Talk:Transverse engine

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Differential[edit]

I have searched wikipedia for info on what kind of transmission is found in a Front Wheel Drive car. I'm not sure it would go here or elsewhere, but I am still looking. Thanks Pachai (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Thanks all for your work here. Are we sure that Buckeye_gasoline_buggy doesn't qualify as an example of earlier transverse engine vehicle? Any vehicle without a transaxle or similar 90-degree gearing must have a transversely mounted engine, right? Wongstein (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cracnkshaft/Clutch relation[edit]

So, in this configuration it seems that the crankshaft is directly connected to the two front wheels, so what about the clutch? where is it etc..? thanks/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.135.58 (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: "Transverse engine" and "Longitudinal engine" into "Engine orientation"[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to merge A single article does not appear to have support and discussion is now 'stale' Eagleash (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While "Transverse engine" is a workable article, Longitudinal engine is just two sentences long. I propose merging the two articles into one article encompassing the general concept: Engine orientation.

If this is not found to be acceptable, I propose a sloppier solution: to merge "longitudinal engine" into this article (i.e. "Transverse engine").

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Create an overall article at engine orientation by all means, but that doesn't invalidate the two subsidiary articles. This isn't paper, we're not constrained by page count. If longitudinal engine is too short, then work to expand it. Engine orientation would be a poor article with just the same two sentences in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are encouraged to split off articles when they are too big. There isn't really that much to say about longitudinal vs. transverse engines, and it can all be said in one article with room to spare. The room to spare in the combined "engine orientation" article could be used for info on the horizontal placement of straight engines, the inverted placement of straight or V engines, etc.

If it does get too big at some point in the future then they can be split back off, but there is rather little danger of that at present.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not talking about splitting, you're talking about merging. Size doesn't figure in that.

The only useful question is, which gives the more readable content for readers?. Nothing else really matters.

The two topics here are distinct. They cover clearly identifiable topics and although they would link between each other, one does not depend on the other. There is no need to read them in a particular order.

If merged, it's even questionable if "engine orientation" is a notable topic. Layout certainly is, but the prime concerns there are which end of the chassis is driven, how the weight is distributed and whether the engine and final drive are nearby or separated by a driveshaft. Which way round the engine points is subordinate to all of these. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two topics are two cases of one aspect of engine orientation, i.e. orientation of the crankshaft with respect to the axis of the vehicle (whether land, sea or air vehicle). As for "layout", that article already exists: Automobile layout. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what is an article on engine orientation going to say? That transverse engines offer more luggage space because there's no need for a prop shaft under the floor? True enough, but that's an implication of the layout, not the orientation and Renault or Audi managed without. There's just no useful way to describe engine orientation as a first-class topic without either ignoring the real distinguishing factor, the layout, or becoming a duplicate of the existing layout article.

I can see a good case for engine orientation (motorcycle), because bikes are all mid-engined, rear-wheel drive and so it's the orientation that becomes the single dominant factor in their different layouts. For cars though, it doesn't work as a topic.

There's also the overlap between cars, trucks, vans and bikes. At present, the transverse engine article covers both bikes and cars. This is workable for an article about a single orientation. If the article merged to cover all orientations, it should immediately be split to cars vs. bikes. That's an even higher level distinction than layouts. It's reasonable (albeit a long stretch) to cover transverse cars and transverse bikes together, but no more than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what is an article on engine orientation going to say?—Everything these two articles say now, at least to start with, as the general concept for these two specific cases. Also that transverse engines are pretty much limited to cars, bikes, and buses, with trucks and propeller-driven vehicles (boats and aircraft) generally using longitudinal engines. Also that outboard motors and helicopters usually have their engines mounted with the crankshaft vertical. Expansion could include slanted inline engines (Vauxhall Slant 4, Chrysler Slant 6, many motorcycles, etc., etc. ...), horizontal inline engines (buses and early BMW K-bikes) and inverted straight and V engines (aircraft). There might even be room for a sentence about the Daimler DC 27 ambulance with its engine canted about 5° off longitudinal to accommodate the offset differential (I know it was done but I have no idea why; a lower floor to one side, perhaps?). Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it says "Everything these two articles say now" (and no more), then it should remain as two articles. There is no sense to an article with two sections, sections that don't even mention each other.

If it becomes a comparison between two orientations, then that's rather better, but now it becomes an article about layout, the more important topic, yet without mentioning layout.

This works for bikes, as orientation is their only real variable. It doesn't work for anything bigger, as orientation just isn't the big topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I'm opposed necessarily, but when I was just searching for these things a moment ago, I searched for "Transverse engines" and "longitudinal engines". I would never think to type in "engine orientation". I guess you could add a redirect to both, but it seems less than ideal. I certainly think more could be written about transverse engines in regards to the reasons for using it, pros/cons, etc. In the history section, when did they start becoming widespread? What was the stimulus? --Trifler (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to put that in the article rather than on the talk page. ;-) --Trifler (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.