I was reading up on the Ford 'Essex V4' engine from ford and this got me thinking.
What is the advantage of a V4 configuration (packaging smaller space) ?
Wouldn't a V4 need balancing shafts ?
Why not just use the 'Essex V6' instead ?
|
Transferring data from videao flash talking seems so halt my messages
|
Transferring data from videao flash talking seems so halt my messages
Can you use the "Report Website Problem" button to report it then. DD
|
|
|
|
I think it was mostly for packaging reasons, although you end up with a short, wide engine.
The V4 was also designed when front-wheel drive cars with compact transaxles were by no means as common as they are now, so it was probably an attempt to use as much of the Ford parts bin as possible so they didn't have to re-engineer floorpans / chassis etc.
|
Ford's GB's 90 degree V4 was used in the original Transit van, which allowed it to have a very short bonnet and no engine intrusion into the cab. It was a different design to the German Ford V4 that was used in Taunus front-wheel-drive cars.
I think I'm right that the British Ford V4 was based on the 3-litre V6 (or vice versa), which was unusual in being a 90 degree V6 - usually they are 60 degrees.
PS: Does anyone remember the distinctive noise made by the V4 Transits? Like a combination of a Subaru Imprezza and a whining 1970's Renault!!!
Edited by Sofa Spud on 14/12/2009 at 11:59
|
I seem to remember the Ford V4 was a rough unit and a short-lived one. Quite unlike any Lancia V4. Lancia used a narrow-angle layout starting in the mid-thirties with the first Aprilia, a little-known ground-breaking classic.
A friend had a Lancia Fulvia 1600HF. Masses of poke, smooth as silk, unburstable. Looked cute too with its yellow cylinder heads.
Edited by Lud on 14/12/2009 at 12:04
|
|
|
The Ford Corsair (British version) from 1965-71 had a V4, and that was rear wheel drive.
I believe it wasn't very successful, but I don't know the technicalities of it all
Edited by Armstrong Sid on 14/12/2009 at 12:06
|
|
|
|
|
Here's one fitted to a Saab:
tinyurl.com/ydexyz3
Was it the same as the Transit or Taunus unit?
Either way, it's a dinky little thing, it looks like it's the kind of engine you could pick up by hand. I like the idea of that for some reason, reminds me of a TV programme a few years back, with Robbie Coltrane taking apart a Trabant, and he literally pulls the engine out with his own hands!
Quite appealing when compared to the "look, don't touch" engines of modern cars.
|
Oh, and there's this one:
tinyurl.com/yasz2g7
Were they that noisy when new? Yikes!
|
The main problems with V engines are that you need two of everything, 2 heads, 2 exhaust manifolds, 2 valve trains etc.
Never driven a V4 car but owned a few V4 bikes and they are lovely things to ride, lovely tractable engines that will pull from just above idle right through to 14000 revs with no worries.
|
|
|
Were they that noisy when new?
See the description of the video:
"one manifold off the barely run-in V4 engine so its noisy as." :-)
|
I once had one of these in a Ford Capri Mk 1, a 2000 GT XLR to be precise and it was without doubt, a piece of junk.
It was the most unreliable engine I have ever had in my life.
Multiple headgasket failures, valve guides, balancer shaft bearings that would fall out of the engine block.
Junk !
|
|
Honda has a lovely V4 in the VFR800 - as above tractable so it rides like a 125 in town, but the V4 burble is intoxicating
|
There were two Ford (Europe) V4s - Essex and Cologne.
They were completely different with no interchangeability of parts. The Cologne engine (fitted to the SAAB 96) was reliable - the Essex engine was junk.
The problem with any V4 is that it will cost more to build than a comparable inline 4, so unless you really need a short engine (SAAB were replacing a 3 cyl 2 stroke), there's no point. The engine is inherently unbalanced and therefore needs a contra-rotating balance shaft running at crank speed - which adds further to the cost.
I ran two SAAB 96s to high mileages with the Cologne engine without problems - once you had evicted the apalling FoMoCo (or whatever they called it) carburettor. They went well, were not too thirsty by the standards of the day and had a characteristic and not unpleasant noise. The low speed torque was good - a bit much for the SAAB transmission.
In order to minimise balancing problems, these ingines were incredibly oversquare - 90 bore x 58 stroke as I remember (should equate to about 1.5 litres).
659.
Edited by 659FBE on 14/12/2009 at 14:44
|
|
|
|
"one manifold off the barely run-in V4 engine so its noisy as." :-)
:) Oh yes, missed that...
|
Fog V4 were 1.5 and 1.7 litres.Earlier ones(in Taunus) were 1.2 and 1.5 litres.
Fob V4 were 1.7 and 2.0 litres.
Both V4 were fitted with balance shafts.
Fog V6 were 1.8,2.0,2.3,2.4,2.6,2.8,2.9.
Fob V6 were 2.5,3.0,3.1.
|
Fog V6 were 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.9.
Wow, that's quite a range of V6s. Seems like a golden age when compared to the dull 4 pot fare we're served up with on most cars now.
|
|
my old Scout troup had an early 70s Transit with one and it was very rough and thuddy:engine note kind of like a flat four but without the zing and smoothness.
|
|
|
The 1.8 was a 6 cylinder version of the 1.2.
The 2.0,2.3 and 2.8 were all made at the same time and were made by different combinations of stroke/bore.
The 2.4 and 2.9 were uprated versions of the 2.3 and 2.8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
