Video: Are These Six Of The Greatest Inline Six Cylinder Engines?

[solarite_guy]

By Greg Acosta March 02, 2018

http://www.enginelabs.com/news/video...inder-engines/

Straight-six engines seem to be ignored or blindly dismissed by certain segments of the performance world. Whether intentional or not, the inline six-cylinder engine has proven to be not only a reliable workhorse, but to also pack quite a bit of performance potential. Maybe it’s because all of the inline sixes on this list are “imports” (except for one, kind of, as you’ll see), but wherever your brand loyalties may lie, there is no denying the power and potential of these engines.

The video starts off with an engine that’s little-known here in America: the Australian Ford Barra engine. Found in a variety of Ford Australia’s performance vehicles in a variety of displacement options, they all feature dual overhead camshafts with variable cam timing. The later models came factory turbocharged and are known for being stout performers. The Australian car series Mighty Car Mods even used one to make 600 horsepower at the rear wheels and power a Toyota Cresta to nine-second quarter-mile times, all with stock parts.

A familiar Ford 6 pictured here:
http://cdn.speednik.com/wp-content/b...-21_389946.jpg

The Ford Barra engine is a stout inline-six that never made it to the states, but is no stranger to powering vehicles deep into the single-digits in the quarter-mile, both in stockish and highly-modified forms.

Next there is the Toyota JZ line of inline-six engines, which have an almost cult-like following in the sport compact world. The 2JZ, and its lesser known brother the 1JZ, are mainly known for powering Supras, but can be found in a number of different Toyota and Lexus models. With a base displacement of 2.5 liters for the 1JZ series, and 3.0 liters for the 2JZ line, they both utilize dual overhead camshaft, 24-valve cylinder heads, with VVTi (Toyota’s variable valve timing) options, as well as both factory turbocharged and naturally aspirated variants. The JZ family is heavily supported by both the American and Japanese aftermarket, and achieving four-digit horsepower levels is a very attainable goal.

Then there is the BMW S54 engine. Originally powering the E46 M3, E85 M Roadster, and E86 M Coupe, it displaced 3.2 liters and is a dual overhead cam headed engine as well. Designed as the high performance version of the M54 engine, it developed more than 100 more horsepower (338 horsepower) than the M54 and added 0.25-liters of displacement in stock from. They featured BMW’s “VANOS” variable timing system on the exhaust camshaft, and an oil scavenging pump from the factory. With a factory rev-limit of 8,000 rpm, these engines were truly screamers from the factory. They have also gained popularity in the grassroots drift movement, as reliable powerhouses, finding homes in E36 chassis with large turbochargers.

The fourth engine on the list in the video is listed as a Nissan S20 from an R33 Skyline, but this is actually incorrect. The car in the video is powered by an RB26DETT which is revered as a unicorn in American circles, as the entire RB series of inline-six engines was never offered as a factory option in the United States – adding to the mythos of the RB platform. A series of engines ranging from 2.0 to 3.0-liters, with a variety of cylinder head, camshaft, and aspiration systems, the variants are easily decoded thanks to Nissan’s straightforward naming convention. The RB26DETT, for example would be a 2.6-liter RB-series engine, with “D”ual overhead cams, “E”lectronic fuel injection, and “T”win “T”urbochargers. As the RB series are best known for powering the Skyline R31-R34 generations (1985-2002 model years), and the fact that Skylines were never imported to the US, only increased American fascination with the series.

A Skyline view:
http://cdn.speednik.com/wp-content/b...-45_091667.jpg

The Nissan RB-series of inline six-cylinder engines also never made it to the US in any factory applications, but with the rolling 25-year exception to import restrictions in effect, we’re starting to see an influx of R32 Skylines, increasing the number of RB-powered vehicles on US roads.

Fifth on the list is the TVR Tuscan Speed Six. The inline-six in the Tuscan ranged from 3.6 to 4.2-liters, with power peaking at 440 horsepower from the factory, making it a stout performer. However, we’re not sure that its seven-year model run can compare to the longevity of the others on the list, regardless of the fact that the Tuscan was regarded as an amazing sports car. However, we’ll give it a pass, as it was driven by John Travolta in one of our favorite movies of all time: Swordfish.

The final straight six on the list probably on the list more because of the car it was in, rather than the engine itself, and that’s the 3.0-liter straight six from Mercedes-Benz in the 300 SL Gullwing. Really, the performance of the 300 SL was thanks to the chassis, moreso than the engine. However, it does hold the distinction of being the first automotive engine featuring direct injection, and of being derived from the V12 of one of the most iconic fighter planes from WWII – the ME-109. They were able to coax 240 horsepower out of the engine with a lopey camshaft, but lost most of its street manners in the process.

So do you agree with this list? Or do you have an alternative choice that you feel should have made it?



(My Note: I may be wrong, but I am going to challenge the history given in this article concerning the MB 6 cylinder in the street and race going 300 SL Gullwing.

Unless I am mistaken, any relation between the MB Gullwing power plant and any versions of the ME109 power plant is a mistaken one. There are some features of the 3.0L straight 8 racing engine put in the 300SLR open cockpit race car and not the 3.0L street or race engines found in the 300SL Gullwing cars. I even went to google to verify what I thought I remembered.

Like the various renditions of the ME109 power plants the SLR had direct fuel injection and power from the crankshaft was transferred by a gear to the rest of the power train.

So how could any of this mean any MB 300 series engine derived from any of the ME109 power plant variants? Ii don't see how.

The concept of a prop driven aircraft engine transferring it's power to the prop through gearing is hardly unique to the ME109. Then having direct injection is a similarity, but how does this mean one entire power plane was derived from the other? Especially when the "original" is standing on its head.

Off the soap box)

[yearby]

I really think the Chrysler hemi 6 should be included.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia.

"The 265 was introduced in 1971 in the VH. It used a new cylinder block with a bigger bore diameter of 3.91 in (99.3 mm)—the same as many of the Chrysler small-block V8s—and a new cylinder head, having slightly more hemispherical shaped combustion chambers with larger valves.

The standard version of the 265 produced 203 hp (151 kW) @ 4600 rpm and 262 lb⋅ft (355 N⋅m) of torque @ 2800 rpm.

The top of the line performance engine in the E49 Chargers produced 302 hp (225 kW) @ 5600 rpm and 320 lb⋅ft (434 N⋅m) of torque @ 4400 rpm. The increased power is due mainly to a more aggressive camshaft, high-load valve springs, triple 45 mm DCOE Weber sidedraught carburetors, tuned-length exhaust headers and a higher compression ratio of 10.0:1."



Sure does make the Ford 250 2v 170hp @ 4600 rpm and 250lb-ft @ 2800rpm look lame, and I'm a Ford guy.
....

[lovford]

Car and straight six match, would have to be 202 LG LJ Torana with triple webbers. Kw/tone ratio must of been way up there, because those things flew. Save me starting a thread, could someone please tell me the size of the Miami supercharger. (litre capacity)





.

[au350hp]

Originally Posted by lovford

Car and straight six match, would have to be 202 LG Torana with triple webbers. Kw/tone ratio must of been way up there, because those things flew. Save me starting a thread, could someone please tell me the size of the Miami supercharger. (litre capacity)

Yep, a couple of us on here played around with the Massey Ferguson Red motors & triples They sounded tough for a six, especially with a nice cam, & I had many 'oh s--t' moments with the triple webered EH I owned as a young fella. I believe the S/C on the Miami is an Eaton 1.9L and that Harrop was extensively involved in its development. Contact Harrop Performance on 03-9474-0900 or check their website, there's a lot to like on it.

[lovford]

Originally Posted by Roostercam

Yep, a couple of us on here played around with the Massey Ferguson Red motors & triples They sounded tough for a six, especially with a nice cam.
I believe the S/C on the Miami is an Eaton 1.9L.

Thanks, I read 4 reviews, but there was no mention of the size of the supercharger.

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by Roostercam

Yep, a couple of us on here played around with the Massey Ferguson Red motors & triples They sounded tough for a six, especially with a nice cam, & I had many 'oh s--t' moments with the triple webered EH I owned as a young fella..

Here, many missed out on what could be done with a 6 from a performance perspective. Fortunately, Clifford Engineering existed for the 6 cylinder folks. Up until not long ago they were a solid organization. These days I have heard some questionable feedback.

[solarite_guy]

Hey Peter, I agree that is an excellent engine, but, imo, these days, for a pushrod engine to be considered a "best" of anything it needs to meet 1 of 2 criteria. 1. Must be a big block, or, 2) if not a big block, the engines nomenclature must begin with the letters LS.

Speaking of GM, when I was younger my father had a '62 GMC pickup with the 262 "truck" motor. There was also a 292(?) version of it. Like the Ford 300 they were good torque motors.

...and speaking of the 300 Ford, distant North American cousin to the Barra, was an excellent pickup and utility vehicle motor because of it's generous low rpm tq. You can still find them in postal and UPS delivery delivery vehicles. Maybe FedEx too?

Believe it or not the 300 also has a racing heritage, unknown to most even over here. In certain regional Nascar short track series, the Ford 300 6 was the engine to have, even for Chevy folks who wanted to win.

The little brother to the 300, the 240, was a hot roders favorite in the 60s for swapping in place of the other 6 cylinder engines that came in many 60s Mustangs. The 240s with 3 side draft Webers and a set of 6 into 2 Clifford headers and all the other usual hot roders tricks could embarrass a lot of V8s.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by solarite_guy

Speaking of GM, when I was younger my father had a '62 GMC pickup with the 262 "truck" motor. There was also a 292(?) version of it. Like the Ford 300 they were good torque motors.

My old man bought a Chev C60 pantec truck new back in 76' with a 292 Chev 6, looked like a big version of the Holden 202 straight six I had.

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

My old man bought a Chev C60 pantec truck new back in 76' with a 292 Chev 6, looked like a big version of the Holden 202 straight six I had.

How did it do in that C60? I new a fella back in the 70s with a C60 powered by a 366 BBC. The dimension of that crank was used in the 430cid BBC Mclaren CanAm engines of the late 60s.

[yearby]

I was read somewhere on the internet about the 300 engines being very good, if I recall correctly one guy changed his 300 for a 351 Cleveland and was disappointed with the bad fuel economy of the 351 compared to his old 300 inline 6.

[solarite_guy]

They are very good engines, especially if the low rpm tq is important to you. I have had 2 F150s with the 300 and they were both excellent for how I needed to use them. The last years of the carbed versions weren't tuned correctly. But the efi models were much better, even though on paper there was not much difference, that I recall. Been a few years.

I can't really compare to how a Cleveland would be like in my F150s. I am sure if i did the rebuild for the application, the Cleveland would do just fine.

Cheers

[DJR-351]

With out a doubt my old R/T E49 was the best six I've owned, loved that car/engine.....

[solarite_guy]

That was quite an engine.

Did you ever run it at the track?

[ozpacman]

Many, many years ago I drove an F100 tow truck as part of my work at a country Ford dealership. That little truck ran a 300 six and was an absolute torque monster. It was perfect for general towing and far superior to a V8 for its intended purpose. Loved it!

[roddy1960]

I think the absolute drive ability of the Barra is why we love it like we do . Even in the N/a it's just a no stress , strong and gutsy engine that is surprisingly economical, eminently reliably bullet proof .

Then there's the Turbo that is probably one of the best bang for your buck engines on the planet let alone here in Australia.

Cannot comment on the other engines in the thread topic because I've never had any experience with them .

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by roddy1960

I think the absolute drive ability of the Barra is why we love it like we do . Even in the N/a it's just a no stress , strong and gutsy engine that is surprisingly economical, eminently reliably bullet proof .

Then there's the Turbo that is probably one of the best bang for your buck engines on the planet let alone here in Australia.

Cannot comment on the other engines in the thread topic because I've never had any experience with them .

Folks in North America have wanted the Aus Ford straight 6 since I remember. I am a big fan of the 240/300, however, the Aus Ford 6's are much more refined and have hp too. A lot.

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

Many, many years ago I drove an F100 tow truck as part of my work at a country Ford dealership. That little truck ran a 300 six and was an absolute torque monster. It was perfect for general towing and far superior to a V8 for its intended purpose. Loved it!

Absolutely, I agree. The very first one I drove in 1980 opened my eyes. My BIL bought one in 1978 and was constantly praising it. I found out why.

[ozpacman]

Originally Posted by solarite_guy

Absolutely, I agree. The very first one I drove in 1980 opened my eyes. My BIL bought one in 1978 and was constantly praising it. I found out why.

The 240 and 300 always seemed to be routinely referred to as the 'Canadian motor' in Australia. Don't know if that's correct or not but that seemed to be that label they got.

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

The 240 and 300 always seemed to be routinely referred to as the 'Canadian motor' in Australia. Don't know if that's correct or not but that seemed to be that label they got.

That's a good question. I had to do some research on that, as the ones we get here are built at the Cleveland plant. That doesn't discount the possibility that maybe a foundry in Canada was used for some of the key casting components.

For example when Nascar allowed the use of alloy heads back in the early 80s, a favorite head of the Chevy teams was called a Winter Head because of the Canadian foundry it came from and a snow flake that was cast into it within the valve train area.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by solarite_guy

That was quite an engine.

Did you ever run it at the track?

Unfortunately no, I did get to take it around the old Wanneroo Park (now Barbagallo Raceway) a couple of times but nothing serious. Mine was silver, which i found out many years later was 1 of only 4 in that colour, sold it in 1980 for bugger all, nobody wanted old Valiant's in those days

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

...sold it in [insert date here] for bugger all, nobody wanted old Valiant's in those days

I am sure you got plenty of fun out of it.

BTW, I know the feeling.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

Unfortunately no, I did get to take it around the old Wanneroo Park (now Barbagallo Raceway) a couple of times but nothing serious. Mine was silver, which i found out many years later was 1 of only 4 in that colour, sold it in 1980 for bugger all, nobody wanted old Valiant's in those days

Lol, a mate of mine used to hammer me with his silver e49.
Damn that thing was quick in a straight line, then needed two feet on the brakes to pull it up!

Was at a servo in Midland around 12 months ago and I jump started a poor stranded bloke in a pristine e49. Was great to run my eyes over one again. They are also a stunning car to look at.

My old man had a standard charger when I was a kid.

@SG
The BF109 (no such thing as an ME109) V12 the db605 was inverted.
That would have discounted it automatically I would have thought?

I have a feeling that motor might have also powered one of Germany's tanks. Tiger??

[Bill M]

The only link between the MB 300 series engine and the DB 600 series engines would knowledge based, direct injection experience gained from wartime practice. There were a lot of good aircraft engine people looking for work after the war in Germany.

They look reasonably similar.
http://users.atw.hu/mb-w108/tech/injector.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkl79ckOgOM

Great to see the Barra getting recognition!
Bill

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by Bill M

The only link between the MB 300 series engine and the DB 600 series engines would knowledge based, direct injection experience gained from wartime practice. There were a lot of good aircraft engine people looking for work after the war in Germany.

They look reasonably similar.
http://users.atw.hu/mb-w108/tech/injector.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkl79ckOgOM

Great to see the Barra getting recognition!
Bill

Now, that I can can agree with.

Following the author line of reason, as stated in the article, would be similar to me taking a Lucas fuel injection, fuel distributor design as a component in an engine I am designing and claiming my entire engine was derived from the 430cid BBC in a 1969 McLaren M8B CanAm car.

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

The BF109 (no such thing as an ME109) V12 the db605 was inverted.
That would have discounted it automatically I would have thought?

I have a feeling that motor might have also powered one of Germany's tanks. Tiger??

Yes, you are right, BF109.

Also yes and by inverted, that is what I meant by saying the "original" stood on it's head. I didn't even want to get into the V12 part.

There were a lot of versions of that engine. One configuration for heavy planes had 2 of these engines combined side be sise and put out close to 3,000 hp.

As for fighter application, I would bet only the best aces got the high hp single V12 versions. I think they were close to 2,000 hp. There were many configurations with various fuel and power adder requirements.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

I have a feeling that motor might have also powered one of Germany's tanks. Tiger??

Try a V12 Maybach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach_HL230

The only German AFV with a DB 600 V12 derivative I know of is the Maus and that was the first prototype only.

cheers
Bill.

[Nu66et]

For me the measure of a good engine is what it can do naturally aspirated, so the BMW and TVR engines are big standouts.

[solarite_guy]

Originally Posted by Nu66et

For me the measure of a good engine is what it can do naturally aspirated, so the BMW and TVR engines are big standouts.

I agree. I get the most satisfaction out of building a naturally aspirated engine. But in some cases, engines are designed for the application of power adders. In other cases power adders need to be utilized for the class of competition.

[dunga]

What about the leaning tower of power 225 ci slant 6 made early Holden and ford motors of the 60's look under powered boat anchors .

[solarite_guy]

I think that will fall into the same categorization described in post #3, unfortunately.