> Then why is the V6 in my Taurus a smoother engine than the inline 6 in my
> TR6? (and there is no hint of a balance shaft in the OHC engine in a
> 97 Taurus)
I would guess it has more to do with Ford doing a better job of tuning the
mounts and so on than Triumph did (especially 30 years later when Triumph motor
mounts come from who knows where). Or perhaps there is something wrong with
your TR6. Somehow I doubt all it's moving parts were installed by the factory,
and are still exactly the same weight as they were then.
> Of course the answer is that balancing the rotating components has a bigger
> effect than layout.
That would depend entirely on how badly mismatched the components were to start
with.
> When someone suggests that the TR6 is inherently
> balanced due to the inline configuration is glossing over the fact
> that most 70's
> vintage engines (save the exotic, expensive ones) were not very well
> balanced.
Seems like a semantics problem to me. The point is that other engine layouts
are inherently unbalanced, no matter what you do with weights on the pistons and
crankshaft, they vibrate. The in-line 6 layout does not suffer this problem, it
is possible to adjust weights until the first and second order vibrations cancel
each other out.
Note that the Taurus V6 got a balance shaft the very next year ... somehow I
doubt Ford did that just so they could brag about it in the advertising
brochure.
> Hence sales BS.
Ok, you're welcome to your opinion. The effect is real, the physics are there.
I don't think anyone meant to say that there is no need to balance an inline 6,
only that it's possible to do so. But of course that's my opinion too <G>
Honestly, I don't recall ever seeing any advertising claiming an inline 6 was
inherently superior, do you? This is something gearheads discuss, not marketing
types.
Randall
=== This list supported in part by The Vintage Triumph Register
=== http://www.vtr.org
|