BMW的直6優勢 （vs. V6)先前已經討論過了
最近我看到VOLVO也在打它的 I6 3.2L引擎
一個橫置，一個縱置
哪一個比較優阿？
個人積分：3分
文章編號：2100309
個人積分：0分
文章編號：2102363
個人積分：6552分
文章編號：2102367
but overall handling, i think BMW rear wheel drive based is better. BMW has 50:50 front, rear weight distribution.
i was surprised that Volvo can fit a I6 transversely. i guess the super compact transmission is the key.
i think if more and more people demand AWD cars, car manufactures will slowly change back to rear-wheel-drive-based AWD because it is easier to design and maybe cheaper to make.
個人積分：43分
文章編號：2102559
個人積分：24分
文章編號：2108966
以上取自wikipedia：
Engines with particular balance advantages include:
* Straight-6
* Flat-6
* Flat-12
* V12
Engines with characteristic problems include:
* Flat-4 boxer and straight-4 have no better kinetic energy balance than a single, and require a relatively large flywheel.
* Crossplane V8, which requires a very heavily weighted crankshaft, and has unbalanced firing between the cylinder banks (producing the distinctive and much-loved V8 "burble").
* Flatplane (180° offset crankshaft) V8.
In modern multi-cylinder engines, many inherent balance problems are addressed by use of balance shafts.
簡單的說，有先天平衡優勢的引擎配置有：直六，對六，直12，v12。
有先天平衡「劣勢」的引擎配置有：對四，直四等
但這些在現代的車上都因為平衡軸而有長足的改善，其實已經不是什麼重要的issue了。
個人積分：5分
文章編號：2698219
個人積分：687分
文章編號：2698311
個人積分：5分
文章編號：2698387
個人積分：1375分
文章編號：2700276
個人積分：6分
文章編號：2702993
