Talk:V6 engine

message: Much of the text describing the technical details make sure to point out how the design is inferior to I6 or V8 layouts. Many, many qualifying weasel words like 'most of the vibration' 'some harshness' 'not as much as a I6' and to an automotive layman would give the impression that any v6 is a bad design. More time should be spent indicating that most modern designs have a achieved perfectly acceptable smoothness and performance despite what technical theory tells us.
V6 is the second most used configuration, after I4.
At the end of it all it makes the article sound biased against them.
:Well, the V6 has an inherent secondary unbalance that cannot be gotten rid of. The older designs would vibrate the fillings out of your teeth if you were foolish enough to buy them. With computers and CAD software, designers have reduced it to much more reasonable levels although it will never achieve the turbine-like high-RPM smoothness of BMW and Mercedes I6's and V8's. In the old days the I6 and V8 engines were the only way to go - I remember a guy at an antique show balancing a nickle on edge on the exhaust manifold of an antique inline 6 while it was idling. It never fell over. That engine was in total balance.
:A modern V6 is much more compact than an I6 or V8 and that is why manufacturers put them in non-luxury cars. As a substitute for the I4, the V6 has a lower secondary imbalance, especially at large displacements. However, the Mercedes V6 will never achieve the smoothness of the Mercedes V8 or the BMW I6. You pays your money and you takes your choice. If you're filthy rich it might not be your first choice, but otherwise otherwise.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone can egg on User talk:Yiba to go over the whole page I'm sure many issues can be addressed/corrected.  The user re wrote the entire Engine balance.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure he's 100% correct about some things. He refers to the I3 as being in secondary balance (although primary imbalance), but then talks about the I6, which is essentially two I3's connected end-to-end, as not being in secondary balance. That would be wrong. The I3 has an end-to-end rocking motion, but if you connect two together, it translates into a bending motion, which is defeated by having a sufficiently strong engine block. All that means is that an I6 needs a stiff engine block to defeat the primary and secondary vibrations. It just costs a bit more metal and more money. Also, he talks about the I6 needing a smaller bore and longer stroke to fit in engine compartments. That is why it is only used in luxury cars and trucks these days - they have longer engine compartments than compact cars. Many truck I6s have long strokes, but that is just because they CAN have long strokes. You can scale them up to the size of diesel locomotive and ship engines without incurring vibration problems. It just makes the engine compartment taller - no big deal in a truck, locomotive, or ship.
Technically unbalanced, but commercially extremely successful, moreso in 2014 than many more inherently balanced designs. If we are going to mention flaws of the v6 compared to I6 and v8 designs it should be noted in this article more strongly that the others have drawbacks that the v6 does better at like lack of low rev torque of an I6 and cost and size penalties of V8s. There was a time the v8 was considered inferior to all straight designs from a smoothness standpoint.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.167.79 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

text: You seem to think the article is denigrating the V6, which has both benefits and liabilities in automobile use. It's just trying to put it in perspective. Of course the V6 is commercially successful in this age of high fuel prices and financially strapped consumers. It is smoother in large displacements than the I4 - which develops a really nasty vibration in large sizes. It is half the length of the I6, which is too long for most engine compartments. The 60° V6 is both shorter and narrower than the 90° V8 while having better fuel economy and lower manufacturing cost. Being nearly a perfect cube, it fits longitudinally and transversely in most engine compartments that will accept an I4, while having better fuel economy than a V8, which needs an oversize engine compartment. The point of the article is that it is adequately smooth for the average consumer, but not perfectly smooth. Those who are willing to pay extra for a perfectly smooth engine will want an I6, which has comparable fuel economy but better smoothness, which is why people buy BMW sixes, and those who don't care about fuel costs but want power will go for a V8. That is why Cadillacs always had V8s for generations. Those for whom money means nothing could buy a V12, which is the ultimate in smoothness and power, but also the ultimate in cost and fuel consumption. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

text: This article does suffer from multiple edits from authors who didn't understand the issues with balancing the V6, particularly those who thought that the 120° V6 should be in perfect balance, whereas in reality it suffers from serious imbalances and vibration. I'm thinking of copying and pasting the text I put above into the header, since it seems understandable to the layman, and then deleting anything that is factually wrong or redundant, getting rid of a lot of bafflegab. The people who put in the erroneous and/or redundant information will no doubt be upset that their pet theories (see WP:NOR) have been blown away, but I think I might do it anyway.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too negative? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on V6 engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024164433/http://www.rotax.com/en/Media.Center/Press.Releases/1/20061114.htm to http://www.rotax.com/en/Media.Center/Press.Releases/1/20061114.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see this article is Globalize tagged since 2015. I can't see any particular geographic imbalance issues now, so unless someone objects, I'll remove the tag... --Arny (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic (im)balance?