3 cylinder cars

Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
269
Location
NEW ORLEANS
Can't yet wrap my head around it.

Subcompact Chevys, e.g. Trax & Trailblazers, Ford Escape, Nissan Rogue?

What's the logic ... I'm not seeing stellar mpg from these subcompacts and compact SUV's?
 
Some of the 3 pot turbos are really good fun to drive and sound more interesting than their 4 pot N/A counterparts. But there is always low RPM NVH you just don't seem to be able to get rid of.

I had a 2021 Vauxhall Insignia for 12 months putting ~20k on it. It had half a Duramax 3.0, a little 1.5 single turbo 3 cylinder diesel engine and I've never suffered so bad in any car with rattles and things just seemingly falling apart.
 
Last 3-pot I drove on a regular basis was mom's 1991 Daihatsu Charade.

That poor little engine got flogged everywhere it went. Still made it to something like 150k.
 
Would you own one?

No thanks, but ask away about my last experience of driving a 3 banger.

 
I find them interesting. A 2.0 liter four cylinder cylinder has 0.5 liter of displacement per cylinder. A 1.2 liter 3 cylinder has 0.4 liters of displacement per cylinder , so it’s not like they are trying to use larger pistons in the block.

The other thing that comes with it is the turbo. They make an outstanding amount of power per liter.

The next thing is that the engine is light, which reduces the overall weight and allows for higher acceleration. Like mentioned earlier, they are cheaper to build as long as production volumes are the same.

The elephant in the room is a constant government push to extract extra gas mileage out of vehicles. The makers are forced to have high gas mileage vehicles available to consumers to bring down the corporate gas mileage figures. These little turbo three bangers make it possible to sell 6.2 liter pickup trucks.
 
Last edited:
Here is a good comparison between the 2024 1.2 liter turbo 3 cylinder in the Trax vs the 2022 1.4 liter turbo 4 cylinder. It gets an extra 4 mpg in the city but no extra gas mileage on the highway. Since it’s smaller in displacement it makes sense to make the jump to 3 cylinders rather than make the pistons smaller or de-stroke a four cylinder.

2476768B-4564-41BE-A79F-323514EF4828.jpeg
 
Last edited:
my neighbor had a 3 cyl metro . did ok i guess . when he showed me under the hood , i think my wife's sewing machine was bigger but he owned that car for several years finally drove it into the grouund
 
I presume it meets the trifecta required in the low cost market segment. There lower cost to make, they help with emissions a bit, and they get OK mileage. Everything is a trade off, and when trying to make low cost cars, fractions help.

Yes for example a Trax gets worse mileage than my Rav4, but my guess is the 2.5l dynamic force costs at least twice as much to build, with its MPI + GDI, electric water pump, modern EGR, etc, etc.
 
I must have been way ahead of the times as a youngster. The car I drove in High School ran on 3-cylinders when it'd rain and had the stop-start feature also. It would die at the stop lights and stop signs about half the time and I'd have to restart it.
 
I had the 3 cyl 2015 focus. 38city/40hwy for an engine that came out originally in 2012 and a footprint of 8.5x11 paper. It was just as fast as the normal 2.0 focus but with way better mpgs.

But putting it in the Ecoboost and bronco is a joke.
 
Back
Top