Everything old is new again

[Bill Stoneberg]

From a computer magazine.....<P>General Motors has turned back the clock with the release of a trio of new SUVs for 2002--the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, the GMC Envoy, and the Oldsmobile Bravada--that feature a new breed of inline six-cylinder engine.<BR>Just when it seemed the auto world had completely converted to the popular V-6 engine, GM has introduced its straight six, a form considered by most everyone except BMW to be an auto anachronism--the equivalent of the buggy whip. But GM's new SUVs and state-of-the-art engine already are winning major industry awards. <P>In the '60s, the V formation--side-by-side rows of three cylinders connected at an angle--began to take hold, driven largely by GM. <P>Chevy's TrailBlazer features a new breed of inline six-cylinder engine. <BR> <BR>V-6 had some advantages in packaging, but there are physical principles that benefit the inline design, mainly avoiding vibration, a killer in the auto context. <P>The inline is more balanced and develops less internal vibration than the V-6. Excessive vibration presents many problems in terms of engine efficiency and longevity--plus people don't want to drive vehicles that buzz. Clever engineers can quell the vibration of the V-6 using devices such as counterrotating balance shafts but at added complexity and cost. <P>The new motor delivers the performance of an eight-cylinder engine with the gas mileage of a six. Power is a very respectable 270 horsepower and tops the V-8 in the rival Ford Explorer. <P>A week driving the Bravada proved the new engine to be the smoothest six-cylinder truck engine yet.

[Guest]

Can straight eights be far behind?

[Guest]

I've read about GM's exploits in designing this new engine and I have to say what took them so long.<P>Besides the inherent simplicity and perfectly balanced arrangement of cylinders (the only other perfectly balanced engines are V12's, Radials, and opposed) it makes me wonder who is running things at the big three, the designers or the engineers.<P>Since BMW is the only maker to have the engineers dictating to the designers what is possible, perhaps management has finally decided to let those who know how to make things work (engineers) be the judges.<P>I for one am sick of these one off engine designs (remember the the VW VR6). I think you have to take a step back and say sometimes "yes it's possible but do you think it's wise". Bravo GM, but what took so long.

[Dave@Moon]

I know Chrysler still makes the "4.0" (AMC) straight six, but does Ford still make the old 300 cubic inch truck motor?

[The Old Guy]

I worked in Flint MI in the six cylinder engine plant for Chevrolet for 37 years.The 2 things that killed the engine were the height and fuel distribution.It wouldn't fit under the hood of the new designs,and the carb did not feed the end cylinders properly. the new 6 is a fantastic design!! It is all aluminum ,has 4 valves per cylinder and fuel injection. In the new Envoy it makes the nicest package GM has come out with in a long time.

[Dave@Moon]

What's a carb?

[Guest]

A carb is something akin to a toilet tank float in that it feeds fuel into a small tank at a constant level to meter it out thru atmospheric pressure hopefully dispersing it to the various cylinders through a manifold, I'm told they can were quite effective when maintained properly.

[Guest]

A carb is a small sea creature that has 6 legs and usually a red body, they inhabit areas near fresh water primarily and.......<P>Wait did you say crab?? Ahhhhhhh forget it!

[Guest]

Isn't a carb the grouchy old man who sits on the bench infront of the shop?

[Guest]

You are forgeting the greatest engine of all the Cummins 24 valve diesel -my 2001 Dodge pickup tops out at 114 mph, and that was running Mexican diesel. Now for some propane injection, etc to really make it fly! Straight sixes are alive and well in Trucktown.

[Guest]

Just looked at my post of a few minutes ago and no message. Will try again.<P>I thought a carg is the grouchy old guy who sits on a bench in front of the shop.

[Guest]

Chuck ~ Perhaps your crab experiences are all AFTER the cook pot. Crabs in Maryland , called the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab, are blue before cooking. They turn red when boiled. That is the case with crabs along the East Coast and into the Gulf of Mexico. I can offer no insight into the color before boiling of Dungeness and Alaska King Crabs.<P>And oh yes, lobsters aren't red until they are boiled either. <P>hvs [the unboiled crab] <p>[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: hvs ]

[Guest]

OOhhh I see now, one question though--what color does a Holley crab turn when you boil it?

[Guest]

An additional advantage of the in-line configuration is accessibility for repairs and maintenance.

[Guest]

Beats me Chuck? ~ hvs

[Dave@Moon]

I had no idea there were holy crabs! Did GM develope those too?

[Guest stude8]

Ahh but have you seen the details of the new VW "W"-8 engine. I don't know whether the engineering behind it is German or other but it is a real piece of design to behold.<BR>Stude8

[Guest]

Have been running Jeeps with 4.0 in line sixes for 10 years. Tuff, plenty of power, easy to work on and steady 20mpg! Simplicity in a complicated world.

[novaman]

dfield, What kind of fuel milage you getting? I've got a '95 12 valve. Haven't maxed it out yet for speed. Do know that my engine is rated 168hp putting out 204HP@72MHP. The pump hasn't been touched. I'm gettting 18MPG average.

[Guest]

Toyota (Lexus IS300) has a straight six in production. GM has a problem with confusing "new to GM" with "new". "New to GM" generally trails "new" by a few years.

[Guest]

split55555-<BR>I think you have it backwards. Chevrolet introduced its inline six in 1929.

[Dave@Moon]

Yes, 1929. Between 3 and 6 years after Essex, Star and Whippet arguably introduced the inline six to the low-price field. Also Chevy was the very last Division of GM to get a six cylinder (no suprise there). <P>I think split55555's point is that GM's touting of a straight six as an innovation rings a little hollow, as it seems to be one of the few manufacturers to have abandoned the form in the first place.

[ex98thdrill]

Whippet? You mean to tell me that there is someone out there who actually knows what one is? My father and I have a '29 96-A coupe (4 cylinder). It's not too often that you hear the word "Whippet" used, let alone see one. Most people we talk to don't even know what a Whippet is.

[Guest]

Essex, Star and Whippet! Now there are three lasting names in auto manufacturing. But just for the record, I should note that Star was introduced in 1922 by W.C. Durant, who incorporated Chevrolet in 1911. Chevrolet was the last to change over to the six because it was the least expensive car in the GM line. I guess you see some grand big-business conspiracy there. If Chevrolet had abandoned the straight six, they wouldn't be putting it in there new truck. What is a little hollow is Split55555's point. There isn't an auto manufacturer out there ( or <I>any</I> manufacturer of any product for that matter) that doesn't sell it's product as new and different, hoping it won't be remembered in it's previous life. Countless examples, from seat belts to front wheel drive, illustrate this fact. I guess you would say that Chevrolet "abandoned" the V-8 because it did not use that design from it's production in 1917-19 to it's reintroduction in 1955? <BR>.............................................<P><I>Don't Believe a Liberal!</I>

[Guest]

Drove a "Jimmy"all during WW II.There were exactly 2 outstanding engines in the ETO during WW II,the Ford GAA V8 tank engine and the 270 "Jimmy" engine,(an in-line six)Good thing they had some valve-in-head vehicles to pull-start those "L" head jobs when it got down below zero !

[Dave@Moon]

This kind of "nonsense" does have a long tradition, well past all of our memories. <P>I know my first insight as to the difference between innovation and salesmanship was an article in the <I>Pittsburgh Press</I> Sunday edition in 1974 enthusiastically touting all of the wonderful things GM was doing to reduce the weight of the new and "improved" 1975 Chevelle. Among the weight/fuel saving "innovations", the introduction of the single note horn (dual horns becoming optional, of course, for the less economy minded ) and the adoption of aluminum wiring as opposed to the old-fashioned, heavy copper wires. The "article" (I'd hesitate to call it news.) actually listed the weight savings of these and other magnificient features. <P>If you're interested, the aluminum wires saved 0.4 lbs per car. <p>[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]

[Guest]

Dave ~ You know it was not the weight savings that were important, it was the $$$ savings. ~ hvs<p>[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: hvs ]

[Peter J.Heizmann]

Howard, I guess I can throw in the Chrysler "K" cars here, too. Lee Iacocca, in his first memoirs, mentioned how they shortened the car so 2 more (if memory serves me) could be loaded onto transporters, which, of course, equals $$$$. <P>However, from a marketing standpoint, they touted "ease in parking, fuel economy, etc".<P>The cars quality was another thing. Rust buckets is being kind.<P>Regards,<P>Peter J.

[Guest]

But Peter, rust buckets had become a Chrysler tradition by that point in time. Certainly they wouldn't have wanted to break such a long standing tradition. ~ hvs

[Peter J.Heizmann]

Howard. That's a good refresher, too. <P>Bean Counters & Marketing, what teamwork!! It will never change.<P>Regards, Peter J.

[Guest]

I'd nominate one more WWII era engine - the Packard-RR Merlin 12.

[Dave@Moon]

Aluminum's cheaper than copper? <I>I thought Mr. goodwrench was my friend!</I>

[Bill Stoneberg]

I wonder if the Aluminum wiring burned up on cars like it does on houses ?<BR>How would the recall that ?

[Guest]

My point is that the GM PR department is hoping that we believe it's innovative if they say it is. Since BMW, Toyota, DCX and perhaps others already offer the in-line 6 configuration, you don't even need to be as aware of automotive history as most of the people on this board are to spot this one as nonsense. It's neither new nor a reintroduction, except in the narrow confines of GM.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Well, now...<P>I may be "wet behind the ears" still, at 35, but here's why I think GM dropped the straight 6 in favor of the "vee-type" engine:<BR>ECONOMICS!<BR>I've heard folks complain now & then that when it comes to production, the General has gotten cheap in the last decades of the 20th century.<P>Yeah, there's the hood-line vs. engine height issue too- supposedly the prime reason behind Chrysler's "slanted-six"; also the funky "side-hung" aircleaner on Dad's '62 Galaxie with 223 six cylinder.<P>Supposively, an inline six is heavier than a contemporary "vee-type engine" of similar displacement. They also run smoother too!<P>The trouble with GM's V-6s was trying to chop two cylinders off'n a small-block Chevy! Sixes are happier with a 120 degree crank than some funky compromise that trys to make a 90 degree engine run smoothly on 6 cylinders.<BR>A 60-degree "Vee-six" would've probably been a better bet; but then, oh gee- new, separate tooling, etc.<P>Yes, I suppose Chevy was the "last division" in GM to get a six, but to be fair to the namesake, Gaston & Louis' first production passenger car in 1911 did have a "valve-in-head" six.(BTW, it still took Pontiac till '55 to get a "valve-in-head" anything! Grrrrr!) And "ol Henry" didn't allow another six to bear the Ford name till 1941, after the Model K of 1906.<P>In the brass-era, the high-end cars favored sixes for their smoothness & torque.Packard, Pierce, Locomobile, for instance didn't bother with "vee"type engines; "multi-cylinder" cars favored a v-12 over the V-8; notable exceptions being Cadillac, Apperson,Olds and a few others.<P>I like sixes; their inherent smoothness & torque make them attractive. If they did not have merit, why would BMW & Benz have stuck by them for so long? And Ford and the "300"?<P>Hopefully with the advancements in "engine fuel management" & design that have proven themselves to be truly "good", the inline-six of the 21st Century will again prove to be a superior & durable design.<P>Wonder what other designs will re-appear, perhaps the Ford "X-motor"? The sleeve-valve engine (those probably don't mind "unleaded"!)? <P>(Didn't mean to offend anyone, except perhaps those "cheapies" at GM. )<P>PS; As anyone can see from my "signature", most of my "ecclection" are inline-six powered! Except for the "token" straight-8 Chrysler.<p>[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: DeSoto Frank ]

[Guest]

The guy who mentioned the "Merlin" engine.Sir you know a good engine,and that is for sure ! An in-line four and an in-line six(Also an in-line 8) all had one thing in common.The front and the rear piston travelled together.The engine was IN BALANCE without any counterbalancing.Counter balancing enhanced engine life The average V8 required considerable counterbalancing because what I just said about the in-lines surely does not apply to a V8 with 90 degree crank ! The Ford GAA tank engine was a 60 degree V8,but it had a 180 crank,so the front and rear pistons travelled together. It was an uneven-firing engine but was SMOOTH.

[Guest HOOIE]

Hi guys, a fellow had his new Trail blazer at my shop the other day and he really likes the new straight six. I<BR> talked him into popping the hood for a look. It`s not your fathers stovebolt six! Three of us looked and never did see even one spark plug!!! OK so maybe it`s not easy to work on. The fellow had two Blazers with 4.3 engines before this one and claims this new one has lots more power. The 4.3 vortec wasn`t too bad, inline six torque at work! Dave, I`m pretty sure Ford dropped the 300, one of their better engines if you ask me. Gary.

[Guest]

I think the real reason for the GM V6 was moving to front wheel drive and smaller cars. A V6 is of course much shorter than a straight six. The transverse engine and front wheel drive layout is much more compact(as Alec Issigonis had shown with the Mini). For earlier V6 development, see Lancia in the 50's and 60's.

[rocketraider]

I have the original 1974 Oldsmobile Tech Bulletins set where they announced that, starting 3rd week of April 1974, all the A-body cars would begin using the aluminum body wiring harness. I count myself very fortunate that my 1974 Hurst/Olds was built the week before they started that nonsense!<P>The Al wiring harnesses were then phased into the other series cars, and my 1976 Regency has it. And being a total-electric car, I have some concerns about the Al wiring. I notice one thing frequently- the power seat motors will dim the lights when activated, even with a 70 amp alternator and engine running. The 69 Toronado with copper wiring doesn't.<P>.4 lb weight savings in a 5000 lb car seems like a stupid way to compromise reliability and safety for the sake of saving a couple bucks.

[Guest]

there's still a lot of double talk on weight savings. When the lighter part is also cheaper, it's usually putting a good face on a cost reduction. When they pay more for the lighter part, and you can see the design is already shorn of unnecessary stuff, it's for real. As Colin Chapman said, add lightness. I agree, on a 5000 lb vehicle, you can do weight reduction with a blowtorch.