flat plane crank ?
- Thread starter yvon_la
- Start date
- Status
are inline 6 only firing in the 1-5-3-6-2-4 configuration , i noticed that that firing order create the same problem ford had prior to them changing the firing order for the new 2015 and newer mustang
yvon_la,
one of the things that you try to achieve when setting the firing order is to try not to get it all happening at one end then switch to the other.
With a standard 6 cylinder layout you COULD make it go 1-2-3-6-5-4, but exhaust and inlet wouldn't ever work properly, thermal stresses would be higher, and I'm pretty sure that there's some strage vibrations that would ensue also.
one of the things that you try to achieve when setting the firing order is to try not to get it all happening at one end then switch to the other.
With a standard 6 cylinder layout you COULD make it go 1-2-3-6-5-4, but exhaust and inlet wouldn't ever work properly, thermal stresses would be higher, and I'm pretty sure that there's some strage vibrations that would ensue also.
There was a guy back in the day at the local drag track with a C1 vette. He had put a custom built racing inline six in it. Based on the 292 GM mill. It ran pretty well with the small block V8's of the day. He had a crazy amount of money in it though.
Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
Ford made a flat plane V4, now that's odd
The last one of those I saw was in a late 70's Ford Taunus. I remember it used a balance shaft and IIRC used a cross plane crank..
Ford made a flat plane V4, now that's odd
The last one of those I saw was in a late 70's Ford Taunus. I remember it used a balance shaft and IIRC used a cross plane crank..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-six_engine#/media/File:Inline_6_Cylinder_with_firing_order_1-5-3-6-2-4.gif
this gif show whats going on in an i6 .clearly this thing as the same inerent problem ford just fixed on their v8 .how would you go at it to fix this?
this gif show whats going on in an i6 .clearly this thing as the same inerent problem ford just fixed on their v8 .how would you go at it to fix this?
With the standard crank layout as used with 1-5-3-6-2-4 I figure you can do these:
1-2-4-6-5-3
1-5-4-6-2-3
1-2-3-6-5-4
Are there more?
1-4-2-6-3-5 would require a different crank layout, as would 1-4-2-6-3-5 and 1-4-5-6-3-2. What is the Bosch reference, Greg?
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/135808-odd-firing-orders-in-inline-sixes/
does Bosch means all those firing order are interchangable with the same crank?
1-2-4-6-5-3
1-5-4-6-2-3
1-2-3-6-5-4
Are there more?
1-4-2-6-3-5 would require a different crank layout, as would 1-4-2-6-3-5 and 1-4-5-6-3-2. What is the Bosch reference, Greg?
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/135808-odd-firing-orders-in-inline-sixes/
does Bosch means all those firing order are interchangable with the same crank?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
With a standard 6 cylinder layout you COULD make it go 1-2-3-6-5-4, but exhaust and inlet wouldn't ever work properly, thermal stresses would be higher, and I'm pretty sure that there's some strage vibrations that would ensue also.
I wouldn't even want to think about how you'd deal with the tremendous torsional vibrations on the crank... yikes.
And you're right, Oz won the straight-6 wars. Resoundingly. I'd love to have a chance to play with a Chrysler 265 Hemi 6... but I've never even seen one except in pictures. Which is extra sad, considering that I HAVE seen a Duesenberg running at a local gathering.
With a standard 6 cylinder layout you COULD make it go 1-2-3-6-5-4, but exhaust and inlet wouldn't ever work properly, thermal stresses would be higher, and I'm pretty sure that there's some strage vibrations that would ensue also.
I wouldn't even want to think about how you'd deal with the tremendous torsional vibrations on the crank... yikes.
And you're right, Oz won the straight-6 wars. Resoundingly. I'd love to have a chance to play with a Chrysler 265 Hemi 6... but I've never even seen one except in pictures. Which is extra sad, considering that I HAVE seen a Duesenberg running at a local gathering.
the one i like the most from my point of view are these :
reverse rotationed inline 6 firing order:
1-3-5-6-4-2 or
1-4-2-6-3-5
reverse rotationed inline 6 firing order:
1-3-5-6-4-2 or
1-4-2-6-3-5
Last edited:
You should also take into account exhaust tuning/scavenging. It can make a difference W/ decent 6 into 2 into 1 headers. Header lengths and collectors are optimized for the proper firing order.
I like 5 cilinders myself... sure the crank isn't flat, but you also never have more than 1 cilinder passing a dead center.
Never driven a V10 but based on my 5L experience I'd very much like to.
Never driven a V10 but based on my 5L experience I'd very much like to.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
I like 5 cilinders myself... sure the crank isn't flat, but you also never have more than 1 cilinder passing a dead center.
Never driven a V10 but based on my 5L experience I'd very much like to.
No 2nd order imbalance on an I5, but like a 3-cylinder there's a "rocking" moment that has to be cancelled with a balance shaft.
Most V10s are odd firing and built on a 90-degree V with non-splayed crankpins. There's enough cylinders and overlap that the odd firing doesn't produce any roughness like it does when you try it with a 90-degree v6, but it does make a funky 2-notes-at-a-time exhaust tone. Especially noticeable if you only hear one bank at a time, like on a Viper with side-exit exhaust.
I like 5 cilinders myself... sure the crank isn't flat, but you also never have more than 1 cilinder passing a dead center.
Never driven a V10 but based on my 5L experience I'd very much like to.
No 2nd order imbalance on an I5, but like a 3-cylinder there's a "rocking" moment that has to be cancelled with a balance shaft.
Most V10s are odd firing and built on a 90-degree V with non-splayed crankpins. There's enough cylinders and overlap that the odd firing doesn't produce any roughness like it does when you try it with a 90-degree v6, but it does make a funky 2-notes-at-a-time exhaust tone. Especially noticeable if you only hear one bank at a time, like on a Viper with side-exit exhaust.
On an engine people theorycraft for 720 degree. I get why. Still should be figured for 360 degree
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
I like 5 cilinders myself... sure the crank isn't flat, but you also never have more than 1 cilinder passing a dead center.
Never driven a V10 but based on my 5L experience I'd very much like to.
No 2nd order imbalance on an I5, but like a 3-cylinder there's a "rocking" moment that has to be cancelled with a balance shaft.
Most V10s are odd firing and built on a 90-degree V with non-splayed crankpins. There's enough cylinders and overlap that the odd firing doesn't produce any roughness like it does when you try it with a 90-degree v6, but it does make a funky 2-notes-at-a-time exhaust tone. Especially noticeable if you only hear one bank at a time, like on a Viper with side-exit exhaust.
The first gen 5 cylinder diesel I had came with an extra balance shaft, but the later versions didn't. I suppose they added extra weight to the crank, but never investigated.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
I like 5 cilinders myself... sure the crank isn't flat, but you also never have more than 1 cilinder passing a dead center.
Never driven a V10 but based on my 5L experience I'd very much like to.
No 2nd order imbalance on an I5, but like a 3-cylinder there's a "rocking" moment that has to be cancelled with a balance shaft.
Most V10s are odd firing and built on a 90-degree V with non-splayed crankpins. There's enough cylinders and overlap that the odd firing doesn't produce any roughness like it does when you try it with a 90-degree v6, but it does make a funky 2-notes-at-a-time exhaust tone. Especially noticeable if you only hear one bank at a time, like on a Viper with side-exit exhaust.
The first gen 5 cylinder diesel I had came with an extra balance shaft, but the later versions didn't. I suppose they added extra weight to the crank, but never investigated.
car manufacturer didnt overthink too much the crank lay out in the past since it is a drag to make. they tended to copy and paste ,but thanks to some like ferrari and now ford ( probably other too) are beginning to make the effort of optimizing everything including crank .but it will take a while . and now they can afford to do it because they can simulate what result will be in augemented reality ,before it just costed too much to do . geometry of crank will likely change to naturally balance the crank with as less material as possible
Last edited:
thinking and overthinking aere two different thing,thinking ? you copy and paste with small tweak ,overthinking ? you craete the vr38dett or the new mustang engine
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Car manufacturers think plenty about crank layout.
True, and they always have since the 1910s and 1920s when V-type engines first started catching on in large numbers. Cadillac alone tried several configurations, including a 45-degree V16 and a 135-degree V16 in the 1930s, as well as a 90-degree V8.
As nifty as it is, there's nothing actually new in concept about the Ford layout, and certainly nothing new in concept or implementation about Ferrari's crank since they've been building them that way for 50-ish years. And the fact that it works for a race-oriented engine does not make it better for a street v8, either.
Car manufacturers think plenty about crank layout.
True, and they always have since the 1910s and 1920s when V-type engines first started catching on in large numbers. Cadillac alone tried several configurations, including a 45-degree V16 and a 135-degree V16 in the 1930s, as well as a 90-degree V8.
As nifty as it is, there's nothing actually new in concept about the Ford layout, and certainly nothing new in concept or implementation about Ferrari's crank since they've been building them that way for 50-ish years. And the fact that it works for a race-oriented engine does not make it better for a street v8, either.
- Status