User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 1:34:57 PM EDT
[#1]
News to me ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 1:39:35 PM EDT
[#2]
All I know it was refined from baja racing truck engines, never drove one though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 1:40:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Their inline 6 is a very good motor.
275 hp, torquey, smooth |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 1:42:10 PM EDT
[#4]
Me too, but Volvo's been using an inline 5 for many years - and it's a great engine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 1:43:36 PM EDT
[#5]
I drove one in a rental Chevy Colorado. It seemed to have plenty of power for general driving. If I remember correctly, it had a different sound and a slightly lumpy idle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 1:43:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Most reviews of the I-5 engine say it's short on power compared to what the competition offers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 1:46:41 PM EDT
[#7]
I have a GREAT 5 cylinder in my new Volvo S40.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 2:50:05 PM EDT
[#8]
The Colorado is on my list as one of the trucks to check out next year. I do not hear much about it.Maybe I should hold out another year and look at the new ford 1/2 ton diesel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 2:52:14 PM EDT
[#9]
Its the I6 minus one cylinder.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 2:56:49 PM EDT
[#10]
Didn't Audi or BMW use a L5 also? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 2:58:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Audi had used an I 5 for many years. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:00:49 PM EDT
[#12]
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 or 16.
a five-holer? not as long as i live! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:04:19 PM EDT
[#13]
What's wrong with a 5 holer?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:04:27 PM EDT
[#14]
+1 on the Volvo....oh it isn't a Volvo thread....  MT |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:07:15 PM EDT
[#15]
An inline 5 wouldn't be bad, just slightly 'off' from a USA standpoint (too Euro). Not sure why GM would make one though. I could see Ford or Chrysler doing one since they have V10 engines in production & a 5 cyl would be just 1/2 a V10. Stood upright though, I don't forsee a slant 5 like the old Leaning Tower Of Power /6 Mopar or the oddball /4 Pontiac (1/2 of a 389 V8 I believe). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:11:48 PM EDT
[#16]
It's only half of a V10 that's the problem. Now a flat 10, that would be neat! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:13:18 PM EDT
[#17]
Acura Vigor was an inline 5. Good car but expensive to maintain due to so few sold.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:13:43 PM EDT
[#18]
inherantly out of balance....and weird for the sake of being weird. cram it full of counterweights and balance shafts and it's almost as smooth as a 90° 6-holer.
anything you can do with a five you can do with a big four or small six. remember brm's h-16 or auto-unions w-16? no? oh well. i'll soon forget folks were dumb enough to build a i-5. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:13:50 PM EDT
[#19]
So, by that logic, an inline 6 has to suck as it is only half of a V12... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:21:53 PM EDT
[#20]
here's a flat 12 for ya...porsche 917/30 with 1100 hp...more if you're willing to get a pilots license.
 238 mph and no wimpy balance shafts required. the typically brittish overengineered solution to life...the brm h-16. 405 hp. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:32:39 PM EDT
[#21]
More like it's only half of a Flat 12 and it's 90 degrees off.   240 D Inline 5 cylinder. Blech! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:41:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Well, I guess you are right, lots of BLEH for inline 5s...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:57:36 PM EDT
[#23]
that's what I have in my Trailblazer
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 3:59:58 PM EDT
[#24]
that Audi Quattro & Porsche 917 are two classics 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:00:11 PM EDT
[#25]
i remember the audi i-5. at least the street version they sold in the states in the audi 80 (early '90's?).
it was an oil leaking vibrator. and not a very good one, at that. what was it? like 125 hp or something like that? a horrible little motor in a horrible car (the nondescript 80 model) that rattled and rusted apart...at least as i remember it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:02:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Damnit, you got me, I was looking for a Touring Car Inline 5, and I was looking for a BMW, but it looks like they used 4s. I knew there had to be at least one neat I5 somewhere! How about a V5?  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:06:00 PM EDT
[#27]
A buddy at work had one of the Volvo models with a turbocharged I5. Quick little car. I think it would be a decent compromise, and might work better in some chassis. A little more than a 4 banger but better fuel efficiency than a V6? That's what I'd gather out of it... more torque due to more cylinders doing the work...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:06:03 PM EDT
[#28]
BMW uses inline 6s, which are incredibly smooth. Chrysler and Cummins I 6s are like riding around sitting on a vibrator. Now that I think of it, I do see lots of girls driving Jeeps
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:13:45 PM EDT
[#29]
F the euroes, I will take a V-8.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:20:06 PM EDT
[#30]
How do they manage to get 2.5 pistons per cylinder bank??   I knew some bike/ATV makers had used V3 engines but not a V5.Weirdest engine config I can think of would be the Chrysler Multibank "W"30 cyl used in some Sherman tanks. 5 i6 flathead Chrysler car engines on a common crankcase. mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/ChryslerMultiBank.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:24:01 PM EDT
[#31]
The last time GM bought a foreign engine was from Porshe for the Corvair in the early 60s. Of course GM tweaked it a bit here and there and did a major FUBAR. In the course of the tweaking created a monster that leaked oil and a sundry of other problems. GM's track record speaks for itself. I personally wouldn't buy one until after 2 or 3 years of production so GM can iron out all of the bugs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:26:11 PM EDT
[#32]
Front bank 3 cylinders Rear bank 5 Cylinders 240+hp |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:30:30 PM EDT
[#33]
That's a funny way to make a V8  Just mess'n with ya. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:34:10 PM EDT
[#34]
The last time GM bought a foreign engine was from Porshe for the Corvair in the early 60s.
what?! huh??? i owned several corvairs and none of them said "porsche" on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 4:44:39 PM EDT
[#35]
unless i'm in left field and thinking of the wrong tank engine entirely, the chrysler tank engines were not 'w' engines and neither did they have a common crank.
they were more akin to a 30 cylinder, 6-row, radial engine with multiple cranks that were geared together. autos.canada.com/saskatoon/editorial/story.html?id=26466497-6180-46C9-9FA1-CC75D146565B Called the Chrysler multi-bank tank engine, it was constructed by mounting five Chrysler car engines on one big, common crankcase. Each six-cylinder, side-valve engine had a bore and stroke of 87.3 millimetres by 114.3 mm, yielding a displacement of 4.1 litres. The total displacement of the multi-bank was 20.5L, and it weighed approximately 2,404 kilograms with its clutch and radiator. In a Chrysler car, each engine developed 120 hp at 3,600 rpm. But at the slower rate it would be turning in the tank application -- plus the lower compression ratio used -- this dropped to 90 hp. When combined in the 30-cylinder multi-bank engine, their output totalled approximately 450 hp at 2,700 rpm. The five engines were deployed radially around the common crankcase, with each crankshaft geared to a ring gear that in turn delivered all engine power to a central output shaft. Thus, the principal new parts that had to be fabricated were the crankcase, the ring gear and the large end-housing that enclosed the gearing that tied the engines together. Because all of the engines except the top one were tilted over at a considerable angle, carburation was a problem with the down-draft carburetors. Keeping the carburetors in their normal positions was accomplished by fabricating long and rather intricate intake runners that allowed all of the carburetors to be mounted vertically. They were also positioned on one plane, which helped reduce the complexity of the throttle linkage. For packaging reasons, the ignition distributor was relocated from its normal position at the side of the engine to the front, driven off the end of the camshaft. A single central water pump, driven by a shaft in the large crankcase, circulated coolant to all engines. It was cooled by a huge radiator at the rear of the engine. Because of the varying angles at which the five engines were deployed, dry sump lubrication was used and an oil cooler was employed. Also, given the heavy duty service required of a tank engine, such refinements as chrome-plated piston rings were added. By using existing technology in an imaginative new way, Chrysler was able to save both time and money in the development of its tank engine. The use of familiar components facilitated the production process because no new exotic techniques were required and tooling was kept to a minimum. It was a case of doggedly solving such problems as cooling, carburation and fuel flow, and it was a good demonstration of the auto industry's engineering and production prowess. The multi-bank engine was mounted in the rear of the Sherman tank, where it was reasonably accessible for servicing. Approximately 7,500 of these engines were built. One of the few survivors is on display at the Walter P. Chrysler Museum in Auburn Hills, Mich. www.billvanceautohistory.ca |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:05:37 PM EDT
[#36]
No, you're not in left field (about this anyways ) I've heard/read the multibank referred to as a "w" but you're right it's not really correct. The # of points of a W is probably what caused the source I read to use such a description. I should have clarified & said that they were 5 complete i6 engines geared together. Still very neat in a weird way.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:09:47 PM EDT
[#37]
no sweat...i wasn't trying to pick on ya. i'm an engineer and remember seeing one of those crude chrysler monsters. i thought it was a terrible design...just done to expedite production for the war effort.
i can't remember, but there was some american that built humongous 'w' engines for car racing...briggs cunningham? crap! too many dead brain cells. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:11:23 PM EDT
[#38]
I'm sorry it should've read: The last time GM bought a foreign engine design was from Porshe for the Corvair in the early 60s |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:15:44 PM EDT
[#39]
I've always thought they were cool..but I'm a Mopar nut anyways. There was another tank engine that had mulitple V8s (Cadillac??) geared together for the same "get 'em to the troops now" reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:15:51 PM EDT
[#40]
warlord, gm started designing the 140 cubic inch (2.3l) engine in 1956. at the time, i'm not sure if porsche had built anything other than 4 holers.
i'm not aware of gm buying the design from porsche (boxer engines were not an exclusive of porsche, having been tied by other manufacturers from henry ford to ransom olds and tucker). do you have a link to this? as a former corvair owner i would appreciate the data. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:37:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Had a Acura Vigor with the straight 5...reliable...a rocket, and fairly reliable.
1 cylinder short of a smooth 6, but never had any engine problems and it actually got good gas mileage. Around town gave sporty performance, on the highway it was a real bear! Too bad it was never accepted here. Enjoy watching other 5 cylinders entering the market. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:41:25 PM EDT
[#42]
My inline 6 in my trailblazer is a good running engine. 275 hp loves gas though. Nothing comes free!
Funny, years ago we all thought the inline engine was dead. I am a Chevy man but I did like the old Ford 300 better then the 302. Better ways to cancel vibration have brought them back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:49:05 PM EDT
[#43]
Sorry, I don't have a link, I heard this while working as an auto mechanic from a guy i used to work with when I was going to college 20 years ago. I was hoping someone can confirm this myself. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 5:56:46 PM EDT
[#44]
I've found I get around 17-18 city and around 20 city/highway mixed. I was higher than that with pure highway but it's been a while since I've done a full tank on just the highway and can't remember the exact figure
my 3.8L V6 in the 1990 buick lesabre I had before the trailblazer wasn't all that much better so I don't mind the mpg I get now the V10 dodge pickup my dad had was insanely bad. I got around 11mpg highway
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 6:07:13 PM EDT
[#45]
How about an I7? Anyone ever make those? I know I8s used to be made.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 6:18:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Believe me it works fine in my S40 and I get 30mpg on regular gas.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 6:19:56 PM EDT
[#47]
I think its a bad idea in a heavy truck. No one wants to have to pass 4000rpm to reach peak TQ. I know its a very advanced design, however, they should just stick the I6 in there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 6:44:34 PM EDT
[#48]
There were a few 5cyl variants that Audi brought to the states. There was the 10v 2.3L that you were probably thinking. Heavy and underpowered. Later, some 80s and Coupes had a 20v 2.3L that brought the power up to 165hp, but you had to wring it out to get some go out of it. Then, there is the more potent and tuneable 2.2 20v (3B and AN engine codes) turbo that came in the 200, S6 and S4. Good for 400+ hp with the right parts. Good fun! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2004 7:09:45 PM EDT
[#49]
BRM engine mp3... home.comcast.net/~superchicken308/brm.mp3 Little over 2mb. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
