Does the I-6 Get More Respect Than the V-6?

"Jcarr" (jcarr) 03/04/2015 at 14:43 • Filed to: EcoBoost

0

33

EDIT: I fully understand the advantages of an I-6 versus a V-6. What I was curious about is whether or not the F-150 EcoBoost would meet the same level of resistance if it were inline instead of v.

As I was commuting this morning I got to thinking about the F-150 Ecoboost and how it has met some (albeit minimal) resistance among pickup truck purists for having a V-6 instead of a V-8, even though the 3.5 EcoBoost V-6 makes incredible power.

While the most logical conclusion to be drawn regarding this resistance is that 6-cylinder engines are generally perceived to be inferior to their 8-cylinder counterparts, I wonder; does configuration also have something to do with it? Would the EcoBoost meet the same resistance if it were an inline instead of a V?

Ram doesn't seem to get any pushback on its Cummins I-6-equipped 3/4 and 1-ton trucks because they only have 6 cylinders while GM's Duramax and Ford's Powerstroke have 8. BMW I-6s are highly-regarded and even preferred over a V-8 in the case of the M3.

Just a thought I had.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 14:46

2

I6's are known for being much smoother than V6's and are torquey.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 14:47

0

I6s used to be really common in trucks (the base engine for pretty much all trucks until the 90s or so), and in short, yes, it's more respected than the V6. The V6 is a compromised engine designed with packaging in mind.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 14:47

1

Yes they are.

Jcarr > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 03/04/2015 at 14:48

0

I can attest to that having owned a GM Vortec 4.3 and an Atlas 4.2. The Atlas is a far superior engine.

TheHondaBro > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 14:50

0

I6 engines tend to perform better than V6 engines.

Jcarr > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 03/04/2015 at 14:50

0

Yeah, what I was really wondering was if the resistance to the EcoBoost would be the same if it was the same size, same output, but inline instead of v.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 14:53

0

There are good V6 (GM 3.6 IMO) engines and there are good I6 (BMW N/A 3.0 IMO) engines. But I think there's more good I6 engines and respect that setup a bit more because it's smoother setup. I like both though because I've experienced great V6 and I6 engines.

Milky > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 14:55

0

You tell me.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 14:55

1

No, I think that the bigger issue is putting a highly tuned motor into something that's supposed to be a workhorse. I wouldn't want turbos on a gas motor in a truck. I want low stress parts that will work forever regardless of what you throw at it.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 14:57

0

The Cummins gets a pass because: A. What else they go in. B. They displace the same if not more than the V8 counterparts.

DoYouEvenShift > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 15:00

0

Displacement too, most I6s in trucks are bigger when compared to V6s.

I love the Atlas in my TB, I wish GM would of developed it more, turbo would of been nice.

Satoshi "Zipang" Katsura > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 15:02

0

What in the...

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 15:05

0

The reason it gets push back is because it has turbos attached to it not because of the configuration of the cylinders. When those turbos spool up hauling something the engine gets horrendous fuel economy while adding both complexity and cost.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 15:07

0

I think it would. Ford's 4.9 I6 and it predecessors are legendary for their longevity and torque and there are very few bad I6 engines. I wish truck makers would go back to I6 engines for the base engines. They are naturally balanced and much smoother, plus are more torquey. Reasons we no longer see many I6 engines are because a V6 is easier to package and I think there is something with the engine architecture of I6 engines that makes it harder to meet emissions

Jcarr > DoYouEvenShift 03/04/2015 at 15:08

1

I wish my Envoy sounded like this:

Rock Bottom > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 15:08

0

It's superior because it's built on 30 year newer technology. Honda, Toyota, and Mercedes (as examples) have all built silky smooth V6 engines. Their secret? 60 degree V angle, not the 90 degree angle of the 4.3 (and it's father, the 229 Chevy).

V6 engines can be every bit as smooth as an inline engine, you just gotta want it.

HammerheadFistpunch > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 15:09

2

I think its about displacement with the Cummins; Ram gets a pass on I6 because they are the same cubic displacement as the others, more or less, and on par for power. If they could make a 5.0 I6 that had similar power and economy of a V8, it would be no thang. The reason people (disclaimer: like me) don't like the EB is because its a complicated solution to problem that has the potental to be a major headache to the owner 100,200+ thousand miles in. A v8 is a known quantity and they are durable. The EB gives you the power and the window sticker MPG numbers but is seen as more delicate.

nermal > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 15:20

2

I think purists are dumb, and in general afraid of progress.

The merits of an I vs V engine depend on what you're comparing them to. Take Jeeps for example - The current Pentastar V6 is miles ahead of the old 4.0l I6. Everything is better about it, from power output to fuel economy to general drivability.

As far as Ford truck engines come to mind, the comparison is still there with the old 300 I6. Again, the modern (non-boosted) base V6 engine is better in every way.

Regarding the diesels, I don't think it makes a significant difference. They're all close enough overall that one is just as good as any other.

Regarding BMWs, the new 2.0l 4-cyl is sadly better for the current group of cars than the NA I6 it replaced. Sounds like heresay, but sadly true. The I6 loved to rev (source: had an E90), but needed revs to make power. The new turbo, combined with the 8spd auto is a significant step up. The new car is faster, feels faster, and uses less fuel.

That doesn't mean that the I6 design is completely dead or without its merits. It's just that when an I6 is replaced by a V8 or a V6 or even an I4 turbo, that's not always a bad thing.

nermal > Milky 03/04/2015 at 15:21

0

You know what the best way to get a Jeep guy to shut up about how great the 4.0L I6 is?

Let them drive a new Wrangler with the Pentastar.

Rock Bottom > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 15:25

1

These people who keep saying that an inline is superior in strength to a V engine need to do one simple thing: obtain a mechanical engineering degree. About 10 minutes after their first statics class starts they'll change their minds. The next 4 to 6 years will do nothing more than make them angry at people who keep perpetuating this myth.

As for the "inline is smoother than V" argument... I can't even. If you did nothing to balance your V6 engine, then I supposed that might be true. Luckily, we live in a world where that is never going to be true. Oh, and you can't use a 90 degree V6 (like the 3.8 Buick, 4.3 Chevy, 3.9 Dodge, or 3.7 Jeep) as a point of comparison either because they were all derived from or developed alongside a V8 engine that needed that 90 degree angle to not suck at it's job. Sure, you can sort out some of the first order vibrations with a balance shaft, but it won't be perfect.

Lexus IS350. Acura everything. Infiniti Q-something. Jaaaaaaag. Audi. All of these use V6 engines that are smooth as silk. I bet you can't measure the vibration difference between them and a BMW inline 6.

Oh, and if someone wants to say that "V6 engines don't belong in trucks", then they need to learn a thing or two about REAL truck engines: http://www.6066gmcguy.com/EngineData.htm… , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_V6_en…

Milky > nermal 03/04/2015 at 15:39

0

For its time it was good engine …. but 190hp wouldn't even of came close to cutting it in the new JK.

BigBlock440 > nermal 03/04/2015 at 16:06

1

I don't think we can say yet that the new V6s are better in every way. Most ways, yes, but there is one unknown. Reliability. The old I6s had a reputation of being bullet proof, with lots of stories about people running them out of oil, running the coolant out, overheating them for miles, and general years of neglect and abuse. The new ones haven't proven that yet, so far they've only proven mediocre reliability. It'll be a few more years until they're proven as better.

BigBlock440 > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 03/04/2015 at 16:10

0

Now they do, but 10-15 years ago you had the 5.9 up against a 7.3 and 6.6. I think the biggest factor was A.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > BigBlock440 03/04/2015 at 16:24

0

Also, it was a known name. Cummins has been around since the 30's, and have been used on the road for about as long. So anybody that knew anything about diesels, knew it was a good one.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 16:29

0

Based on take rate I don't think there is that much resistance to the EB. To answer your actual question, I do think it would have been met with less vocal resistance if it was an I6. I6's used to be very common in trucks and have a reputation for being bulletproof.

DoYouEvenShift > Jcarr 03/04/2015 at 17:09

0

Thats awesome! Wish they would of done something like from the factory.

nermal > BigBlock440 03/04/2015 at 17:17

1

True, reliability of new engines is unknown, but the nature of them being new engines. By the time the current crop is proven as reliable (or not), there will be something else new out.

Such is the way it goes.

bryan40oop > Jcarr 03/05/2015 at 02:54

0

People honestly don't care. Well, the general public.

bryan40oop > HammerheadFistpunch 03/05/2015 at 02:58

0

"The reason people (disclaimer: like me) don't like the EB is because its a complicated "

Please elaborate. It's no more complicated than any other ford engine. It just has 2 turbo's, cac, cac hoses. We never seen a turbo fail on a ecoboost anything. A couple had 150K miles.

HammerheadFistpunch > bryan40oop 03/05/2015 at 04:26

0

Compared to a gm or ram (hemi) engine they are significantly more complex. add a single turbo to an engine and you increase the parts count significantly. Parts that add considerable heat and pressure to many parts of the system. I don't want to dissect in minutia the parts but the fact that an eb 3.5 weighs similar to a gm 6.2 of similar output and realworld economy says a lot. They are well engineered power units to be sure but in practicum and in perception they a 4 point collapsing parallel link when a hinge opens the door just as well.

bryan40oop > HammerheadFistpunch 03/05/2015 at 04:49

0

"Compared to a gm or ram (hemi) engine they are significantly more complex"

To those engines yes. But to every other variable valve timing engine since the 90's, no, not really.

I've been up close with these engines on a daily basis. They're not some technological marvel. Block, rotating assembly, heads, intake & exhaust cam phasers, that's about it. The turbos? Just some extra piping and oil lines, egts. Nothing complicated. And once again, I've yet to see a garrett gt15 fail on one of these engines, and I've seen several already tipping 150k miles with nothing more than general maintenance, and these trucks are used, hard.

We've had just as many issues with 5.0's than 3.5s. Nothing commonly failing on either, just shit luck.

This isn't some kid boosting his civic, this is a manufacture who test relentlessly before production, they have a lot to lose if they stuff it.

I was once like you, rabble rabble rabble v8 rabble rabble turbo junk. But everyday I see ecoboost beat to hell and back, they keep on going. There is no 4 point collapsing parallel witchcraft going on. Just simple engineering that for reasons unknown people believe to be complicated, when really, it isn't.

HammerheadFistpunch > bryan40oop 03/05/2015 at 05:59

0

I'm no rabble rabble v8 type (I think I know what that means), for what its worth. I appreciate good engineering, but I also prefer the simpler tool when all things are equal. My main beef with the EB engines, as stated before many times, is that its boost, not eco.

Were I in the market for a FS truck I would give the EB engines a serious look, but only because I live and work at elevation, where FI is king and not because it gives me some paper advantage at the pump. if it were apples to apples and elevation wasn't in the picture, I would prefer a GM engine simply for the fact that they just are so reliable and worry free, and with the latest transmissions and technologies are giving the same outputs and mileage numbers as the more complicated engines. I know you have your stake in the Ford game, but you can't sit there with a strait face and tell me that they aren't in fact more complicated. I've dealt with plenty of both types to know that its more than how many parts it has that makes an engine complex. Witchcraft? No, but certainly more parts and more variables, like a 4 point collapsing parallel link. I'm no Luddite, but I just don't see the gain in the EB engines outside of elevation compensated power output and if that's not a factor...why not go with the simpler, proven engine type?

In any event, the question was V vs inline in perceptions about ecoboost acceptance, to which I restate my point: its not the block configuration that has people concerned or trepidations about the EB engines.

bryan40oop > HammerheadFistpunch 03/05/2015 at 08:38

0

"is that its boost, not eco."

I hate that shit too.

"I know you have your stake in the Ford game"

Drive a subaru, couldn't car less.

" can't sit there with a strait face and tell me that they aren't in fact more complicated."

Really, compared to GM / Ram offerings they are, but compared to every other mass marketed engine since the 90's it's not. It's really not complicated at all.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say "more parts, more can go wrong" which is mathematically correct. But more complicated?

That's like saying my boots are more complicated than my tennis shoes because there's more lace. (It's early, snowing, all I could come up with)

Yes more work is involved, but more complicated? Meh, not really.