No more inline-6 turbos from Japan?
08-28-2002, 03:16 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Alhambra
Posts: 953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No more inline-6 turbos from Japan?
After reading mototrend's prediction on the upcoming Nissan GT-R and
Toyota Supra....
Nissan will either put a turbo version of 350z's VQ v6 or a V8...
Toyota will either put a bored out version of ES300's V6 or a V8...
What happened to the turbo inline 6's??
Toyota Supra....
Nissan will either put a turbo version of 350z's VQ v6 or a V8...
Toyota will either put a bored out version of ES300's V6 or a V8...
What happened to the turbo inline 6's??
08-28-2002, 03:58 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dana Point, CA
Posts: 4,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, the I6 seems to be going the way of the do do bird.
MB ditched that configuration a few years back in favor of a V6. Toyota/Lexus seems to be following suit and Nissan is clearly committed to the V6.
That really only leaves BMW.
I believe these manufacturers are going to the V config. for a number of reasons but mostly it has to due with space limitations. An I6 simply eats up too much space in the engine bay (front to back) that compromises aerodynamics, styling, crash worthiness, and cabin space.
Personally, I love the smooth power and beautiful note of a good I6 and I'd be more than happy to give up an inch of rear leg room for that over a V6 (unless it's as good a V6 as Nissan's is).
MB ditched that configuration a few years back in favor of a V6. Toyota/Lexus seems to be following suit and Nissan is clearly committed to the V6.
That really only leaves BMW.
I believe these manufacturers are going to the V config. for a number of reasons but mostly it has to due with space limitations. An I6 simply eats up too much space in the engine bay (front to back) that compromises aerodynamics, styling, crash worthiness, and cabin space.
Personally, I love the smooth power and beautiful note of a good I6 and I'd be more than happy to give up an inch of rear leg room for that over a V6 (unless it's as good a V6 as Nissan's is).
08-30-2002, 06:11 AM
#4
RWD got a bad rap in the 70s and 80s because Detroit couldn't build a RWD car that didn't have 65% of the weight on the front axle, so people equated RWD with not being drivable in the winter, and having bad handling due to the light rear ends. I've had the FWD vs RWD discussion with people before, and assuming a car is somewhere near 50/50, the RWD car platform is better in every way, yet people still say "it'll get stuck in the snow". I usually refer them to Xviper's posts now 
Packaging is still a concern of course, but for performance, RWD is the only way to go and worth making some of the concessions to space.
I'm not sure about the I6 though. They're the perfect engine, harmonically balanced in all directions, no balance shafts required. This is part of the reason the engines in the GTR and Supra are able to make so much power - the engine doesn't shake itself apart when you put gobs of boost into it. But the engines are long and narrow, which is a bad combination for packaging things under the hood. The only hope I see for them staying around is 42V electrical systems, because most of the accessories can be moved to the side of the engine rather than be mounted on the front.
Packaging is still a concern of course, but for performance, RWD is the only way to go and worth making some of the concessions to space.
I'm not sure about the I6 though. They're the perfect engine, harmonically balanced in all directions, no balance shafts required. This is part of the reason the engines in the GTR and Supra are able to make so much power - the engine doesn't shake itself apart when you put gobs of boost into it. But the engines are long and narrow, which is a bad combination for packaging things under the hood. The only hope I see for them staying around is 42V electrical systems, because most of the accessories can be moved to the side of the engine rather than be mounted on the front.
08-30-2002, 07:50 AM
#6
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, unfortunately it looks like the V6 is replacing the I-6 as the engine of choice.
The upcoming GTR will use a twin turbo VQ engine, which most probably won't be able to make the big hp numbers that the old RB used to do. Probably not much more than 600-700hp out of the new GTR. Nismo is working with Nissan to make sure it's a very tunable motor though.
The upcoming GTR will use a twin turbo VQ engine, which most probably won't be able to make the big hp numbers that the old RB used to do. Probably not much more than 600-700hp out of the new GTR. Nismo is working with Nissan to make sure it's a very tunable motor though.
08-30-2002, 10:45 AM
#7
Registered User
aren't V12 also completely balanced in all ways also?
V12's also have smaller displacement in each cylindar for the same overall displacement which makes them more efficent. everyone should just make v12s!!
V12's also have smaller displacement in each cylindar for the same overall displacement which makes them more efficent. everyone should just make v12s!!
Trending Topics
08-30-2002, 12:12 PM
#9
Registered User
Originally posted by S2000typeR
no need for V12s when you could have W18s!
no need for V12s when you could have W18s!
a nice running V12 is soooo smooth!!
08-30-2002, 09:14 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aren't V12 also completely balanced in all ways also?
V12's also have smaller displacement in each cylindar for the same overall displacement which makes them more efficent. everyone should just make v12s!!