In the June issue of Car & Driver, there is a reference to a 1.5 litre V10 car designed by Dr Porsche in 1939.
Does anyone know anything about this one? It's a complete surprise to me!
PdeRL
V10: The type 114 Porsche
Started by
VAR1016
, May 31 2004 21:58
13 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Megatron
-
- 3,688 posts
- Joined: January 99
Member
Posted 31 May 2004 - 22:05
Was it a "Porsche"? He wasn't still working for Auto Union at that time was he? Right before the war. Wasn't there a six wheeled Auto Union also on the drawing board?
#3
VAR1016
-
- 2,826 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 31 May 2004 - 22:16
Originally posted by Megatron
Was it a "Porsche"? He wasn't still working for Auto Union at that time was he? Right before the war. Wasn't there a six wheeled Auto Union also on the drawing board?
No Dr Eberan von eberhorst was AU's designer at that time; I think that Porsche had his own design consultancy the.
The article (which is principally about the Porsche Carrera GT) says that the 1939 car was "dubbed the type 114, its two-seater coupe body closely resembled the VW Beetle..."
Could this have been an experiment for his Berlin-Rome car?
PdeRL
#4
Holger Merten
-
- 1,836 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 01 June 2004 - 06:35
Berline-Rome, a V 10 in the streamlined beetle. No. The Berlin-Rome car had the code Typ 66.
#5
Henk
-
- 227 posts
- Joined: July 03
Member
Posted 01 June 2004 - 09:05
You can read the story of Type 114 and the V-10 engine in chapter 1 of the first volume of Karl Ludvigsen’s ‘Porsche: Excellence was expected’.
http://www.bentleypu...GPEX.v1.ch1.htm
http://www.bentleypu...CH01.market.pdf
http://www.bentleypu...GPEX.v1.ch1.htm
http://www.bentleypu...CH01.market.pdf
#6
Ray Bell
-
- 82,250 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 01 June 2004 - 22:42
I wonder just what was understood then about V10s and 5-cylinder engines?
Ford's experimentation in that era (maybe into the early forties...) revealed that a 5-cylinder engine gave the best power return of all they tried, for instance. Why were they going along such an oddball path? There are no easy answers to the 5-cyl crank questions, or so it would seem to me.
And balancing would no doubt have been the same nightmare for Porsche as it was for Ford, the reason they dropped it. There would have been primary and secondary balance issues, I'm sure, and these weren't (as far as I know) solved until computers started to come down from room-size in the late seventies...
Ford's experimentation in that era (maybe into the early forties...) revealed that a 5-cylinder engine gave the best power return of all they tried, for instance. Why were they going along such an oddball path? There are no easy answers to the 5-cyl crank questions, or so it would seem to me.
And balancing would no doubt have been the same nightmare for Porsche as it was for Ford, the reason they dropped it. There would have been primary and secondary balance issues, I'm sure, and these weren't (as far as I know) solved until computers started to come down from room-size in the late seventies...
#7
Holger Merten
-
- 1,836 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 02 June 2004 - 06:53
Originally posted by Henk
You can read the story of Type 114 and the V-10 engine in chapter 1 of the first volume of Karl Ludvigsen’s ‘Porsche: Excellence was expected’.
http://www.bentleypu...GPEX.v1.ch1.htm
http://www.bentleypu...CH01.market.pdf
Reread it Henk in my issue. And found out that the Typ 64, the Typ 66 and the Typ 114 more or less belong together. And that they gave an outlook of the future of Porsche. Or, with other words, built the basement for the future sports car manufacturer.
Have a look to the design of the cars, and you will discover several elements, which you could see on the post WWII devlopments of Porsche.
#8
VAR1016
-
- 2,826 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 02 June 2004 - 15:26
Originally posted by Henk
You can read the story of Type 114 and the V-10 engine in chapter 1 of the first volume of Karl Ludvigsen’s ‘Porsche: Excellence was expected’.
http://www.bentleypu...GPEX.v1.ch1.htm
http://www.bentleypu...CH01.market.pdf
Dear Henk,
Thank you very much; what a shame that it was never built; the model looks excellent.
PdeRL
#9
marion5drsn
-
- 980 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 03 June 2004 - 15:29
The use/nonuse of the V-10 engine was not brought about due to the computer in my estimation it had to do with prejudice of a lot of people who still today can’t see the advantages of this engine. The V-8 engine in the U.S.A. was so predominate in the minds and eyes of most people that it created the mad onslaught of the engine in 1955 that any other engine was just not even considered and especially the V-10. There just was not any need for it when the top engineers still had not done enough pencil work to overcome their own prejudices.
Any competent engineer who can cast aside his prejudices for a short period of time and do some real evaluation of the basic engine can do the balancing of the primaries and secondaries. All he needs is an open mind and a pencil and paper. For a really good engineer a slide rule wasn’t even necessary. Again remenber these engines weren’t going to be pushing the 3,000 feet per minute piston speed. Also at this time gas springs weren’t even considered. This device being needed to operate the engines at high piston speeds.
Remember at this time everyone was so involved with V-8s that it was impossible to sell people on the V-10, and also remember the theory of the modular engine was not even considered seriously.
Remember that at this time the V-12 was needed in fighter planes and many of the engineers were heavily involved in that effort along with the heavy accent on radial engines for bombers. What the V-10 engine needed was an engineer who could show the other people that it was very feasible to produce V-12s, V-10s, V-8s and V-6s, but as we can see the mindset at that time just wasn’t there!
As to modular engines even today people still cannot realize the value of this concept, especially in going to the grocery store type engine. Just evaluate the result if General Motors had of realized the modular concept in the thirties and had modular engines from Cadillac on down to Chevrolet along with GM trucks and the result in the WW-2 war effort. Both Ford and Chrysler had modular engines to a limited extent but even they didn’t see the value in the modular concept. Ford was still messing around with 75-degree block V-12s in the Lincoln.
M.L. Anderson
Any competent engineer who can cast aside his prejudices for a short period of time and do some real evaluation of the basic engine can do the balancing of the primaries and secondaries. All he needs is an open mind and a pencil and paper. For a really good engineer a slide rule wasn’t even necessary. Again remenber these engines weren’t going to be pushing the 3,000 feet per minute piston speed. Also at this time gas springs weren’t even considered. This device being needed to operate the engines at high piston speeds.
Remember at this time everyone was so involved with V-8s that it was impossible to sell people on the V-10, and also remember the theory of the modular engine was not even considered seriously.
Remember that at this time the V-12 was needed in fighter planes and many of the engineers were heavily involved in that effort along with the heavy accent on radial engines for bombers. What the V-10 engine needed was an engineer who could show the other people that it was very feasible to produce V-12s, V-10s, V-8s and V-6s, but as we can see the mindset at that time just wasn’t there!
As to modular engines even today people still cannot realize the value of this concept, especially in going to the grocery store type engine. Just evaluate the result if General Motors had of realized the modular concept in the thirties and had modular engines from Cadillac on down to Chevrolet along with GM trucks and the result in the WW-2 war effort. Both Ford and Chrysler had modular engines to a limited extent but even they didn’t see the value in the modular concept. Ford was still messing around with 75-degree block V-12s in the Lincoln.
M.L. Anderson
#10
Ray Bell
-
- 82,250 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 03 June 2004 - 22:43
Does this mean, Marion, that Ford's primary problem on discovering the power capabilities of the 5-cylinder inline engine they built was something other than balancing?
That was the claimed reason, according to the article I read...
And now I get the impression you are saying that the V10 has some inherent advantages over the V8 and V12... or is it just over the V8?
I can see a packaging issue over the V12, but that shouldn't have affected American cars in particular.
Maybe it was just an issue of production machinery? It might have been easier to send every casting down a line designed for 90 degree vees than to have to change it to other less familiar angles?
That was the claimed reason, according to the article I read...
And now I get the impression you are saying that the V10 has some inherent advantages over the V8 and V12... or is it just over the V8?
I can see a packaging issue over the V12, but that shouldn't have affected American cars in particular.
Maybe it was just an issue of production machinery? It might have been easier to send every casting down a line designed for 90 degree vees than to have to change it to other less familiar angles?
#11
Holger Merten
-
- 1,836 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 08 June 2004 - 06:23
Yesterday I read in Porsche Excellencxe was expected about the development of the Cisitalia, which is in my opinion a successor of the AU GP cars. Some technical features of the engine construction were described as like the V-10, so that we can have the idea, the Cisitalia engine is in some details a successor of the the V-10.
#12
marion5drsn
-
- 980 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 09 June 2004 - 23:01
The V-10 does have two striking features over the V-8, if built at either 72 or 144-degree block angle it does not have to contend with the 180-degree cranks shake or the exhaust-tuning problem of the 90-degree shaft. As to the 12 cylinder it has the over overall length of two less cylinders in length plus the overall lessening of complexity of parts. The length is important now that we have rules about just where the driver’s feet can be in relation to wheels etc.
I wonder if they will also make a rule to keep the 90-degree block angle and the 90-degree crank?
This would make the cross-over exhaust almost mandatory? And it they make the 180-degree crank will they make it mandatory to have an engine last all the weekend?
M.L. Anderson
I wonder if they will also make a rule to keep the 90-degree block angle and the 90-degree crank?
This would make the cross-over exhaust almost mandatory? And it they make the 180-degree crank will they make it mandatory to have an engine last all the weekend?
M.L. Anderson
#13
karlcars
-
- 666 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 13 June 2004 - 20:21
Nice to see this referenced. I was the first person to discover the Type 114 and its significance.
When I interviewed Ferry Porsche for my book in the 1970s, I asked him when they first thought of building a 'Porsche' car. 'Oh,' he said, 'we had that in mind before the war, something that we could make on our own account. We had it all designed at that time. And you know? It had a feature that is much talked-about now. It had a five-cylinder engine!' You'll find that some biographers of Ferry have heard the same thing and taken it at face value.
Well, I then went to the archives with the help of Ghislaine Kaes, Ferry's cousin, and found the project in question -- not a 5-cylinder but a 10-cylinder! And very elegant it was too. Ferry remembered the concept, but not the detail.
This was not an outlandish idea for the Porsches. Lancia had already built a 5-cylinder truck engine, and Porsche would build 10-cylinder engines for armored vehicles during the war.
When I interviewed Ferry Porsche for my book in the 1970s, I asked him when they first thought of building a 'Porsche' car. 'Oh,' he said, 'we had that in mind before the war, something that we could make on our own account. We had it all designed at that time. And you know? It had a feature that is much talked-about now. It had a five-cylinder engine!' You'll find that some biographers of Ferry have heard the same thing and taken it at face value.
Well, I then went to the archives with the help of Ghislaine Kaes, Ferry's cousin, and found the project in question -- not a 5-cylinder but a 10-cylinder! And very elegant it was too. Ferry remembered the concept, but not the detail.
This was not an outlandish idea for the Porsches. Lancia had already built a 5-cylinder truck engine, and Porsche would build 10-cylinder engines for armored vehicles during the war.
#14
Holger Merten
-
- 1,836 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 14 June 2004 - 19:08
Wow, Karl you had the chance to meet Ghislaine Kaes. Must have been an interesting person, really. It was Klaus Parr of the Porsche PR who told me something about him in the late 80s during an Interview with Ferry Porsche. I was investigating in these EA 266 files. Looking for "who developed what". The Golf and so on.
The Typ 114 seems to me so much interesting, cause it combines those typical pre WW 2 Beetle factors with those post WW2 Porsche genes. That must have been an interesting construction, which got the chance of production just after the war until the mid 60s - call it 356.
BTW: We have somebody in the porsche-piech family who wants to be the developper of a 5-cyl-engine too?
The Typ 114 seems to me so much interesting, cause it combines those typical pre WW 2 Beetle factors with those post WW2 Porsche genes. That must have been an interesting construction, which got the chance of production just after the war until the mid 60s - call it 356.
BTW: We have somebody in the porsche-piech family who wants to be the developper of a 5-cyl-engine too?
