Talk:V12 engine

Smoothness
Are "V" engines really smoother than their in-line counterparts? I thought the real reason for V engines is to make the engine half as long as a similar inline engine. Straight 8s were made in the past, but it needed a really long bonnet to fit one. At the time, it was considered that they were at least at smooth as V-8s. I guess a straight-12 would be infeasible for most applications since it would just be too long.


 * The response is no. With less than 12 cylinders all V engines are tricky to balance. The minimal configuration to get perfect balance is a straight-6. Straight-4, V6 and V8 are disbalanced.


 * Something like a straight-48 will run smoother than a V12. But I think there is no obvious advantage for a V12 with good angle over an straight-12. I unsure but I think the russian have built an straight-12 for aicraft use.

At the small end, V-twins tend to run very rough, probably even more so than a straight twin. Their main advantage seems to be in allowing more cooling air to the cylinders, in motorcyle use.


 * All twins run rough except boxers engines. An Harley engine is really disbalanced. I believe a 90° V-twin can have a good (but imperfect) balance.

-- V16 are the smoothest !
 * Less than straight-16s or V24s :-)


 * Other than being shorter, V engines are much stiffer than in-line engines, and the crankshaft and camshaft(s) suffer much less flex at high RPM. This becomes important once an engine has more than about 6 cylinders. In fact, there were external engine braces sold for some of the passenger car straight-8s to prevent crankshaft breakage. Many of the racing straight-8s took the camshaft drive off the middle of the crankshaft rather than the end, and some took the final drive off the middle as well, because otherwise crankshaft and camshaft twist would put the back cylinders badly out of time with the front cylinders. A straight-12 would be a nightmare to design to prevent block, crankshaft and camshaft flex. A V8 doesn't have these problems and can be put in perfect primary and secondary balance using a cross-plane crankshaft and counterweights, so there's no point in using a straight-8 in an automobile and never was. However, a V12 is adequately stiff, can be much smoother than an 8 of any configuration because of the triple overlap of the power strokes, and doesn't need crankshaft counterweights, which is why it was used in so many WWII fighter aircraft. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Separation and identification of component symbols in units of measure
We separate the N and the m because they are different units, just like the lbf and the ft in the English units. A "full stop" looks clumsy; it might have made sense in British English when they used the middot as a decimal point, but that practice has pretty much fallen by the wayside in the past couple of decades.

The often recommended modern practice is to accomplish this separation of the unit symbols with either a space or a centered dot, not with a hyphen (which is usually considered acceptable for the spelled out words when they are used rather than the symbols), not with an asterisk, and not a dot on the line.


 * Wikipedia SI


 * Wikipedia torque


 * The U.S. national standards laboratory, NIST Guide for the use of the International System of Units (SI), section 6.1.5 Unit symbols obtained by multiplication, referring to American National Standard for Metric Practice, ANSI/IEEE Std 268-1992 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, NY, October 1992).


 * George Sudikatus, Metrics the Right Way, rule 12.


 * BIPM, SI brochure, section 5.3


 * The U.K.'s national measurement laboratory, National Physical Laboratory, Units of Force and Torque


 * Usage example from Transport Canada:


 * American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard for Metric Practice, E 380-79, ASTM 1979:


 * 3.4.1.4 The use of the same name for units of force and mass causes confusion. When the non-SI units are used, a distinction should be made between force and mass, for example, lbf to denote force in gravimetric engineering units and lb for mass.


 * Wikipedia pound-force, pound (mass)

P.S.: If a space is used in .html (as in Wikipedia), make it a hard space &amp;nbsp; so the units aren't separated from each other. Separating the number from the units with a hard space is sometimes desirable as well, but that isn't always necessary. Gene Nygaard 16:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The list of cars
I think if it should be included here at all it should be at the end of the article. &mdash;Morven 14:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mergers of V12 and W12
I would like to merge the sections on V12 and W12 under single 12 Cylinder Engines Heading. I also want to consolidate All 16 and higher cylinder versions into a single article and consolidate. How do I merge? Samstayton 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Template:Piston engine configurations, most engine configurations have a separate article. Unless there are good reasons otherwise, it may be better to keep them separate.  In this case, V12 wasn't a stub, and W12 technically didn't have to be a stub either (being 11.5 sentences).  If you feel that all V8+Flat8+Straight8, V10+Flat10, etc...  should be merged with each other, then it would probably be much better to discuss a large change like this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles first.  In either case, what were the specific reasons that these two were merged?  --Interiot 01:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the merge of V12 and W12, and I believe consensus should have been sought before making this change. I'd like to hear if anyone else supports or opposes this change.  This also sort of sets a precedent for, as Interiot brought up, merging V8+W8+Flat8+Straight8, etc, and I would emphatically disagree with that change.  I'll revert if there isn't much support. TomTheHand 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The two articles have been separated. Unfortunately the discussion has been spread across multiple pages (WP:AN, WP:RFC/SCI, User talk:Samstayton, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles), but in short, a number of people support keeping the articles separate.  Other reasons for this given elsewhere include the existence of other 12-cylinder engines that weren't merged (Straight-12, Flat-12); the fact that there are a large number of articles for individual cylinder configurations, and this is how the articles have been laid out for some time; and the fact that these specific articles have a large number of backlinks and a large history, and that more discussion should take place before making large changes to an established article.  This doesn't mean that this layout is carved in stone, but it does mean that much more discussion should  take place before merging these.  --Interiot 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, there were a number of perhipheral redirects created as a part of this. Just to reduce confusion, the list follows.  I believe all possible double-redirects are cleaned up now.  --Interiot 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12 cylinder engine (and its talk)
 * 12 cylinder engines (and its talk)
 * 12 Cylinder engines
 * 12 Cylinder Engines (and its talk)
 * The only opinion I have here is that W12's are weird enough and new enough to certainly warrant a seperate article. Friday (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Anything built by Mercedes Benz with the suffix '63 AMG' is a V8 that uses the M156 V8 engine. Look it up. Space Turbo (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

First Japanese V-12?
In the V12 road cars section, it states "In 1997, Toyota equipped their Century Limousine with the first ever japanese V12..."

Then, in the Auto racing section, it states "Between 1965 and 1980, Ferrari, Weslake, Honda, BRM, Maserati, Matra, Alfa-Romeo, Lamborghini and Tecno used 12-cylinder engines in Formula One, either V12 or Flat-12"

It is a well documented and undisputed fact that Honda has been making V-12 engine for Formula One cars since the 1960s. Since Honda is obviously a Japanese automaker, the comment about Toyota having the first ever Japanese V-12 is incorrect. It should state "first ever production V-12" to distinguish it from Honda's long lineage of V-12 racing counterparts. I will make the change now, but wanted to note this here in case anyone questions it. Refer to the Toyota Century article where it correctly states "The Century remains the first and only Japanese front-engine, rear-wheel drive production car equipped with a V12."

What does it mean that engines with 7 cylinders or more have "constant positive net torque output" (see first paragraph)? I have been unable to find support for this claim, or discussion of this concept, anywhere else. Could someone please explain the threshold that is crossed with 7 cylinders or more?

Horsepower wars of the 60s
How could the move up to V16s be reminicent of something that occurred after it? Possibly it was a precursor to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.9.48 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturers
While many manufacturers are mentioned in various sections of the article, I would like to see a section just listing who they are, and the model engines (perhaps with dates, specifications, etc?) that they made. I was surprised not to see anything about the Falconer engine here; it was the reason I elected to read the article in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merek (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari Berlinetta Boxer and Testarossa's engine
I want to know if Ferrari Berlinetta Boxer and Testarossa's engine is F-12 or V-12. LG4761 (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They're both the flat 12. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its 180 degree V12, also called as flat12 but not boxer -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 16:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Truck V-12s
"It was possibly the last gasoline engine used in heavy trucks in the U.S.". International Harvester used the gasoline Red Diamond series up to 1974. 108.173.92.65 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

120 degrees angle between cylinder banks
I understand that 60° and 180° angles between the cylinder banks are natural for a V12 engine, because only two pistons are at TDC simultaneously. Only one of the two cylinders ignite while the other is in transition from exhaust to intake stroke. But if the angle is 120° then four pistons are at TDC simultaneously. The torsional vibrations would be as good/bad as with a 120° V6, not better. That could be avoided by designing an unconventional crank shaft, but what would happen to the other vibrations then? ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point that a 120° V12 could still have a 6-throw crankshaft with 60° between throws, and only 2 pistons at TDC simultaneously. They would just be a different pair of pistons than a 60° V12. Actually, any angle of V12 is in primary and secondary balance since it runs like two inline sixes on the same crankshaft, so the choice of 60°, 120°, or 180° is just to achieve an even firing order without using a split-pin crankshaft. If you did use a split-pin crankshaft you could build a V12 with any angle you wanted. A 90° V12 with a split-pin crankshaft would be somewhat smoother than a 90° V8 with a crossplane crankshaft. Even a 120° V12 with a 120° firing interval and 4 pistons at TDC simultaneously would be much smoother than a 120° V6 because the first order vibrations of the two halves of the engine would offset each other and it would run like two inline sixes running in sync on the same crankshaft. That would be a weird way to design an engine, though. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Units of measurement
I propose the utilization of SI units ONLY in all technical articles of Wikipedia. No more cubic inches but LITERS. No more hp but kW. No more foot-pounds but Nm (Newton-meters). It's time to let go the Imperial system with its absurd and obsolete units.Tiago65 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"Postwar V12 production cars"
Mercedes-Benz C140 with V12 engine has both "600 SEC" and "CL 600" names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.69.41.138 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

V12 vs V-12
I'm fine with using "V12" throughout the article for the sake of consistency (although I prefer V-12) but I debate that "V-12" is "rarely" used. That is the way I am most familiar with seeing it. I-4, H-6, V-8, V-12, W-8, etc. If this is less common than WITHOUT the hyphen, okay, but I don't think "rarely" is the word. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Jaguar V12 engine
Hi Andy. In an overall summary article for V12 engines, I believe that it is undue weight to go into the development history or the 'desmogged' versions for a particular engine. This content would be a good addition to the Jaguar V12 engine's page though. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You prefer to say it was designed as a SOHC engine? And that it was introduced for the E-type in 5.3 and 6.0 litre versions?  Do you just not even realise how wrong so many of your edits are? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy. The article states that the production version is SOHC, there is nothing that contradicts its relationship with the DOHC racing engine. Nor does the article state that the 6.0 L version was used in the E-Type. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't state that clearly, because none of your writing is ever clear, but that's what it, once again, implies:
 * "an all-aluminium SOHC design with displacements of 5.3 - 6.0 L, which was introduced in the Jaguar E-Type"
 * and yet it was a 4-cam design, later reworked, only a handful went into the E-type and certainly not the HE or the 6 litre.
 * If you're going to persistently edit-war over other editors (and you're doing just that, over a range of articles), then your changes have to be better than what you're replacing, not merely "not obviously wrong". Why was this version so terrible that you had to repeatedly revert it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The road car version (the title of the section) was an SOHC design. Regarding the E-Type, if you believe that the wording implies that the 6.0 litre version was used in it, feel free to re-word the sentence. 1292simon (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "feel free to re-word the sentence."
 * I did that. You (twice) insta-reverted it. You keep saying things like that, but you don't mean a word of it - you just keep edit-warring despite. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, that is an incorrect accusation. My edits were to trim the detailed discussion of the engine's predecessor and desmogging, for consistency with the other engines and to avoid Undue Weight. The only reverting was done by you. Anyway, guess I'll have a crack at re-wording it to removing the possible mis-interpretation. Fingers crossed that it is to your satisfaction... 1292simon (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Toyota GZ engine
Hi Andy. Since this is an article about engines rather than cars, I believe that having a link to Toyota GZ engine is sufficient. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You just like deleting stuff. You have nothing to add, so you delete. Haven't you caused enough damage with nonsense like, "In Europe, V12 engines were seen as excessive in the aftermath of World War II, therefore production of cars with V12 engines was very limited until the 1960s. The 1948 Ferrari 166 Inter sports car (Ferrari's first road car) was powered by a 2.0 L (122 cu in) SOHC V12 engine."?
 * The Toyota Century is fantastically obscure outside Japan. As such, it warrants linking. Not because it's an engine (indeed, it isn't), but because this is a hypertext medium and we can, and should, link anything which is likely to be a further navigation path, unclear to a reader, or simply of passing interest to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Andy, sorry for the delay responding. The statement about rarity of V12s prior to the 1960s was not added by me. Nonetheless, I believe the statement is true- one or two engine designs is still limited production in the overall scheme of things. Perhaps it could be toned down by removing the "very"? Regarding the Toyota Century, I agree that it is obscure outside of Japan. However, to avoid MOS:OVERLINK, I think we should simply link to the engine where there is a page for it, and otherwise link to the car. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)