v6 for delta, hypothetical.

[loki]

just an "experiment"... say delta's get a DI 2.2 or the 2.2 is replaced by the 1.4L T .... assuming the 2.8L is too big for the platform, hypothetically do you think there would be a market big enough to build a 2.9-3.2L V6 IC-VVT DI'd OHV engine putting out ~220hp ~210ftlbs as a "sport", not a SS?

obviously this is an IF they don't keep the 2.4 or don't upgrade it in the near future....

[dwightlooi]

just an "experiment"... say delta's get a DI 2.2 or the 2.2 is replaced by the 1.4L T .... assuming the 2.8L is too big for the platform, hypothetically do you think there would be a market big enough to build a 2.9-3.2L V6 IC-VVT DI'd OHV engine putting out ~220hp ~210ftlbs as a "sport", not a SS?

obviously this is an IF they don't keep the 2.4 or don't upgrade it in the near future....

I don't think so. The pushrod configuration's biggest advantage is the elimination of the fat and heavy DOHC heads. The width issue is made doubly worse with V type engines because you have two of them adding to the width equation. A push rod V6 or V8 may be lighter, shorter and narrower than a DOHC V6 or V8, it does not make a 3 liter class 60 degree engine the size of a 1.4 liter inline four.

If a car is packaged tightly around a 1.4 liter I4, it probably has no room for a 60 degree or 90 degree V6 of the 3.0 liter class even if it is slightly narrower and lighter than a DOHC one. If you really want to squeeze in maximum displacement into the smallest space a 10.6 or 15 degree Inline-Vee 6 is probably the most compact. The configuration is very much like bullets staggered in a double column magazine. You can have these as a 2-valve or even 4-valve engine. In fact with the four valve engine there are only two camshafts and one cylinder head, yet it has dual independent VVT because one cam operates the intakes on both banks and the other operates the exhaust of both banks. You may be able to stuff a 2.0~2.4 liter VR6 engine into the volume of a 1.4 DOHC turbo, this should be good for about 170~190 hp naturally aspirated or about 240 to 300hp turbocharged. The convenient thing is that, unlike traditional V-type engines, the VR-type engines have all the exhaust ports on one side and all the intake ports on the other -- just like an inline engine. Because of that, it is really convenient to turbo charge. You can simply use a single turbo on the exhaust side, and route the compressed charge through a front mount intercooler to the intake side. There is no need for an expensive and messy twin turbo arrangement, or some fancy exhaust ducting to bring the exhaust gases of both banks to the same side. See the illustration.

A 15 degree 24-valve 250hp VR6 is in the current Volkswagen Rabbit (Golf) R32 and Audi TT 3.2. A 3.6 liter 10.6 degree 24-valve VR6 is in the Passat 3.6. The first VR6 engine -- a 172hp 2-valve 2.8 liter unit -- was first introduced in 1993 in the Mk3 Volkswagen GTi VR6.

Edited May 26, 2008 by dwightlooi

[loki]

well... yes i was assuming a 60degree v6 would fit...

I have not had a first hand look at under the hood of a delta. but since delta 2 should be a tad bigger, maybe the engine bay will be too.

[NOS2006]

What's the point of a 220 HP v6 when we have a 260 HP turbo I4?

[Drew Dowdell]

What's the point of a 220 HP v6 when we have a 260 HP turbo I4?

.

... and Saab has a 300hp Biopower one in the works