could a Y engine ever be produced?

[Hu_Dat?]

First an inline 4, 5(volvo), and 6 engines. Then we had v 6,8,10,12, and now with the advent of the new cadilac 16 (completely stupid if you ask me) a v16. In recent years we've created the W16s, two v8s side by side. Along the way there was also the Rotaries and the boxter(Subaru) style engines. what is next I always thought the next logical step would be the Y3,6,9, etc. engines, (essensially three pistons 60 degrees apart from each other). Seems like someone would of thought of this by now don't ya think?

[YellowMaranello]

The biggest limiting factor I see on this would be the amount of space that would be required to use it. You would basically need 3 seperate engine blocks all attached to each other. It would also use alot of material, which wouldn't make it too cost efficent to produce.

[ivymike1031]

wouldn't that basically be a radial engine, with few cylinders per plane?

http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/radial.htm
radial engine pics:

http://www.skytamer.com/engines/20010505-008.htm


BTW, V16s have been around for a heck of a lot longer than the one you mention.

[Jared_80]

A Y engine yould not be prcaticle for several reasons, first it is too tall this would raise the center of gravity and the hood height of the car, secondly your intake and exaust manifolds would look somthing like a maze. But the question remains Y would you want to use that shape, it has no advantages over other engine designes It is still longer than W, it is taller than any of the others, it still requires counter balencing (unlike the horozontaly opposed engines). The optimum street car engine configuration is the boxer hands down, it has the lowest center of gravity possable, it is as short as the V engines and it has a less recipracating mass than even the inline engines.

[454Casull]

As mentioned - this would be a type of radial engine, and even as radial engines go, not a very space-efficient engine. Plus they would be very complex (3 sets of everything compared to an inline engine).

[454Casull]

Originally Posted by Jared_80

A Y engine yould not be prcaticle for several reasons, first it is too tall this would raise the center of gravity and the hood height of the car, secondly your intake and exaust manifolds would look somthing like a maze. But the question remains Y would you want to use that shape, it has no advantages over other engine designes It is still longer than W, it is taller than any of the others, it still requires counter balencing (unlike the horozontaly opposed engines). The optimum street car engine configuration is the boxer hands down, it has the lowest center of gravity possable, it is as short as the V engines and it has a less recipracating mass than even the inline engines.

Then again, the Wankel engine has an even higher power-weight/volume ratio, so you can put it even lower and make more power. Might not be as good in endurance racing, because rotaries typically have lower thermal efficiencies...

[SaabJohan]

A rotary engine does three powerstrokes per 3 crank revs, the pistons are running with a third the rev of the crank. This gives them a power to volume ratio similar to the twostroke engine which also have one combustion for each rev. But the rotary does also have a lower thermal efficiency (higher cooling area) and higher exhaust emissions.

There is also an engine type which looks something like this -<:>-, basicly two V blocks which has their own crankshafts (the : are supposed to be the two cranks), but the engine has two cylinders for each combustion chamber (the - are the combustion chambers).

[pod]

there have been inverted v engines for pisten aircraft sence the 40s, most noteably in the me109, but it olny had one advantage during the compresson stroke the cylender didnt have to work agenst gravity it worked with it so it was the creator of many war storys but flat/wankel engines are the best for the street(the latter being tempemental). a y engine is olny good as a genorator engine even though it would be smooth . but imagane replacing head-gaskets on a y engine there will be 1-2 that will be faceing at the ground

[Hudson]

Engines as described (120-degrees, not 60-degrees) could work...but better designs like this have been tried. Radial engines of five and seven cylinders have been used in production cars, though not since before WWII. These engines could be used again, but there are packaging problems. If a radial engine were to be used, it would probably be mounted flat with the crank heading down to the transmission; this would give a lower center of gravity. Among the problems would be width of the engine (probably running close to the fenders) and requiring a unique transmission design (raising costs for suppliers).

These are some reasons why the engines never took off. This leaves us with the tried-and-true inline and vee engines. Although VW's "W" engines have four planes of cylinders, they are still just vee engines.

Don't expect any radical changes in piston engine design. Beyond hybrids and alternative fuels, the Otto-cycle engine is going to be supplanted by something completely unrelated before too long.

[Whymelaugh13]

What would the crankshaft configuration be? wouldnt you have to have at least two crankshafts meeting at a weird spot? or am i thinking something else...

[ivymike1031]

yeah, you're thinking of something else. Check the articles I linked at the top for a diagram & a pic of a radial engine (with only one crank)