Talk:Straight engine

VR6

"There has been an advance by Volkswagen Group to combine the advantages of both configurations in an engine called VR6 (V to indicate the V shape and R for "Reihenmotor" (German for straight engine)). This was pretty much a V engine with a very narrow cylinder angle (15 degree), which allowed to combine the smaller size of the V6 engine with the smoother run of the straight-6. "

I don't if it should stay here this is a little bit out-of-topic. And VW makes very good marketing job. Lancia made narrow-angle V-engines before the WWII and continued until the seventies. Ericd 22:26 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I did'nt match it before but I don't think it's the right place to discuss the advantage of the V6 against the straight-6 as least as we don't explain why the V8 superceeded the straight-8. The lead me to the idea that we have article about straight engine as well as V engines or Flat engines but none about 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12... cylinder engines. Ericd 20:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Counting?

What is the rule for counting the cylinders- is #1 on the front or the rear of the engine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.106.90 (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In reply:

"Cylinders are numbered starting with number one at the very front of the engine. The front of the engine is the end with the crankshaft pulley and accessory drive belt(s)." – Dorries, Elisabeth H. (Dec 1, 2004). "Section 2 Engine Operation and Support Systems". TechOne: Automotive Engine Repair. Cengage Learning. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-40185-941-1.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"Straight" vs. "inline"

With all the battles going on about naming at straight-two engine (where the only consensus is that "straignt-two engine" is not the right name for the article) and straight-three engine (where there is currently no consensus at all), it occurs to me that the terms "straight" and "inline" in referring to an engine with only one cylinder bank need further scrutiny.

The following is mostly my conjecture, please feel free to correct me where I am wrong:

• The term "inline" to describe and engine with a single bank of cylinders is the most widespread term used to describe such an engine in English.
• The term "inline" is ambiguous, since it is used in aircraft terminology for engines configured in one or more banks of cylinders along a crankshaft as opposed to radial or rotary engines with one or more rows of cylinders arranged radially around the crankshaft. Compounding this ambiguity is the use of "inline" in motorcycle terminology to indicate that the crankshaft of the engine is in line with the motorcycle's frame. (This point is actually not conjecture; references for this ambiguous usage can be found here and here.)
• As a result, although the term "straight" is not the term most commonly used for this configuration, it has been preferred over the more common term "inline" because, unlike "inline", it is not ambiguous.

How do we deal with this situation of popular use against ambiguity, especially with regard to the naming of articles for engines of this type with specific numbers of cylinders, such as the two mentioned earlier?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bit of a mistake on my part: the term used in motorcycling is "in-line", not "inline". Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No, motorcycling experts also say "inline" [1].

Ambiguity like this is quite common. Our job is not to resolve it but to describe it.

It's no different than V-twin engine#Orientations. Different sources use the terminology differently, and unless they are explicit, you can't assume. Wikipedia should avoid the ambiguity by never assuming "transverse" refers to the crankshaft or cylinders; we have to spell it out. We can't assume parallel means any straight two or a specific orientation; we have to say it. WP:PSTS says we should lean towards tertiary sources, like compendia when source don't agree: "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the terms parallel and inline are sometimes used interchangeably but I have also shown that 18 of the biggest international manufacturers all use parallel as their primary descriptor for this configuration now. Unfortunately, I have to remove the DK Publishing coffee table book as it appears to be pretty lightweight, see [2].

Do you have a link for the Rider magazine topic? I can only find ones using the term parallel-twin for the F800S [3] There may be better references to use but the use of the term "expert" is a little WP:UNDUE. --Bridge Boy (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Marine engines

The article is missing marine engines that, due to their modular construction, have some 'interesting' configurations like straight-nine engine. --Sivullinen (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Bumping the straight vs. inline question

I'm late to this conversation but what seems to be the accepted way of referring to this engine configuration on Wikipedia has been bugging me. I could not find any other publication that formally refers to inline engines as "straight engines," and I think it would be nice to see this article, as well as the rest of the family of articles that refer to specific permutations of inline engines, move to terminology that is in line (no pun intended) with the actual industries they're describing. Cuyamas (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In automotive engineering a single line of cylinders is usually referred to as an inline engine, ie I3, I4, I5, I6, I8. BUT, a straight eight is an I8. eg https://www.enginelabs.com/news/four-of-the-greatest-straight-8s-to-ever-come-off-an-assembly-line/ So I am certainly not going to stamp my little foot if somebody refers to a straight 6. Greglocock (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The straight eight specifically I have no issue with because they're a small niche and absolutely everyone calls them that and only that, who doesn't love a rhyme, but calling it "straight" as a category I don't think makes sense. It's bordering on slag which disconnects it from being an objective look at what that is and how its distinct from other engine layouts, which I think is important. Cuyamas (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)