Talk:V12 engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the V12 engine article.
Article policies
Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Are "V" engines really smoother than their in-line counterparts? I thought the real reason for V engines is to make the engine half as long as a similar inline engine. Straight 8s were made in the past, but it needed a really long bonnet to fit one. At the time, it was considered that they were at least at smooth as V-8s. I guess a straight-12 would be infeasible for most applications since it would just be too long.

The response is no. With less than 12 cylinders all V engines are tricky to balance. The minimal configuration to get perfect balance is a straight-6. Straight-4, V6 and V8 are disbalanced.


Something like a straight-48 will run smoother than a V12. But I think there is no obvious advantage for a V12 with good angle over an straight-12. I unsure but I think the russian have built an straight-12 for aicraft use.


At the small end, V-twins tend to run very rough, probably even more so than a straight twin. Their main advantage seems to be in allowing more cooling air to the cylinders, in motorcyle use.

All twins run rough except boxers engines. An Harley engine is really disbalanced. I believe a 90° V-twin can have a good (but imperfect) balance.

V16 are the smoothest !

Less than straight-16s or V24s :-)

Contents

[edit] Separation and identification of component symbols in units of measure

We separate the N and the m because they are different units, just like the lbf and the ft in the English units. A "full stop" looks clumsy; it might have made sense in British English when they used the middot as a decimal point, but that practice has pretty much fallen by the wayside in the past couple of decades.

The often recommended modern practice is to accomplish this separation of the unit symbols with either a space or a centered dot, not with a hyphen (which is usually considered acceptable for the spelled out words when they are used rather than the symbols), not with an asterisk, and not a dot on the line.

  • The U.S. national standards laboratory, NIST Guide for the use of the International System of Units (SI), section 6.1.5 Unit symbols obtained by multiplication, referring to American National Standard for Metric Practice, ANSI/IEEE Std 268-1992 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, NY, October 1992).
  • Usage example from Transport Canada: [1]
    • 3.4.1.4 The use of the same name for units of force and mass causes confusion. When the non-SI units are used, a distinction should be made between force and mass, for example, lbf to denote force in gravimetric engineering units and lb for mass.

P.S.: If a space is used in .html (as in Wikipedia), make it a hard space   so the units aren't separated from each other. Separating the number from the units with a hard space is sometimes desirable as well, but that isn't always necessary.
Gene Nygaard 16:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The list of cars

I think if it should be included here at all it should be at the end of the article. —Morven 14:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mergers of V12 and W12

I would like to merge the sections on V12 and W12 under single 12 Cylinder Engines Heading. I also want to consolidate All 16 and higher cylinder versions into a single article and consolidate. How do I merge? Samstayton 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Per Template:Piston engine configurations, most engine configurations have a separate article. Unless there are good reasons otherwise, it may be better to keep them separate. In this case, V12 wasn't a stub, and W12 technically didn't have to be a stub either (being 11.5 sentences). If you feel that all V8+Flat8+Straight8, V10+Flat10, etc... should be merged with each other, then it would probably be much better to discuss a large change like this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles first. In either case, what were the specific reasons that these two were merged? --Interiot 01:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the merge of V12 and W12, and I believe consensus should have been sought before making this change. I'd like to hear if anyone else supports or opposes this change. This also sort of sets a precedent for, as Interiot brought up, merging V8+W8+Flat8+Straight8, etc, and I would emphatically disagree with that change. I'll revert if there isn't much support. TomTheHand 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The two articles have been separated. Unfortunately the discussion has been spread across multiple pages (WP:AN, WP:RFC/TECH, User talk:Samstayton, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles), but in short, a number of people support keeping the articles separate. Other reasons for this given elsewhere include the existence of other 12-cylinder engines that weren't merged (Straight-12, Flat-12); the fact that there are a large number of articles for individual cylinder configurations, and this is how the articles have been laid out for some time; and the fact that these specific articles have a large number of backlinks and a large history, and that more discussion should take place before making large changes to an established article. This doesn't mean that this layout is carved in stone, but it does mean that much more discussion should take place before merging these. --Interiot 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, there were a number of perhipheral redirects created as a part of this. Just to reduce confusion, the list follows. I believe all possible double-redirects are cleaned up now. --Interiot 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The only opinion I have here is that W12's are weird enough and new enough to certainly warrant a seperate article. Friday (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Japanese V-12?

In the V12 road cars section, it states "In 1997, Toyota equipped their Century Limousine with the first ever japanese V12..."

Then, in the Auto racing section, it states "Between 1965 and 1980, Ferrari, Weslake, Honda, BRM, Maserati, Matra, Alfa-Romeo, Lamborghini and Tecno used 12-cylinder engines in Formula One, either V12 or Flat-12"

It is a well documented and undisputed fact that Honda has been making V-12 engine for Formula One cars since the 1960s. Since Honda is obviously a Japanese automaker, the comment about Toyota having the first ever Japanese V-12 is incorrect. It should state "first ever production V-12" to distinguish it from Honda's long lineage of V-12 racing counterparts. I will make the change now, but wanted to note this here in case anyone questions it. Refer to the Toyota Century article where it correctly states "The Century remains the first and only Japanese front-engine, rear-wheel drive production car equipped with a V12."

What does it mean that engines with 7 cylinders or more have "constant positive net torque output" (see first paragraph)? I have been unable to find support for this claim, or discussion of this concept, anywhere else. Could someone please explain the threshold that is crossed with 7 cylinders or more?

[edit] Horsepower Wars of the 60s

How could the move up to V16s be reminicent of something that occurred after it? Possibly it was a precursor to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.9.48 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)