Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:42:38 +0000 From: Colin Stamp <col.dustbinnospamp.plus.com> Subject: Re: new saab motor for 9-3 series
On 15 Feb 2005 16:42:38 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> wrote: >On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:23:21 +0000, Colin Stamp <col.dustbinnospamp.plus.com> wrote: >> OK, I'll bite... >> >> >> On 14 Feb 2005 21:05:59 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> wrote: >>> >>>The V6 is an inherently unbalanced design for an engine, >> >> Not sure about unbalanced. A six will always be smoother than a four >> pushing out the same power - smaller bangs and more of them. > >At any given TDC, three pistons will be at the top. Two will be on >one side, and a half-revolution of the crank later, they'll be on the >other side. Vastly oversimplified, but it's a dynamic load on the >engine that doesn't exist in a V4, V8, or an I-anything. I see what you mean about straight 6 vs. V6, but I thought we were comparing the current four-pot against the new V6. Any six will still be better than a four, and as the power goes up the difference gets more marked. Up at 250BHP, a four is going to be getting decidedly harsh. Saab does play the luxury card, after-all. > >>>and adds >>>complexity and fuel consumption for little to no benefit. > >> I'd always seen increasing the cylinder count as a perfectly sensible >> way of increasing the displacement whilst keeping the cylinders >> reasonably small. Going from straight to V does add a lot of >> components though. There's plenty of straight sixes about, but they're >> a bit long for most applications. > >I don't have any complaints or concerns about an I6. You would if you tried to fit it transversely in a 9-3. It might go in a Humvee, but I pray I never see a Saab wide enough for a sideways straight 6! Now, if the 9-3 were RWD... Hmmm, that would be a nice car... > >>>The only >>>people who care about a V6 are those who want to count pistons >>>instead of learning about why engine management and control is more >>>important than the number of spark plugs you have. >> >> Steady. I was quite fond of my V6 Alfa... > >Well, not to dis the Alfa, but... I'm not going there! Mine worked fine though. > >>>In other words - the only people who want a V6, are those who >>>don't know enough to know it's a step backwards. >> >> If you want an engine over about 2.5 litres, your four-pot options are >> virtually non-existant. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't have >> anything to do with the number of pistons. It's all about the age-old >> displacement vs. turbo debate... > >Well, sure, but if you want 6 pistons, arranging them in a V is a >poor choice. I don't know of any V6 engine that has the reputation >for longevity that, for instance, the Saab I-4 2.0 engine does. It's a compromise, like everything else, but it's worth it as the power goes up, if you want refinement. Straight sixes just aren't an option in a 9-3, so if you want 6, it has to be a V6. Cheers, Colin.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
