I dont like the V shaped engine. IM going to take a stab at this scientifically but I might be wrong. My inference here is that the cylinders on a v shaped engine have gravitational force applied to them at the corner of the heads which causes them to "lay" up against the inside of the cylinder walls. Im going to assume maybe that the friction from this application is going to be greater than gravitational force down the shaft of the head to the connecting rod to the crank from an inline system. Maybe in that fact the force puts undue stress at the joints of the system which might incur unneeded wear to the system itself. So having an inline system would produce better horsepower and output than a V shaped engine. The other good thing about the vertical set up a of an inline system is that it doesnt only take the firing of the next cylinder to pull the last one down. Maybe even gravity has a hand in that scheme not noticable enough but present nevertheless. Im not a mechanical genius so I might be wrong about these things.

The only other thing im going to say is that if you put someone in a tube and had them hop on a trampoline they would go up without a problem and their descent would be more radical due to gravity. But if they were hopping at an angle (if that was even possible) their force of gravity would push them up against the tube walls on descent maybe even ascent but not as much so.

umm yeah okIve read something that the skyline the GTR version will be powered by either of the motors a V8(im guessing VH) or a VQ35dettThe nissan stagea wagon already uses other forms of the VQ turboand i think the VQ is a great engine and it puts out almost as much power as the RB26dett but without turbos but with increased displacement, but thats just means they raised the bar and you can maybe go even farther with the VQEither way im just happy to get somethingand also the skyline is also a family car check out the blitz r34 sedan

oh yeah i HIGHLY doubt that gravity helps an inline motor because all of the pistons are connected to the crankshaft and when one is going down another is going up, and yeah with the V block motors i guess gravity is pushing on one side but check out the porsche 3.6 Flat 6cyl and make crazy power so there's some way around it if it even makes a big diff

If the pistons were a centimeter smaller than the cylinder walls it might make a difference. The Problem with you logic is that There is very little room between piston ring and cylinder wall so what you are saying really has no effect on the way the engine works.

true

Dammit skwerel yo beat me to it.

JaY33s240Sx wrote:check this pic out that I came across....Skyline R35 Coupe...notice the Nissan Emblem in the front...

I thought I'd point out that the whithe V35 posted is a Top Secret car... Notice the LE Top Secret TE37s...

EZcheese15 wrote:Um...ok, I don't really follow you. But....

The Skyline has always had multiple trim levels. The GT-R just happens to be known as the killer sportscar trim level. It was produced up until 2002 with the R34 chassis. In 2003, the V35 chassis was introduced and the GT-R trim level was dropped. It is STILL a Skyline. Not a GT-R, but it is still a Skyline.

A new car, on the R35 chassis, is currently scheduled for release in 2006/2007. This car is not going to be called a Skyline, it's going to be called a GT-R. It will be unrelated to the current model Skyline.

Also, why on earth would they bring back the RB? You half to realize something from a Manufacturer's perspective...the RB is NOT perfect. The VQ gets much better emissions than the RB. I know you guys don't think that should matter in a sportscar, but it does. Emissions requirments are getting stricter throughout the world, and the RB is no longer considered an emissions-compliant engine. Much like the SR, which ceased production in 2002. Not to mention, on top of all this, Nissan has already announced the R35 to utilize the VQ35DETT engine.

I don't care how much people pray and wish for another RB powered GT-R, it's not going to happen. Also, I don't care how much people say the V35 Skyline is not a true Skyline. That's crap. The V35 is one of the most beautiful Skyline chassis ever designed, with very good power as well. 287 HP is nothing to complain about. Compare that to an R34 GTS-t. I personally think it *is* an improvement. You can't factor in GT-R trim levels at this point because there is no GT-R right now.

Some very excellent points here. I couldn't have said most of them better myself. A couple things though... The SR is still in production. It's current most form it is the SR16VE, SR20VE, and the SR20VET rated at 280HP. All are transverse though. 287HP is only 7HP more than an R34 GTS-T. The R34 had the NEO RB25DET with VVT rated at 280HP. Emmissions are the single reason the RB was killed off though...

GTR-33 wrote:Some very excellent points here. I couldn't have said most of them better myself. A couple things though... The SR is still in production. It's current most form it is the SR16VE, SR20VE, and the SR20VET rated at 280HP. All are transverse though. 287HP is only 7HP more than an R34 GTS-T. The R34 had the NEO RB25DET with VVT rated at 280HP. Emmissions are the single reason the RB was killed off though...

I thought the Xtrail and Pulsar and Primera (which I assume are the 3 vehicles you are referring to) now used VQ and QR blocks exclusively. But I'll take your word for it that they are still in production.

xxtrizz wrote:I dont like the V shaped engine. IM going to take a stab at this scientifically but I might be wrong. My inference here is that the cylinders on a v shaped engine have gravitational force applied to them at the corner of the heads which causes them to "lay" up against the inside of the cylinder walls. Im going to assume maybe that the friction from this application is going to be greater than gravitational force down the shaft of the head to the connecting rod to the crank from an inline system. Maybe in that fact the force puts undue stress at the joints of the system which might incur unneeded wear to the system itself. So having an inline system would produce better horsepower and output than a V shaped engine. The other good thing about the vertical set up a of an inline system is that it doesnt only take the firing of the next cylinder to pull the last one down. Maybe even gravity has a hand in that scheme not noticable enough but present nevertheless. Im not a mechanical genius so I might be wrong about these things.

The only other thing im going to say is that if you put someone in a tube and had them hop on a trampoline they would go up without a problem and their descent would be more radical due to gravity. But if they were hopping at an angle (if that was even possible) their force of gravity would push them up against the tube walls on descent maybe even ascent but not as much so.

Um...yeah...you take a stab, but you missed pretty bad.

First of all, if this was true, then nobody would buy a horizontally displaced engine, like a WRX or 911.

And the main reason why it's not ture....

It has nothing to do with the piston-to-cylinder wall clearance like a couple people mentioned either.

First of all, piston rings ride on oil. The oil takes up the clearance between the rings and the cylinder wall. Oil is not compressable. If you have a piston, with rings, then oil, then a cylinder wall, the pressure that the rings apply to the oil is the same around the entire circumference of the piston. So there would be no more pressure on one side than the other.

Second of all, gravity only attracts at 9.8 m/s^2, or 32 ft/s^2. A typical piston speed is about 3800 ft/s. At a 90 degree angle, such as in a horzontally displaced engine, with say, a 5" stroke, the piston would fall .0035" in one stroke. A 60 degree angle V-6 would only allow the piston to fall .0012" in one stroke. And keep in mind, this would only be if there was no oil between the rings and cylinder wall! Which, there is, so this whole calculation is bogus anyway.

Damn someone paid attention in classI dont know about the Primera and the Pulsar/SunnyBut i know the X-trail was supposed to be a brand new car i dont know if it actually came out or not but it was supposed to have the SR20VET in it

Sil240 wrote:Damn someone paid attention in classI dont know about the Primera and the Pulsar/SunnyBut i know the X-trail was supposed to be a brand new car i dont know if it actually came out or not but it was supposed to have the SR20VET in it

The X-trail has been out for a few years now, and yes, it does have the SR20VET, or atleast, did (not sure if and when they changed motors to something else).

Oil isnt compressable? Are you sure if so wow didnt know that one. My main reason for posting that was to be proven wrong that way I learn something. Its a good thing I put something in there about not knowing much about it.

Question then if you are that capable of correct this, why do they favor v6's or I6's over eachother? Which one would be a better engine performer?

No fluids are compressable. Or atleast, the compression ability is neglegible. Oil has a higher viscosity than most liquids, so is even less compressable. How do you think hydraulics work

Geek...

Bill gates is a geek

geeks eat chicken heads, Gates is a nerd.

to qoute Ogre "NEEERRRDDDDDSSSSSSS!!!!"

so what are the pros and cons of inline and V configurations, technical monkies:D?

I was talking to some mechanic about the switch from inline engines (in bmw's) to the larger V engines and he said its just as well since inline engines break cranks faster.

That is a bunch of bull crap. Inline 6 cranks break less than v12 and v16 cranks, which is almost never.

J-Spec Tuner wrote:That is a bunch of bull crap. Inline 6 cranks break less than v12 and v16 cranks, which is almost never.

Quick question how do you know this???Where did you find this out??What has a V16 in it??And thos v12's probably dont break cause if you have one you paid for it( as in you paid a SHyt load of $$$$) so its probably forged or something but then again it also has like 7 main caps and also those motors run alot smoother than inline motors because i think there are offsetting power strokes

Well the Bugatti has the W16 engine in it. Not sure if thats what he was talkin about though.

oh ok well how many bugatti's do you know of, and also how many bugatti's do you know that get beat on, and then again its a bugatti it costs a lotta $$$ so it probably is really diesel

..........anyway,

In response to the in-line or v configuration question: I asked the same thing a while ago when Toyota released the IS in America. Apparently an in-line six has a "quicker feel" to it than a V6 and tends to generate a broader torque curve.

My response to my own post is that it's bullsh!t. If you want to fatten the torque curve then remove weight from the flywheel or the crank pulley. And just what does "quicker feel" mean? Damn I must be an idiot. I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: Why would you even want a conventional piston engine? Granted that statement is hypocritical as I own several but think about it this way....... A lot of people like old muscle cars, but then there are people like me that feel that technology is the key to more power, not displacement. I always give my friend a hard time about his dinosaur technology-powered 67 Camero and he gives me a hard time about my rice-powered four cylinder but we both agree that something has to change.

Enter Mazda (again decades ago but bear with me). Why in the hell is anyone still using some ridiculus crank/rods/piston set-up when you could be using a rotor? Damn, all it has to do is spin! Multiple reciprocating masses? Get the hell out of here. Nissan, or any other company should just develop an even better rotorary then the newesr offering from Mazda.

I realize that this post is way off topic, but I'm curious to hear what people have to say on the subject.

yeah, but mazda owns the patent.

Alot of companies have tried to implement the rotory engine. Chevy experimented with a cast iron 3 and 4 rotor for the Corvette (C-111) in the 60s.

Sil240 wrote:Quick question how do you know this???Where did you find this out??What has a V16 in it??And thos v12's probably dont break cause if you have one you paid for it( as in you paid a SHyt load of $$$$) so its probably forged or something but then again it also has like 7 main caps and also those motors run alot smoother than inline motors because i think there are offsetting power strokes

-I know this because I have never once heard of someone braking a crank before a rod, piston, headgasket or any of the other 300 parts in a motor. And the fact that all of BMW's motors are naturally aspirated would prove that a switch from inline sixes to V8's would most definatly not be related to stresses on the crank.

-cadillac had a V16 back in the 30's and again just recently. A w16 is a v16 with staggard piston rows (still one crank with 16 rods hanging off of it).

-Inline 6 engines are harmonically balanced, and incredibly smooth, much more-so than a V-6 motor.

inline 6's are about the most perfectly balanced of all engine configureation, hence broader torque curve. but V engines are more compactable. Manufactures are not going to lighten flywheels because of driveablity issues, but what does that say for automatics? they dont have flywheels so there is nothing to lighten, so that killes that solution.

It is true that w/ technology comes power but you also need displacement to create power. Which is what the manufactures are realizing now. Even Honda is running a minimum of 2 litres now. (I dont know the size of the Insite though, prob a 1.3 but thats a Hybrid; different animal) All the manufacutres are, Nissan brought the 4.1 in the Q45 back to its original 4.5 and now just released that massive 5.6 in the Armoda/ Pick up.

I know everyone loves the RB powered GT-R but just look at the Z car... I never hear anyone saying that they miss the 240 Z. Or the old Celica Supra?! just the 300Z and MKIV. I think that the new Skyline is a great step in the right direction. Its funny reading how import peps are so pesimistic (sp) about new things to come. Hell all the GM guys welcomed the 346ci 5.7L LS1. Sure there are the LT1/LT4 faithfuls but none ever completely shame the All aluminum V8.

If anyone remembers the old 300 Z tt, Supra tt and RX7 tt were all under 280 hp per Japanese law limiting them to 275 hp. Then new 350 Z is what? 287hp, with out turbos? If you can make that kind of horse power w/ out forced induction your better off. Sure turbos are fun to play w/ and they make " cool phuuusteeerrr" noises between gears but Id rather not have to replace a major component to my engine every 60k miles or so.

And for everyone going to the Wenkel Rotory engine,,, Besides the fact that Mazada owned the patten, but just like a turbo they only have a running life of 60-70k miles. then the Bendix seal would give out which is like blowing all the compression rings out at the same time in a conventional piston engine. Boils down to driveablility. And warrentablilty.

Uh....yella...you mean apex seal

uuuuu, duhhh-hu... Must have brakes on my mind. its late

ya see you can learn a thing or two from magazine articles!! j/k