Engine Design Philosophy

[Matt Suffern]

Tony,

Thanks for the input.  I didn't even think about the weight issue, but
I suppose you want to have as little weight as possible on the nose of
the engine when the whole engine is hanging out in front of the axle
line as is.  Good point.

-Matt

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Tony Hoffman <auditony at gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously there are a lot of design parameters that go into these sort of
> decisions, but here are some to ponder:
>
> You hit on one, less maintenance,
> Smaller, as in shorter. This is probablyl a bit key part of the BMW design,
> as the inline 6 is already a lot longer than most other engine designs
> Noise
> Weight
>
> BTW, Audi put a timing chain design on their V8 to fit it in the B6/7
> chassis for the S4. This was because it would not fit with the belt design.
>
> Tony
> (who prefers belts, but understands they have to be changed)
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Matt Suffern <msuffern at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No point.  I just found it interesting that to perform essentially the
>> same job, Audi chose a seemingly-flimsy rubber belt whereas BMW opted
>> for a beefy double-row (duplex) chain, and was pondering the engine
>> design philosophies that might have prompted the automakers to go
>> their respective routes (especially since BMW's M50 is the successor
>> to their M20, which DOES use a timing belt).
>>
>> I suppose I was going for an open-ended technical discussion more than
>> anything else.
>>
>> -Matt