>Many American V-6's _are_ 90 degrees for the reason I stated in my
>earlier post including the very popular GM 3.8 liter, now in it's 3rd or
>4th generation. That engine was fitted with balance shafts in the mid
>'90s and it ran pretty smoothly in a rental car I drove.

I seriously dislike the GM 3.8. I've driven an N/A version as well as two
supercharged units (a 2001 Bonneville SSEi and a 2004 Grand Prix GTP) and
disliked both. The supercharged version has a ton of torque but it did very
little to help get quick 0-60 times from the bloated Bonneville. The 3.1 in the
Malibu was worse, although I've not driven the new version. But 170Hp from a
3.1 litre V6 is stupid to say the least.

> Even modular engine families, such as the one Ford
>developed in 1996 (which spawned a V-6, several V-8s, and a V-10) use a
>60 degree angle for the 6

Does this include the unit (2.5 litres?) used in the Contour or just the 3.0
litre used in the Taurus? I always liked the Contour, for what it was. I
thought it was Ford's best sedan with the possible exception on the 2nd Gen. V6
powered SHO.

>Honda's 240hp V-6 is 60 degrees and is used in the Accord, Odyssey,
>Pilot, others?

The Accord is a 3.0 litre. The Odyssey and Pilot have a 3.5 litre engine, as
does the 3.5RL, but the Acura's is different. I drove a Pilot and liked the
3.5, a friend's 2004 Accord is nice too, but a little more torque could be
useful.

>I do know that the H-4 in my WRX, while quiet and
>powerful, isn't as smooth at idle as the I-6 engines I've test driven.

The H-4 is the WRX felt a bit gruff to me. But the boxer-sixes in Porsches are
made of automotive dreams. ;-)