What’s the conspiracy behind the lack of VR6 engines? Lol
Discussion
Novexx said:
Larger engines are not as efficient as small turbo units. Compare a V8 against an I3 with a fat turbo, before even considering revs, bands or whatever, the V8 could easily weight ~150Kg more, which sucks performance & power.
That a VR6 is as easy or nearly as easy to design or manufacture as an I3 or I4 is not correct.
I would still take any 6 pot over any 4 or 3 pot though!
Well, compare an inline 6 to an inline 3 instead then.. yeah, the engine weighs more which isn’t great - but I doubt the real life mpg is much different. Just look at the B48 and B58 engines. The 4cyl is only marginally more efficient than the 6cyl. That a VR6 is as easy or nearly as easy to design or manufacture as an I3 or I4 is not correct.
I would still take any 6 pot over any 4 or 3 pot though!
And for sure man. I’m not saying a VR6 is going to replace econobox i3s or i4s - but my point is that, in a world of V12, W12, V10, V8, V6, and i5 sports/supercars - i’m just surprised that the VR6 hasn’t found it’s way into a similar sort of application in recent times.
spookly said:
Not quite as balanced as an I6, so if you have room for an I6 I'd rather have that.
This is true, but a VR6 is close enough to where it’s not really a design issue that requires workarounds (and thus added complexities) like the majority of other engine configurations. Therefore, for the people who care more about size and packaging, i’d say the VR6 definitely deserves some serious consideration when noting the lack of downsides.
AmyRichardson said:
There's no right answer, it's simply wrong to see the VR6 as a circle squared - it's another compromise amongst equal compromises. Keep in mind that the wonky ports need wider manifolds to "square" them, the VR6 isn't only a sneeze (or rather a cylinder offset) wider than an I6.
Cost-wise it's all about lobes, ports and valves - anything that needs machined or deburred - how all that stuff is configured in cast elements isn't really important - if it were nobody would have switched to V6s.
Refinement-wise its I6 and "the others", though the VR needs no mechanical help to attain decent balance etc.
Packaging-wise, it varies. The VR6 lives and dies on its virtues in transverse arrangements, in which its a good package - because it's neither very long nor pariculatly wide. But the six is dead in small, mass-market cars and are now invariably longitudinal engines in large cars; if you're VW that makes a short engine good, for everyone else its "what the hell" and an I6. Historically the transverse V6 was short lived (<30 years in wide application), existing alongside legacy (Cologne/PRV) engines and a single generation of newer V6s, many of which also served in longitudinal roles (e.g. Duratech as AJ6.)
Lastly, think of a modern engine bay on any car that still comes with a 6, is the block being +/- 150mm longer or +/- 80mm wider really an issue? Why not choose optimum - 120° hot vee or an I6.
Im sorry but i don’t understand your point about cost. Why would the machining/deburring associated with a VR6 be any different cost-wise to an i6? Cost-wise it's all about lobes, ports and valves - anything that needs machined or deburred - how all that stuff is configured in cast elements isn't really important - if it were nobody would have switched to V6s.
Refinement-wise its I6 and "the others", though the VR needs no mechanical help to attain decent balance etc.
Packaging-wise, it varies. The VR6 lives and dies on its virtues in transverse arrangements, in which its a good package - because it's neither very long nor pariculatly wide. But the six is dead in small, mass-market cars and are now invariably longitudinal engines in large cars; if you're VW that makes a short engine good, for everyone else its "what the hell" and an I6. Historically the transverse V6 was short lived (<30 years in wide application), existing alongside legacy (Cologne/PRV) engines and a single generation of newer V6s, many of which also served in longitudinal roles (e.g. Duratech as AJ6.)
Lastly, think of a modern engine bay on any car that still comes with a 6, is the block being +/- 150mm longer or +/- 80mm wider really an issue? Why not choose optimum - 120° hot vee or an I6.
And packaging is the exact issue I say that the VR6 solves. It would also have utility in any place where a longitudinally mounted V6 would go too. I agree that a hot V6 is nice when you’re willing to make sure it has space to go somewhere - but that’s my argument. It’s nice putting a super well-refined V6 in a McLaren Artura that only needs to seat 2 people and doesn’t need any real boot/frunk space - but a VR6 would allow you to put a pretty capable and sporty power-plant into a practical sports car (like an M3) whilst reducing the need to keep the bonnet so long. This would keep the overall size down - which should also help with weight too and keep the car more compact in general (whilst still retaining the same cabin/boot size and not losing any practicality).
Furthermore, a VR6 is barely any larger than an i4, so I’m pretty sure that a 120degree hot V6 is not only using up 150mm + 80mm of space… you try cramming a 120 degree hot Vee 6 into an R32 mk4 golf!
FakeCarGuy said:
C70R said:
Put quite simply, unless your sole design goal was induction noise, a turbo 3 or 4 cylinder lump takes up barely any more space. They are typically more fuel-efficient and can make equal/better power for the same size and weight.
The VR6 was a fun oddity.
I’m talking about sports cars… you wouldn’t argue that a 3 or 4 cylinder makes sense in an M3. An inline 3 or 4 needs complex work arounds to make equal/better power than an i6/vr6 simply because of balancing issues. Not to mention, more cylinders is better because you can distribute the power in more places. The VR6 was a fun oddity.
Furthermore, BMW (and a bunch of other manufacturers) have kind of proven that you can make a 6 cylinder fairly efficient. The B58 beats a lot of 4 cylinder engines in terms of mpg and overall efficiency.
Small turbo charged inline 3 and 4 engines aren’t that efficient once you get them to start boosting. For example, a 2.0L i4 is gonna be less efficient making 140hp at 4000rpm than a 3.0L i6 making 140hp at 3000rpm. More displacement can genuinely help with more efficient cruising (to a certain extent).
FakeCarGuy said:
Well, compare an inline 6 to an inline 3 instead then.. yeah, the engine weighs more which isn’t great - but I doubt the real life mpg is much different. Just look at the B48 and B58 engines. The 4cyl is only marginally more efficient than the 6cyl.
What's the weight difference ~100Kg? That's like having a small trailer with a washing machine in it permanently attached.FakeCarGuy said:
And for sure man. I’m not saying a VR6 is going to replace econobox i3s or i4s - but my point is that, in a world of V12, W12, V10, V8, V6, and i5 sports/supercars - i’m just surprised that the VR6 hasn’t found it’s way into a similar sort of application in recent times.
VR6 packaging is best for transverse applications which isn't really so much a sports / supercar thing. I think the VR6 is verging on a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist, there are (or were) plenty of transverse V6 set-ups out there that worked without any significant issue.Why V6 is preferred over VR6 I really don't know, but at the moment I think the possibility of it being a hot-vee if required may have something to do with it.
Nice to see that some people really like the VR6, but it is an evolutionary dead end. a way of putting a large capacity engine in a transverse package.
If you can seen the engine stripped down then the comments about it being no more difficult or expensive to design and build than an I6, would have rung pretty hollow. Large cylinder head with complex machining, complex bottom end. And at the end of the day with good design you can get the same performance from an I4 - which no matter how complex is easier to design and cheaper to build.
Stuff about the noise it makes can be easily modified these days - but if that is your criteria for buying a vehicle then you are in a very small group. Interesting 'solution' for a problem which no longer exists. You love them - buy and keep one, but there is no conspiracy, technology has simply moved on.
If you can seen the engine stripped down then the comments about it being no more difficult or expensive to design and build than an I6, would have rung pretty hollow. Large cylinder head with complex machining, complex bottom end. And at the end of the day with good design you can get the same performance from an I4 - which no matter how complex is easier to design and cheaper to build.
Stuff about the noise it makes can be easily modified these days - but if that is your criteria for buying a vehicle then you are in a very small group. Interesting 'solution' for a problem which no longer exists. You love them - buy and keep one, but there is no conspiracy, technology has simply moved on.
Lancia's V4 is the same architecture.
I like the VR5 and VR6. Five pots sound better to me. IL6s sound better to me than V8s.
LJKS did a piece in CAR Magazine about the different engine configurations. In the late 90s when Merc went V6 and Jag went V8 CAR Magazine tested the outgoing IL6 X300 and W210.
I like the VR5 and VR6. Five pots sound better to me. IL6s sound better to me than V8s.
LJKS did a piece in CAR Magazine about the different engine configurations. In the late 90s when Merc went V6 and Jag went V8 CAR Magazine tested the outgoing IL6 X300 and W210.
FakeCarGuy said:
No? I’m not talking about gearing. I’m talking about power-bands. A smaller displacement engine is inherently going to make less power at the same RPM as a higher displacement engine (when not factoring in FI),
But you have to factor in FI if you bring back the VR6 because it's coming back to a world full of small capacity FI engines. And indeed larger capacity ones.Today, an average 2L turbo can make more torque @2000rpm than the 3.2 VR6 ever made as a peak. The Golf R32's closest family rival at the time - the Golf Edition 30 - made 224lbft @2250rpm vs the R32's 236lbft at 2800rpm. It only ran 0.9 bar boost, so wasn't even breaking into a sweat. Needless to say, the I4 Golf felt way more responsive. And the R32's torque peak was short lived. Past 4500rpm it felt flat as a fart.
As above, Audi's I5 is not only considerably lighter, more powerful and better balanced/smoother, it also sounds better. A LOT better, imo.
Imo, the VR6 was a good effort by VW in modernising Lancia's original design, but the execution was a bit s
t really. The original 12V had terrible combustion chambers. Very, very poor squish, leading to inconsistent burning, so they always ran richer than necessary to compensate.
The rear 'bank' had to run richer than front bank to compensate for fuel dropping out of suspension and heat soak evaporation.
Offset crank pins meant it didn't rev as smooth as a proper twin bank V6, or an I6, so that 'benefit' was never there in the first place. Yes, smoother than an I4 of the time with no balancer shafts, but nowhere near as smooth as a Busso, or a BMW I6. The VR6 always had a slightly offbeat, lumpy idle, even from new. A well maintained I6 can barely be felt at all in the cabin.
The shared cylinder head was a massive overhead on the cooling system, and boy did they get hot. They were a heat soaking nightmare in the summer months, where power could drop by as much as 10%.
Cylinders 1 and 6 had the smallest coolant jackets, therefore suffered from premature bore ovalizing.
All that weight forward of the axle line was a handling challenge.
Being a tall engine and heavy engine, the pendulum rocking and torque reaction jerking from all that weight suspended by only 2 (very soggy) engine mounts, and one torque link, was extremely irritating when driving in traffic.
The 24V VR6 was a massive improvement, thanks mainly to Audi's purchase of Cosworth Design, who they tasked with reworking it with proper combustion chambers and equal length tracts. Their cylinder head was a work of art compared to VW's 12V efforts, but it was huge, so overall weight went up.
The VR6 just isn't a competitive or financially sensible option anymore. It's too heavy and too difficult to keep cool in confined spaces. They simply won't recast it in Alusil just to please the people who like the sound of Chewbacca whining, which was really the only thing that set it apart from other engines.
Sadly, people want more than just noise to get their motoring kicks.
Too many people forget that mass market cars are driven by the bean counters at the manufacturers.
e.g. Why are so many cars FWD - it is cheaper to manufacture and they have sold us the benefits over the disadvantages.
Why no VR6 - because it is too costly to make when an I4 turbo will do the same
Why have BMW moved to I4s - cheaper and they can deliver the same power. I remember when their 1.8 was an I4 and everything from 2.0 up was an I6.
Mainstream manufacturers generally don't make what the public want, they make what they can sell to the public at a profit, if you don't believe this one of the biggest selling SUVs is the Qashqai - I have driven one and I have no idea why people buy them.
There are exceptions such as the Toyota GTs but they aren't really mass manufacture cars.
e.g. Why are so many cars FWD - it is cheaper to manufacture and they have sold us the benefits over the disadvantages.
Why no VR6 - because it is too costly to make when an I4 turbo will do the same
Why have BMW moved to I4s - cheaper and they can deliver the same power. I remember when their 1.8 was an I4 and everything from 2.0 up was an I6.
Mainstream manufacturers generally don't make what the public want, they make what they can sell to the public at a profit, if you don't believe this one of the biggest selling SUVs is the Qashqai - I have driven one and I have no idea why people buy them.
There are exceptions such as the Toyota GTs but they aren't really mass manufacture cars.
Pete54 said:
Nice to see that some people really like the VR6, but it is an evolutionary dead end. a way of putting a large capacity engine in a transverse package.
If you can seen the engine stripped down then the comments about it being no more difficult or expensive to design and build than an I6, would have rung pretty hollow. Large cylinder head with complex machining, complex bottom end. And at the end of the day with good design you can get the same performance from an I4 - which no matter how complex is easier to design and cheaper to build.
Stuff about the noise it makes can be easily modified these days - but if that is your criteria for buying a vehicle then you are in a very small group. Interesting 'solution' for a problem which no longer exists. You love them - buy and keep one, but there is no conspiracy, technology has simply moved on.
Fantastic points If you can seen the engine stripped down then the comments about it being no more difficult or expensive to design and build than an I6, would have rung pretty hollow. Large cylinder head with complex machining, complex bottom end. And at the end of the day with good design you can get the same performance from an I4 - which no matter how complex is easier to design and cheaper to build.
Stuff about the noise it makes can be easily modified these days - but if that is your criteria for buying a vehicle then you are in a very small group. Interesting 'solution' for a problem which no longer exists. You love them - buy and keep one, but there is no conspiracy, technology has simply moved on.
Apparently the boffins that make engines and strive for the best in performance and fuel economy have figured out that each cylinder needs to be roughly 500cc in order to be fully optimised. Hence why we now have many 1.5 3 pots and 2.0 4 pots, Therefore you would need a 3 l VR6 no matter what, N/A it would never keep up with it's rivals and with a turbocharger it would be complete overkill!
We are going to miss a lot of engines, we already are. I cannot believe my dad has a BMW with a 1.3 3 pot turbo. I'm sure we will see some manufacturer specials towards the end of the petrol and diesel. Even if you bought a car in fantastic condition with a VR6 which is going to cost a pretty penny. You then wouldn't want it as a daily driver because the only way is up baby!
The VR5 was a lovely little unit as well, especially because it was often paired with boring cars you wouldn't expect could move along as quick as they did, like the SEAT Toledo
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff