Retro-Renault Archive Forum Index  
SEARCH THE ARCHIVE FORUMS  •  Log in
Hello, you are currently browsing to Retro-Renault Archive which is a copy of our old forum. You cannot post replies in this forum. Please click here to go to the active website. 
 Engine Design Philosophy
Author Message
Gentle Ben
Site Subscriber

Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 2281

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:49 pm

Right, this has been puzzling me for a while. I'm sure I've mentioned it before but a mate o' mine gets around in a 2.3 V5 Mark 4 VW Golf.

Reading about the engine on Wikipedia, it says that the V5 engine (or VR5 I should say) is derived it's earlier VR6 engine used in the Mark 3 and is the first 5-cylinder Vee to be used in a car.

Question is - why would you go to the hassle of removing a cylinder? I can see a number of problems with this before you even start:

A) Cost, any newly designed engine regardless of whether it's derived from an existing engine, is going to cost money. It is inherent when you consider that this adaptation of the engine will require new top and bottom end castings, not to mention the adaptations to the cam and crankshafts that will have to be made.

B) On a V-engine that has odd numbers of cylinders, surely there's going to be issues with imbalance in the crankshaft and the rest of the drivetrain, it certainly can't be a very refined unit. Furthermore all these problems will necessitate further spending on...

C) Designing a properly balanced cranktrain, uprated engine mounts and completely new management to run it.

D) The benefits.... what exactly are they? Surely it can't be a space saving measure since you'll have a 3-cylinder bank that's full length anyway? You'll lose power and space in the engine can't have been a problem for the Mark 4 since there's the 4Motion and R32 variants which use a V6 lump. It's not like it even fills a niche either, if you can't afford the 4M or the R32 you've still got the 1.8T-engined Golfs.

Basically, I can't see what the point is. It's pointless extravagance on the part of a big car manufacturer unless someone would care to enlighten me onto a suitable good reason as to why VW might have designed a V5 engine!
Chris H
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:03 pm

less space main reason and a quirky design feature to gather interest.

Also the more cylinders you have for a certyain capacity things go better except fuel economy.

eg, 2 litre 4 pot or a 2 litre 5 pot, the 5 pot will make more power
Chris H
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:04 pm

also audi and volvo have used straight 5's for a long time, especially audi
Neal
Forum Moderator

Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 7432

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:44 pm

my dad's fiat marea has the 2.4 version of the VAG straight 5. Sounds cool!

On the balancing point, straight 4s can only ever be crap in terms of secondary balance anyway. That's why Lancia and Mitsubishi etc. have employed counter rotating balanacer shafts in the past.

I'd be interested to know the firing order etc of the 5 cylinder engines though.
Chris H
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:24 pm

1-3-5-4-2 generally fires every 144 degrees opposed to the 4 pots every 180.

Balancer shafts have been used on many cars for a long long time.

straight 6's and derivitives of that i.e, V12, w 24's etc are perfectly balanced.

only 4 pots to be primary and secondary balanced are flat fours
Gentle Ben
Site Subscriber

Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 2281

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:33 pm

Now that's funny because I thought inline 4-cylinder engines would have been better balanced than any V-engine purely down to the fact that the cylinders are inline and you don't have pistons moving at angles to one another to compensate for?

Also, if a 4-cylinder is poorly balanced, is a derivative like a V8 less, equally, or more refined?

I find engine configurations quite interesting, spent a few hours tonight just looking at various configurations, loads more designs other than the straight, vee and flat configurations I thought there were.

I think the radial design is quite clever:

[IMG:280:233:f3339d7b5c]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Radial_engine.gif[/img:f3339d7b5c]

I'm also intrigued by X-engine configurations (like flat engine configuration but uses two horizontally opposed V-engines in preference to the conventional two horizontally opposed inline engines)
Chris H
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:48 am

V12's are fine becuase they are generally around 60 degrees and its again the fact its 2 straight sixes sharing a crank.

V8's vary, all depends on firing order and if its got a flat plane crank etc.

You not seen the rotary engine? Its a radial engine, the prop is bolted to the engine and the crank is bolted to the plane, the whiole engine and prop spin.
Neal
Forum Moderator

Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 7432

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:00 am

In the model aircraft world there are a few 'wacky' designs too..

migrating combustion chamber engine

http://www.ericksonmotors.com/mccsim.htm

rotating cylinder valve engine, the piston actually reciprocates along the axis of rotation, obviously only ever a single cylinder setup.

http://www.hobbycentre.com.au/RCVENG07.html
Chris H
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:06 am

this page has an animation of a rotary engine going

http://www.century-of-flight.net/new%20site/frames/rotary%20engines_frame.htm
bbracer16valver
Retroholic

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 3315

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:35 am

bunch of wankels Laughing
Chris H
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:39 am

erm no engine discussed so far in this thread is a wankel engine
bbracer16valver
Retroholic

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 3315

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:40 am

rotarys are wankels
Neal
Forum Moderator

Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 7432

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:47 am

radial rotary engine... not a wankel rotary
bbracer16valver
Retroholic

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 3315

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:49 am

whats the difference?? wankels are a sweet design just no1 wants to play with them!
tominbristol
Level 9 User

Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 412

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:00 am

I was looking at an engine the other day in a museum near me which had a 'wobble plate'. It was basically 10 or 12 cylinders arranged in a circle all pointing upwards. they fired in turn (1,2,3,4...10) and were connected to a circular plate. as the pistons worked their way around the edge of this plate they would make it wobble! this was converted into rotary motion for a crankshaft.

Quite efficient if ir remember correctly
Neal
Forum Moderator

Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 7432

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:18 am

yeah ive seen cgi animations of that, very odd
bbracer16valver
Retroholic

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 3315

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:24 am

[img:491:491:4769716b8d]http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/9798/wankeldz8.gif[/img:4769716b8d]

i found this here http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html

love the design
Chris H
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:35 am

again no one has mentioned anything about wankels apart from you BB
bbracer16valver
Retroholic

Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 3315

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:40 am

yea i no but there the best
Gentle Ben
Site Subscriber

Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 2281

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:43 am

bbracer16valver";p="108500 wrote:
whats the difference?? wankels are a sweet design just no1 wants to play with them!


Only Mazda use them in the RX-8 at the minute.

Despite their relative simplicity and use of less parts by comparison to a conventional piston engine, there's a number of issues with a Wankel, the main one is to do with poor internal sealing due to the expansion/contraction properties of the metal housings.

They also do not completely combust the fuel which leads to emission problems. Mazda solved this by enriching the fuel/air mixture which favours complete combustion but at the expense of fuel economy.

There are also additional stresses placed on a Wankel rotary due to the combustion always taking place in the same part of the engine without the cooling effect of the intake charge that you get on a piston engine. The result is one side of the rotary becoming superheated while the other is supercooled (probably not the best terms to use but you get my drift)
Chris H
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 19978

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:54 am

rotaries are nowhere near as good as conventional reciprocating piston engines.

Theres no torque power bands poor.

Sure they are nice to drive and the issues are blown way out of proportion, but they are not that great, I have worked on abnd rebuilt a good few in my time.
Display posts from previous:      


 Jump to:   




SPIDER ARCHIVE
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group :: FI Theme :: All times are GMT - 7 Hours
ScriptWiz.com phpbb HTML Archiver - Created by ScriptWiz.com and released by Skinz.org