339 replies to this topic

[marion5drsn]

The "Invention" of the V-8 engine is credited to the Frenchman below in 1999.

http://www.tecsoc.or...y/2002/dec2.htm

http://www.enginehis...before_1925.htm

The V-8 engine is generally credited to; http://www.enginehis...before_1925.htm
Léon-Marie-Joseph-Clement Levavasseur (1863-1922


In 1902, French engine designer Leon-Marie-Joseph-Clement Levavasseur patented the first working V-8 engine in France. The engine block was the first to arrange eight pistons in the V-formation that allowed a crankshaft with only four throws to be turned by eight pistons. They were called "Antoinette" and were made for about 10 years but were out of the business in 1909.

The V-8 engines of de Dion-Bouton were sold in 1909 and were copied by Cadillac and Hispano-Suiza plus Sunbeam-Arab of England who made a miserable job of it and created the Worlds Worst V-8 engine. This under the tutelage of Coatalen the engineer in charge. This was made using the same bore and stroke as the original De Dion-Bouton aircraft engine.
Cadillac did change a few things but by and large it was a copy of the original V-8 of De Dion-Bouton.
This V-8 engine which is notable for it's use of the 180-degree crankshaft that was used up until about 1923 when Cadillac developed the 90-degree dual plane crankshaft for the sake of smoothness and durability. In 1932 the third big development of the V-8 engine took place when Ford started to manufacture V-8s in million car quantities. The next year Ford brought out the Dual Plane 180-degree intake manifold. A huge development that solved the fuel consumption problem that even Cadillac had not been able to do. These two developments were to lead in 20 years to such engines as the Chrysler "Hemi" Firepower and the Chevrolet 265 cubic inch lightweight engine so famous even to this day in various forms.


History of the V-8 engine
http://www.thestar.c...endly&c=Article

This is the crankshaft that prevented the Secondary Shake that destroyed the V-8 engine of earlier times.

http://home.earthlin...YCAD.90DEG..JPG

http://www.gm.com/co...bloodlines.html

This is the layout of the Intake Manifold that made the V-8 engine take off.

http://home.earthlin...D-FORD-1933.JPG

This view shows the most prevalent crank used in V-8 engines to this day.

http://home.earthlin...NTERWEIGHTS.JPG

This shows the most used firing order/pattern of V-8s. # 1

http://home.earthlin...55TOPRESENT.JPG

This one shows the Buick 1953 and Cadillac 1936/1948 # 2

http://home.earthlin...EVROLETF.P2.JPG

This shows just one of the various firing orders. # 3

http://home.earthlin...VROLETF.P.3.JPG

http://home.earthlin...IGHINGSCALE.JPG

M.L. Anderson

[Ray Bell]

"Generally credited" may be one thing, Marion, but you make no mention of the Rolls Royce Legalimit.

This was a V8 of 3.53-litres made in 1905 and 1906, with the grand total of three cars produced. Though it would nearly have qualified as legal for F1 in the 1966 formula, it was probably a bit heavy and understressed, likely to have been blown off by any old Australian with a destroked Oldsmobile engine with single overhead cams. The Renaults of 1994 would have made even shorter work of it...

I think the cars were all recalled... Rolls or Royce being somehow unhappy with them and giving the owners new 6-cylinder cars. None have survived, it's said... but in case anyone catches sight of one, they should know what it looked like...

[marion5drsn]

Ray Bell:
The very fact that they seem to have been failures is one of the reasons, if not possibly enough reason to not use them as an example of a car that set the ball rolling on the production of V-8s You will notice I have edited the statement to "Truly successful" Even Packard made what many consider the first V-12s, the two race cars were followed by the production of the "TwinSix" passenger car the very next year. It would be interesting to know if they, the Legalimit, had a 90 or 180-degree crankshaft. M.L. Anderson

[Tec Freak]

I have a comment that includes a question (which is nto the same as a riddle wrapped in an enigma).

As you noted, the 90 degree cross plane crank is the design of choice for passenger car engines. However, it appears that in racing engines a single plane design is preferred. In fact, in recent endurance racing efforts both Cadillac and BMW have gone to the extreme of developing a single plane crank for engines that use cross plane cranks in the street version.

I assume the single plane crank is going to have some degree of secondary shake, which can be lived with in a racing sitution. But what is the advantage of the single plane crank? Lighter weight?

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Tec Freak
I have a comment that includes a question (which is nto the same as a riddle wrapped in an enigma).

As you noted, the 90 degree cross plane crank is the design of choice for passenger car engines. However, it appears that in racing engines a single plane design is preferred. In fact, in recent endurance racing efforts both Cadillac and BMW have gone to the extreme of developing a single plane crank for engines that use cross plane cranks in the street version.

I assume the single plane crank is going to have some degree of secondary shake, which can be lived with in a racing sitution. But what is the advantage of the single plane crank? Lighter weight?

The principal advantage is the different firing order that means that the two banks can be treated as two four-cylinder engines and therefore a better exhaust system more easily designed and fitted.

I have noted Marion Anderson's observations about secondary shake, but all the road V-8 Ferraris since the 308 have had flat plane cranks.

Does anyone know iof they are fitted wilth balancer shafts? The present ones run to over 8000 rpm.

PdeRL

[Tec Freak]

Originally posted by VAR1016


The principal advantage is the different firing order that means that the two banks can be treated as two four-cylinder engines and therefore a better exhaust system more easily designed and fitted.

I have noted Marion Anderson's observations about secondary shake, but all the road V-8 Ferraris since the 308 have had flat plane cranks.

Does anyone know iof they are fitted wilth balancer shafts? The present ones run to over 8000 rpm.

PdeRL

Thanks for the reply.

While I assume the firing order and counterweighting of the particular engine comes into play, as a general proposition the vibration in a flat plane V8 is less than that an I4 engine of half the V8's size, because the two sides of the V8 can offset each other to a certain degree, even with a flat plane crank. As I recall, the V8's vibration is less by a factor based on the square root of two, ie., 1/1.41. Thus, a 4 liter V8 would have 70% of the vibration in a 2 liter I4.

This leads to the old rule of thumb that imbalance is tolerable without balance shafts in an I4 up to 2 liters. It follows that even at 4 liters a flat-plane V8 will have tolerable vibration. Noteably, all of the current flat plane V8's in passenger cars (Ferrari, Masserati, Lotus) are in that range (4.2 liters for the Masser down to 3.5 for the Lotus, I believe). Thus, those engines do not use balance shafts.

[Ray Bell]

There is a thread about flat-plane cranks in the Nostalgia Forum, dating back a year or two... delves into which engine had them first etc.

Originally posted by Tec Freak
.....Cadillac and BMW have gone to the extreme of developing a single plane crank for engines that use cross plane cranks in the street version.

They probably would have had to make a crank anyway, and you could possibly argue that the flat-plane crank is easier to make... to a small degree.

But this is not new... during the F5000 era there was a swing (about 1971 or 1972, IIRC) to general usage of a 180 degree crank in the Chevys.

Exhausts are simplified... find a pic of an early Coventry Climax FWMV engine, 1962 saw them running a real bundle of snakes exhausts to criss-cross the engine for scavenging effect. With a flat-plane crank you simply use two sets of 4-cyl pipes.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Tec Freak


Thanks for the reply.

While I assume the firing order and counterweighting of the particular engine comes into play, as a general proposition the vibration in a flat plane V8 is less than that an I4 engine of half the V8's size, because the two sides of the V8 can offset each other to a certain degree, even with a flat plane crank. As I recall, the V8's vibration is less by a factor based on the square root of two, ie., 1/1.41. Thus, a 4 liter V8 would have 70% of the vibration in a 2 liter I4.

This leads to the old rule of thumb that imbalance is tolerable without balance shafts in an I4 up to 2 liters. It follows that even at 4 liters a flat-plane V8 will have tolerable vibration. Noteably, all of the current flat plane V8's in passenger cars (Ferrari, Masserati, Lotus) are in that range (4.2 liters for the Masser down to 3.5 for the Lotus, I believe). Thus, those engines do not use balance shafts.

Well you have made an important point here.

The factors though are I think, more concerned with the mass of the reciprocating components, the revs, and if I understand the learned Mr Anderson correctly, the distance of those components from the CL of the crankshaft.

So a four-cylinder 4.5 litre Bentley stayed together because it usually ran only to 4000 rpm. Equally, the Ferrari 750 Monza (3-litre four cyl) could never run at Le Mans because it would shake itself to bits in 24 hours (although I believe one won at Sebring 12-hours race). And the Vanwall at only 2.5 litres famously vibrated like hell.

It can be no accident that Ferrari uses titanium connecting rods!

PdeRL

[Ray Bell]

While we're touching on the subject of stresses in inline 4s, there's something about those balance shafts that I don't understand.

As I perceive it, they are there to stop the vibrations going into the chassis... or to counter the vibrations by putting vibrations that cancel out the crank vibes into the block.

But the crank is still subject to the stresses, isn't it? The bearings and webs are all still under the same loadings? Or have I missed something?

And in fact, the net result (other than a smoother engine externally) is that it becomes more complicated and is subject to greater stresses?

Again, I may be wrong, after all the Mitsubishi engine has its balance shaft driven by a chain much smaller than that which drives the cam.

[marion5drsn]

There are many variations of thought about the Secondary Shake problem but I don't believe that anyone's engine with the 180-degree crank has ever successfully developed a device to counteract the Secondary Shake.
Any one who has developed one has a million dollar device in their hands. The only practical one that I know of is the 90-degree crank.
Below is the Post on the V-8 180-degree crank and the formula to use, which is from Kalb's S.A.E. Journal, October 1934, under Inertia Balance and Firing Intervals. Which I have been adding to from time to time. A careful perusal of this may answer many of your questions. More to follow.

V-8 180 DEGREE CRANKSHAFT LAYOUT

http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=50521


The Secondary Shake is in my opinion one of the main reasons that F-1 races are kept to a short distance whereas they were at one time 500 Kilometers or only 310.7 miles. Either that or Europeans are a group of people with short attention spans. Yours , M.L. Anderson

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
Either that or Europeans are a group of people with short attention spans. Yours , M.L. Anderson

That can't apply to the English - they play test cricket, don't they?

[AS110]

Is there any difference in exhaust note between a 90deg and a 180deg crank? All the V8s I have heard are 90deg,but the Guzzi V8 is comming to Pukekohe next year,I'm sure I'll be impressed with the sound,but what will I hear?

[marion5drsn]

AS110 24-Nov-02 22:30 12

MemberSince: Nov 2001 Is there any difference in exhaust note between a 90-deg and a 180-deg crank? All the V8s I have heard are 90-deg, but the Guzzi V8 is coming to Pukekohe next year, I'm sure I'll be impressed with the sound, but what will I hear?

I have heard people say that the 180-degree crank shafted engines are "sweeter" than the 90-degree shafts. I have doubts about this, as there are just too many variables in these statements. It would be impossible to get all the variables out of the test such as length of pipes, is the person in possession of the cars engine before it gets to him etc, etc. This is in the same category as which sounds better a straight six or a V-8? I had a Corvair 180-degree opposed 6-cylinder engine with separated pipes from each side that sounded great as long as you were outside of the car; inside the car was a different matter entirely.
I have heard both types of V-8 engines but not in an area where a sound test could be done with any degree of accuracy. I am very suspicious of statements of the sweeter sound pundits.
This especially true of people who have only heard supercharged 180-degree engines. The best example of this is the supercharged engines of the CART group and the unsupercharged engines of the old IRL 90-degree engines. How many people have heard a test of the old IRL and the new IRL engines side by side? My advice is to just enjoy it and wear earplugs. Yours, M.L. Anderson

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by AS110
Is there any difference in exhaust note between a 90deg and a 180deg crank? All the V8s I have heard are 90deg,but the Guzzi V8 is comming to Pukekohe next year,I'm sure I'll be impressed with the sound,but what will I hear?

Yes, always a great difference on my experience.

The current TVR V-8s (flat-plane) that have replaced the old Rover-derived 90 degree types sound totally different - much less like a typical V-8, and they are a similar size.

And as everyone who has heard them will admit, the Ferrari 355 and 360 sound absolutely glorious.

PdeRL

[Tec Freak]

A comment on the sound topic from someone who once owned and operated a commercial recording studio.

If you examine the common firing orders of cross and flat plane V8's, you will notice that the cross plane engines use firing orders that are out-of-phase with respect to a dual exhaust, while the single plane motors are in phase. What I mean is that the cross plane will place two sequential pulses on the same bank on occassion (e.g., cyl 8 is fired and then cyl 5), while the single plane always alternates banks.

Thus, when you listen to cross plane the motor through the exhaust, the result is a distinct "stereo" effect, as one side of the exhaust is temporily muted while the other side suddenly receives two simultaneous pulses (sort of like those "ping pong" effects you hear on a Pink Floyd tape). Somewhat similiar phase-shifting techniques are used in recording studios to "broaden" the sound stage, or to simulate stereo from a monophonic source.

I think this effect is a large part of the distinct "burble" one hears in a cross-plane V8, and the effect becomes even more pronounced as increasingly radical camshafts are used.

Which sound is "best" is a matter of preference. A cross plane V8 has a broader sound stage but is less smooth, especially at high rpm's. The single plane sounds a bit sterile to me at low rpm's, but much more refined at high revs, in part I think because the exhaust pulses alternate banks sequentially--it sounds less strained and more willing.

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by Tec Freak
A comment on the sound topic from someone who once owned and operated a commercial recording studio.

If you examine the common firing orders of cross and flat plane V8's, you will notice that the cross plane engines use firing orders that are out-of-phase with respect to a dual exhaust, while the single plane motors are in phase. What I mean is that the cross plane will place two sequential pulses on the same bank on occassion (e.g., cyl 8 is fired and then cyl 2), while the single plane always alternates banks.

Thus, when you listen to cross plane the motor through the exhaust, the result is a distinct "stereo" effect, as one side of the exhaust is temporily muted while the other side suddenly receives two simultaneous pulses (sort of like those "ping pong" effects you hear on a Pink Floyd tape). Somewhat similiar phase-shifting techniques are used in recording studios to "broaden" the sound stage, or to simulate stereo from a monophonic source.

I think this effect is a large part of the distinct "burble" one hears in a cross-plane V8, and the effect becomes even more pronounced as increasingly radical camshafts are used.

Which sound is "best" is a matter of preference. A cross plane V8 has a broader sound stage but is less smooth, especially at high rpm's. The single plane sounds a bit sterile to me at low rpm's, but much more refined at high revs, in part I think because the exhaust pulses alternate banks sequentially--it sounds less strained and more willing.

My attempt to explain this....

http://www.atlasf1.c...y=&pagenumber=3

[Tec Freak]

Originally posted by Engineguy


My attempt to explain this....

http://www.atlasf1.c...y=&pagenumber=3

And a darned impressive attempt it is.

Your response brings up the issue of a cross-over pipe between the dual exhaust. I think this must lessen the sound difference between the two sides of the dual exhaust, but I'm not convinced that it eliminates it. First, the pressure transfer from one pipe to another is only a partial one, so the pressure from a single pulse in never PERFECTLY divided between the two banks. Second, there is a potential sound variation due to the fact that part of the divided pulse has to travel a different length of tubing (not, obviously, a factor at all with an "x" system; whether this factor is audible will depend on the length of the cross over tube).

[marion5drsn]

This is what the odd timing from side to side is about. Note that this circle is 720 degrees and shows the ripple fire sound.
It's a little fuzzy but it will have to do for now. Will try to see what is wrong tomorrow morning. Monday night Football is on! M.L. Anderson

http://home.earthlin...EVROLET1955.JPG

[Tec Freak]

Great diagram ML.

Now play this little game--the left side is a bass drum and the right is a snare. The rhythm becomes:

boom-bap-bap-boom-bap-boom-boom-bap

While it ain't rock-n-roll I like it like it yes I do (appologies to the Rolling Stones for that one).

[antonvrs]

And then there's Fiat's 70 degree V8 with the rod journals offset 10 degrees either side of center to allow a 90 degree firing order. Sounds kinda like a flat crank 90 degree V8.
Isn't VW now building an 8cyl version of the VR6/W12 concept? I thought I saw a cutaway one on their stand at the Paris Salon last month.
Anton

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
Ray Bell:
The very fact that they seem to have been failures is one of the reasons, if not possibly enough reason to not use them as an example of a car that set the ball rolling on the production of V-8s You will notice I have edited the statement to “successful” Even Packard made what many consider the first V-12s, the two race cars were followed by the production of the “TwinSix” passenger car the very next year. It would be interesting to know if they, the Legal limit”, had a 90 or 180-degree crankshaft. M.L. Anderson

I have found a reference to the Legalimit engine. There is a picture of the engine in "The Magic of a Name" (not the original book but the one published in the 1990s - sorry I do not have it to hand but I can submit the details later).

The Legalimit was a 120-degree V-8!

PdeRL

[Kaha]

Originally posted by VAR1016


The principal advantage is the different firing order that means that the two banks can be treated as two four-cylinder engines and therefore a better exhaust system more easily designed and fitted.

I have noted Marion Anderson's observations about secondary shake, but all the road V-8 Ferraris since the 308 have had flat plane cranks.

Does anyone know iof they are fitted wilth balancer shafts? The present ones run to over 8000 rpm.

PdeRL

Interesting to note, is that when they used the Ferrari V8 in a salon car, the Lancia Thema 8.32, they used a 90 deg crank.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Kaha


Interesting to note, is that when they used the Ferrari V8 in a salon car, the Lancia Thema 8.32, they used a 90 deg crank.

Indeed they did; I suppose that smoothness was the over-riding consideration. Power output is only 215 bhp, but the car is extremely tractable.


PdeRL

[marion5drsn]

V-8 Legalimit. The people who did this one must have had a genuine mental problem. Example; they couldn't add,subtract, multiply or divide 360 degrees. I used my paper crankshaft and a 120-degree Vee, as I couldn't believe any real engineers were involved. Using the Chevrolet as a start as the 120 degrees is only off 30 degrees. I came up with different firing orders none of which were acceptable. As hard as I worked on it the 90 deg. crank it just did not work so I have to assume that the engine did not have a 90-degree crank. The 180-degree crank was better, however it must have shook like a dog shedding water. 0-deg.-60-180-240-300-420-480-600. If I were a betting man I'd bet that R-R wouldn't tell us what kind of crank this "Jewel" had. If it had a 180-degree crank then it had to have a 30-degree firing off angle. This would not have been acceptable to the R-R crowd.

The worst block angle for the Secondary Shake 90-degree crank in a V-8 is 135 degrees.

Had they of made it in a V-6 it would have been better but still not acceptable to the R-R crowd. I don't believe that at this time even Frederick William Lanchester could have solved this one. I also have to agree with R-R that this is not a way to influence people to buy R-R silent cars. Remember at this time even six cylinders had not been figured out to prevent torsional vibration, which awaited F.W. Lanchester's vibration damper. Which I might add got R-R and Lanchester into a lawsuit, as R-R tried to steal it and pay no royalties. M.L. Anderson

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
V-8 Legalimit. The people who did this one must have had a genuine mental problem. Example; they couldn’t add, multiply or divide 360 degrees. I used my paper crankshaft and a120-degree Vee, as I couldn’t believe any real engineers were involved. Using the Chevrolet as a start as the 120 degrees is only off 30 degrees. I came up with different firing orders none of which were acceptable. As hard as I worked on it the 90 deg. crank it just did not work so I have to assume that the engine did not have a 90-degree crank. The 180-degree crank was better, however it must have shook like a dog shedding water. 0-deg.-60-180-240-300-420-480-600. If I were a betting man I’d bet that R-R wouldn’t tell us what kind of crank this “Jewel” had. If it had a 180-degree crank then it had to have a 30-degree firing off angle. This would not have been acceptable to the R-R crowd.

The worst block angle for the Secondary Shake in a V-8 is 135 degrees.

Had they of made it in a V-6 it would have been better but still not acceptable to the R-R crowd. I don’t believe that at this time even Frederick William Lanchester could have solved this one. I also have to agree with R-R that this is not a way to influence people to buy R-R silent cars. Remember at this time even six cylinders had not been figured out to prevent torsional vibration, which awaited F.W. Lanchester’s vibration damper. Which I might add got R-R and Lanchester into a lawsuit, as R-R tried to steal it and pay no royalties. M.L. Anderson

I now have the reference to hand:Rolls-Royce The Magic of a name, the first forty years, by Peter Pugh ICON Books, UK 2000.

Sadly there is no text about the car, but I do know that it was governed to a maximum of 20mph. It is difficult to know why Royce chose a V-8, when a 180 degree engine would have better suited his purposes (i.e. concelaing the engine beneath the floor of the vehicle). It was designed to compete with the popular electric town cars of the time (1905) I would think it unlikely that it reached even 2000 rpm so I suppose that any secondary balance problems were unlikely to appear. After all Royce was well aware of the principles involved! Incidentally the engine was not used only in the Legalimit; it was also designed to be used in a car with the splendid nomenclature: "Landaulette par Excellence"!

PdeRL

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
V-8 Legalimit. The people who did this one must have had a genuine mental problem. Example; they couldn’t add, multiply or divide 360 degrees. I used my paper crankshaft and a120-degree Vee, as I couldn’t believe any real engineers were involved. Using the Chevrolet as a start as the 120 degrees is only off 30 degrees. I came up with different firing orders none of which were acceptable. As hard as I worked on it the 90 deg. crank it just did not work so I have to assume that the engine did not have a 90-degree crank. The 180-degree crank was better, however it must have shook like a dog shedding water. 0-deg.-60-180-240-300-420-480-600. If I were a betting man I’d bet that R-R wouldn’t tell us what kind of crank this “Jewel” had. If it had a 180-degree crank then it had to have a 30-degree firing off angle. This would not have been acceptable to the R-R crowd.

The worst block angle for the Secondary Shake in a V-8 is 135 degrees.

Had they of made it in a V-6 it would have been better but still not acceptable to the R-R crowd. I don’t believe that at this time even Frederick William Lanchester could have solved this one. I also have to agree with R-R that this is not a way to influence people to buy R-R silent cars. Remember at this time even six cylinders had not been figured out to prevent torsional vibration, which awaited F.W. Lanchester’s vibration damper. Which I might add got R-R and Lanchester into a lawsuit, as R-R tried to steal it and pay no royalties. M.L. Anderson

Another thought: perhaps Royce pre-dated Lancia - and adapted the crankshaft to suit the engine geometry?

PdeRL

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
V-8 Legalimit. The people who did this one must have had a genuine mental problem. Example; they couldn’t add, multiply or divide 360 degrees. I used my paper crankshaft and a120-degree Vee, as I couldn’t believe any real engineers were involved. Using the Chevrolet as a start as the 120 degrees is only off 30 degrees. I came up with different firing orders none of which were acceptable. As hard as I worked on it the 90 deg. crank it just did not work so I have to assume that the engine did not have a 90-degree crank. The 180-degree crank was better, however it must have shook like a dog shedding water. 0-deg.-60-180-240-300-420-480-600. If I were a betting man I’d bet that R-R wouldn’t tell us what kind of crank this “Jewel” had. If it had a 180-degree crank then it had to have a 30-degree firing off angle. This would not have been acceptable to the R-R crowd.

The worst block angle for the Secondary Shake in a V-8 is 135 degrees.

Had they of made it in a V-6 it would have been better but still not acceptable to the R-R crowd. I don’t believe that at this time even Frederick William Lanchester could have solved this one. I also have to agree with R-R that this is not a way to influence people to buy R-R silent cars. Remember at this time even six cylinders had not been figured out to prevent torsional vibration, which awaited F.W. Lanchester’s vibration damper. Which I might add got R-R and Lanchester into a lawsuit, as R-R tried to steal it and pay no royalties. M.L. Anderson

I have looked it up via Google; here it says 90 degrees! Apparently only three were constructed and none survives

PdeRL

[marion5drsn]

I went to Google and found the picture and I would have to say judging from that it is a 90 degree cylinder block. Then from that I would still say it had a 180 degree crankshaft and therefore it had the Secondary Shake. From the speeds that this automobile ran I can't say for sure if the crankshaft would have been that objectionable or not. Its too bad some record is not available to see if this was the problem. After all Cadilllac put up with it for about 8 years. And records that still exist only went to the 90-degree shaft because of the closed top cars creating a less favorable noise level. M.L. Anderson

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
I went to Google and found the picture and I would have to say judging from that it is a 90 degree cylinder block. Then from that I would still say it had a 180 degree crankshaft and therfore it had the Secondary Shake. From the speeds that this automobile ran I can't say for sure if the crankshaft would have been that objectionable or not. Its too bad some record is not available to see if this was the problem. After all Cadilllac put up with it for about 8 years. And records that still exist only went to the 90-degree shaft because of the closed top cars creating a less favorable noise level. M.L. Anderson

I would say that as engines at that time were called "high-speed" even if they ran at 1500 rpm, that the secondary problem would be unlikely to be noticeable - and remember that for Royce, silence and smoothness were paramount.

But how can you explain the success of the current breed of Ferrari flat plane engines? I do understand that they are long-stroke which is perhaps a factor.... But they run at over 8000.

PdeRL

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by VAR1016
I have looked it up via Google; here it says 90 degrees! Apparently only three were constructed and none survives

Whether they survive or not we really don't know...

I'm almost certain that they were recalled, or bought back from their owners, by R-R... in a deal that involved a new car for each of them in exchange.

Anyone got more on that subject?

In the interim, which crank layout did the 1916/17 Chev V8 use, Marion?

And what about the rod layout in the current Maserati V8? I saw a pic in a brochure yesterday that shows that the LH bank has the front pair of rods nearest each other and the rear pair the same, while the RH bank has them spread out further... and so the RH bank must be longer than the LH bank, with neither bank being 'ahead of' or 'behind' the other.

I cannot see what technical advantages they get out of it all. If the drive came off the centre of the crank to the RH side I could... but otherwise...

[marion5drsn]

The 180-degree crankshaft and what makes it worse on Secondary Shake.

The longer the stroke the worse the shake.
The faster the engine turns the worse the shake.
The shorter the connecting rod the worse the shake.
The more of each one of the above the worse the shake.
The heavier the upper conrod and piston the more the shake.
The fact that you can't feel the shake in the driver's position doesn't mean that shake isn't there; it just means that the person who designed it made some terrific motor mounts. The shake doesn't hurt the driver it hurts the engine and the other parts of the engine such as the timing gears, pinions plus the idler wheels.
The only time it might hurt the driver is when the engine is bolted directly to the frame of a steel car and his hands get numb.
If you want to check the engine for shake you need the Formula and the others parts of the engine dimensions. I have never tried it, but using a piece of wood similar to a broomstick might be a good start. This especially if the engine is turning about 800 to1600 rpm.

The Hispano-Suiza of WW-1 shook the propeller gear and pinion so badly that they had to remove the gearbox and fly aircraft without the two to one propeller reduction. Also remember the NOVI racecar had a 180-degree crankshaft. Plus the Cosworth called boneshakers were 180-degree crankshafts.
M.L. Anderson

[marion5drsn]

antonvrs; # 2

I have just finished a layout of this F.I.A.T. thing and have come to the conclusion that the people must be hitting the old vino to hard just like Renault. I would like a person at F.I.A.T. to explain to an independent group of engineers just why this engine was made in this fashion. Just why they would take a fine piece of engineering like a 90-degree crank and block V-8 and mess it up like that is some form of insanity. Well its like Puck said, "What fools these mortals be." Well at least some of them.
If it's built like I made the sketch it has a weak crank.


http://home.earthlin...FSETJOURNAL.JPG


M.L. Anderson

[12.9:1]

Mr. Anderson

In light of your recent interest - have I got a picture for you !


THE INFAMOUS SHO- FORD, 120deg V8, - CRANKENSTEIN

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by 12.9:1
Mr. Anderson

In light of your recent interest - have I got a picture for you !


THE INFAMOUS SHO- FORD, 120deg V8, - CRANKENSTEIN

12.9:1. what engine is this?

The staggered journals are very reminiscent of Vincenzo Lancia's thinking....

PdeRL

[desmo]

I'm not clear on what is meant by 120 degree here. The engine's V-angle is 60, same as the V-6, right? Are the throws spaced at 120 (give or take the split journals) on this crank? Doesn't look like all the intervals are 120 there to me. Look how little material appears to connect the two halves of the journal on the right! Scary. Anyone try a racing version of that engine that kept the split throw crank? And wasn't the original flathead Ford V-8 a 60 deg unit as well?

[12.9:1]

.



Yes 60deg

Throws displaced to 90deg

[marion5drsn]

desmo; The 1932 flathead FORD was a three main bearing 90 degree crankshaft,90 degree block. 21 stud, dual water pumps in the top of the cylinder head. fast running piece of motoring Iron for John Dillinger type of equipment. 221 cubic inches, 3.0625" x 3.750 " B xS, 6.30 to 1 C.R. 85 h.p.@ 3800 rpm. Yours , M.L. Anderson

[desmo]

Marion, of course you are correct about the flathead being a 90 deg v angle. Thanks for the correction.

[marion5drsn]

There's more about the SHO engine at the address below.an interesting engine but has a weak crank for racing. M.L. Anderson

http://www.mercuryca...o/shov8-34.html

[Ray Bell]

Once again the issue of balance shafts is raised...

Marion, I think I asked before, but if I didn't... am I correct in assuming that these only affect the amount of vibration felt through the chassis, that they don't reduce the stresses within the block?

Also, are there answers to these earlier questions?

In the interim, which crank layout did the 1916/17 Chev V8 use, Marion?

And what about the rod layout in the current Maserati V8? I saw a pic in a brochure yesterday that shows that the LH bank has the front pair of rods nearest each other and the rear pair the same, while the RH bank has them spread out further... and so the RH bank must be longer than the LH bank, with neither bank being 'ahead of' or 'behind' the other.

I cannot see what technical advantages they get out of it all. If the drive came off the centre of the crank to the RH side I could... but otherwise...

I appreciate that you may have begun a search for these things and haven't resolved your reply yet, but I'm keen to know...

Sorry I can't post the picture of the Maser piston layout at the moment.

[marion5drsn]

Ray; I can't tell what it is from your description but when your get a picture posted I certainly will study it. M.L. Anderson

[Ray Bell]

I may be able to post it next week... but there may also be similar pics on the Maserati website.

It's a schematic drawing from above, showing pistons, rods and crank... very odd arrangement.

And about the Chev; the balance shafts?

[marion5drsn]

Quote from Ray;
While we're touching on the subject of stresses in inline 4s, there's something about those balance shafts that I don't understand.

As I perceive it, they are there to stop the vibrations going into the chassis... or to counter the vibrations by putting vibrations that cancel out the crank vibes into the block.

But the crank is still subject to the stresses, isn't it? The bearings and webs are all still under the same loadings? Or have I missed something?

And in fact, the net result (other than a smoother engine externally) is that it becomes more complicated and is subject to greater stresses?

Again, I may be wrong, after all the Mitsubishi engine has its balance shaft driven by a chain much smaller than that, which drives the cam.

Answer; right or wrong.
Balance shafts in Inline four cylinder engines are to balance out the Vertical shake, which is not serious, but when using big engines in cars it is annoying to the drivers. My daughters Honda is very smooth compared to all the older fours that I have driven in the past. The shake is still there but using a balancer prevents it from getting to the driver and to other sensitive parts of the engine and accessories. I would say that the counterbalancing of the engines would stop a lot of the shake from getting to the more delicate parts of the engine such as main and rod bearing.

The crankshaft of the old V-8 Chevrolets of the Teens(?) had to have 180 degree cranks because Cadillac did not develop the 90-degree crankshaft until 1923.
M.L. Anderson

[marion5drsn]

Ray is this the picture you were asking about? It sure is difficult to bring up without the full address. More to follow. Marion L. Anderson


Quote from Ray: Sorry I can't post the picture of the Maser piston layout at the moment.


From the picture I find the reason that you can't make Heads or Tails out of it is that the people who made the picture are not mechanics! Lets assume that the firing order is the same as a Chevrolet and the pistons are facing up, as they should be.

The problem is that the pistons are not in the proper position # 1 & 2 are O.K. # 3 & 4 are reversed. That is # 3 piston should be on the left side of the picture and # 4 should be on the right side of the picture.
# 5 & 6 are O.K.

# 7 & 8 are also wrong, number seven should be on the left side of the picture and # eight should be on the right side of the picture. When counting the con rods, count from the front that is the left side of the picture and go to the right side of the picture, which is the rear of the crankshaft.

All even numbers should be on the right side of the crankshaft and all the odd numbers should be on the left side of the picture. The left side is actually on the bottom so if you make a print it will be on the bottom of the sheet.
The people who made this picture should have turned the crank upside down , locked the con rods using paper or something and flattened the pistons tops on a table which would put the piston in their proper position and then turned it right side up and then take the photos.

I am including a layout of the firing order/pattern. Notice that the # 2 cylinder is behind the # 1 cylinder.
This may or may not be perfectly clear but that is the way it is or at least the way it should be. If anyone inquires this is the reason that the German DIN Standard is poorly thought out.


http://www.maserati....motore_01_z.jpg

http://home.earthlin...-8CHEV.F.P..JPG


.
The Coupé's compact 4,244 cc 90° V8 engine is the fruit of an all-new design and weighs in at a mere 184 kg (404 lbs). The engineering technology involved in its design and development is based on the most advanced racing architecture and heralds a new generation of Maserati engines designed to offer consistent excellence in terms of torque, efficiency and exhaust emissions. It is known by its project number, 136R.

The new engine's crankcase and cylinder heads are made from tempered aluminium and silicon alloy, while the balanced crankshaft is in tempered steel and runs on five main bearings. Chain-driven twin overhead camshafts per cylinder bank command four valves per cylinder with hydraulic tappets. The intake cams have a continuously variable phase timing system with actuation times of under 0.15 secs. (Not mentioned here but other places that the engine has Hydralic Lifters?)

The engine also boasts Bosch ME7.3.2 integrated ignition and injection with OBD II (On Board Detection and Diagnostic System) which allows for detection of operating malfunctions within the engine control system. The new V8 is also so advanced that it complies not only with present but also future environmental protection regulations.

Power delivery is controlled by an electronic drive-by-wire accelerator, while the ECUs communicate with the other systems via a CAN (Controlled Area Network) to optimise engine management.

The power figures are outstanding: maximum power reaches 390 bhp (287 kW) at 7,000 rpm, with peak torque of 46 kgm (451 Nm) at 4,500 rpm. The efficiency of the new power unit's design also means a 10% average reduction in fuel consumption compared to the Maserati 3200 GT's turbo engine, with up to a 30% reduction at high speeds

ENGINE V8 4AC 32v

Years of production: 2001-
V8-cyl @ 90° 4244 cc engine
4OHC with four valves per cylinder
Bore 92mm and stroke 80mm
Compression ratio 11.1:1
Power output 390bhp @ 7000 rpm
Induction system by Bosch Motronic ME7.1 electronic injection/ ignition system.

[Ray Bell]

Yes, that's the one, Marion...

I guess it does look like the two centre pistons on one bank overlap each other... so your surmise that it's probably artistic licence is probably right.

[hydra]

Originally posted by marion5drsn


The Coupé's compact 4,244 cc 90° V8 engine is the fruit of an all-new design and weighs in at a mere 184 kg. The engineering technology involved in its design and development is based on the most advanced racing architecture and heralds a new generation of Maserati engines designed to offer consistent excellence in terms of torque, efficiency and exhaust emissions. It is known by its project number, 136R.

That's not all that impressive... An all-iron PUSHROD Ford 5.0 weighs in at around 450lbs, and that's without aluminum heads (-50lbs) a custom composite manifold, good for 20-25lbs (stock aluminum one weighs 37lbs) or lighter internals (-15lbs). So you've got an engine that, at 370lbs (168kgs), weighs less, is at least as compact (DOHC takes up quite a bit of room you know), makes more torque and at least as much power while costing much much less. Same thing goes for Chevy's latest LS6 which is all that and more, in addition to being classified as a Low Emissions Vehicle. Hi-tech is overrated if you ask me...

[desmo]

I agree. Unless forced by tax law to an artifically limited displacement, a well executed simple two valve pushrod design makes good sense for most road car applications. I suspect that the main push for DOHC four valve designs in utilitarian road cars is driven by marketing as much or moreso than engineering concerns.

[marion5drsn]

What hydra may be missing here is that we don't know just how the two companies measure the weight of the engines. This problem of weight comes up when you don't know their method of measurement, does Ford count what used to be called accessories. Accessories used to be the generator, starter and other stuff that is actually needed to run the engine. Altho I must admit it looks very suspicious.
There is another aspect here also and that is the use of aluminum doesn't mean that cast iron parts are so heavy as some believe. The Chevrolet is a good example of that. It was cast in 1955 using a different method and that is why the casting of it was so light as compared to other engines such as the Ford and the Plymouth. I can't go along with the pushrod part as the Gilmer belt means one can have a S.O.H.C and get rid of a lot of parts as push rods and rocker arms, plus a lot of studs. You will notice that I did not mention D.O.H.C.s.
One thing about this engine that is, at least in my mind, is the use of Hydraulic tappets, just like Cadillac. Very peculiar in a Maserati I would believe. M.L. Anderson

[Ray Bell]

I'd agree with that point, Marion...

Look at the simple SOHC layout used in the PRV engines of the seventies through the nineties... though some were chain driven... they had the traditional inclined valves, though they were offset a little from each other... wonder if I can find pics?

[karlcars]

An interesting feature of the PRV engines, I believe, was that they had different cam timing on each bank as part of the methodology they used to get a smooth-running 90-degree V-6. Does anyone else recall that?

About using a rotating balancing mass on a 90-degree V-8 with 180-degree crankshaft, Cosworth tried it on the 3.9-liter DFL racing engine in preparation for the 1983 Group C season. The design was good and it worked--until the balancing masses tore themselves out of the crankcase walls.