Why is there no production inline-8?
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 1,871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A million years ago, I saw an inline 8 on some big American car like a Packard (not sure). The owner said the engine was derived from a locomotive engine. He also said the engine was incredibly smooth compared to a V8. But it was a high-torque/low rpm engine.
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Upland, CA
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah the old straight-8 engines in the Packards and Duzenbergs produce very little horsepower but massive amounts of bottom end torque at very low rpms. Even if the inline 8 concept is applied to today's technology, it's very difficult to get it to run smoothly because the extra length of the crankshaft causes it to be less torsionally rigid at high rpms. The inline 6 is about the max you can do an inline configuration and still have it stable under high rpms as can be seen in the M3, Supra, and Skyline engines. Anything past 6 cylinders inline will not be able to reach high rpms that efficiently, however Cadillac has developed a V-16 which is essentially the length of an inline 8 so I guess it may be possible but very impractical seeing the lenth that the car would have to be.
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Rochester
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone remember the Ford T-drive concept? It was an engine/transimission concept from the early 90s that took a straight 8 and had the drivetrain connected to the middle of the crankshaft instead of the end. The engine was mounted transversly with the driveshaft coming straight back (hence the name T-drive). Really cool concept but it obviously didn't go anywhere, it was still pretty tough to fit it in a modern engine bay.
#15
yeah, as far as saving space, the i8 wouldnt work, as for the w8 and the w12 they were all based on the vr6 motor. the vr6 is not exactly a v the pistons are not alligned with one another, thus making the angle much more acute, and also saving space
#16
V configuration advantages:
Shorter block allows shorter body/hood
Torsional rigidity of block and crank is much higher
Slightly opposed cylinders cancel vibration
"tilted" cylinder banks take advantage of "downflow" intake
Shorter crank needs feewer main bearings to maintain low vibration at higher RPM.
Casting "square" block is easier than casting rectanagular block
Short engine is easily positioned to balance weight of car
Shorter block allows shorter body/hood
Torsional rigidity of block and crank is much higher
Slightly opposed cylinders cancel vibration
"tilted" cylinder banks take advantage of "downflow" intake
Shorter crank needs feewer main bearings to maintain low vibration at higher RPM.
Casting "square" block is easier than casting rectanagular block
Short engine is easily positioned to balance weight of car
#17
Registered User
Originally posted by Daveg27
Does anyone remember the Ford T-drive concept? It was an engine/transimission concept from the early 90s that took a straight 8 and had the drivetrain connected to the middle of the crankshaft instead of the end. The engine was mounted transversly with the driveshaft coming straight back (hence the name T-drive). Really cool concept but it obviously didn't go anywhere, it was still pretty tough to fit it in a modern engine bay.
Does anyone remember the Ford T-drive concept? It was an engine/transimission concept from the early 90s that took a straight 8 and had the drivetrain connected to the middle of the crankshaft instead of the end. The engine was mounted transversly with the driveshaft coming straight back (hence the name T-drive). Really cool concept but it obviously didn't go anywhere, it was still pretty tough to fit it in a modern engine bay.
http://www.fast-autos.net/cizeta/cizetamoroder.html
http://www.giorgiomorodergallery.com/morod...der/cizeta.html
Steve
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post