58 replies to this topic

[marion5drsn]

I am at present trying to establish the linage of the V-6 style engine and its usage but have run into a very large roadblock with the V-6 engine. The oldest one that I have found is the Renault of 1939. But absolutely no description of the basic dimensions such as the block angle, was it 120 or 60-degrees, bore and stroke and just why it seemed to have been dropped from production so quickly. As much as I can tell it was called the Monasixes. Anyone have any information the first V-6 and the Monasixes Renault? Yours, M.L. Anderson

[tedmna]

IIRC the Monasix was introduced in 1927. I thought it was a straight six. Anyway, I believe it was produced for a short period, and then replaced by an I4.

Yhe first significant use of V-6's was in the sixties.

[Ray Bell]

Of equal interest might be the question 'why?'...

The V8 readily replaced the straight 8, though it took some time for it to do so, seemingly because of compactness, possibly lightness and undoubtedly because it eliminated crankshaft whip. As you've covered nicely on the Technical forum, Marion, time was needed to find the niceties such as the 90 degree crank before it could really take off.

So, with the six, it must have been seen as less of an advantage lengthwise, and that's plain to all. And weight wise, I'd say it's hard to save weight with a V6 compared to an inline 6 (why does it seem wrong to put 'straight 6' while it's okay to put 'straight 8'?).

As for the sixties, it depends on what you call 'significant'...

Sure, Buicks by the hundreds of thousands, Citroens by the tens of thousands, Maseratis and Ferraris by the hundreds and so on undoubtedly eclipsed Lancia's production in the fifties, but surely the Aurelia and Flaminia were 'significant'?

The Aurelia came out in 1950... a V6 of 1754cc. But I have no idea what included angle was used... was it like the silly semi-vee engines of pre-war days (22 degree V8, 12 degree V4...) and the modern German small angle vees, or was it a real one with separate heads per bank?

[robert dick]

The Delahaye type 44 was offered between 1911 and 1914 and became known as the "first European production Vee-six".

The Monasix, Vivasix, etc... from Renault were straight-six engines, L-head, 4 main bearings.

[Frank de Jong]

Ford Germany produced a very significant V6 from the 60's - 80's, used in Capri's, Taunus, Granada's etc.

[boekman]

Was it not a Dutch Spyker with a V6 in the early 20th century?

[boekman]

Sorry, it had an inline 6... Better check before you speak....

[Ray Bell]

And I forgot the humble (if not lightweight...) Ford Zephyr V6 installed in the Mk 4... and later the pommie Capri 3-litre.

Any details on the Delahaye engine, Robert?

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Sure, Buicks by the hundreds of thousands, Citroens by the tens of thousands, Maseratis and Ferraris by the hundreds and so on undoubtedly eclipsed Lancia's production in the fifties, but surely the Aurelia and Flaminia were 'significant'?

The Aurelia came out in 1950... a V6 of 1754cc. But I have no idea what included angle was used... was it like the silly semi-vee engines of pre-war days (22 degree V8, 12 degree V4...) and the modern German small angle vees, or was it a real one with separate heads per bank?

The Lancia Aurelia B10 was the World's first production V-6. It was 60 degree included angle and designed under Jano's supervision by Francesco Virgilio.

Lancia did however produce an experimental narrow V-6 in the 1920s.

Why were the narrow V engines "silly"? The Lambda was a groundbreaker - as was the Aprilia and Fulvia - all with narrow V-4s (note that the Fulvia was produced from 1963 - 1976).

The Fulvia's rally success speaks for itself.

The VW narrow-angle v-engines are a direct crib of the Fulvia's engine.

PdeRL

[Aanderson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ray Bell
[B]Of equal interest might be the question 'why?'...

The V8 readily replaced the straight 8, though it took some time for it to do so, seemingly because of compactness, possibly lightness and undoubtedly because it eliminated crankshaft whip. As you've covered nicely on the Technical forum, Marion, time was needed to find the niceties such as the 90 degree crank before it could really take off.

So, with the six, it must have been seen as less of an advantage lengthwise, and that's plain to all. And weight wise, I'd say it's hard to save weight with a V6 compared to an inline 6 (why does it seem wrong to put 'straight 6' while it's okay to put 'straight 8'?).

Well, first of all, crankshaft "whip" wasn't so much the problem as twisting of the crank in an inline 6 or 8 (imagine the twisting of the crankshaft of the one-off Packard straight 12 experimental engine!), but rather weight and length that doomed the straight 8, and eventually the straight 6 from most vehicles.

Assuming similar materials and casting technologies, a V-8 is almost always LIGHTER than an inline 6, due to the far greater rigidity of an "enbloc" (one piece) V-8 engine. Even the famed Ford flathead V8 (1932-53) at 221 (later 239) cid was only about 40 lbs heavier than the inline 4 it replaced, due to the greater strength of the V8 block, and the correspondingly lighter pistons and rods (the crank was about the same size and weight). Compared to the 216/235cid "stovebolt 6, Chevy's first small block V8 (the 55-56 265cid engine) was almost 100lbs lighter. Part of the difference there was the vastly heavier 6-cylinder crank, as all Chevy 6-cylinder engines through 1961 had only 4 main bearings, with their later 6's having 7 mains, allowing for a lighter crankshaft.

With a straight 8, it was even more dramatic. Buick's straight 8's of the 30's-54 were chunks of iron, weighing upwards of 750lbs, and Packard's final straight 8 (produced through 1954) tipped the scales at over 800 lbs, while both Buick and Packard V8's of the 50's were under 700lbs.

As far as length goes, I've yet to see an inline 6 that was not dramatically longer than a V8 of comparable displacement.

Art Anderson

[Aanderson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ray Bell
[B]Of equal interest might be the question 'why?'...

As for the sixties, it depends on what you call 'significant'...

Sure, Buicks by the hundreds of thousands, Citroens by the tens of thousands, Maseratis and Ferraris by the hundreds and so on undoubtedly eclipsed Lancia's production in the fifties, but surely the Aurelia and Flaminia were 'significant'?

For mass-production, General Motors Truck & Coach introduced the first mass-produced V-6 in 1960, in GMC light and medium duty trucks. GM's Detroit Diesel division also began production of V6 2-cycle diesel engines in the late 1950's, as part of their 71-series V-engines.

Of course, for gasoline engines, Buick introduced the first seriously mass-produced V6 gasoline engine in 1961, but it sold rather poorly, so in 1965, they sold the rights and tooling to Kaiser Jeep, who offered the engine (as did AMC Jeep) in CJ's through the early 70's. Buick Division then bought back the rights and tooling to reintroduce this engine for the 1977 model year.

Ford's European V6's were based on the 221/260/289/302 small block V8 designs, just different block, heads and cranks, basically. Chrysler's V6 the same way, based on the long-running 318 V8.

Art

[robert dick]

Delahaye type 44 :
The engine was patented on 19 October 1911 (Office de la Propriété Industrielle/Paris – no. 433.077). Subject of the patent was not the Vee-six itself but the narrow-Vee engine as a whole, with the corresponding intake and exhaust manifolds, and water jackets.
The complete car was displayed at the Paris Salon in 1911.
The engine was a 18-degree Vee-six (angle between the cylinders = 18 degrees), bore/stroke 75/120 mm, 3,175 litres, L-head (valves on the outside, two low mounted camshafts – one on each side of the block), crankshaft in two main bearings, three throws at 120 degrees, cylinders located exactly opposite, fork and blade conneting rods, one carburettor, 28 HP at 1400/min, 35 HP at 1800/min.
The chassis had a wheelbase of either 305 or 320 cm, front track 138, rear track 140 cm, tyres 875/105 front, 880/120 rear.
Leather cone clutch, four-speed gearbox.
The same chassis was also used for the type 43, a four-cylinder 85/130 mm.
The type 44 was produced until 1914.

[BRG]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aanderson
[QUOTE]Ford's European V6's were based on the 221/260/289/302 small block V8 designs, just different block, heads and cranks, basically. [/QUOTE]Which Ford Europe V6? there were two different engiens, with AFAIK, no parts compatibility at all.

There was the "Cologne" V6 which came in 2.3, 2.6, 2.8 and ultimately 2.9 litre versions - it was used in the German Fords from the late 60s and finally in all European V6 Fords surviving until the mid-90s when the unloved Ford Scorpio (son of Granada) was laid to a belated rest. It outlasted the "Essex" V6, which came in 2.5, 3.0 and 3.1 versions. It first replaced the straight sixes in the Zephyr/Zodiac range around 1966 or 7 (?) and lasted until the end of the Capri Mk1 production run.

The Cologne engine was gutless although technically better as it had separate intake and exhaust tracts for each cylinder, unlike the lustier but less developable Essex engine which had siamesed ports.

Incidentally, Art, if you have a different block, head and crank, it doesn't leave much scope for commonality...

[soubriquet]

The Aurelia V6 was launched in 1950. The claims I have seen were that Lancia were the first to make a V6 work properly. It has a 60 degree V, and went from 1754 to 2451cc (118bhp).

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by BRG
Incidentally, Art, if you have a different block, head and crank, it doesn't leave much scope for commonality...

Not common: Block, heads, crank, cam, manifolds, oil pan, valve covers, and gaskets for these items.

Common parts: Pistons, rings, piston pin, con rods and bolts, bearing shells, crank seals, main caps and bolts, oil pump and pickup, timing chain and sprockets, timing chain cover, water pump, accessory brackets, pullies, starter, valves, valve springs, retainers and locks, stem seals, rocker arms, rocker arm pivots, pushrods, cam followers, head bolts, distributor housing, shaft, bearings, and gear, etc.

Common engineering: ports and combustion chamber, cylinder head design and cooling issues, much block, crank, cam, manifold, oil pan, valve cover, and gasket design detail, and wear and durability issues mostly already completed for virtually everthing in the engine.

Common machinery: Block transfer line (~ $60 million), cylinder head transfer line (~ $40 million), and of course all machinery for common parts.

I'd say quite a bit of commonality... and massive decrease in design and development time compared to doing a clean sheet engine.

[marion5drsn]

robert dick: This description of the Delahaye sounds a lot similar to the L-head engine I drew of the Rolls-Royce of 1906, the LegaLimit V-8? So would that mean that someone knew of the layout of the LegaLimit I would believe! I am curious if there was a connection somehow between the two. Curious?

Quote from robert dick:
(valves on the outside, two low mounted camshafts – one on each side of the block),
Yours, M.L. Anderson

[robert dick]

I don’t think that there was a connection or that the Rolls-Royce layout was copied by Delahaye. After all Delahaye was one of the leading French marques.

The technical director/chief engineer at Delahaye was Amédée Varlet, a man who always had funny and innovative ideas. For example in 1904/05 he designed a DOHC/six-valve engine for a power boat.

The general layout of his Vee-six, and the layout of the Rolls-Royce, have nothing revolutionary. They included the standard of the time. Instead of one central camshaft, there were two camshafts on the outside with the result of more space for the manifolds and easier access.

[Henk]

Originally posted by soubriquet
The Aurelia V6 was launched in 1950. The claims I have seen were that Lancia were the first to make a V6 work properly......

Perhaps, but there was also Klöckner-Humboldt-Deutz (KHD).
In the early 1950s KHD launched a successful range of air-cooled V-6 and V-8 diesel engines; in 1965 a V-10 was added.

V-6 units (90º) had capacities of 7.5, 8.5 and 9.5 litres. They were used in Magirus-Deutz (later Iveco-Magirus) commercials.

BTW – Apparently a (V-6 derived?) V-5 diesel was already constructed by Oldsmobile as early as 1983. Maybe the forum could provide some information on this engine?

[marion5drsn]

Henk: The statement about the V-10 is also interesting as this is just about the same time as the V-10 of Maybach for the Leopard tank, any more information? The oldest one I have been able to find was an American engine in 1936 , however it was made under Sulzer patents I believe. M.L. Anderson

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Henk

Perhaps, but there was also Klöckner-Humboldt-Deutz (KHD).
In the early 1950s KHD launched a successful range of air-cooled V-6 and V-8 diesel engines; in 1965 a V-10 was added.

V-6 units (90º) had capacities of 7.5, 8.5 and 9.5 litres. They were used in Magirus-Deutz (later Iveco-Magirus) commercials.

BTW – Apparently a (V-6 derived?) V-5 diesel was already constructed by Oldsmobile as early as 1983. Maybe the forum could provide some information on this engine?

Lancia worked on the V-6 , both 54 degrees and 60 degrees from about 1943, so one must assume that Lancia's claims are unassailable.
PdeRL

[mat1]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Sure, Buicks by the hundreds of thousands, Citroens by the tens of thousands, Maseratis and Ferraris by the hundreds and so on undoubtedly eclipsed Lancia's production in the fifties, but surely the Aurelia and Flaminia were 'significant'?

Which engine do you mean by the Citroen, Ray? The Maserati V6 in the SM?

mat1

[Henk]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
The statement about the V-10 is also interesting as this is just about the same time as the V-10 of Maybach for the Leopard tank, any more information?

Many Magirus-Deutz V-10’s of the 1960s and 70s are still operational in southern Africa



About 15-litre capacity. Layout probably comparable to Deutz V-6 and V-8 engines. I may find some info in contemporary literature.

I wonder if there could be a relation with the air-cooled Porsche or Porsche-Deutz (?) V-10’s of the WWII Tiger tank prototypes mentioned in your V-10 thread.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by mat1
Which engine do you mean by the Citroen, Ray? The Maserati V6 in the SM?

Yes, that's the one... I believe there was about 40,000 built.

It was later used in a Maserati too, I'm told...

[Paul Newby]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Yes, that's the one... I believe there was about 40,000 built.

It was later used in a Maserati too, I'm told...

Ray

They didn't build 40,000 quad cam 90 degree V6s for the Citroen SM. I think 4,000 is closer to the mark. Of course the V6 was a cut down Maserati quad cam V8. Not sure what they were thinking putting the cam drive between the second and third cylinders - maybe for the FWD take off?

I don't think that Citroen ever used the 90 degree "Douvrin" V6 developed for Peugeot, Renault and Volvo though.

I also agree that the Lancia V6 as used in the Aurelia and Flaminia was the first production V6. It seemed a retrogarde step to used a centrally mounted camshaft and pushrods, but at least it had a 60 degree vee.

Plus they sound lovely.

[dmj]

12.920 SMs were made. Full stats here:
http://c6lignage.fat...com/smdata.html
I must say that I find number of Sms sold in some French collonies like Western Sahara or New Caledonia amazing! Now we know where to search for cheap ones... One sold in former Yugoslavia was sold to Mate Miso Kovac, one of most popular Croatian singers. When I was a child I lusted over that car since we lived just one street apart.
I don't know if Citroen ever used Douvrin engine. XM had a V6 model, I believe CX too. Was it a different engine?
Maserati Merak used same engine as SM - and it was a big seller for Maserati with +1000 made. At least one other manufacturer, Ligier, used it for JS2 (about 100 produced).

[Ray Bell]

Okay, I stand corrected on the 40,000...

But I will agree with dmj that the quad-cam Douvrin V6 was used in the late Citroens... I think before it was put into the 605.

Jenks raved about the SM... they have become a real collector's car.

[dmj]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Jenks raved about the SM... they have become a real collector's car.

Then head for New Caledonia! Not so far from you and 24 sold there, as opposed to mere 5 in Australia. Maybe you could start a business importing those to Oz and gaining some profit from it...

[Ray Bell]

Like 100S Healeys... there are many more here now than came originally...

All of them, even originally, being private imports.

New Caledonia wouldn't be very friendly to them, I don't think. A friend there reckons there's no cars over ten years old because of the coral-surfaced roads.

[cabianca]

I always understood that the problem with the V-6 configuration was getting the balance right. Many sources claim that Jano and Lancia were the first to do this. Does anyone know if today's gazallion mass produced V-6s took something from Lancia's playbook. My wife's Audi A6 certainly has something in its exhaust note that reminds me of my long departed Lancia Aurelia.

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Paul Newby



I also agree that the Lancia V6 as used in the Aurelia and Flaminia was the first production V6. It seemed a retrogarde step to used a centrally mounted camshaft and pushrods, but at least it had a 60 degree vee.

Plus they sound lovely.

Sadly Lancia was rather under-finaced; there was a SOHC version of the V-6 and I understand that such an engine exists in England in the hands of some lucky so-and-so.

And then there were the factory DOHC V-6 sports cars of course; It is difficult to understand the reason for the choice of push-rods in the production cars.

As for Cabianca's question, yes Lancia was the first - but not Jano - Francesco de Virgilio.

PdeRL

[mat1]

Originally posted by Paul Newby


They didn't build 40,000 quad cam 90 degree V6s for the Citroen SM. I think 4,000 is closer to the mark. Of course the V6 was a cut down Maserati quad cam V8. Not sure what they were thinking putting the cam drive between the second and third cylinders - maybe for the FWD take off?

I believe this strange location for the cam drive was the result of the cutting of the Maseratie V8. That engine had the cam drive between cylinder 3 and 4. I don't know why, perhaps just for being different.

Originally posted by Paul Newby


I don't think that Citroen ever used the 90 degree "Douvrin" V6 developed for Peugeot, Renault and Volvo though.

Yes they did, in the XM (the succeeder of the CX).

mat1

[marion5drsn]

Quote from: cabianca

I always understood that the problem with the V-6 configuration was getting the balance right.

Answer: It's not difficult to get the balance right at 60-degrees block angle, as all it requires is an extra 3 crank throw arms. Making a total of 9 instead of six, this on newly designed engine. Or in some cases you can offset the connecting rod journals at the appropriate angle. This way you can use a 90-degree block and offset the journals 30-degrees and wind up with a 120-degrees even firing engine, as it should be.
There have been millions of V-6s made by G.M. and other that fire at 30-degrees off angle called oddfire before the heat treating of cranks was solved and the adoption of even fire engines some where in the sixties or seventies. If you are talking about crankshaft vibrations other than the Secondary Shake that is something different. But it must be not very significant, as my Toyota V-6 with a 60-degree seems to be without much fault in that area.

720-degrees divided by 6=120-degrees. Yours, M.L. Anderson

[Aanderson]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
Quote from: cabianca

I always understood that the problem with the V-6 configuration was getting the balance right.

Answer: It's not difficult to get the balance right at 60-degrees block angle, as all it requires is an extra 3 crank throw arms. Making a total of 9 instead of six, this on newly designed engine. Or in some cases you can offset the connecting rod journals at the appropriate angle. This way you can use a 90-degree block and offset the journals 30-degrees and wind up with a 120-degrees even firing engine, as it should be.
There have been millions of V-6s made by G.M. and other that fire at 30-degrees off angle called oddfire before the heat treating of cranks was solved and the adoption of even fire engines some where in the sixties or seventies. If you are talking about crankshaft vibrations other than the Secondary Shake that is something different. But it must be not very significant, as my Toyota V-6 with a 69-degree seems to be without much fault in that area.

720-degrees divided by 6=120-degrees. Yours, M.L. Anderson

And yet:

GM's FIRST V-6, the 1960 GMC truck engine, was a 90-degree engine, based on their successful W-series engine (the famed 348-409 engines). It did have a bad reputation, though, for both vibration and being fuel-thirsty.

GM, about the same timeframe, did introduce a complete line of diesel engines in their familiar "71" series 2-cycles, the 4V71, 6V71, 8V71 and 12V71, but these were truck engines only.

Art Anderson

[marion5drsn]

Art could you change the 69 in my post to 60-degrees as this is a typographical error, it is 60-degrees.

I did not know that GM produced a series of engines you speak of although I should have run across it in all the work I do on the Internet. Could you post the block angles if possible as this is very interesting to me? I will try to see what is on the net. Yours, Marion Anderson

Edit: After writing the above I found this with no mention of the block angle.

JZI 100 HP GM Detroit 4 71 N 1980 4 Cyl. 1800 RPM Diesel Engines
JZI 150 HP GM Detroit 6 71 N 1980 6 Cyl. 1800 RPM Diesel Engines
JZI 150 HP GM Detroit 6 V 71 N 1985 6 Cyl. 2200 RPM Diesel Engines
JZI 200 HP GM Detroit 8 V 71 N 1988 8 Cyl. 2400 RPM Diesel Engines
JZI 350 HP GM Detroit 12 V 71 N 1988 12 Cyl. 2400 RPM Diesel Engines

[Paul Newby]

Originally posted by dmj

Then head for New Caledonia! Not so far from you and 24 sold there, as opposed to mere 5 in Australia. Maybe you could start a business importing those to Oz and gaining some profit from it...

As Ray said, there are more SMs in Australia now than when they were new. Infact Peter McLeod (an ex Citroen dealer) from Wollongong has set up a company to convert (to RHD) and restore nothing but SMs. I can't see there would be a big market for them, but there you go.

[dmj]

Ah, all the good ideas seem to be already used... But 43 SMs sold in Western Sahara are still intriguing me. Cars surely last longer in desert climate. Incidentally, I caught myself thinking a lot about that country lately. It's probably the only country in the world (the biggest one certainly) without even its own phone dialing code. Actually, as I am in international calling traffic business I couldn't avoid noticing that not a single list of international calling prices (and I saw a tons of it) even mentions it. Country is actually occupied by Morocco for decades and under UN "protection" awaits a referendum about independence for more than 10 years by now. Sorry for going so OT but I thought it would be nice to remind you of existing of a country that seems to be totally forgotten. And stilll waits for its independence and freedom.

[Ray Bell]

Maybe we should offer some grass in exchange for the SMs?

Australian grasses are being used to help reclaim the desert.

[Henk]

The average SM-owner will not be pleased to find spinifex in the Sahara..…

[Ray Bell]

They'll be among those pleased to find the Aussie grass there then...

[Aanderson]

Originally posted by marion5drsn
Art could you change the 69 in my post to 60-degrees as this is a typographical error, it is 60-degrees.

I did not know that GM produced a series of engines you speak of although I should have run across it in all the work I do on the Internet. Could you post the block angles if possible as this is very interesting to me? I will try to see what is on the net. Yours, Marion Anderson

Edit: After writing the above I found this with no mention of the block angle.

JZI 100 HP GM Detroit 4 71 N 1980 4 Cyl. 1800 RPM Diesel Engines
JZI 150 HP GM Detroit 6 71 N 1980 6 Cyl. 1800 RPM Diesel Engines
JZI 150 HP GM Detroit 6 V 71 N 1985 6 Cyl. 2200 RPM Diesel Engines
JZI 200 HP GM Detroit 8 V 71 N 1988 8 Cyl. 2400 RPM Diesel Engines
JZI 350 HP GM Detroit 12 V 71 N 1988 12 Cyl. 2400 RPM Diesel Engines

Every Detroit Diesel V-engine I have ever seen was a 90-degree block, regardless of cylinder numbers. Of course, Detroit's classic 71-series engines were all 2-cycle engines.

GM Truck & Coach gasoline V-6 of the early 1960's was also a 90-degree block.

Art Anderson

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by Aanderson



GM Truck & Coach gasoline V-6 of the early 1960's was also a 90-degree block.

Art Anderson

[marion5drsn]

Since it was a 90-degee block and at that time it is very likely a Odd-fire engine otherwise G.M. would have had the heat treating problem solved! M.L. Anderson

[Henk]

Early American V-6 experiments

- Howard Carpenter Marmon built his first car in 1902 with an air-cooled ohv V-twin engine. Its successor, an air-cooled V-4, went into production in 1904. After construction of an experimental V-6, a V-8 engined car was shown at the 1906 New York Motor Show. In 1909 Marmon turned to a conventional water-cooled, four-cylinder inline engine configuration.

So far I didn’t find information on the layout of the early Marmon V-engines.

- Rollin Henry White, who constructed the successful White steam cars between 1900 and 1911, designed a narrow (30-deg) monobloc V-6 in 1912. White pioneered rotary valves in this experimental engine.


The White V-6 engine is described in US patent #1,103,639:
http://patft.uspto.g...6&RS=CCL/74/596

[geoffg]

A very old thread, but just to update it: 

 

- the history of Lancia and the V6 is covered in a recently published book "Lancia and De Virgilio, At the Center", from David Bull Publishing (2014). Balancing issues (and De Virgilio's breakthrough) are addressed in detail with a tech'l appendix by John Cundy, former head of RR Aviation Engineering and owner/restorer of Mike Hawthorne's Aurelia. 

- balancing a V6 is not a trivial problem - and far more complex than just having 60º angle. There are the issues of primary and secondary forces, rotating and counter-rotating. De Virgilio's answer was to find a way in which most of these could be solved. It was remarkably different than answers for other engine configurations.   

- De Virgilio developed 4 different crankshaft designs (from the 720 possibilities) and one of those 4 is used (as far as we can tell) in all 60º V6 engines in production today. Also addressed in the book is current use of V6 engines. There is no definitive history of the V6 engine configuration, but it was addressed in Automobile Quarterly ( Vol 34, No. 3, 1995).

- the 90º V6 remains inherently not balanced, but was chosen for production reasons. Some used offset crankpins to reduce the vibration issues, but this has largely been superseded by use of the 60º V6. This was noted by Kevin Cameron in the New York Times on Dec. 14, 2014, which can be seen here:  New York Times calls De Virgilio “the da Vinci of the V6″. Information on the Lancia book can be found in the blog.   

Edited by geoffg, 15 January 2015 - 16:37.

[fbarrett]

All of you would likely be interested in reading the above book: highly recommended. Geoff is too modest to admit it here, but he wrote the book, but I'm not too modest to say that I edited it!

Edited by fbarrett, 16 January 2015 - 00:12.

[AAGR]

And just to add a useless bit of fluff to this thread ....

 

Which has been the world's most powerful V6 - so far?

 

My candidate is the Cosworth-Ford V6 (Type GB) of 1986-1987, which was raced in F1 in 1986 by Haas-Lola, but throughout the 1987 season by Benetton. In 1987 it produced a reliable race-long 1,000bhp - which was quite phenomenal for a turbocharged 1.5-litre power unit.

 

Layout ? 120 degrees, twin turbos, by the way.

Edited by AAGR, 16 January 2015 - 19:47.

[geoffg]

what of the current F1 V6s? 

[Henri Greuter]

And just to add a useless bit of fluff to this thread ....

 

Which has been the world's most powerful V6 - so far?

 

My candidate is the Cosworth-Ford V6 (Type GB) of 1986-1987, which was raced in F1 in 1986 by Haas-Lola, but throughout the 1987 season by Benetton. In 1987 it produced a reliable race-long 1,000bhp - which was quite phenomenal for a turbocharged 1.5-litre power unit.

 

Layout ? 120 degrees, twin turbos, by the way.

 

 

 

Think that the Honda had more power. There is the story about Patrick Head having seen a Honda V8 producing 1000 hp on the test bench and the scale nog going higher than 1000. But the engine could be revved up to over 13000 and it wasn't even turning 10000 yet.....

 

 

Henri

[David Beard]

what of the current F1 V6s? 

 

Gets complicated to make comparisons, doesn't it? Extra green regen gizmo power...

[BRG]

 

My candidate is the Cosworth-Ford V6 (Type GB) of 1986-1987, which was raced in F1 in 1986 by Haas-Lola, but throughout the 1987 season by Benetton. In 1987 it produced a reliable race-long 1,000bhp - which was quite phenomenal for a turbocharged 1.5-litre power unit.

 

Layout ? 120 degrees, twin turbos, by the way.

In 1987, they only finished 15 times from 32 starts,so 'reliable' & 'race-long' may not be quite the right terms.  And if it had the most powerful engine, why was it roundly trounced by the other V6 engines of TAG-Porsche, Ferrari and Honda?