4 v 6 Cylinders

F

FAARN

Member
 Bremerhaven
I have been looking at the new engine design for F1 cars in 2014 and thinking about the number of cylinders they will have (I should really get a life!). As I can't find any good info was hoping someone here could highlight the pros and cons of 4 v 6 cylinders.

The 2014 engine will be a 1.6 6 cylinder turbo. Why is this chosen over a 1.6 4 cylinder turbo? for the same litres what are the advantages and disadvantages of each and why (presuming equally well engineered).
 
My simpleton understanding is that engines run smother with more smaller cylinders. Than less bigger ones??? I am sure someone will tell me i am talking c**p and put us both right i a minute. :D
 
Piston engines develop primary forces and secondary moments (of inertia) due to their reciprocating and rotating parts. In a straight 6 these are perfectly balanced (with the correct firing sequence), whereas in a 4 they are not. Larger 4 cylinder engines need to use additional (lanchester) balance shafts to damp down the vibrations - such as in the Porsche 944 engine range. Most 4s do not have these. V12s are also perfactly balanced by design.

In-line 6s are also more efficient. (Apart from mine, which struggles to do more than 31mpg!).

Not many manufacturers us the straight 6 because it is very difficult to fit into a FWD car - hence V6s, but these are not as well balanced. Additional balance shaft makes them more complex, more expensive and I suppose a bit heavier.
 
I vaguely know its something about less vibration, better balance, smaller mass going up and down so less inertia which allows higher revving?!?!? :tumbleweed:
 
Definitely should rev higher. I would also think the 6 cyl version would wear longer before needing a rebuild, everything else being equal. Something about more, smaller parts absorbing the energy. More surface area for equal volume. No special race mechanic knowledge here, just my gut feeling, knowing something about materials engineering.

The only advantage of a 4 cyl I can think of is it costs less to produce and maintain, basically fewer parts, but the need for balance shafts in a high rev engine offsets that some, such that the difference isn't as much as one would first think.
 
Thanks for the info. So basically a 4 cylinder engine is better for a lower literage provided it does not need high performance. More power means balance shafts, complexity and cost. 6 cylinders can rev higher and produce more power for a cheaper cost in the long run; the downside being a loss in fuel economy. Now it makes sense to use 6 cylinders in F1, although a massive V12 with turbos would sound awesome. I hope the smaller engines don't reduce overtaking, less power and more downforce leads to a duller experience in my opinion but we will see. :thumbsup:
 
Also 4 cylinder engine's have been used in F1 many times before, off my head the early to mid 80's cars where all 4 cylinder engine.
I don't think it will detract from the racing in anyway.
 
i would clarify that the 2014 engines will be V6 and NOT straight 6 so the balance problem still arises.

i would much rather the FIA said, you have x litres of fuel per race (this could change on a race by race basis) and then said to the teams do as you wish.

however it would require a budget cap which i can see would be very tricky to police!
 
The FIA had intended to go to 4 cylinder turbos, however were persuaded with the V6 because they produce more torque and sound better.
 
Vidge said:
i would clarify that the 2014 engines will be V6 and NOT straight 6 so the balance problem still arises.
Click to expand...
:lol: Only a bunch of BMW owners would assume "six cylinder" would mean straight six! It's DR-Z's fault, I naturally fell in place behind that initial misdirection. :poke:

Seems to me that if you need a short 6 cyl package, flat 6 would make more sense than V6. Not knowing anything about F1 issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom