kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.
Why do you say that?
Happydaze:
kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.Why do you say that?
That’s a good question, it’s not the cylinder configuration that makes the biggest difference to torque output, in most cases the American term “there’s no replacement for displacement” comes into force!!! Don’t forget the 164 Scania engine (& obviously R580 etc) is about the same capacity at the Volvo FH16 motor with 16 litre’s, there are other factors but basically the engine capacity is the biggest factor in pulling power in ‘like for like’ comparisons.
Ross.
bigr250:
Happydaze:
kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.Why do you say that?
That’s a good question, it’s not the cylinder configuration that makes the biggest difference to torque output, in most cases the American term “there’s no replacement for displacement” comes into force!!! Don’t forget the 164 Scania engine (& obviously R580 etc) is about the same capacity at the Volvo FH16 motor with 16 litre’s, there are other factors but basically the engine capacity is the biggest factor in pulling power in ‘like for like’ comparisons.
Ross.
Not exactly. Anybody who’s driven anywhere knows that 460 Volvo horses are not the same as 460 Scania horses. I’m not going to go into the ins and outs of bore/stroke torque/horsepower square and oversquare and power strokes per revolution, because I’m tired and I’m going to bed. 
Goodnight and safe driving to all. God Bless.
Happydaze:
bigr250:
Happydaze:
kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.Why do you say that?
That’s a good question, it’s not the cylinder configuration that makes the biggest difference to torque output, in most cases the American term “there’s no replacement for displacement” comes into force!!! Don’t forget the 164 Scania engine (& obviously R580 etc) is about the same capacity at the Volvo FH16 motor with 16 litre’s, there are other factors but basically the engine capacity is the biggest factor in pulling power in ‘like for like’ comparisons.
Ross.
Not exactly. Anybody who’s driven anywhere knows that 460 Volvo horses are not the same as 460 Scania horses. I’m not going to go into the ins and outs of bore/stroke torque/horsepower square and oversquare and power strokes per revolution, because I’m tired and I’m going to bed.
True the 460 Volvo was a flyer whereas the 144/460 was a dissapointment 
ellies dad:
Happydaze:
bigr250:
Happydaze:
kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.Why do you say that?
That’s a good question, it’s not the cylinder configuration that makes the biggest difference to torque output, in most cases the American term “there’s no replacement for displacement” comes into force!!! Don’t forget the 164 Scania engine (& obviously R580 etc) is about the same capacity at the Volvo FH16 motor with 16 litre’s, there are other factors but basically the engine capacity is the biggest factor in pulling power in ‘like for like’ comparisons.
Ross.
Not exactly. Anybody who’s driven anywhere knows that 460 Volvo horses are not the same as 460 Scania horses. I’m not going to go into the ins and outs of bore/stroke torque/horsepower square and oversquare and power strokes per revolution, because I’m tired and I’m going to bed.
True the 460 Volvo was a flyer whereas the 144/460 was a dissapointment
Go on, i’m too tired!
ellies dad:
Happydaze:
bigr250:
Happydaze:
kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.Why do you say that?
That’s a good question, it’s not the cylinder configuration that makes the biggest difference to torque output, in most cases the American term “there’s no replacement for displacement” comes into force!!! Don’t forget the 164 Scania engine (& obviously R580 etc) is about the same capacity at the Volvo FH16 motor with 16 litre’s, there are other factors but basically the engine capacity is the biggest factor in pulling power in ‘like for like’ comparisons.
Ross.
Not exactly. Anybody who’s driven anywhere knows that 460 Volvo horses are not the same as 460 Scania horses. I’m not going to go into the ins and outs of bore/stroke torque/horsepower square and oversquare and power strokes per revolution, because I’m tired and I’m going to bed.
True the 460 Volvo was a flyer whereas the 144/460 was a dissapointment
True but be fair a 143 450 was probally the ultimate driving machine
Happydaze:
kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.Why do you say that?
Something to do with the angle of the V, the greater the angle the less torgue it can produce, I sure Curryfart will be along soon to explain 
In modern engines torque figures are manipulated and managed by the program in the ECU, theres plenty of old designs out there been given a new lease of life in this age of PC emission controls, not always for the better 
kr79:
ellies dad:
Happydaze:
bigr250:
Happydaze:
kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.Why do you say that?
That’s a good question, it’s not the cylinder configuration that makes the biggest difference to torque output, in most cases the American term “there’s no replacement for displacement” comes into force!!! Don’t forget the 164 Scania engine (& obviously R580 etc) is about the same capacity at the Volvo FH16 motor with 16 litre’s, there are other factors but basically the engine capacity is the biggest factor in pulling power in ‘like for like’ comparisons.
Ross.
Not exactly. Anybody who’s driven anywhere knows that 460 Volvo horses are not the same as 460 Scania horses. I’m not going to go into the ins and outs of bore/stroke torque/horsepower square and oversquare and power strokes per revolution, because I’m tired and I’m going to bed.
True the 460 Volvo was a flyer whereas the 144/460 was a dissapointment
True but be fair a 143 450 was probally the ultimate driving machine
I loved my old 143 for all sorts of reasons and I’d tend to agree with you on that. What I always wished for though was an FH with a V8 (or a Scania with Volvo suspension) as I found that in the twisties I could leave any other truck behind with a 460 FH, but Scanias just never gave me the same seat of the pants feedback that the Volvo did.
Big Joe:
Happydaze:
kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.Why do you say that?
Something to do with the angle of the V, the greater the angle the less torgue it can produce, I sure Curryfart will be along soon to explain
A V engine is just two inline engines that share the same crank shaft and crankcase 
. 
Torque outputs are mainly determined by bore/stroke ratios and how much air you can force into the engine from as low rpm as possible and that is usually determined by single cylinder development versions of the eventual production engine.All outputs usually then just follow the characteristics of that single cylinder experimental motor pro rata by the number of those cylinders and it makes no difference wether those cylinders are in a V configuration or an inline configuration.Which is why the specific torque outputs of a 32 Litre V12 version of the Volvo engine would be as near as makes no difference the same as that of the straight six version 
and it’s also why the V 6 configuration Detroit motors put out exactly the same outputs as the Inline 6 versions of the same engine and V8’s have never been known for being gutless where torque is concerned which is why they used them in Rolls Royces and Bentleys for years let alone numerous American muscle cars and european cars like Mercs,BMW’s and now Jags. 
The main advantage of Inline engines have over V engines has always been in having better big end bearing area whereas V engines have to have narrower big ends because two cylinders have to share one crankshaft journal.But that gets offset by the lower forces which are imposed at that point in a V 8 or V 12 set up compared to an engine with fewer cylinders.While inline 8 and 12 cylinder engines aren’t practical because of their length and the effects of torsion on long crankshafts.
Happydaze:
kr79:
A v6 v8 etc will always need revs to get the best from it whereas an in line will have better torque at low revs that’s on petrol diesel car or truck engines.Why do you say that?
I read it in a hot rod magazine years ago and they did go on to explain why but it was a bit technical for me.
Speaking from experience I used to work for a firm that ran scania 143s and 144s and foden 4000s with 14 litre ■■■■■■■ engines and I always found the ■■■■■■■ went well if you let it use the torque but the scania was happier if you dropped a cog early and kept the revs up.
Anybody who’s ever ridden a V twin and an inline four back to back will know the difference between power and torque. By that, I don’t mean a Transalp and a CBR600…
Happydaze:
Anybody who’s ever ridden a V twin and an inline four back to back will know the difference between power and torque. By that, I don’t mean a Transalp and a CBR600…
90deg Vtwin 250cc two stroke GP bike, Vtwins took over in GP’s from about 1990 to it’s final days, with the exception of KTM in the last couple of years before those pesky 600’s!!!
PS, the fat bloke on board is me @ Jerez GP circuit in Spain, turn 2.
90deg Vtwin 999cc four stroke Superbike.
This was @ Aintree & the fat bloke on board is, guess who??
I’m fully aware of the advantages of a Vtwin over a straight 4, but the fact is, in 1,000cc form the V doesn’t make any real difference, it’s the twin ‘bit’ over the ‘four’ that makes the real difference.
Ross.
Oh, & in bike terms it doesn’t matter some times what cylinder configuration you have;
Oops!! Mallory Park, Thundersport Championship 2008.
Ross.
bigr250:
Happydaze:
Anybody who’s ever ridden a V twin and an inline four back to back will know the difference between power and torque. By that, I don’t mean a Transalp and a CBR600…90deg Vtwin 250cc two stroke GP bike, Vtwins took over in GP’s from about 1990 to it’s final days, with the exception of KTM in the last couple of years before those pesky 600’s!!!
PS, the fat bloke on board is me @ Jerez GP circuit in Spain, turn 2.
90deg Vtwin 999cc four stroke Superbike.
This was @ Aintree & the fat bloke on board is, guess who??
I’m fully aware of the advantages of a Vtwin over a straight 4, but the fact is, in 1,000cc form the V doesn’t make any real difference, it’s the twin ‘bit’ over the ‘four’ that makes the real difference.
Ross.
Exactly. Love the pics mate, I’m so not going to extol the virtues of my old 955cc Triple - it would just confuse people…
Happydaze:
Anybody who’s ever ridden a V twin and an inline four back to back will know the difference between power and torque. By that, I don’t mean a Transalp and a CBR600…
The difference is that there are really two types power.There’s the type whereby something can sustain and therefore multiplies loads of torque up to reasonable or even relatively high rpm and then there’s the other type where something has zb all torque but just takes what it does have up to very high rpm to get the same bhp figure on paper.
Anybody who grew up around American V8 (and/or Jag V12 ) powered cars knows the difference without needing to drive a Cosworth DFV powered F1 car. 
Best thing about a V8… Set of side exit’s and it’ll do this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDu7ONc4QTA&feature=player_embedded#!
About 3:30 when it gets on the M-Way for full effect
Happydaze:
Exactly. Love the pics mate, I’m so not going to extol the virtues of my old 955cc Triple - it would just confuse people…
Thanks ‘Hd’, I’ve all but retired from racing now.
Ross.
dew:
Best thing about a V8… Set of side exit’s and it’ll do this…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDu7ONc4QTA&feature=player_embedded#!
About 3:30 when it gets on the M-Way for full effect
Ooooooh, what have you done? I’m getting all misty-eyed about my old 164 now, sounded just like that… I loved that motor possibly even more than my 143, simply because she had those lovely straight pipes on her.
Happydaze:
dew:
Best thing about a V8… Set of side exit’s and it’ll do this…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDu7ONc4QTA&feature=player_embedded#!
About 3:30 when it gets on the M-Way for full effect
Ooooooh, what have you done? I’m getting all misty-eyed about my old 164 now, sounded just like that… I loved that motor possibly even more than my 143, simply because she had those lovely straight pipes on her.
Proper noise isn’t it Remember once being alongside one in traffic with a similiar set up, was about 45 minutes with the windows down and radio off, stunning soundtrack!
Check out all the comments related to the fuel consumption.It does (4 mpg) at around 80 t gross which shows how it’s fuel efficiency tonne/mpg increases as gross weights increase.Not bad for a 1970’s technology motor.