Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Oh good! An opportunity to vent about 4 cylinder engines.
Bert22306   2/4/2014 4:58:13 PM
NO RATINGS
Automakers, all of them, need to appreciate that the more fuel and air they cram into a four cylinder engine, to get the power and torque numbers of a larger displacement 6 or 8 cylinder engine, the more the effect will be the same as a large displacement 4-banger. Even with balance shafts, that translates to a buzzy and unrefined four-banger. I've tried any number of brands, which received any number of accolades in magazine articles. This remains the case.

Please, automakers, at least as an option, please develop some small displacement, turbocharged or supercharged (if need be), 60 degree V-6s. Say, how about some sweet 2 liter V-6s? (And I say V-6 only because straight sixes are heavier and not easily applied to transverse-mounting for front wheel drive. Otherwise, the straight six is hard to beat for refinement.) As far as I'm concerned, any naturally aspirated four that displaces more than 1.5 or 1.6 liters will end up being buzzy. Two liters are simply too many, for a 4-cylinder. Let alone a turbo or supercharged four.

Yes, perhaps on the dyno, the 6-cylinder won't quite get the same fuel economy as a four with equivalent power. Perhaps. But I would ge glad to pay the extra fee for the 6-cylinder anyway.

Lancia had some wonderful small-displacement V-6s way back in the early 1960s. Surely, we can resurrect that formula? Any 300-HP four-banger will feel rough and rude, no matter the hype.

Etmax
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Oh good! An opportunity to vent about 4 cylinder engines.
Etmax   2/5/2014 8:04:42 PM
NO RATINGS
Absolutely, a 4 cylinder has less friction points than a 6Cyl or 8cyl and a 2.3l has much less weight than a 5l or more all which contribute to economy improvements, but ultimately 300hp is going to the wheels and has to come from somewhere.

Maybe they gain 3% from having a 4cyl and another 5% from the weight savings but the thing will still be a guzzler when the petal is to the metal.

But as far as Mustangs goes, it won't be a muscle car with a 100hp motor of any type.

We just have to accept that a Mustang owner has more money than environmental responsibility.

Just on the by n by a friend of mine let me drive his 400hp Porsche for a bit, and there was nothing buzzy about it. Sure it was a flat 6 but it only roared under powerful acceleration.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: Oh good! An opportunity to vent about 4 cylinder engines.
Bert22306   2/5/2014 8:21:34 PM
NO RATINGS
Just on the by n by a friend of mine let me drive his 400hp Porsche for a bit, and there was nothing buzzy about it. Sure it was a flat 6 but it only roared under powerful acceleration.

Obviously, It was a flat 6, not a four.

I once owned a 1.4 liter DOHC Fiat 124 Sport. The small engine displacement made that a smooth engine too, although it did have the odd hiccups you get from 4 cylinder engines at very low revs. My point is, fours are still fours, no matter whether you show on paper that the power output is high. They are not refined-sounding or refined-feeling. The extra drag of two more cylinders I'll gladly pay for, if given an option.

As to engine weight comparisons, here, surprise yourself:

http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights2.html

Modern V-6s weigh about the same as a four of similar displacement. So, make some small displacement V-6s!

Etmax
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Oh good! An opportunity to vent about 4 cylinder engines.
Etmax   2/5/2014 10:10:58 PM
NO RATINGS
Bert, I was actually comparing the weight difference between a 2.3l 4cyl as used in the Mustang and a 4-5l V6/V8 as used in your typical muscle car of similar power, for the puposes of highlighting where the meagre saving would come from. Sorry for not having been clearer. I agree for same displacement there shouldn't be much weight difference.

I too prefer a 6Cyl to a 4Cyl, but the running gear friction/losses in a 4 is lower resulting in better efficiency.

Of course the fewer cylinders the lumpier.

I referenced the Porsche experience because you made mention of all powerful engines being.. can't remember the term but perhaps I misunderstood as we seem to be on the same page.



Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Book Review: Deadly Odds by Allen Wyler
Max Maxfield
10 comments
Generally speaking, when it comes to settling down with a good book, I tend to gravitate towards science fiction and science fantasy. Having said this, I do spend a lot of time reading ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
Post a comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
13 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).