Noncompliance Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Noncompliance » 4x4 Forums » Offroad Discussion » V8 vs. I6

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: V8 vs. I6
Jomama
Moderator
Member # 56

Icon 6 posted      Profile for Jomama     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok so I was having a discussion with a co-worker and this came up.
I was talking about wheeling, and just driving around on Forest service roads and the like. I said I thought that the straight 4's & 6's were better at this cause of the torque they have at low rpm.
My co-worker contests that the configuration of a motor (V8, I6, horizontaly opposed) has no effect on how it preforms (torque vs. rpm).
I was under the impression that I4 & I6's have high torque at low rpm (which is what in turn makes them good for wheelin), and that V8's typically have high HP at high rpm, but don't have AS GOOD of torque at low rpm than I6's (hence not as good for wheelin).....

My question is does the configuration of the motor, in and of itself effect its power output (both torque and rpm)????

So if you have a I6 and a V8 with identical displacement, standard cams and such, the I6 will have more torque at a lower rpm????

And can you build V8's to produce as much torque at low rpms?????


Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RockLobster
Rotor Head
Member # 45

Icon 6 posted      Profile for RockLobster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The ability of a truck to "lug down low and put-put its way through the trail is a factor of the wieght of the flywheel to the size (displacement) and compresion of the motor. Since curisers and toyota 4cylindars are typically mated with very heavy flywheels (in relation to thier engine size this is what keeps the motor going at VERY low RPMs. The rotational momentum of the flywheel keeps the engine from stalling at low rpms. Further the low end torque to high rpm HP ratio is determined by the size of the cylinders in to the overall size of the engine. Assuming all other factors are equal (which is impossible) Each bang gives more energy therfore more torque. So i would guess that in the case of a I6 with the same displacement as a V8 (all else being idealy equal) the I6 is going to have more low end torque because each individual bang produces more energy in the 6 than an individual bang in a v8. The reason that the v8 has more hp is due to more even power output and more bangs per RPM plus better air and fuel flow as a "side effect" of more cylinders and thus more intake and exhaust valves.

Certainly i have done no specific research to back this up but it would be my slightly educated guess as a "fucking mr engineer guy".

So to answer your question more simply no it dosn't have anything to do with motor configuration (I6 vs V8) though it does have to do with number of cylinders and overall displacement and compression of the engine.

So the most desirable configuration would be a high compression low rpm heavy flywheel truck. Or what we all like to call Diesil!

[This message has been edited by Chadwick (edited 05-15-2002).]


Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cramer
Poser
Member # 5

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Cramer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First,

There is not a gas, Toyota 4 cyl. out there that can " lug ". The engine was never designed to be a " lugging " engine, hence the 5,000+ rpm red line.

Second,

A I6 engine, one found in a Toyota land cruiser, the " F " and " 2F", not the 3F or 3FE, have a 3.3" bore ( I think )and a 4.00" stroke,( I know )Tie that to a flywheel that is of substance, read 50+ pounds, and you have a good low rpm, “ lugging “ engine. That is why a cruiser engine sounds like it is coming apart over 36-3700 rpm's, and IS NOT good for high rpm's. While it has been done, but not without spending STUPID money on it, a person can make a 2F engine produce 270+ hp, but you WILL be compromising reliability, and longevity. It would be money better spent on a small block Chevrolet, than spending it building a ‘cruiser I6.

And your last inquirer about the small block…

Yes, you can build a small block to produce “ similar “ low rpm figures. A very popular “ stroker “ engine is the 383 Chevy. It is a 350, with a small-block 400 Chevy, crankshaft, balancer and flywheel or flex plate. There are modifications that need to be done to the block in order to not have the rods hit the block with the use of this crank, but it is a very good and reliable engine when built correctly.

Other things to think about…..

The valve size, amount of lift, and time, ( duration ) make a huge impact on where your power occurs in your engine, along with the size of piston, the stroke, type of manifold, size of carburetor or fuel management devices, the heads used and many other things.
Typically, a smaller bore is used for higher rpm’s, to keep the “ rotational mass “ down, as to keep harmful harmonics from damaging the engine, and stressing out components.
For example, a Formula 1 car has a engine that runs on “ pump gas “, not high octane racing fuel or methanol, is only 3 liters, and produces 750-800 hp ( god bless variable valve timing), at 18,000 RPM’s. On the other side is your NASCAR engine, It is under 400 CID ( about 6.6 liters ), and makes 750 HP between 7000-9000 RPM’s. It does not use VVT tech, it is a roller cam and solid lifter engine. Just balls-out raw HP.
In the end, as in many things, you are only limited by your fiscal commitment, just about anything is possible with enough “ fun-tickets “

-Steve


Posts: 771 | From: Farmington | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cramer
Poser
Member # 5

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Cramer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Martin...

A inline 6 ( toyota, what we are talking about here, I am WELL AWARE that there are many other inline sixes that are high reving engines ), has a longer stroke, which typically produces more torque at lower RPM's.


Posts: 771 | From: Farmington | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RockLobster
Rotor Head
Member # 45

Icon 6 posted      Profile for RockLobster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't think about two things that steve mentioned but valve timing (and cam shafts in more conventional engines) would have alot to do with where the torque is in the rpm band. Plus he is very right about the stroke of the engine vs bore size determining in what "pattern over time" an engine produces force on the crankshaft and thus torque. But that is all more complicated that the simple answer that no the configuration of the engine does not determine wheather it has more low end torque or not.

[This message has been edited by Chadwick (edited 05-15-2002).]


Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jomama
Moderator
Member # 56

Icon 6 posted      Profile for Jomama     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see, it appears I was mistaken in my ideas about the "configuration"


quote:
Originally posted by cramer:

There is not a gas, Toyota 4 cyl. out there that can " lug ". The engine was never designed to be a " lugging " engine, hence the 5,000+ rpm red line.


So just out of curiosity on this, I was under the impression that the Toyota 4cyl (22r..etc) was a torquy little engine. I realize its specialty may not be in serious rock-crawling like you boys participate in. But I always thought these made really good low-speed, backroads, dirtroad drivers cause they don't loose all their power at low speeds etc...... Is it not that torquy of an engine???????


Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RockLobster
Rotor Head
Member # 45

Icon 6 posted      Profile for RockLobster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think they are, but then again, my "rock crawler" has a paper plate for a fly wheel so compared to mine they lug ok. But steve is certainly right in saying they are nothing like the cruiser I6 engines. I would still take the 22RE over all the 3.0L or 3.4L v6's in the world for rockcrawling and "luging". Of course you could say "that with the right modifications and gearing a v6 is better, bla, bla, bla... " but i still would take the 4cyl. You could also say that with an automatic this all becomes a mute point but who wants a fucking automatic that will burn up and leave you stranded on the trail.
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jomama
Moderator
Member # 56

Icon 6 posted      Profile for Jomama     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah I guess I should clarify that in comparing these I'm talking the 22re with all the V6's now out there. And I was comparing the landcruiser 2F to V8's like the the 302 in the old bronco's and such. I do realize that alot is possible in all forms given modifications due to enough "Fun Tickets", as cramer put it......

Thanks for the input boys.....


Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jomama
Moderator
Member # 56

Icon 6 posted      Profile for Jomama     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cramer:
Martin...

A inline 6 ( toyota, what we are talking about here, I am WELL AWARE that there are many other inline sixes that are high reving engines ), has a longer stroke, which typically produces more torque at lower RPM's.


2 Questions about this-->Given that there is a lot of variables in all my ????'s here. Is the long stroke of the engine
the "platform" for it being low end torqe vs. a short stroke=high end hp's???? So you make a short stroke I6 and thats where you would get high rev I6's????

Here's a post from a guy who's a Freightliner salesman from michigan. Someone was polling (on another forum) general info on what people where driving. He's since said that he's interested in gas vs. diesel (lot of euro's on this site too). So I and some others had further discussion with him about diesels. This post came up, I found it interesting, yet I cant be sure he has any idea what he's talking about and such (the natural balance of the 6cyl???, the older V8 diesels throwing rods an pistons alot???, and the mercedes diesels in dodge's???)


Quote from teletips.com:

The Cummins b5.9 is a in-line 6 cylinder configuration, the most naturally balanced piston configuration out there.

An in line 6 cylinder has more bearing surface at the crankshaft to support the torque of the engine. That is due to the fact that you have connecting rods coming in from only one direction as opposed to two in a "V" configuration.

Torque?

Yes. Torque is the real measure of a diesel's power. Its peak is typically delivered between 1450 and 1600 rpm on the B5.9L versus 1700on the T444E(Power Stroke) Horsepower is pretty much irrelevant. The Cummins B5.9L can support the abuse given to the crank bearing surfaces better and thus can sustain a higher lb/ft of torque at a lower rpm thus giving it the advantage in economy, life to overhaul and power over the I T&E T444E in the Ford.

If you want your powerstroke to live, do like they did on the old Detroit Diesel V6s and V8s. "Slam your hand in the door, curse it, kick the tire and try to blow it up." Because lugging the V engines aill either send a connecting rod through the oil pan or a piston through the head. They didn't have the iron down there to support the torque.

Selling Freightliner Trucks I have had extensive experience with the Cummins B5.9L used in the Dodges in our medium duty trucks. Wait unitl they start putting in the Mercedes MBE906 diesel in the Dodge. That Cummins will seem like a whipped dog that growls and rattles too much. I have had both engines available side by side in the Business Class product and customers love the MBE900 over the B5.9L by a long shot.


Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ProfBooty
Administrator
Member # 21

Icon 6 posted      Profile for ProfBooty   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I read an article a while back about GM going back to the I6 on their bigger vehicles, ie: Suburbans and Silverados. The engine they had designed and were testing beat all the comparable V8's out there in power, torque and economy. Funny, Toyota seems to have known this all along.

I can vouch for the 3.0L V6 not being a very torquey engine and certainly not a lugging engine although it does have 3.5" stroke. I would disagree with you Chad though about the 22R being more desirable. The V6 is only a marginal improvement but it's still got more torque across the band than the 22R's, I'd much rather have it. My biggest complaint is that for it's displacement and power (or lack thereof), it's WAAAAYYY to thristy! I'd rather have a Vortec 4.3, I bet I'd still get better mileage. Oh well, I can dream....


Posts: 402 | From: Mpls, MN | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cramer
Poser
Member # 5

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Cramer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The next time you are here Joe, I will show you my two cylinder, 15 HP John Deere model " B " tractor. It is not a monster, by any means, but it does produce A LOT of tourque at very low rpm's.. I think it has a 6.5" or 7" stroke, and all the power stays
" inline " with the engine, It does not " turn a corner ", the crank is parallel to the rear axel, therefore power is not lost in the geartrain as much, as would be in other tractor designs, and the longevity of the equipment..well that speaks for itself, mine is a 1941.

Posts: 771 | From: Farmington | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Klaus
Administrator
Member # 66

Icon 2 posted      Profile for Klaus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A guy at work just bought a GM Envoy and was showing it too me. He started to brag about the engine. That it's a new I6 design, I laughed and told him Toyota has been using that design for decades. The Envoy is pretty much a minivan with 4 wheel drive much like the MPV (GM calls it a light truck).
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jomama
Moderator
Member # 56

Icon 6 posted      Profile for Jomama     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty sure I've seen that tractor. Thats the one that to start, you open a valve to reduce compression and then you just spin the flywheel by hand till it starts chuging and then you close the valve right?????
I cant picture how its inline to the rear axle w/out turning a corner????

What kinda mpg does that guy say he's getting with the envoy Klaus?????


Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Klaus
Administrator
Member # 66

Icon 2 posted      Profile for Klaus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He said it gets "good" mileage. His last truck was a Yukon. I would assume 20mpg.

The engine is a 4.2liter I6
270@6000 HP
275@3600 Torque
3.66 X 4.01 Bore/Stroke

My Truck - 4.5liter I6
215@4600 HP
275@3200 HP
3.94 x 3.74 Bore/Stroke

I get about 15mpg. Big HP difference between the two engines.


Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
.
Posting God
Member # 20

Icon 8 posted      Profile for .         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drive it like you hate it, like I do.

FUCK FORD EVERY TIME!!!!

quote:
Originally posted by Jomama:
If you want your powerstroke to live, do like they did on the old Detroit Diesel V6s and V8s. "Slam your hand in the door, curse it, kick the tire and try to blow it up."


Posts: 620 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Klaus
Administrator
Member # 66

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Klaus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Klaus:
He said it gets "good" mileage. His last truck was a Yukon. I would assume 20mpg.

The engine is a 4.2liter I6
270@6000 HP
275@3600 Torque
3.66 X 4.01 Bore/Stroke

My Truck - 4.5liter I6
215@4600 HP
275@3200 HP
3.94 x 3.74 Bore/Stroke

I get about 15mpg. Big HP difference between the two engines.

The guy I share my office with was driving his Envoy yesterday and there was a loud noise, grinding, check engine light, and then it stopped. It got towed in to GMC today - they think the engine took a dump. It has less then 20,000 miles on it. When he started asking around about it yesterday turns out that engine has a tendency to go through valves.... I guess Chevy didn't quite get the whole I6 concept right [lol] Any bets on what is wrong with it?

He is now thinking of selling it....lol After all the arguements we have had in the last year about how great he thinks the thing is.....

Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cramer
Poser
Member # 5

Icon 8 posted      Profile for Cramer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that there are six of those envoy-minivans in the lot here...they almost all showed up at the same time...it was pretty funny to see the faces on all the dorks that own them, thinking that they had something novel and new...

What a piece of shit!!!!

Posts: 771 | From: Farmington | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RockLobster
Rotor Head
Member # 45

Icon 1 posted      Profile for RockLobster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thoes things have a timing belt?
Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Klaus
Administrator
Member # 66

Icon 2 posted      Profile for Klaus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is what the GMC guy called and said this morning.

"It threw a piston after losing a ring"

[lol]

Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cramer
Poser
Member # 5

Icon 8 posted      Profile for Cramer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Glad to hear that the service communicators have no more knowledge about the mechanicals involved in this issue then does a two year old...
Posts: 771 | From: Farmington | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mikey
Po Po
Member # 42

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Mikey     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, I heard if you don't keep the blinker fluid topped off on those things the muffler belts will come loose and cause the mini-van careen out of control and launch themselves from the nearest cliff.
Posts: 486 | From: Eagan, MN | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RockLobster
Rotor Head
Member # 45

Icon 1 posted      Profile for RockLobster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't it nice to have to deal with fucking middle men/women at dealerships. Last time i had my truck serviced at a dealership I got into a very "HEATED" argument with the "Service Rep" and subsequenly the service manager about wanting to talk dirrectly with the tech, since the "REP" was only causing major comunication problems, and didnt know jack from shit. It only backs my theory that they have chimps working on you vehicle when you take it in.... [lol]

Mikey you beat me too it I was gonna say something similar but didnt post it in time! [lol] [lol] [lol]

"Probably because of to much tension in the pistion retaining fluid.

Or perhaps the preload on the torsion cam was to high."

Or maybe it just got hit by a little piece of lighting.

Posts: 2331 | From: Rosemount | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cramer
Poser
Member # 5

Icon 8 posted      Profile for Cramer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would bet to say that the ring that broke was black, causing this total failure...
Posts: 771 | From: Farmington | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Klaus
Administrator
Member # 66

Icon 2 posted      Profile for Klaus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had heard a rumor that the "sogger-valve" was failing too early on the GM I6 engines and that this could cause the vehicle to "throw a ring".. [Smile] And then "chuck a piston".
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Noncompliance.com

Noncompliance Copyright 2005

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2