My world view

Status
Not open for further replies.
120° between cylinder banks is optimum for a 6-cylinder 4-stroke engine, although for packaging reasons most clean-sheet V6 engines use 60° (and of course GM and Chrysler both developed 90° V6 engines by lopping two cylinders off existing V8s). I don't think I'd ever heard of one though. This (180°) allows for straight, rather than offset, crank throws, correct?
 
How do you know the earth isn't flat?

If it was cats would have knocked everything off by now.
flat-earth.webp


Flat Earther Logic Manual.webp
 
Nice shirt.
I had a painfully long conversation with a full blown flat earther the other day. Its scary to know they walk among us.
 
120° between cylinder banks is optimum for a 6-cylinder 4-stroke engine, although for packaging reasons most clean-sheet V6 engines use 60° (and of course GM and Chrysler both developed 90° V6 engines by lopping two cylinders off existing V8s). I don't think I'd ever heard of one though. This (180°) allows for straight, rather than offset, crank throws, correct?
I’m interested in looking into this more. Did not know 120 deg was optimum for a 6cyl. And being you specified 6cyl are you saying it’s different for 8cyl? I can definitely see where opposing cylinders would be very balanced and smooth but I wonder if it creates additional wear on the piston/rings due to gravity on the lower side? I know the old air cooled VW engines could be very reliable thats for sure. A little confused with your statement gm and Chrysler developing V6 by lopping 2cyl off v8s, followed by, i don’t think Id ever heard of one though???
 
I’m interested in looking into this more. Did not know 120 deg was optimum for a 6cyl. And being you specified 6cyl are you saying it’s different for 8cyl? I can definitely see where opposing cylinders would be very balanced and smooth but I wonder if it creates additional wear on the piston/rings due to gravity on the lower side? I know the old air cooled VW engines could be very reliable thats for sure. A little confused with your statement gm and Chrysler developing V6 by lopping 2cyl off v8s, followed by, i don’t think Id ever heard of one though???
Hey, R1jake, thanks for your interest in this.

In a 4-stroke engine, the crank rotates twice (720 degrees) to go through a complete "suck-squish-bang-blow" cycle, with the piston being at top dead centre (TDC) twice, once at the top of the compression stroke and once at the top of the exhaust stroke.

So, a single-cylinder engine would fire every 720 degrees of crankshaft rotation.

A two-cylinder engine would fire every 360 degrees.

A 4-banger would fire every 180 degrees (so a flat [horizontally-opposed, or "boxer" configuration is ideal).

A 6-cylinder engine fires every 120 degrees.

An 8-cylinder engine fires every 90 degrees.

One crazy exception was the 90-degree V6 engines that GM developed in the '70s. They used a V8 block, but cut the block (and crankshaft) down to six cylinders). Unmodified from there, the firing order between cylinders would not have been an even 120 degrees, but a mix of cylinders firing 90 and 180 degrees apart. (GM deleted the #3 and #6 cylinder throws from the crankshaft - the 3rd pair from the front.) But to compensate, they offset the crank pins by 30 degrees to achieve even firing spacing.

Check out GM's 4.3 liter/262 CID V6, for example - it has the same bore (4.00") and stroke (3.48") as the legendary 5.7 litre/350 CID small-block V8. The V6 is literally 3/4 of the V8 engine.

Likewise, the 3.8 is literally 3/4 of a 305, with the same stroke as a 350 but a smaller bore. I think, but am not positive, that Dodge did the same thing in cutting down a 5.2 (318) V8 to create the 3.9 V6 used in Dakota trucks back in the day.

I just found this article, which explains it much better than I can. I wish I'd read it years and years ago.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15126436/the-physics-of-engine-cylinder-bank-angles-feature/

Related, a few years I wondered why the most common firing order for V8 engines was 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2. (Before you Ford folks complain, Ford's firing order is the same, once you translate Ford's cylinder-numbering protocol into the same as one as GM and Chrysler use. I like the GM and Chrysler method because they observe the old rule of folding the two Vees up to make an inline engine, and then numbering the cylinders 1 to 8 from front to back.)

Anyway, it bugged me that the firing order was uneven - that is, that it didn't nicely alternate side-to-side.

Drawing it out helped me understand why this was, and why there are only a couple of possible firing orders with a cross-plane V8.
 
Hey, R1jake, thanks for your interest in this.

In a 4-stroke engine, the crank rotates twice (720 degrees) to go through a complete "suck-squish-bang-blow" cycle, with the piston being at top dead centre (TDC) twice, once at the top of the compression stroke and once at the top of the exhaust stroke.

So, a single-cylinder engine would fire every 720 degrees of crankshaft rotation.

A two-cylinder engine would fire every 360 degrees.

A 4-banger would fire every 180 degrees (so a flat [horizontally-opposed, or "boxer" configuration is ideal).

A 6-cylinder engine fires every 120 degrees.

An 8-cylinder engine fires every 90 degrees.

One crazy exception was the 90-degree V6 engines that GM developed in the '70s. They used a V8 block, but cut the block (and crankshaft) down to six cylinders). Unmodified from there, the firing order between cylinders would not have been an even 120 degrees, but a mix of cylinders firing 90 and 180 degrees apart. (GM deleted the #3 and #6 cylinder throws from the crankshaft - the 3rd pair from the front.) But to compensate, they offset the crank pins by 30 degrees to achieve even firing spacing.

Check out GM's 4.3 liter/262 CID V6, for example - it has the same bore (4.00") and stroke (3.48") as the legendary 5.7 litre/350 CID small-block V8. The V6 is literally 3/4 of the V8 engine.

Likewise, the 3.8 is literally 3/4 of a 305, with the same stroke as a 350 but a smaller bore. I think, but am not positive, that Dodge did the same thing in cutting down a 5.2 (318) V8 to create the 3.9 V6 used in Dakota trucks back in the day.

I just found this article, which explains it much better than I can. I wish I'd read it years and years ago.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15126436/the-physics-of-engine-cylinder-bank-angles-feature/

Related, a few years I wondered why the most common firing order for V8 engines was 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2. (Before you Ford folks complain, Ford's firing order is the same, once you translate Ford's cylinder-numbering protocol into the same as one as GM and Chrysler use. I like the GM and Chrysler method because they observe the old rule of folding the two Vees up to make an inline engine, and then numbering the cylinders 1 to 8 from front to back.)

Anyway, it bugged me that the firing order was uneven - that is, that it didn't nicely alternate side-to-side.

Drawing it out helped me understand why this was, and why there are only a couple of possible firing orders with a cross-plane V8.

The 4.3 is the "3/4 350" with very minor differences.

Most all the parts off a 350 work on it as well.. such as, Coolant Temperature Sensors. (Sensors, filters, pretty much everything on the outside.)

Many 4.3s had a Remote Oil Filter location. Right in the engine by the battery..

I would really like to have another of those. Those engines are loved.
 
The 4.3 is the "3/4 350" with very minor differences.

Most all the parts off a 350 work on it as well.. such as, Coolant Temperature Sensors. (Sensors, filters, pretty much everything on the outside.)

Many 4.3s had a Remote Oil Filter location. Right in the engine by the battery..

I would really like to have another of those. Those engines are loved.
Our techs often had Astro vans with the 4.3. Gutsy, thirsty, and reliable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom