Talk:W engine

????
In the Dutch version of this article it is stated that a V-engine with two crankshafts (one for each bank of cilinders) is also known as a W-engine, applied by Yamaha and Cagiva in their racing bikes for the Supersport and/or Superbike class. Before I add this third type of W-engine to this article, can anyone confirm that these types of engines exist and are indeed called W-engines? I am not certain whether the Dutch article is correct. Waldorf 12:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The only auto engine I have ever heard of with two crankshafts was Bugatti's U engine. That's the only name I've heard that type called. --SFoskett 19:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have already figured it out: see the article. Thanks for your input. Waldorf 19:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MotoGP motorbikes are now equipped with 4-stroke 1000cc engines!!!

Under the motorcycle section it says: There are two major advantages of these engines over the more traditional straight-4 or V4 engines. The first is the width of the engine: a V4 engine will be narrower than a straight-4 engine with the same displacement, but a W4 with its two crankshafts will be even smaller. The second advantage is that the W4 lacks the need for a balance shaft; it will run smoothly if the two crankshafts rotate in opposite directions. This is a weight advantage over the V4 engine, which will need a balance shaft.

However: The actual reason for the two crankshafts in these motorcycles (and others of the same era) was to provide individual crankcases for each cylinder because they are crankcase charged two-stroke engines, a single crank V wouldn't work.

Also its unlikely that the weight imposed by the addtition of a crankshaft would be less than that required for a balancer shaft. The reason for the V4 (I don't understand why its a W4) configuration was purely to make a more compact engine and consequently a more compact motorcycle. It was logical for the two crankshafts to be geared together, therefor the counter-rotation was easily accomodated and probably also reduced vibration though this would have been a secondary consideration. jaf

Veyron W16
Could Someone check the cylinder measures in the following text:

"The W-Engine in the Bugatti In 2006, Bugatti produced the "Bugatti Veyron", with a W-16 engine, combined with 4 turbochargers, it produces 1001 bhp@6000 r.p.m, but it takes 64 valves to operate that 8.0 Liters engine with DOHC (Double overhead cams), and Bore/Stroke ratio 1:1 (82 mm:82 mm)."

As far as I can tell (and calculate) the given 82 mm bore and stroke times 16 makes around 6,9 liters, not 8, so these figures must be incorrect. (r^2 * Pii * h * n; where r = cylinder bore radius, h = length of stroke, n = number of cylinders; 41mm^2 * pii * 82mm * 16 ~ 6928694,6 mm^3 ~ 6928,7 cm^3 ~ 6,9 dm^3/liters ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.135.173 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the Feuling W3 a traditional three-bank engine?
How does the Feuling W3 differ from the Napier Lion-style W-engine? Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the "motorcycle 2-bank" like a "U" again?
The text under "motorcycle 2-bank" says it's not like a U, another 2-bank/2-crankshaft design. But, why not? Can't tell from the text. Is it just because the 2 banks are inclined rather than parallel? --71.198.34.87 (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Engine Balance.
Can we get a section in this Wiki that discusses engine balance? Almost every other Wiki regarding engine configuration has a section devoted to detailing the engines balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.250.60 (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

VW Group W8 and W12
Are there any sources to support the claim that the W8 was a "testbed" for the W12? Both seem to have entered production around 2001. This article doesn't give the impression the W8 preceded the W12. Letdorf (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Is the citation valid?
The statement "Three banks of cylinders sharing a common crankshaft, a configuration also known as broad arrow configuration due to its shape resembling the British government broad arrow property mark" was initially supported by this source:

Upon finding a source that mentions that the W engine is the broad arrow engine, I added it to support that part of the statement.

However, the snippet view at Google Books does not show that the original source supports the part about the shape resembling the government broad arrow property mark. Searching the source for "property mark" yields no results, while a search for "government mark" gets some hits for "Government", but no apparent mention of "government mark".

Does anyone have access to the actual document, to see if it supports the naming of the engine configuration based on the resemblance of the engine's shape to the property mark?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Would a W21 engine be possible for a track-only car?
I have made a theoretical design for a track only car (mid engined) in which the car is as long as a 4-door but the entire back end is an engine compartment, and instead of doors the sides are grille panels. Would a 12012-CC (572-CC per cylinder) W21 be theoretically possible? 2.24.208.79 (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)