Bare
-
Numero contenuti pubblicati
2295 -
Iscritto il
-
Ultima visita
-
Giorni Massima Popolarità
6
Tipo di contenuto
Forum
Galleria
Calendario
Download
Articoli del sito
Store
Blog
Tutti i contenuti di Bare
-
They must leave place for possible C-segment sedan. -
For me it's not about RWD vs FWD but longitudinal vs transverse engine orientation. With longitudinal engine you can put transmission which can endure higher torque figures and also you have advantage for AWD.
-
Single twin-scroll on 6 cylnder engine? It's doable with single turbine and if you have an even firing order but not with two turbines.
-
Torque and power curves from the next to pictures will show why ~350 HP from 2.0 single-turbocharged engine is not a good solution. This is for Mercedes M133 engine ehich can be found in AMG 45 models. It has a single twin-scroll turbochargers. Even 1.75 TBi with 200 HP from 2009 had more low end torque. And that picture shows power and torque curve for Maserati's 330 HP V6. Nobody can deny that V6 offers much better bottom end. If I'm not mistake M133 is based on M270/M274 which are open deck design. There are other examples where performance engine uses closed deck block and is based on open deck design like engine in Nissan GT-R. Didn't BMW put twin-scroll turbo on I3 B38 engine? If that's true than it's possible to have V6 with two twin scroll turbos. I must admit that I don't know how twin-scroll could work on 3 cylinders.
-
It depends what are more traditional solutions. IMO, twincharger is unorthodox solution whether with mechanical or electric supercharger. I would agree for you if I'm look for relatively inexpensive more traditional solution where there is not replacement for displacement and where single twin-scroll turbo will do just fine. But, as RVC told, they are planing 4cl engines for up to 340 HP and 6cl form 400 HP. It's odd desision but id you look at sales projection than it's difficult they could achieve it without good numbers in China where they have annual taxation system based on engine displacement.
-
I know that anything is not yet official and than we can call all this just a rumor. I just talked about some technical obstacles with current blocks or with using 2.0 liter engine for up to 340 HP. I doubt they can make turbo engine with 2 liters and 340 HP without (highly) noticeable turbo lag.
-
It's no wonder that Italian car-industry is in such a problems when some (Italian) guys constantly bashing it and consider foreign car-makers superior to Italian. When we are talking about V6 engines 90o nor 60o are ideal. Yes, 60o is more desirable solution but 90o can offer some other advantages like sharing production line with V8 or even V10 (as in Audi's case), somewhat lower center of gravity or place ti install turbochargers/superchargers between cylinder banks. As I remember Maserati designed and produced one of the first V6 90o engines? IMO, there is no question about quality of American V6 block and it's one of the best if not the best open deck block in production. Unfortunately it's open deck design is it's biggest issue for higher revving engine than that one in Maserati. There is question about I4 engines in future Alfa's offerings. They intend to offer 340 HP 2.0 I4 engine while they will not offer similarly powerful V6 engine. I doubt they will offer engine as AMG with its 2.0 turbo, such a kind of engine is not suitable for V6 replacement. The best solution to substitute V6 with I4 powerplant is to offer twincharged engine similar to new Volvo's T6 engine.
-
And probably also 410 HP. After all rumors says Alfieri will be on Giorgio on at least at modified one. I doubt that power will differ compared to Maserati's applications. If you look at Alfa's 5 year plan than it's clearly visible that V6 units will produce somwhere around 400 HP to over 500 HP. It's a 3.9 liter V8 engine in California. Or it's derived from Quattroporte's 3.8 V8. That two V8 engines share block and bore size of 96.5 mm although they have different stroke. Who said that V6 derived can't have longer stroke than these two to make 3.0 V6?
-
All is in the 5 year plan. If not in Alfa's than in Maserati's.
-
Presentation of Alfa Romeo D-RWD concept?
-
As I know German they say 'firing interval' but they have some abbreviation for crossplane I4. But also there are other possibilities how they can eliminate 2nd order forces with crankshaft design or better said with altering of firing interval. EDIT: If you look it schematic on circular you will get 270-180-90-180.
-
I agree that boxer has some constraints. Many of them are irrelevant with RWD and engine placing in a car with RWD. So they can avoid limiting steering angle and short stroke in RWD car. Only problem for RWD build price for boxer engine compared to inline-4. The other better solution than classic inline-4 is crossplane inline-4. Problem is cost of crossplane crankshaft compared to flatplane one.
-
From Automotive News: Chrysler Pentastar V-6s to get turbos and direct injection, sources say
-
4 cylinder engines are OK but from all 4 cylinder solution inline-4 with flatplane crankshaft is the worst solution. Both inline-4 with crossplane crankshaft (I don't know car engine with it) and boxer-4 are better solutions and IMO better sounding than flatplane inline-4. Actually there is no better 4 cylinder arrangement than boxer. They will probably use bi-turbo or twincharger set-up for more than 300 HP from inline-4. I don't see how they can pump more than 300 HP from single turbocharged 2.0 inline-4 without noticeable turbo lag.
-
Jeby has right about V6 and he correctly stated that for even firing order V6 90o must use split crankpins. Naturally V6 90o has uneven firing order altering at 90o and 150o. Example of V6 90o can be found in current Audi's and Porsche's models. More ideally would be to make V6 60o while even better solutions are inline-6 or boxer-6 engines but they consume to much space. There is nothing wrong with modified American block for Maserati's V6 60o but it's an open deck design and it's questionable if they can push for more than 500 HP from it. For that purpose they could probably use Ferrari's turbocharged V8 as base for V6 90o with closed deck block.
-
Or MA on diesel to get rid of EGR.
-
@ RVC So you are saying that Hurricane could have a open deck block? Engines from Pratola Serra family are with closed deck block.
-
I think we can expect numerical model names.
-
It's how you look on it. Actually in Chrysler naming scheme engine name means head design, not block. If you have that in min than Maserati's V6 has much more in common to turbocharged V8.
-
Today is nothing strange to have V6 with 90° and you can still have even firing order. And that engine has advantage to 60° because it can be modular and built on the same line as V8. But I agree with you. It's viable solution to GTA models if it's going to be built under Ferrari's roof although they can always outsource its production. One thing is omitted from predictions. What will be with Chrysler's future engines? Situation with current engines is not sustainable because of CAFE. Also Chrysler never made engine with direct injection.
-
Anything is possible and even an engine with more than 500 HP from 3 liters with open deck block although it will probably cost to much. I don't know which type of block is using Ferrari/Maserati V8 but if it's a closed deck than 'cutting' 2 cylinders from it is very plausible solution and good base to make high performance V6 engine. In that way engine could share many components with V8 and could even be produced on same production line. And it's not weird that Maserati's V6 achieve maximum power figures at less than 6000 rpm, it's an open deck block.
-
It depends on how you look on that matter. Most probably this block is not good enough for more than 500 HP and they will need close deck block to achieve that. Just look at BMW's N55 and S55 if you want good comparison.
-
Maserati's Chrysler derived block is an open deck. It's not that easy and it's to expensive to make 500+ HP from 3 liters V6 engine and it's normally if they are planing closed or semi-closed deck block for that engine.
-
I have some questions. I don't know if I'm on-topic or not. So aluminium 1.75 TBi has closed deck block while GEMA I4 and Chrysler's V6 and derived Maserati's V6 are open deck blocks. So if new 2.0 TBi is descendant of GEMA it will has open deck block. So can any insider (if there are some on this forum) confirm which block will use 2.0 TBi? Thanks for the welcome!