4 bangers- Love'em or Hate'm?

[ikeepmychevytoo]

No point in trying to warm the block of a six for a few miles. Engines should be choosen wisely for the application, in Rome I may consider a two-banger. While with better fuel management the fours are much smoother now I don't think they are the antithesis of the six as of yet, or the near future. In comparison they are still misfiring, hence the buzz.

For the sort of a cruiser, that one wouldn't mind being four on the board, for hills and flats, town and country, old or new, give me the six please, just because it has six, and it is a six. %50 better than the fours and %25 worser than the eights while the fours are being %33 worser then the sixes. Thats's a phenomenon, details are unnecessary to be told, they are known. 50-33 is the latitude for the points of views.

 

[Black Thunder]

never had a 4-cylinder powered vehicle myself.


but the Escort GT that my parents used to have kicked ***! and i wouldn't mind having one of those, it had the 1.8 DOHC Mazda engine, zippy little car.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

What I've always liked about the 4banger's I've owned (4 saturns and 1 Honda Prelude) is that you can drive the heck out of them, and still get 25MPH, or better. So a night of living above 3000rpm doesn't drain the pocketbook.

 

[BrianWC]

My four feels/sounds like a more powerful 3.0l Duratec V-6, IMHO. When I first drove it (9-5), I thought "This engine feels just like that Taurus rental I had a year ago!"

 

[greenjp]

I love 'em. All the same reasons stated above, they're smaller, lighter, easier to work on, and nowadays they provide more than adequate power even for fairly large cars. I'm sure a V6 Accord or Altima is a great, fun performer, but I'll take the 4 and save a couple thou, enjoy the superior mileage and ease of maintenance, and still get around just fine. Think, today's 2.2-2.4 liter 4's make as much power as most of the V6s from the early 90s!

My current cars are an '00 Civic EX and an '03 Saab 9-5 Aero. The Civic has 126,000 miles and **** near runs like the day it was new. Good enough power, smooth as ****, burns not a drop of oil, and is so easy to work on. Love it. Our experience with that car has us almost 100% decided on a 4 cylinder Accord for our next car. The Saab's a 2.3 turbo with 250 hp. Gets 27-28 mpg in mixed driving and is powerful enough to get you into trouble fast. Also very easy to work on, good access all around the engine bay.

jeff

 

[addyguy]

The thing I get a kick out of is how much more powerful and efficient todays fours are, compared to 8's and 6's of 20 - 25 years ago. I have a 2.2 litre OHV 4 chevrolet that puts out 115 horsepower. In the early 1980's, chevrolet put out a 4.4 litre V-8 (the 267-cubic-inch mill), that put out about 110-120 horsepower. So in 25 years, we get the same power out of exactly half the engine! The comparison is even more impressive if you consider that the GM OHV 4-cylinders like this are basically the same design as these 8's, just cut in half!

 

[brianl703]

Although they don't make Tauruses with manual transmissions, how does your 9-5 react (if it has a manual trans) to things like accelerating from 15MPH in 4th gear? I have a 2.5L Duratec V6 and it just doesn't care. Makes it great for driving in stop-and-go traffic. Once I actually accelerated from 750RPM in 5th gear (with a very small throttle opening). It didn't seem to care about that either. (I'm sure someone's gonna tell me that this is really bad for the engine, yadda, yadda, yadda. I know. It might mean the difference between the engine breaking long after I'm sick of the car and the engine breaking long,long after I'm sick of the car).

 

[98LS-WON]

For gas mileage -- Love them.
For push you into the seat acceleration -- I'll take a V-8 with a huge cam and good heads. Who cares about the gas.

 

[acewiza]

I'll take my 4 cyls two at a time - one on either side of a Mopar big block. And get 12 mpg doing 100mph up the interstate with your Honda in the trunk of my '71 New Yorker.

 

[GMBoy]

I remember a buddy of mine had a 1985 Buick Skyhawk T-Type with the 1.8 Turbo. Boy that little car was a rocket in it's day. Sure, it was rated at 150hp, but in the 80's that was only 15hp less than a base Z28's 5.0V8 offered with less weight. We sure have come a long way.

 

[Ramblin Fever]

I'll have to agree with someone who mentioned the 22RE Toyota engine mated to the 4x4 p-up as the harshest set-up for a 4-cylinder, even in a 5-speed.

The truck weighs in a 5k# empty - I can walk faster going up over the Continental Divide than it can in 2nd gear and screaming.

In a car, fine - but 4-cylinder's have no place in the world of trucks, SUVs, or mini-vans, IMHO. People who live in flat-land states may think the 4-cylinder mini-van's are fine, and they are till you hit or live in the Rocky Mountain region.

 

[BrianWC]

brianl703, my 9-5 is actually an auto. In terms of my comparison, I meant my 9-5's four felt like the duratec in terms of buzziness and torque from stop ('cept mine's stronger!). Stock I've got 185 hp and 207 lbs/ft of torque.

 

[1sttruck]

I liked most of the 4 cylinders that I've had; Kawasaki 550, Suzuki GS750, Yamaha 750 Seca, Suzuki GS1100. We had a Honda Civic that was nice but it didn't last that long, too many people up and down hills I guess. In cars and trucks I prefer a six, where both Taurus sedans have a basic V6 that seems to run a long time, provided you feed the car parts on a regular basis, and I'm expecting 500k miles from the inline 6 diesel in the truck.

 

[BrianWC]

Well, mines 2.3 actually. Max torque for me of 207 lb/ft at 1800-3500 rpm. The last generation of saabs were a little more laggy and saab worked to overcome that.

http://www.saab.com/main/GLOBAL/en/model/95/techspecs.shtml

 

[brianl703]

I looked at the brochure for the 2006 9-3, the 2.0L engine has about 75% of it's peak torque at 1500RPM..just like the Duratec.

 

[Titan]

I was simply stunned at the acceleration of the new Subaru 2.5 automatic I just bought. Not because it slams you back in the seat, but, for what it is, it really runs great 0-60. Gearing must be set nearly perfect, slippage of that automatic must be minimal. I would imagine the turbocharged version of this setup would be a real hoot!

Look, I'm all for V-8 power. But, I'm NOT for being set-up to be held hostage by the Mid-eastern (and, let's not forget Venezuelan) oil producing countries. A single individual choosing a vehicle that gets 10 mpg instead of a vehicle that gets 20 mpg makes only a spit of difference in the ocean. But, if half of the country did that, we'd be able to reduce our dependence significantly. You know, without cars, that black stuff oozing from the ground is just a big mess. Smaller displacement engines on the whole get better fuel economy, I'm all for their proliferation....at least until we develop other sources of fuel. I know this is a non-political forum, but, the topic of 4 cylinders vs. bigger engines is a political topic.

 

[mettech]

I have a V-8 Ford diesel, Ford V-6 and Honda I-4.

I use the right engine for the task:

70%+ city driving or short trips = I-4

50% - 25% city driving and/or 3-5 passengers = V-6

or large
load = V-8 diesel

 

[Evil Ron]

I agree with Mettech, use the right tool for the job at hand. I think 95% of the people would be well served by a 4 cylinder car 95% of the time.

 

[rpn453]

quote:

---

I think 95% of the people would be well served by a 4 cylinder car 95% of the time.

---

You could probably even say 95% of the people 100% of the time. I can guarantee that my mother has never used full-throttle on her Sunfire GT's 2.4L (though I certainly have!), and my girlfriend has never even floored it with her Mazda MX-6's 2.0L (though, once again, I certainly have!). Bigger engines in either of these vehicles would be, for all practical purposes, a total waste of money. They'd be more fun for me to drive, but even for me a bigger engine than one that gets me from 0-60 in 12 seconds goes against practicality. My Mazda3's 7.3s 0-60 is purely for pleasure; I enjoy it but I didn't pay extra for it since it's the only engine available in the hatchback, and the extra fuel cost isn't really significant compared to insurance and initial cost anyway.

 

[acewiza]

You guys are all so practical and scietific 'bout stuff - that's good! But what about the "fun factor?" I have an old Plymouth Duster with a 340 4sp in it. It is my daily driver, gets mid teens (or less w/my foot in it). But that thing sure is fun to drive!

Sorry, maybe I'm weird or something, but I look at automobile transportation as more than just something to haul my sorry butt around in. I have a pickup for hauling/towing, and the wife has a modern V6.

Right tool for the job - correctemundo. But in my case, the job is enjoying the drive!