Lincoln LS

leadfoot4

Back when the window failures started to show up, I mentioned how concerned I was, since my wife takes the LS into a rough section of town on a daily basis. At that time, a TSB had not yet been issued. Now that it has, would I be able to get my regulator assemblies replaced even though they haven't yet failed ?

akirby

are not the same as recalls. Recalls require that work be performed at the factories expense. TSBs do not. They are only to help technicians diagnose problems. TSB related repairs are only covered during the warranty period. Of course there is always the possibility of getting the factory to cover the repair or at least part of it even after the warranty has expired. This is especially effective for problems that get a lot of publicity (like the 3.8L head gaskets) or for things that go wrong very close to the warranty expiration. But Ford is in no way obligated to pay for repairs outside warranty coverage unless it's a recall.

And no, they won't replace the window regulators unless they actually fail.

giowa

1. Yesterday I spent 8 solid hours on road in my '96 Impala SS taking son to a week-long youth camp. SS's huge trunk, vast interior space, use of 87 octane, great gearing, and mountains of torgue make her the darn near perfect interstate cruiser. Too bad her seats and headrests are crummy. Really made me wish I had those from my LS8!!! I may be a bit tough on my LS8 but I don't think I've ever said anything bad about her most excellent seats!

2. ezaircon4jc & ronniepooh: You might not want to use Hyundai as your whipping company any more. Stick with Yugo. Or Edsel. Check out all the positive press Hyundai has gotten over the past couple years. Everywhere from WSJ, FT, Economist, BW, and recently a article in Time. Sales are blowing thru the roof. New Elantra and Santa Fe getting pretty good reviews. Take an XG300 out for a city and interstate drive. Then take out an LS6 base auto. You might be surprised. The XG300 is nearly as luxurious. More interior room. Bigger trunk. 5-speed automatic with SST-type function. Darn thing weighs about 3,600 pounds (which hurts acceleration and fuel economy), but the car runs on 87 octane and gets decent EPA rating (think 19/27). Don't get me wrong, the XG300 is NOT intended to compete with LS (nor do I view it as a direct competitor). But you can't dismiss Hyundai or the XG300 out of hand.

And (sadly) my fully loaded '00 Hyundai Sonata GLS has been much, much more reliable than my '00 LS8 Sport. Not to mention much friendlier service and a most pleasant buying experience. Heck, the Hyundai dealer I bought mine from also sells Cadillacs. Not sure what that says, but I tend to get treated like someone in a DeVille.

3. ls1bmw0: I did post a lengthy note comparing the LS to Catera and showing why the LS can be more car to more people (e.g., 2 different engines, 3 trannys, Sport, etc.). Just that there has been an explosion on that site. Seems like they added hundreds of posts in just a couple days. They are saying some bizarre stuff about Cadillac. I think the new CTS looks about as ugly as an Aztec (at least from the nice photos in current issues of R&T and C&D).

4. slunar: All I can say, and what the physics bears out, is that engine configuration does matter. Some configurations are inherently balanced in all phases. I do not believe the I-6 is the only one. Thinking flat-6 (e.g., Porsche & Suburau) is too. Not sure if V-12 is. But the I-6 is the simplest, most cost-effective, and elegant design that is inherently balanced. Manufacturers moved away from I-6s NOT on the basis of anything wrong with I-6 nor anything better about the V-6 or V-8 but for reasons unrelated to the engine configuration's smoothness, power output, or delivery. 60s muscle car buyers wanted huge V-8s, not caring about smoothness. Things like size relative to platform (e.g., using I-6s in FWD is pretty hard). Now it is safety. MB recently moved toward V-6 to provide more crush space in accidents. Wasn't due to V-6 being a superior engine. BMW is also looking at V-6s for crash-related reasons. Check out the 9/01 issue of Car & Driver. Mentions the "angst in Japan" over the loss of the beloved Nissan I-6 in the awesome superperformance Skyline (moving to V-6). Mentions England's TVR getting ready to come back to USA in near future with their wonderful I-6s in place.

giowa

Has some picturs and an interesting discussion about the transmissions, esp. the new 5-speed automatic. Still can't imagine going with a 54-degree V-6. Pulled from Euro-GM parts bin.

gkarg

My Left Rear crashed about an hour ago. I had not used them since hearing the crunch noise last week. First attempt to roll it down and the rest is history.

I drove it directly to the dealer that has the RR regulator on back order. He will have the LR closed. (I asked to make sure it is closed better than RR - as low pressure water and wind come in rather easily!)

I'm going for the record of how many windows I can have inoperable at the same time... anyone had the front windows fail?

ls1bmw0

I checked and the dealers are correct, that the parts are on national back-order, which I'm sure thrills you folks who have had the problem occur to no end

The front windows do have a TSB, but it deals with noisy (creaking) windows for 2000 models. Seems the lubricant on the front window regulators was contaminated and that causes the creaking noise. It doesn't have any effect on window operation, just makes it noisy. Again the recommended course of action it to replace both regulators.

Brian

ls1bmw0

So far we have about twenty people who have expressed interest in the Wixom plant tour on Oct. 12.

I'm hoping for at least 50. This will be a really neat event, even better than Mania 1 especially combined with the Ford Racing Centennial event at Greenfield Village.

giowa

Do make sure to publice LLSOC and the event. Have you mentioned it on any of the other Lincoln web sites (e.g., Lincolns On Line)? Might be a way to increase LLSOC membership and increase attendance at the event. I definitely want this one to succeed. I've already got my hotel reservations and my wife has vacation approval.

klarson1

I'm confused again.... several people have said that the tsb suggests both rear regs be replaced.
Now I here some say no... which is it....
Can someone from Lincoln who monitors this site clear this up.
It would also help if they would have something to say about just what is being done about this growing problem.... I for one can tell you that after they finish laughing at the duct tape and the problem most people I know remark about how rediculous it is that this problem has gone on so long without a resolution... and then comment about a 38k dollar car should have windows that work...
Obviously Lincoln has no committment to this car..or the suckers who bought them...

Kevin

giowa

Knock on wood, but I haven't had this problem. Gave it some thought. Wondering if maybe this isn't a secret plan to increase LS sales. Must be a piece of cake for a car thief, even a novice, to see the window is down or spot the taped garbage bag or other piece of plastic acting as a window, get in, and be off with your car in less than 60 seconds. Then you have to replace your car. Lincoln hoping you'll buy another??? Just a possibility?

slunar

giowa: I don't want to get in a argument over the definition of "inherently" but an flat 6 (180 degrees) would be just as balanced as and I6 as would a 180 or 90 degree V8 or a 180, 120 or 60 degree V12. With the advent of split rod journals on the crankshaft almost any configuration V engine can be built with an even firing order making those above listed optimal V angle vs. # of cylinders far less important. Every engineering decision is a trade off, that is there never is a perfect solution. The I6's longer crank and cam shafts themselves can be a source of vibrations. To combat those vibrations you can add more main bearings which increase friction losses and add to the engines cost. The simple truth is that any advantages and I6 engine has these days are minimal.

giowa

Found one of the items previously posted here. Printed it off a long time ago. From "AutoZine Technical School". Anyone remember who was the original poster of this info?

In the chapter titled "Engine Smoothness", here is the intro...

"Inline 6 is not the only configuration that can deliver near perfect refinement, but it is the most compact one among them. All boxer engines are perfectly balanced, but they are too wide and require duplicate of blocks, heads, and valve gears. V-12 engines also achieve perfect balance, but obviously out of the reach of most mass production cars. Automotive engineers knew that long ago, that's why you can see most of the best classic engines were inline 6, such as Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost, Bentley Speed Six, Mercedes SSK, many Bugattis, Jaguar XK-series, and BMW's various models."

Chapter ends with: Ultimately, inline 6 engine is more efficient yet smoother [than V-6]. V-6 has more energy loss... Inline 6 is going to be cheaper than equivalent V6."

Maybe we should add Nissan's I-6 as a classic? Or Toyota's? Who knows, maybe the new GM SUV 4.2L? They say there is "angst in Japan" about the I-6 demise in their beloved super-Skyline boyracer! I pray England's TVR brings over their wonderful I-6. Let the engines and their physics do the talkin'!!!

scottc8

This was a hot topic when I first started lurking on this board, early last fall & shortly before buying my LS. Then only occasional mentions of it for several months. Is the problem catching up to those of us who don't open the rear windows often? Or is it a hot topic again because the replacement parts are unavailable? Mine is a 5/00 build, a prime candidate for failure, but so far, so good. I rarely lower the rears, but thinking seriously about NEVER lowering them, at least until the backorder problem is solved.

cdnpinhead

When I came back from LS Mania in January, I was pumped. The car was good, the people who created it were good, the weather in California for the event was good. . .what could be better. I think I posted things including phrases like "customer for life" and such.

That was the morning after. This is now.

Actually not that much has changed. Much of it is a state of mind.

If what we own is an FLM "mistake," you'll end up at one point -- run this car in Europe, well not really; make it competitive with the companies who actually run cars in Europe, well not really; service and fix the cars as if they were run in Europe, well not really. Hey, who's paying attention? Almost no one, really.

If what we've observed is only FLM preparing to make everything better any minute now, you'll end up at another point. I bought mine outright, and others have sacrificed considerably to obtain their LS's, so we'll be really, really interested in how this turns out. Others leased theirs and could care less. They'll turn it in and let the chips/cards fall where they may.

I live where it gets really, really hot in the summer, and having one (or both) of the rear windows fall down is a pretty big deal. As earlier posters have mentioned, it's possible to tape up the windows on one's $30K+ vehicle. While I normally don't much care what others think of me, having a car with a box-taped window isn't a good thing.

NOTE: to those who will endure this in the future, duct tape doesn't cut it. You need box tape. It works much better. I've used both.

stanny1

Hey, Guys, it's really easy to open the car door and "pin" the trolley up. It looks and works much better than tape. Be sure to unplug the power at the motor while you are in there. While you are at it, throw a Polk DX-7 in and this will help compensate for the loss of the window. Add the Borla and people can hear your stereo and your car at the same time!

sniemietz

The LS is my second new Ford product that I have purchased, it will also be my last. I am really a Chevy man and prefer trucks over cars any day, but my wife wanted a LS. I figured a Lincoln would have superior quality control and when problems would arise Lincoln would step up to the plate and provide superior service. I have received none of the above. My 94 Chevy Silverado was in the shop twice during it's waranty period and at 100K miles I have had no major repairs, The vehicle was fixed right the first time with superb service. I haven't even had the front-end aligned yet..!!! Yet my Lincoln LS with 11K miles has been back to the dealer 5 fives for warranty related issues, 3 of those times I had take it back TWICE for the same thing. Don't get me wrong the LS is fine riding and driving machine as it should be for a $35K car. I just prefer to buy products that are BOTH enjoyable and dependable and making trips to the dealer every other month for quality control issues is not my idea of a luxury automobile.

eor2

Just had my 01V8Spt in for free 5k service at 4400 miles. When I was driving out of the lot, the check engine light came on. Wheeled it back in, and the service mgr ran a quick check on the computer and got an error reading. Long story short, after a day in the shop the determined that the transmission shift sensor had failed. Took a day to get the part, and back on the road the 3rd day.

I have been reading this board for about 7 months and never heard of this problem. Has anyone else.

Other than that, the car has been perfect. As someone said in a recent post, it is great fun taking 25mph curves at 50 with full confidence.

johnnylinc

The latest issue of Road & Track has an interesting article on modified Miatas. In one case, the boys in Dearborn installed a 3-liter Duratec. The article indicates that the installed engine produces 210 horsepower and 205 lb.-ft. of torque, so I'm assuming it's a stock configuation; sounds like the '00-'01 LS. The 6-speed Miata tranny couldn't handle the torque, so they used a 5-speed from an RX-7. The hood required major modifications for clearance--it has a gigantic scoop--but the writer's impression was generally favorable.

Of particular interest to me was a paragraph which noted that the 2003 Duratec will be producing 250 horses and 230 lb.-ft. of torque. There was no indication of how this increase will be achieved, nor did the article reveal the source of the info or the applications for the engine, but the natural assumption (by me) is that this would be the base powerplant for the '03 LS. Good news if true; as a dedicated Tim Taylor acolyte, I hope it is.

Since this is the Lincoln LS forum, I'd like to point out that there is an Edmunds forum that is dedicated to the discussion of engine configurations. To find it, just click on "Town Hall", then on "News & Views". You'll find the "Best Engine Configuration" topic in that list. There are even some references to information sources that provide supporting data. Might I be so bold as to suggest that THAT forum is the proper place for the apparently never-ending V6 vs. I6 debate?

JLinc, who thinks that a rear-drive PT Cruiser with the new GM inline 6 would be the cat's jammies (and apologizing in advance for the non-LS ref...)

jnowski

From: "Advanced Engine Technology" by - Heinz Heisler

"3.2.5 Six-cylinder in-Iine crankshaft balance

Six-cylinder crankshafts have either four or seven main journal bearings. Four main bearing crankshafts were very popular until the 1960s for petrol engine capacities up to 3.5 to 4.0 litres because of their low manufacturing costs. However, owing to higher crankshaft speeds, compression ratios and better cylinder charge filling since then, the seven main bearing crankshaft has become necessary to provide greater lateral crankshaft support, thereby reducing running roughness and bearing loading caused by crankshaft bending. Both four and seven main bearing crankshafts generate pairs of front and rear internal couples due to the inertia forces of the rotating big-end crankpins, these couples and their resulting lateral crankshaft deflection are shown with the crankshaft in three different angular positions in Fig. 3.13. The generated couples act in the opposite sense to each other and therefore tend to become neutralized, but this is generally at the expense of the crankshaft bending in several places along its length, which can cause excessive main journal deflection and very high bearing loads. A partial remedy is to attach counterweights in the form of extended crankpin webs to one, or in some cases both, sides of each big-end crankpin so that rotating crankpin inertia forces are balanced, or at least partially balanced, thus, limiting very high bearing loads caused by lateral tilting of the crankshaft.

3.2.6 60° vee six-cylinder crankshaft balance

A 60° vee cylinder banked angle enables the width of an engine to be reduced by approximately 25% at the expense of something like a 20% increase in engine height, as compared with a 90° vee engine of the same capacity. Whereas the overall engine length is reduced by roughly 35% relative to a similar capacity straight six-cylinder engine, this reduction in crankshaft length considerably increases the rigidity of the crankshaft and, therefore, practically eliminates any torsional vibration. The crankshaft has six separate big-end crankpins equally spaced at intervals of 60° arranged in pairs between the four main journal bearings (Fig.3.14). The centrifugal inertia forces of the crankpins and connecting-rod big-ends cancel out due to there being three diametrically opposing pairs of crankpins 1 and 6, 4 and 2 and 3 and 5, but these generate three longitudinally active couples which create a dynamic imbalance to the crankshaft. These three couples produce a resultant longitudinal couple in the plane of crankpins 1 and 6 and this is normally cancelled by providing balance weights directly opposite and on each side of crankpin Nos. 1 and 6. In some long stroke engines a third additional pair of smaller balance weights are positioned in the same plane and direction as the other counterweights, but they are attached to the inner webs of crankpins 3 and 4 as this arrangement tends to relieve more of the load on the two inner main bearings."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Basically neither the I6 or V6, properly designed, have any "smoothness" advantage over the other because as noted here, balance weights are used to cancel out the V6 "couple". However the V6 has a big advantage over the I6 in the area of crankshaft torsional vibration. As stated above, the I6 has it big time, and the V6 has virtually none.

The referenced engineering book, (as opposed to "rag" articles), has other chapters which discuss different technical features the V6 has over the I6.

Sorry g-man, but you're all wet.

lateralg

8/13/01 "Autoweek": Audi A6 3.0L V-6 - "The 3.0-liter engine is silky smooth ..."

September, 2001 "Road & Track": Lexus ES 300 V-6 -
"The electric-motor smoothness and quietness of its 4-cam, 24-valve 3.0-liter V-6 ..."

akirby

If you want a chevy by all means get one, but don't think that it's automatically going to be better quality than your LS. What are you going to do if your new chevy has problems - switch to Dodge? If you really want to buy based on quality, you have to go with the percentages and not look at individual cases. The best way to do that is with quality surveys like JD Power that use actual consumer data (let's not get into the CR debate again, ok?) Every automaker builds lemons - it's inevitable. The question is what are your chances of getting one and what are your chances of getting it fixed if it does happen? I don't think you'll find much difference between Ford/Lincoln and your beloved Chevys. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy one - that's your choice - but don't expect to get a higher quality product because you're not.

thomas_l

Anything's possible with clever engineering. Anyone remember the odd-fire 229 Chevy V6 from '79-'81? It quite literally was a 305 with 2 cylinders removed. Even the pick-up coil in the distributor was "8 pointed" with 2 points removed and the distributor cap had a Rube Goldberg design to make the ignition wire posts on top appear symetrical. I had a beater 81 Camaro with this engine and, properly tuned, it was as smooth as anything else on the road at the time.

giowa

Can anyone name me a universally acknowledged "classic" V-6? We can all name "classic" V-8s (e.g., Chevy small block or Ford 427 big block, or Chrysler Hemi big block) and I-6s (see the post from above), but I'm at a loss for a "classic" V-6. And it ain't because they haven't built enough of them or have only been around for a decade or so. V-6s are nice for space efficiency reasons and to go along with FWD. And maybe to provide a bit more crash crush space. But those aren't reasons to put 'em in larger RWD sport sedans.

jnowski: Glad to see you posting again. Always good to read technical info. Guessing we'll just have to agree to disagree. Kind of like "tastes great" versus "less filling".

gschwartz: If you are going to selectively quote from the automotive press, at least be fair and post all the outstandingly positive quotes about current I-6s. With apologies to Kruschev, I can bury you with quotes over the past year or two uniformly praising BMWs 2.5L, 2.8L, and 3.0L I-6, Lexus' 3.0L I-6, and General Motors 4.2L I-6.

airwolf1000

Has JR's Replacement introduced herself? I don't seem to recall. Glad we still have Mark on the board..

Regards,

Airwolf1000

lolaj42

In addition to JR, how about Dick Cupka's replacement, or Jimmy Bobnick (Jimmybob)? These people used to offer fantastic input to this board. I don't recall whether we've heard from their replacements either. But yes, thankfully, we still have Mark!

jnowski

Hey g-man, why don't you "bury" us with quotes and comments from genuine engineering sources such as the books/periodicals that the SAE endorses?

ezaircon4jc

How 'bout the Dodge slant 6? Ford's Vulcan V6. An engine has to be around for a VERY long time to prove classic status. The Vulcan might be a little short on power, but it sure is reliable and smooth. I had one so I cam speak. I tried to start that running engine more than once

BTW, there is starting to be a performance market for the 2.5L Contour, the same block as our 3.0. There is a blower. I'm not sure what else.

jhoffman61

I don't know about you, but I'm afraid the future Lincoln products are going to look a lot like the Cadillac CTS (yuck!). Between the Mk 9 and the things Gerry McGovern has said about the visual cues he wants for Lincoln, it sure sounds like he is going to proceed down the same path of building a car around the grille along with slab sides and sharp edges. Of course, he might execute this better than Cadillac. Reading the press blurbs for the CTS, I get an uneasy feeling I heard much the same thing regarding Lincoln's future direction. Just because a car looks like it's "heritage" doesn't make it a good looking car. I hope I'm wrong.

jnowski

Funny thing about "classic" items, one mans "classic" is another mans "junk".

lateralg

giowa:

"... post all the outstandingly positive quotes about current I-6s ..."

Don't have to; you've already done it but seem to have overlooked positive quotes about V-6's. Who's selective??

stanny1

I don't want to break out all my articles, either. From an historical perspective, the classic twin-cam straight-six came way before the multi-cam 4-valve V-6 (60 degree) as used in mass production cars. The V-6's history closely parallels GM's antics in shaving a V-8 for duty in FWD vehicles. And yes, the early ones had simply cut-off cranks from V-8's and had terrible balance problems.
On the straight-six side, American manufactures never refined the straight-six like the Japanese and Europeans did with DOHC and four valves until GM came out with their current truck engine. The old American I-6's were all OHV/pushrod units, cast-iron and low-rpm stump-pullers for the most part.
The classic DOHC straight-sixes have been disappearing but not because they are "obsolete". FWD packaging requirements at first and now side-impact standards are taking their toll. MB, BMW, Toyota/Lexus have all gone more to V-6 engines. V-6's are not more smooth but they are more compact. Also, being shorter, a V-6 creates less forward weight bias.
Straight-sixes are still found in BMW's, Lexus IS300, and the Volvo S80, which is the old Porsche designed I-6 used since 1992 in RWD form and now turned transversely to create the widest FWD engine in memory.
We will still find the Straight-Six in applications where space is not a premium and RWD is used. The forward weight penalty of the I-6 is mostly neutralized by the weight of the rear axle assembly in RWD.
No one has mentioned why the I-6 is superior in at least two areas. The first is piston loading and lubrication. The weight of the piston laying on its side creates a wear problem and uneven lubrication in the V configuration. That is mentioned by GM in their rationale for their new I-6.
But perhaps the biggest reason for the straight-six's historical popularity is cost. When compared with the V-6, the I-6 has half the # of exhaust manifolds, cams, heads and head gaskets, less complex intake manifolds, etc. As a bonus, and this is one of the reasons why I-6's are so popular in heavy diesel truck operation - there is lots of space on both sides of the engines for things like turbos and other plumbing. Many argue that components last longer because of better cooling.
So before we argue about which design is better, consider the application and design. The Supra boys get gobs of bulletproof hp out of the their straight sixes. Pete Brock made history in the old 240Z I-6's, and they weren't even crossflow designs (intake on one side and exhaust on the other. A DOHC straight-six makes crossflow so easy compared with a pushrod V engine). Only the modern OHC V-6's have made competition for the long-used OHC straight-sixes.
My LS V-6 looks really complicated and packed compared to my Toyota DOHC straight-six. But I guess I'll need to learn to appreciate it's advantages and I'm sure there are some. Everything is a compromise and we need to appreciate every effort at design considering the goal of the design.

sniemietz

I picked my up car this afternoon after having the RR window regulator replaced. I also had them replace the backup light assemblies since they were hanging on by a thread. The service manager said this was common in high heat areas, and Texas is certainly one of them. It looks like the new level PN for the RR regulator is 5427008AB. But on the way home I decided to try the LR window and guess what folks..now it doesn't work. So here we go again. Another waiting period, another trip to the dealer, and another $6 charge for the free loaner. What was Ford's slogan awhile back...Quality is Job #1...

klarson1

So where are all the Lincoln folks who monitor this board on this one...
It seems that they are very selective as to what they see and what they don't
I'm getting pretty fed up myself.. even if it's not there "area" maybe they could pass the word along and we could get some answers..I smell cover-up...or just a lack of committment...
Still waiting for a part to fix my RR window...
I gonna buy stock in duct tape... or box tape..or BMW...

Kevin

giowa

1. stanny1: Amen, Brother! Can't say I ever remember reading where the great I-6s from BMW, Jag, Nissan, Toyota, Lexus, etc. failed to provide smooth, quiet, outstanding power delivery. I think the BMW M3 is proof positive that the I-6 can handle anything in the real world!

2. gschwartz: Please do keep in mind that it wasn't me who restarted this engine discussion. Who was it that recently asserted that their LS8's V-8 was smoother than other engines? All I did was respond. I'm a proponent of the I-6 configuration (at least for displacements from about 2.5-4.5L). Believe the automotive press backs my opinion. I may spend some time looking at some comparison tests where I-6s and V-6s were both compared simultaneously. From all the ones I remember the I-6s were uniformly praised for their smoothness. Many of the V-6s were praised, though not as effusively, and many others were commented upon negatively for their lack of smoothness vis-a-vis the I-6 standard.

3. jnowski: Glad to see you're as fiesty as ever and so outspoken. I don't necessarily pray to the SAE. Not a memberNor do I subscribe to their internet or other publications. If you believe your cited author above (Mr. Heisler) is the be all and end all of engine configuration theory and practice, why didn't you cite his credentials? How would any of us, yourself included, know he is the acknowledged expert par excellance of this field? Could you provide his academic and experential credentials? I'm not convinced that Heisler's comments demonstrate anything conclusively superior about the V-6 over I-6. Great, "classic" I-6s have been around for a long, long time and used in a huge variety of wonderful applications, racing and street.

lolaj42

Per the Wards Auto site posted earlier, "What's left to be said about the brilliant Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. "VQ" 3L DOHC V-6? It's won a Ward's 10 Best Engines award every year since its launch in 1995. And in winning yet again this year, the 3L VQ becomes the only engine to be a seven-time winner. Every year since we inaugurated the 10 Best Engines competition in 1995, the 3L VQ has won a place." Too bad this all aluminum motor has only been used in the FWD Nissan Maxima and Infinity I-30 sedans.

In it's previous iteration, dubbed the VG30DE, it had an iron block with aluminum heads and was used in the last generation of the 300ZX which debued in May 1989 as 90MY. In the naturally aspirated version, it made 222 hp and 198 lb-ft of torque (@6400 rpm, & 4800 rpm, respectively). With twin turbos, it made 300 hp and 283 lb.-ft of torque (@6400 rpm, & 3600 rpm, respectively). I drove the naturally aspirated verion for over 10 years and 100K miles, and had numerous opportunities to drive the twin turbo beast (which, at the time was a leader in highest specific output at 100hp/liter). This engine was a smooth, and potent operator.

jnowski

A couple of points;

1.) Back in the mid 60's Pontiac had an OHC I6 available in the Firebitd and LeMans vehicles. If memory serves correctly, it was 230 ci., and was mated to a 4 speed stick. HP rating was around the same as a small V8.

2.) An I6 intake manifold is MORE complex to design than a V6 due to the difficulty of getting even airflow to each cylinder because of the engines length. Whereas the V6, like the V8, has relatively centrally located intake porting, making it easier to design a superior manifold. (straight out of the 'ol engineering book Stan).

3.) The REAL reason "straight" 6's are still around has more to do with amortizing engine tooling which is designed to produce I4 and I6 blocks on the same line. (I recall that tidbit as also one of the reasons GM gives)

jnowski

Heinz Heisler MSc, BSc, FIMI, MIRTE, MCIT

Head of Transport Studies
The College of North West London
Willesden Centre
London, UK

Just a "little" bit more credible than those HACKS you love to quote g-man.

Incidentally, SAE (SOCIETY of AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS), you know, the fellas who design everything to do with vehicular transportetion. Even YOU could learn 1 or 2 things from them.

packv12

for the I8 to make a come back. It could be either a DOHC 4V like the old Safety Stutz and Duesenberg, or like the Fireball OHV of Buick's.

jnowski

Your wait is over! The I8 is available in some brands and is known as a V16, two I8's joined together.

jnowski

Your wait is over! The I8 is available in some brands and is known as a V16, two I8's joined together.

pat

I have removed some posts in the past few days for not adhering to the Member Agreement's requirement for civil and respectful discourse.

I just want to remind everyone here that indeed that is a requirement.

Obviously you are not obliged to respond to posts that you find beneath you, and I would recommend that when the need arises you take the high road and do just that - ignore it.

If you see a post that you believe does not comply with the Member Agreement, please shoot me an email - I'll take a look just as soon as I can. My email address is pat@edmunds.com, but you can always access my profile (and therefore the address) by displaying the main Sedans board and clicking on the link at the top.

I'm in my 9th month hosting Sedans (after being in several other places in Town Hall) and I have found this discussion to be one of the more high level conversations taking place in this community. Folks here are knowledgeable, insightful, helpful, enthusiastic and generally speaking, fine community members.

Every now and then I've observed a flare up or two, and we seem to find ourselves in the midst of one of those now.

We need to just refrain from making personal comments, and stick to our opinions, thoughts, facts on the vehicles instead of discussing each other. That's what Town Hall is all about, and I know that you all realize this and I thank you for your cooperation.

Please feel free to email me now or ever with any concerns you might have.

Thanks.

Pat
Host
Sedans Message Board

packv12

Someone called the cops. I better run fast rather than ask about the W engines of VW/Audi. . . .

stanny1

Manifold length was a problem before port injection. I have yet to see the "bundle of snakes" on an inline engine like the "V" engines have to employ (like the SHO V-6). You have room in an inline compartment to use any runner configuration desired.

jnowski

Stan, sorry to correct you again, but it's not the fuel injection point in the airstream, which is the issue. The issue is the tuning of the air column on the way to the port which is important. The best intake configuration for a 6 cylinder engine from the standpoint of induction valve overlap interference, is to break up the intake system into two 3 cylinder engine groups which effectively eliminates the interference. With an I6 you end up with two manifolds in series (one in front of the other along the length of the cylinder head), and with a V6 you have both manifolds next to each other (in parallel). This configuration provides you with first stage ram tuning. Now, if you want to add some second stage ram tuning, you need to add a valve operated passage between the two manifolds. With a V6 you have the intake coming in the front of both manifolds, and you simply add a passage and valve to the other end of both manifolds. Very simple and elegant (you can admire this very syetem on your LS). With an I6 however, the plumbing/hardware necessary to accomplish this same task is complicated and cumbersome due to the inline orientation of the intake manifolds, and may even end up costing more money to manufacture than the compact and elegantly simple V6 configuration.

Once again, this is straight out of the 'ol engineering book.

slunar

I am the person who sparked this latest engine debate. What started it all was my comment on how smooth the 3.9L LS V8 is. Just to get goiwa all fired up I also threw in a remark that the LS V8 is smoother than a BMW I6, which it is. Our friend giwoa then got all fired up, as knew he would and then proceeded to twist the discussion into the tired old I6 vs V6 debate. My original comment never mentioned V6's! OK I concede, the BMW I6 is smooth for a 6 but it doesn't come close to a good V8, like the LS has. By the way the Pontiac I6 was a dog, which I have first hand knowledge of after fixing many of them. Also worked on a lot of those un-even firing GM 90 degree V6's. Actually the un-even firing GM V6 came out in the early 1960's as a truck engine. Between the two they have damned V6's to a reputation as a rough engine, which is no longer deserved. GM later developed the split rod journal. In a "classic" V engine 2 connecting rod's are attached to the same crankshaft journal which mechanically sets the degrees between cylinder firing. That is why flat engines of all kinds, 90 deg 8's, 60 or 120 deg V6's and V12's work out to have an even firing order. The split rod journal is available to due CNC equipment which allows the rod journal to be split and machined in different positions to allow an even firing order no matter how many cylinders or what the V angle is. The more modern GM 90 deg V6's (started sometime in the 80's) have an even firing order and are pretty smooth. This split rod journal technology has made the classic 60 & 90 degree V angles obsolete letting designers choose the V angle based on engine compartment dimensions, for performance reasons such as wanting to fit in longer intake runners which would be impossible to put in a 60 degree V or simply to use manufacturing machinery originally intended for other engines. To close once again with my original point, Given proper engine design, the more cylinders it has, for a given displacement, the smoother running the engine will be. Hence a good V8 will always be smoother than a good 6, no matter what the 6's configuration is and a 12 will be smoother than an 8.

slunar

Just for the record giowa, the choice of using I6's in many European cars, including Jaguar had more to do with using existing manufacturing machinery then any technical reason to use an I6. RR has been using V8's since the early 1960's so I don't really know what your RR I6 comment was about. Most of England's car industry has been in a state of just barely surviving since WWII as demonstrated by the fact that pretty much all of England's car manufacturers are now owned by other companies like Ford, BMW and VW. If you're questioning where my expertise comes from I was a design engineer and later a project engineer for a company that manufactured production machinery for Ford, GM and Chysler so I spend many an hour in auto manufacturing plants and I still retain some knowledge of what they buy to build this stuff and why they buy or don't buy it.

fantom

I joined this group less than two months ago to find out more about my LS and I'm learning more about people than I am about cars...thanks.

I owned a 1966 Tempest LeMans OHC I6 Sprint with a 4 speed tranny back in the late 60s. I had it for almost four years and it was a delightfully strong and smooth engine. I recall shutting down more than a few surprised automatic GTOs with it. Too bad it never found a large market in those muscle car days.

BTW, I have a BSME and an MBA, along with a P.E., and some of you guys lose me with your technical detail. After I study the facts and purchase a car I get my joy from driving it, not from quoting car rags to prove the wisdom of my choice. The LS V6 Sport is a great automobile IMHO.

jnowski

Your post jogged my memory. It was 1966, and I was with a service buddy returning to Memphis after a weekend visit to Chicago where we both had family. His vehicle was a mildly warmed over 283 Chevelle "4 on-the-floor". We hit a light on, I believe it was, old Route 66 out of Chicago, and a Firebird "Sprint" pulled up alongside. The light changed and...... we got dusted! By a 6 cylinder! Not by much, but he beat us fair and square up to about 90 MPH or so where everyone backed off. Needless to say, I was very impressed at the time.

giowa

Way back when (in the first I-6 vs V-6 debate) I posted some info on the origins and development of V-6s. Was from an interesting R&T article on 1950s & 60s Ferrari engines. From about '97-'99, but can't remember exact month of the issue. Thinking Italy's Lancia was a big pioneer in the early 1950s. They went to V-6 in war ravaged Italy to save money given the constraints they faced at the time in regard to resources and platforms.

General Motors is not returning to serious I-6s due to amortization of old equipment. They spent serious cash to develop it and will reportedly use it for an entire series of engines. Lexus didn't use a wonderful I-6 in their IS300 due to cost considerations. They are hunting BMWs and know that only the best will do. You don't use a 22 to hunt a charging rhino!

jnowski

Obfuscation again giowa. What you didn't do is complete the sentence:

"They spent serious cash to develop it and will reportedly use it for an entire series of [INLINE 4/5/6 CYLINDER] engines."

Sounds just like the amortization of equipment by production of various inline engine configurations on the same production line that I described.