and other manufacturers refined the design by using a split-pin crankshaft which achieved a regular 120° firing interval by staggering adjacent crankpins by 15° in opposite directions to eliminate the uneven firing and make the engine reasonably smooth.[7] Some manufacturers such as Buick in later versions of their V6 and Mercedes Benz have taken the 90° design a step further by adding a balancing shaft to offset the primary vibrations and produce an almost fully balanced engine.
Some designers have reverted to a 60° angle between cylinder banks, which produces a more compact engine, but have used three-throw crankshafts with flying arms between the crankpins of each throw to achieve even 120° angles between firing intervals. This has the additional advantage that the flying arms can be weighted for balancing purposes.[7] This still leaves an unbalanced primary couple, which is offset by counterweights on the crankshaft and flywheel to leave a small secondary couple, which can be absorbed by carefully designed engine mounts.[8]
Six-cylinder designs are also more suitable for larger displacement engines than four-cylinder ones because power strokes of pistons overlap. In a four-cylinder engine, only one piston is on a power stroke at any given time. Each piston comes to a complete stop and reverses direction before the next one starts its power stroke, which results in a gap between power strokes and noticeable vibrations. In a six-cylinder engine (other than odd-firing V6s), the next piston starts its power stroke 60° before the previous one finishes, which results in smoother delivery of power to the flywheel. In addition, because inertial forces are proportional to piston displacement, high-speed six-cylinder engines will suffer less stress and vibration per piston than an equal displacement engine with fewer cylinders.
Comparing engines on the dynamometer, a typical even-fire V6 shows instantaneous torque peaks of 150% above mean torque and valleys of 125% below mean torque, with a small amount of negative torque (engine torque reversals) between power strokes. On the other hand, a typical four-cylinder engine shows peaks of nearly 300% above mean torque and valleys of 200% below mean torque, with 100% negative torque being delivered between strokes. In contrast, a V8 engine shows peaks of less than 100% above and valleys of less than 100% below mean torque, and torque never goes negative. The even-fire V6 thus ranks between the four and the V8, but closer to the V8, in smoothness of power delivery. An odd-fire V6, on the other hand, shows highly irregular torque variations of 200% above and 175% below mean torque, which is significantly worse than an even-fire V6, and in addition the power delivery shows large harmonic vibrations that have been known to destroy the dynamometer.[9]
[edit]
