The OHC was around a long time before GM tried belt driven ones. I think the Tempest I-6 was the first followed by the Vega. Eventually they recognized a bad idea and went back to chains.
v4 engine in automotive application.
- Thread starter hemitom
- Start date
- Status
I suppose costs and complexity are reasons to avoid a V4 configuration.
AT a minimum, you now have two separate heads and related parts.
AT a minimum, you now have two separate heads and related parts.
V4 engines for motorcycle applications are narrower than an inline 4, thus allowing for less aerodynamic drag, and bulk. Unless a narrow engine is required for an auto, I don't see it becoming a popular choice. On the subject of vibration, a 90 degree V4 is NOT prone to vibrations, i.e. the Honda Interceptor/ Sabre engines; these engines have perfect primary balance. These engines are mounted to the frame directly with bolts rather than heavy rubber mounts as seen in the newer 60 degree H.D. engines.
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
I suppose costs and complexity are reasons to avoid a V4 configuration.
AT a minimum, you now have two separate heads and related parts.
+ with crossways 4 cylinder engines, there is no packaging advantage to a V4.
I suppose costs and complexity are reasons to avoid a V4 configuration.
AT a minimum, you now have two separate heads and related parts.
+ with crossways 4 cylinder engines, there is no packaging advantage to a V4.
Lancia used a small displacement V4 and it was narrow angle and had one cylinder head .
For several years I owned a V4 engine in a marine application as an outboard engine.
It was compact, produced great horsepower and was extremely reliable.
It was compact, produced great horsepower and was extremely reliable.
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
I suppose costs and complexity are reasons to avoid a V4 configuration.
AT a minimum, you now have two separate heads and related parts.
+1 Unless you count the links in the timing belt, an inline SOHC would have fewer parts than a pushrod. Even DOHC doesn't have that many parts.
I suppose costs and complexity are reasons to avoid a V4 configuration.
AT a minimum, you now have two separate heads and related parts.
+1 Unless you count the links in the timing belt, an inline SOHC would have fewer parts than a pushrod. Even DOHC doesn't have that many parts.
That 1300cc V4 is in the Honda ST1300, a sport-touring motorcycle that I also happen to own. The engine is super smooth, with good power and torque with a 8000rpm redline. The bike will cruise effortlessly at 100mph+ hour after hour. (As I've done several times crossing Montana & N. Dakota)
Some ST1300 owners have racked up in excess of 250k miles on their bikes with only routine maintenance and conventional engine oils.
Probably would cost more to produce V4's for automotive use so the car mfgs. stick with I4's, esp. in price-competitive models.
http://www.calsci.com/motorcycleinfo/ST1300_f.html
Some ST1300 owners have racked up in excess of 250k miles on their bikes with only routine maintenance and conventional engine oils.
Probably would cost more to produce V4's for automotive use so the car mfgs. stick with I4's, esp. in price-competitive models.
http://www.calsci.com/motorcycleinfo/ST1300_f.html
Good post!
Lancia used a narrow angle V-4 in models going back to the Lambda of 1922-1931.
The last V-4 Lancia I remember was the Fulvia of the 'sixties, the coupe versions of which were gorgeous.
Lancia also made a flat-four well before Subaru, the Flavia.
The same engine was used in the Fiat era Gamma.
Alfa also had a liquid cooled flat four, used in the Alfasud.
Came real close to buying a 2.5 Flaminia convertible for 3.5K back in the early 'eighties. Shame I didn't.
The pre-Fiat Alfas and Lancias were pretty neat machines.
Lancia used a narrow angle V-4 in models going back to the Lambda of 1922-1931.
The last V-4 Lancia I remember was the Fulvia of the 'sixties, the coupe versions of which were gorgeous.
Lancia also made a flat-four well before Subaru, the Flavia.
The same engine was used in the Fiat era Gamma.
Alfa also had a liquid cooled flat four, used in the Alfasud.
Came real close to buying a 2.5 Flaminia convertible for 3.5K back in the early 'eighties. Shame I didn't.
The pre-Fiat Alfas and Lancias were pretty neat machines.
You could avoid the problem of needing 2 heads by building a 15 degree V4 the same way that the Volkswagen VR6 was built.
That in mind, the need isn't there, as a regular inline 4 fits well under the hood of a car.
If you built a 90 degree V-4, it would be awfully wide, and because of that it might not fit if installed transversely. Given that over 90% of new cars built have transverse engines, this is a huge problem.
Also, the expense of a V4 would be extreme nowadays because in order to competitively produce power, the engine would have to be DOHC and have VVT. That would mean 4 cams and 2 or 4 variable cam timing sprockets.
That in mind, the need isn't there, as a regular inline 4 fits well under the hood of a car.
If you built a 90 degree V-4, it would be awfully wide, and because of that it might not fit if installed transversely. Given that over 90% of new cars built have transverse engines, this is a huge problem.
Also, the expense of a V4 would be extreme nowadays because in order to competitively produce power, the engine would have to be DOHC and have VVT. That would mean 4 cams and 2 or 4 variable cam timing sprockets.
not just lancia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V4_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V4_engine
Originally Posted By: eljefino
chevette was rwd but had an inline 4 with overhead cam. They just invented OHC but wanted to keep it cheap so the things were always eating timing belts and sprockets. One could get a chevette with isuzu diesel too.
OHC was first used in the 1930's, Bugatti IIRC. That having been said the 1980's Chevette was one tough little car, almost bomb proof with Isuzu diesel. It's a shame GM replaced it with the Sprint.
chevette was rwd but had an inline 4 with overhead cam. They just invented OHC but wanted to keep it cheap so the things were always eating timing belts and sprockets. One could get a chevette with isuzu diesel too.
OHC was first used in the 1930's, Bugatti IIRC. That having been said the 1980's Chevette was one tough little car, almost bomb proof with Isuzu diesel. It's a shame GM replaced it with the Sprint.
Originally Posted By: Maritime Storm
Originally Posted By: eljefino
chevette was rwd but had an inline 4 with overhead cam. They just invented OHC but wanted to keep it cheap so the things were always eating timing belts and sprockets. One could get a chevette with isuzu diesel too.
OHC was first used in the 1930's, Bugatti IIRC. That having been said the 1980's Chevette was one tough little car, almost bomb proof with Isuzu diesel. It's a shame GM replaced it with the Sprint.
It was much earlier than that.
DOHC engines were used in 1913, I think the first single OHC was about 1903. These early engines had a shaft drive to the cam.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
chevette was rwd but had an inline 4 with overhead cam. They just invented OHC but wanted to keep it cheap so the things were always eating timing belts and sprockets. One could get a chevette with isuzu diesel too.
OHC was first used in the 1930's, Bugatti IIRC. That having been said the 1980's Chevette was one tough little car, almost bomb proof with Isuzu diesel. It's a shame GM replaced it with the Sprint.
It was much earlier than that.
DOHC engines were used in 1913, I think the first single OHC was about 1903. These early engines had a shaft drive to the cam.
Ford used them in Eu market for superior cooling characteristics. I remember many small cars wouldn't keep the pace on -then- new highways for long. Even coolant wouldn't overheat, after a while cylinders would expand and simply lose compression. A 140 kph car with a 1.5 liter engine, but not for long.
V blocks were superior for more evenly distributed thermal characteristics. We may assume that thermodynamic cycles were harder to analyse/itarate/foresee without todays sofware for a 60's engineer. Engineering were more testing than analysing, it was rather "cook and look". Also thermal/dimensional correction of the compression rings weren't as good. Ford brought the V designation to the smaller engines because of theese, whence the VWs boxer engines were still on the market. Today V blocks may not be as valuable but should have been a marvel for 60's to 80's.
V blocks were superior for more evenly distributed thermal characteristics. We may assume that thermodynamic cycles were harder to analyse/itarate/foresee without todays sofware for a 60's engineer. Engineering were more testing than analysing, it was rather "cook and look". Also thermal/dimensional correction of the compression rings weren't as good. Ford brought the V designation to the smaller engines because of theese, whence the VWs boxer engines were still on the market. Today V blocks may not be as valuable but should have been a marvel for 60's to 80's.
Originally Posted By: expat
It was much earlier than that.
DOHC engines were used in 1913, I think the first single OHC was about 1903. These early engines had a shaft drive to the cam.
Close, Peugeot had a DOHC GP car in 1912.
from The Grand Prix Car 1906-1939
It was much earlier than that.
DOHC engines were used in 1913, I think the first single OHC was about 1903. These early engines had a shaft drive to the cam.
Close, Peugeot had a DOHC GP car in 1912.
from The Grand Prix Car 1906-1939
Motorcycle engines in 4-wheel vehicles are only good for one thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xv76qiJFJg
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Too bad the audio was clipped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xv76qiJFJg
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Too bad the audio was clipped.
- Status
