v6 vs straight 6

[mb240]

From my very limited understanding on this, the inline engine is inherently correctly balanced, whereas the V6 requires extra 'weights' (or whatever!) to give the engine the correct balance. If you're into engine theory, this might be a big deal, I dont know.

MB used to use the Inline 6, but switched to the V6 at the end of the 90's. The new engine gave supposedly better fuel consumption and was lighter and smaller. So it left more space under the bonnet for crumple zones. I think the equivalent V6 had slightly less BHP than the I6 it replaced.

I'm sure someone can correct me and fill us in on the details....!

Actually I think it has around 8 BHP more (my E240 is the V6 from 1998, with 184BHP I think, the I6 from before had 176 BHP or something like that).

 

[SeanO]

Regarding the 240V6, I wasn't aware that it replaced any inline 6. It replaced the 230 4cy I thought.
Regarding the inline-320 v. the V6-320. The Bhp difference is small (about 10), but I think that the inline lost some more power before it's demise, due again to emmisions. MB could not get that engine 'Clean' enough. 240, 320 v6es + plus the v8es are all 112 series engines. The 320v6 was introduced at the start of the CLK (i think). Was put in SL in mid 98.

I have one, and like it. Had a 300CE before that.

Pascal

 

[grober]

Land Crab 2200

"So why use V engines? Although twice as much camshafts are needed, the higher friction, the lack of smoothness and the higher production cost, the V6 uses much less space, which helps saving costs in other places and allows front wheel drive (which saves further costs)."

Just out of interest, given that the above actually says use of a V6 "allows" fwd, are there are I-6 fwd cars out there?

If my memory serves correct the late lamented BMC put out a version of their FWD Morris 1800 "land crab" with a 2200 cc straight six mounted transversely called it the Morris 2200 surprisingly enough. Probably topped by Lancia shoehorning a transverse ferrari v8 with FWD into the front of their THEMA 8.32 Model YES REALLY!!

 

[Aswall]

Actually I think it has around 8 BHP more (my E240 is the V6 from 1998, with 184BHP I think, the I6 from before had 176 BHP or something like that).

The 240 V6 is 170bhp rather than 184bhp

 

[SeanO]

The 240 V6 is 170bhp rather than 184bhp

Yes Awell, that's correct.

But what is this inline-6 that yee say it replaced. The only inline-6 I know of that was anynear that size was the old 260 which was discontinued in 93.

The E240V6 substituted the E230-4 around 97/98 as far as I remember, on the W210. The E320 inline-6 was replaced with the E320 V6 (the 112 series modular engine).

Am I missing something here?

Pascal

 

[tim.100]

If my memory serves correct the late lamented BMC put out a version of their FWD Morris 1800 "land crab" with a 2200 cc straight six mounted transversely called it the Morris 2200 surprisingly enough. Probably topped by Lancia shoehorning a transverse ferrari v8 with FWD into the front of their THEMA 8.32 Model YES REALLY!!

In 1993, I drove a new Cadillac with a transverse V8, FWD. It was suprisingly effective.

 

[PJH]

If my memory serves correct the late lamented BMC put out a version of their FWD Morris 1800 "land crab" with a 2200 cc straight six mounted transversely called it the Morris 2200 surprisingly enough.

And there was the Austin 3 litre, but that was a North/South engine and rear wheel drive.
http://www.motorbase.com/vehicle/by-id/298/
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado61storyf.htm

No more scarey memories please....

 

[glojo]

I reckon all those that have sited 'space' as being the prime reason are hitting the nail on the head.

The in line 320CDI will not fit into the ML so the 'longest' engine was the 270CDI. This is an in-line 5 cylinder engine compared to the 4 cylinder V8's that are offered. Then with the E-class the 4Matic has not been offered with the 320CDI yet has been available with the 320 V6 petrol. (Only in LHD format).

Regards,
John

 

[anarchy-inc]

I reckon all those that have sited 'space' as being the prime reason are hitting the nail on the head.

Totally agree there. The inline-6 in my old 280SE was absolutley HUGE. As for servicing, I can't see how an inline is any easier. Ever tried changing the spark plugs on an inline-6?

 

[glojo]

Totally agree there. The inline-6 in my old 280SE was absolutley HUGE. As for servicing, I can't see how an inline is any easier. Ever tried changing the spark plugs on an inline-6?

It would certainly be a challenge on my inline-6 Diesel

Sorry about that. I do understand what you are saying. My silly sense of humour insisted on that silly comment.

Kind regards,
John

 

[Copiertech]

the austin princesses had a transverse I6 as well

 

[Brian WH]

I reckon all those that have sited 'space' as being the prime reason are hitting the nail on the head.

The in line 320CDI will not fit into the ML so the 'longest' engine was the 270CDI. This is an in-line 5 cylinder engine compared to the 4 cylinder V8's that are offered. Then with the E-class the 4Matic has not been offered with the 320CDI yet has been available with the 320 V6 petrol. (Only in LHD format).

Regards,
John

I had to wait 6 months for the E Class to be adapted to fit the larger 320 CDI engine into the W211. Its tight as my signature picture shows.

This is why they are now going for V engines as it gives them more space to play with, the engine compartment is easier to work in and the designers have more scope for changes.

 

[Aswall]

Yes Aswall, that's correct.

But what is this inline-6 that you say it replaced. The only inline-6 I know of that was anywhere near that size was the old 260 which was discontinued in 93.

The E240V6 substituted the E230-4 around 97/98 as far as I remember, on the W210. The E320 inline-6 was replaced with the E320 V6 (the 112 series modular engine).

Am I missing something here?

Pascal

Wasn't me mate, haven't a clue what old Mercs had in them

 

[mobeyone]

how interesting!!
Now, as the amgs are a v8 kompressor, was there ever a straight 6,8 kompressor for high end performance? or woudl this be a eco disaster

Have i made sense?

 

[pentoman]

Interestingly enough, BMW's new 3.0 255bhp straight six in the 330i, 630i, 730i and probably soon 530i is claimed to be the lightest production six cylinder engine available. That's an impressive claim, especially as I-6's are usually heavier than V6's.

Impressive, and puts a slight dampener on enthusiasm for the new Mercedes 3.5 24-valve engine, competent though that is.



The I-6 in the current M3, however, is a cast iron unit that is very heavy (not far off a V8).


Russ

 

[mercs600]

I have had various 'sixes' over the years - MB's,BMW's,Ford's,Vauxhalls etc - in my experience there has been no different in power or 'smoothness' - only in reliability!All the V6's have had to have engine strip downs for various reasons whilst the inlines were absolutely bullet proof! I may be mistaken but I would prefer an inline over a 'V' anyday!I wonder if MB are going to go back to inlines just as they are dropping the 3 valve cylinder heads and reverting back to 4 valves?

 

[calum]

Ever tried changing the spark plugs on an inline-6?

We had to remove the head on my old Jag XJ6C (I-6), the day before a driving holiday to France, because I stupidly snapped off a spark plug

Nice engines, those...

 

[SeanO]

Aswell, I was just ageeing with your figures.

It was the statement RE. 'inline-6 being replaced by V6-240', made by MB240 that has lost me.

 

[JimMac]

V6 to I6

I am a simple person, V6's are ideal for short wide installations and straights for long narrow.

Tractors have straight sixes because they need long and narrow. Dozers can have v's because they tend to be wide. Cars can have either dependent on widths between strut turrets etc and v angle be it 60 or 90.

Multiples of three are inherently smooth with lots of stuff to do with crankshaft harmonics etc, torsional vibration dampers and all sorts of other lovely stuff. Above V12 the harmonics etc stop being sutch an issue so V16 engines dont have balancer shafts but will have weighted timing gears etc.

W engines haven't been discussed yet, but they are creeping into the luxury sector. perhaps merc will go the whole hog and fit a radial lump.

But I love merc's V6 it is smooth when needed but sounds great above and beyond 4000 as did my previous bmw with its straight six. Three cylinder corsa's etc also sound nice when thrashed. Four cylinders are fine if they have balancer shafts but the majority of car manufacturers don't bother. Whereas Merc and most commercial diesel firms do. Its not just for a smooth drive but also to extend durability, reducing low hour fatigue issues, less complex engine mounts required etc.

Its all lovely stuff. What a great thread.

JimMac. frustrated ex plant mechanic.

 

[peterchurch]

I have had various 'sixes' over the years - MB's,BMW's,Ford's,Vauxhalls etc - in my experience there has been no different in power or 'smoothness' - only in reliability!All the V6's have had to have engine strip downs for various reasons whilst the inlines were absolutely bullet proof! I may be mistaken but I would prefer an inline over a 'V' anyday!I wonder if MB are going to go back to inlines just as they are dropping the 3 valve cylinder heads and reverting back to 4 valves?

The only way you could do really say this for sure isto drive the _same_ car with a V and an I engine then comapre the two for their finer points...

The MB 320 I6 was notorious for blowing head gasgets, but were nice to work on. But I can also state that for the 320 I6 vs the 320 v6 is a world of difference as the I6 with its more power had a flat spot in the middle of the acceleration range. While the V6 (less power by 10 hp) is smooth and constant all the way, but then again it is 50KG or more lighter than the I6 so whats faster, +10HP or -50Kg ???