For those interested in old cars.

[alastairq]

Ford of Germany had their own V4 and V6 engines....which seemed to be a totally different kettle of fish to Dagenham V4s and V6s.

IIRC, the German Ford V4 was originally designed and mooted for FWD Taunus?  {Why SAAB opted for them, perhaps?]

The V6 configuration....[they didn't share crankpins like most V8s]...was really an attempt at an ideal solution to the problem of the inline sixes....in that the inline six, on one carburettor, struggled with getting uniform[even] mixtures into the end cylinders..a problem of dissimilar length inlet runners.

Ford eventually got around to it in the USA with their US V6..but GM opted for the V6 early in the 1970's....and a very successful engine it was too, with millions and millions of them being made.

Of course, the inline six, properly designed [to an extent] was the strongest engine of all the bigger engines....Ford's basic inline sixes [from the USA & Australia]...were stronger than the V8s that everybody loved [dunno why?]....with their 7 big main bearings [as against a V8's five?]....and also being basically, much better balanced.

The Ford inline sixes [which I know about as I've got one]....were known to give superior torque, for their cubic capacity, than the equivalent sized V8s...[which gave better bhp]....something to do with the number of power pulses  an inline 6 gives per crankshaft revolution..compared to a V8 configuration?

Jaguar inline sixes worked better with twin carbs than singles...better fuel distribution across the whole engine....not a lot to do with twin carb [or triple carb].... kudos...

[MrWolf]

The distributor drive was known to give way where it located in the oil pump, but it wasn't that common. The later "Cologne" V6 had fibre timing gears as a supposed development over the old Essex engine. They used to wear badly and smash themselves to bits. I preferred the inline six fitted to the Mk1-Mk3 cars, a pity that it was strangled by the godawful hockey stick manifold. Vauxhall did a better job with their sixes which outlasted the cars generally.

[alastairq]

Just now, MrWolf said:

I preferred the inline six fitted to the Mk1-Mk3 cars, a pity that it was strangled by the godawful hockey stick manifold

Could not be worse than Ford USA's thing on their OHV inline sixes? where the inlet manifold was cast  as one with the cylinder head? Unless one got hold of one of those cameras on stalks....there was no real knowing what the insides of the manifold at each end actually looked like.

The Vauxhall 3.3 litre six was on a par with Ford USA's 3.3 litre [200 cu in] six..better bhp, but slightly less torque.... No idea whether it was heavier or not?  The inline sixes also weighed less than Ford's V8s...and obviously, offered the underbonnet scramblers a lot more elbow room.

I like 'em... especially at roundabouts!

[PatB]

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

Could not be worse than Ford USA's thing on their OHV inline sixes? where the inlet manifold was cast  as one with the cylinder head? Unless one got hold of one of those cameras on stalks....there was no real knowing what the insides of the manifold at each end actually looked like.

The Vauxhall 3.3 litre six was on a par with Ford USA's 3.3 litre [200 cu in] six..better bhp, but slightly less torque.... No idea whether it was heavier or not?  The inline sixes also weighed less than Ford's V8s...and obviously, offered the underbonnet scramblers a lot more elbow room.

I like 'em... especially at roundabouts!

Wasn't the Vauxhall six deficient in the main bearing department though? ISTR there was something that limited its potential. 

 

I've owned or driven both Ford and GM sixes here in Oz, and have vastly preferred the GM product. The Fords have looked fine on paper but been very disappointing in all respects in practice, even with a significant capacity advantage (4.1litres vs 3.3 for the most common variants of the pushrod units, and 3.9+ litres for the later OHC Ford vs 3.8 for the GM V6). 

[MrWolf]

The early Vauxhall six (pre 1957) had a rope seal on the rear main bearing as did many prewar designs. Because the rear main takes the most punishment, the wear was accelerated and usually by 60,000 miles the seal began to leak, this would starve oil to the rear bearing. If you dropped the sump and changed the seal ASAP, no problems.

The problem was that Vauxhall's, like so many medium size saloons, did three years as a company car and five as a taxi, by which time they were worn out. Few owners bothered about an oil leak or a patch of rust. 

[Fat Controller]

26 minutes ago, PatB said:

Wasn't the Vauxhall six deficient in the main bearing department though? ISTR there was something that limited its potential. 

 

I've owned or driven both Ford and GM sixes here in Oz, and have vastly preferred the GM product. The Fords have looked fine on paper but been very disappointing in all respects in practice, even with a significant capacity advantage (4.1litres vs 3.3 for the most common variants of the pushrod units, and 3.9+ litres for the later OHC Ford vs 3.8 for the GM V6). 

Didn't the 3.3 litre Vauxhall have a relatively small clutch-plate? I learnt to drive on my dad's Cresta PB, and remember having to be very careful on hill starts

[MJI]

What is surprising is the amount of 6 cylinder engines and how many are on a low state of tune.

 

And how long some old ones lasted (eg Ford Cologne)

[alastairq]

25 minutes ago, MJI said:

What is surprising is the amount of 6 cylinder engines and how many are on a low state of tune.

 

And how long some old ones lasted (eg Ford Cologne)

 The Ford 200, 250, and later the 300, etc sixes were their bread n butter engines. They went into everything [almost] that Ford USA  made....Whether a Falcon saloon, Mustang, Bronco, van, pickup, you name it, the base engine was the six cylinder inline. Right through from the 60's to the 80's & 90's...and beyond in more advanced forms.  Indeed, their US V6 was not up to snuff,  Ford went back to fitting the [200?] inline 6 in some models.

Ford Australia also used the 200 and 250 inline six, but did their own thing with regards to cylinder heads, and made the inlet manifold a separate casting. Thus, a good start when tuning the Ford six was to obtain an Aussie cylinder head.....and manifold, of course. But, they were strong engines in the bottom end...good luggers, plenty of torque...good workaday engines.  Their potential belies their public reputation.  Which is, after all, what a manufacturer of vehicles needs..a good strong basic engine...no need for overt bhp....but it needed to be able to work for its keep.

Heck, even Ford Argentina got in on the act..[although their quality was a tad suspect]  

[MrWolf]

2 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

Didn't the 3.3 litre Vauxhall have a relatively small clutch-plate? I learnt to drive on my dad's Cresta PB, and remember having to be very careful on hill starts

 

The clutch itself was up to the job, if you weren't careful with it especially in first gear you could get into a pretty spectacular wheelspin that would continue into second gear without much encouragement. The Achilles heel of the post 1957 clutch was the slave cylinder (earlier cars were all mechanical) which was only 3/4". It could have done with being 15/16".

The transmission was exceptionally tough and found its way into various commercials, the column change gear mechanism was probably the best of a bad lot (i do like a three on the tree though!)

The column change linkage on the British Ford's had a tendency to jam in a false neutral between first and second and the 1950-56 mk1 zephyrs  had rather weak half shafts that had a tendency to snap at the differential end, particularly if you set off sharply in reverse. 

[alastairq]

The PC Cresta, and Ventora, were more reliable.

[MrWolf]

56 minutes ago, alastairq said:

The PC Cresta, and Ventora, were more reliable.

 

It's a shame that fashion changed so rapidly on them, not to mention the oil crisis of '73, they became worthless overnight and the banger racers had a field day destroying them.

[Jol Wilkinson]

10 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

I had a Corsair V4, The fuel pump was operated  by a rocking lever worked off of one of the cams. The lever used to either wear or bend and the fuel supply diminished accordingly. I was told to fit a V6 fuel pump, this I did and there was never any more trouble. If anything the V4's were even worse than the V6's because they were out of balance. The ideal angle on a V4 or V8 to balance the engine is 90 degrees, with a V6 its 60 degrees. The Essex engine was 60 degrees. Fords did fit a balance shaft to the V4's but as the engine wore it became less effective. The Transit was designed around the V4 engine and many owners, especially of motor caravans fitted the V6 (with the diesel version snout) which not only gave more power and reliability it improved fuel consumption as the engine was not so stressed.

When I worked in FMC's Service Division, we understood that the V4 had been designed/modified to fit the Transit design. That apparently accounted for the V4 being "squashed" fore and aft, leaving little room between the bores, thus creating head gasket problems (which also afflicted the V6). These were partly resolved when a better head gasket design was developed.

 

Putting V6's in Cortinas became the name of the game. A friend had one  which he rallied occasionally and learned to always start in 2nd gear, to spare the gearbox and back axle.

[PhilJ W]

36 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

 

Putting V6's in Cortinas became the name of the game. A friend had one  which he rallied occasionally and learned to always start in 2nd gear, to spare the gearbox and back axle.

They were basically 105E Anglia bits.

[APOLLO]

NOWT beats a Rover V8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Not mine - not shiny enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

[MJI]

16 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

NOWT beats a Rover V8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Not mine - not shiny enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

 

 

I don't know, it is an option on my car but the Diesel is more reliable, easily tuneable to same or more power and sounds really good.

 

Good 6s though I have come across are BMW, Opel pre Ecotec (Senator straight 6). Gppd V6s mainly the GM Ecotec V6 a lot nicer than the contempary Ford Cologne. Alfa seem good as well.

 

A lot of V6s are flawed, the PRV one is fragile, Essex are head gasket blowers, Cologne, poor porting.

[PhilJ W]

23 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

NOWT beats a Rover V8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Not mine - not shiny enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

That was a Buick engine originally, But the Daimler V8's were reckoned to be the better engine.

[MJI]

2 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

That was a Buick engine originally, But the Daimler V8's were reckoned to be the better engine.

 

And mine is about 6 or 7 generations on from a B series, roughly same stroke and bore centres.

[PhilJ W]

British car makers produced some very good 'Big fours' that could give the contemporary sixes a run for their money. The Standard Vanguard, Austin A70 and Rover. All about 2-2.5 litres. All three were adapted to a diesel version and all three remained in production for many years. (Even if not in the UK).

Edited October 19, 2020 by PhilJ W

[MrWolf]

The Daimler V8 was a much more sophisticated engine, capable of having ridiculous amounts of horsepower wrung out of them. Which is why many ended up in dragsters. Although Rover got their V8 off the junk pile at Buick's development shop, they totally reworked it. It bears little resemblance to the original that Buick rejected as underpowered. At that time Buick cars had proper engines like the "Nailhead" 401 ci and 445ft/lb torque. Say what you like about American cars, but from the 40s to the late 60s they were light years ahead.

[steve1]

Talking of 6s, the one in my Mk 2 Vitesse was very smooth and adequately powerful in a small, light, car.

 

steve

[Oldddudders]

10 hours ago, APOLLO said:

NOWT beats a Rover V8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My thoughts too - until I owned one. A lovely drive in my 1985 Landie 110, but the oil-pump failed at 50k - it seemed the engine was famous for it - and it cost me nearly £2k for a rebuild, at a time when money was short and mortgages sky-high. 

[MJI]

The Daimler V8 was basically a Triumph engine wasn't it?

 

Just checked it was based on the bike heads

[MJI]

9 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

My thoughts too - until I owned one. A lovely drive in my 1985 Landie 110, but the oil-pump failed at 50k - it seemed the engine was famous for it - and it cost me nearly £2k for a rebuild, at a time when money was short and mortgages sky-high. 

 

On mine the Yanks really want the Diesel option as the 4.6l version of the V8 is fragile. Some have imported complete Diesel setups for this.

[APOLLO]

9 hours ago, MrWolf said:

The Daimler V8 was a much more sophisticated engine, capable of having ridiculous amounts of horsepower wrung out of them. Which is why many ended up in dragsters. Although Rover got their V8 off the junk pile at Buick's development shop, they totally reworked it. It bears little resemblance to the original that Buick rejected as underpowered. At that time Buick cars had proper engines like the "Nailhead" 401 ci and 445ft/lb torque. Say what you like about American cars, but from the 40s to the late 60s they were light years ahead.

 

Not quite the full story, 

 

https://www.aronline.co.uk/engines/engines-rover-v8/

 

I don't doubt the Daimler V8 was "better" - no experience of it, but I have owned and run my 1973 Rover 3.5 P5B (Post War 5th car produced and the B of course stands for Buick) saloon since buying her in 1982. Quite simply superb (though thirsty) engine. Gave her a run yesterday in fact.

 

Brit15

 

 

[MrWolf]

1 hour ago, steve1 said:

Talking of 6s, the one in my Mk 2 Vitesse was very smooth and adequately powerful in a small, light, car.

 

steve

 

The original Standard / Triumph engine was a reliable old lump , quite easy to tune too. I always fancied a Vitesse as a teenager, but couldn't get insurance because of my age. Yet they did insure me for a 2651cc Vauxhall Cresta. That still doesn't make sense!