4 bangers- Love'em or Hate'm?

[ekpolk]

Bror:

Your post is a good read, as usual. A couple thoughts in response. The Honda V-6 example isn't a particularly apt one. The Honda V-6 vs I-4 stablemate is perhaps the very worst example of that comparison possible. Honda stuffed a V-6 into that series of Accord (94-97 MYs IIRC) as an afterthought. They had to stretch the nose structure to make it fit, disturbing the car's balance and making it even heavier. The problem was compounded by the installation of a bottom-end-free 2.7L V-6, with auto trans only. It was a most un-Honda-like half-baked effort, and the I-4s of this series were, IMO, much nicer cars.

Second, Mr. Hussey's comment is technically correct, but it overlooks practical reality. I-4s have plenty of advantages, but they aren't made for passenger cars much above 2.5L (with rare exception). Apparently, the car makers figure that the 4-bangers get so bad sounding when they get big that folks won't buy them. And who can dispute this -- how many 3.5L I-4s do we see in real world passenger cars? There's a good reason why they're not there.

Oh yeah, I for one, am very well aware of what torque is, being hoplessly addicted to it

.

 

[Titan]

I just got 36.1 mpg on my Saab 9-2x 2.5 liter Saab engine. Manual transmission. It's rated at 28 or 29 highway. I did it by staying off the interstate and going 63-64 mpg on gently rolling terrain through south Georgia. Got the same thing on that long section going back home. I was very impressed. However, what impressed me more was the 32 mpg I got when zipping along at 85 mph on I-75. Well, OK, there were times I was literally stopped on I-75, and times I hit 95 for short sections. But, come on, 32-36 mpg on a car with almost 170 hp? Good little engine...

Oh, BTW, I drove the new Corolla, new Camry (0-20 or 5-20 oil on the filler cap!), and 2.3 l Mazda last week. I was most impressed with the Mazda. I could NOT feel the engine running at idle. Zero vibration...and it ran strongly. Very nice small engines out there these days...

 

[9296D21B14]

Big car. Little....Richard?

 

[greg_J35]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
I said I'll never own another, yet I'm driving one now. LOL. Not my first choice as I would have rather had the Accord V6, but to be honest, I don't think some of the modern 4 cylinder engines are all that bad. My car is not fast at all, but it's very smooth, even at 90mph. I attribute most of that to good Honda Engineering.

---

I continue to enjoy the 2003 Accord 2.4 IVtec because of its great gas mileage and performance.

 

[Vuser]

I have had three cars with four bangers and only because I had no choice. Including my current car '00 cavlier. I wish GM would bring out a mid size car with a 6 cylinder, but a two door. I may be 26, but I still have no use for a 4 door car.

 

[01rangerxl]

I like the four cylinder in my 2001 Ranger. It's a very low-tech SOHC 8 valve 2.5L. It's a stroked version of the 2.3L that dates back to the early '70s (it has roots in the Pinto and Mustang II, lol). It has been great as far as reliability. Not a single problem in 70K miles, and considering its past, that's pretty good. It was originally a lease and didn't get cared for all that well. The coolant was definately not changed at 45K miles like Ford suggets, and the fuel filter was marked "10 - 00"...the month and year the truck was built according to the door sticker. Who knows what else was never done...my guess is the only maintenence it ever saw was an occasional air filter and oil change until I got it.

It has decent power considering how outdated the engine is. It won't win many races, but it has enough power for daily driving and some hauling. I have had 3/4 of a ton of QuikCrete in the bed before and the truck handled it suprisingly well.

The one thing I really do not like about my truck's engine is Ford's idea of eight spark plugs. If I only have four cylinders, I only want to pay for four spark plugs and four spark plug wires, not eight! Not to mention the ones on the intake side are difficult to change.

 

[Titan]

Saw a mistake in my post, that is a Saab 9-2x with a SUBARU engine. Too much time had elapsed to allow me to edit my post. BTW, went on that same trip. Overall 33.5 mpg including fast, slower, and city driving. Doggone good to me!

 

[JHZR2]

I love 4cyl engines... Not that I wouldnt love a dodge ram cummins turbo diesel, or a vette Z06 (both of which I hope to buy in the next 5 years

)...

4cyl cars are the easiest to work on and maintain... a big plus.

My 91 BMW 318i makes 144 hp (with performance chip) from 1.8L. Last tank I got 31 MPG. Is it particularly fast? No... but its fast enough to zip around where I want to go, and a heck of a lot faster than the auto transd ford focus I have as a long term rental for work...

My 04 saab 9-3 makes 195 lb-ft of torque from just off fast idle. It has a turbo, but its designed for low inertiam so there is no discernable lag. Is it a v6 or v8? no... but a v6 or v8 couldnt get 38-40 MPG doing 60-65 on the highway... amazingly enough, the 9-3 (0.27 Cd) can.

The key is manual transmission, and a decent size oil sump (I mentioned this in a post near the start of my thread) for minimum lifecycle cost.

People who 'need' performance are just kidding themselves. If you cant afford a performance car, then you cant afford performance... sorry.

For the regular commuter or here to there car, a 4 cyl is optimal... that engine will get the most wear and tear, so why not have an engine thats easy and simple to work on? And at the end of the day, have an engine that minimizes your operating costs?

I really dig the freshened up accord... with 4 cyl engine and manual trans, Im sure its a nice drive... I think its EPA rated 34 MPG highway, like my saab, so it surely can do real well if treated right... However, I dont know if Im really interested in revving an engine so high to get the power I need. I rarely go voer 3000 RPM in any of my cars (unless cruising in top gear puts me there), and I do mainly highway driving, with plenty of merging in one of the most densely populated areas in the country. It is doable.

Everyone should learn to drive with a 4cyl, MT car... manual trans is the key... some people might learn some lessons in inertia and physics, as auto trans make them too stupid, regardless of engine type.

JMH

 

[Titan]

JMH wrote: People who 'need' performance are just kidding themselves. If you cant afford a performance car, then you cant afford performance... sorry.


Well said!

 

[MCompact]

I also have an M42. In my case it's installed in a 1995 318ti Club Sport. With a Conforti chip it will do 0-60 in the mid-sevens while averaging 27 mpg overall. In 104K miles I've only replaced the timing chain tensioner($40 and 20 minutes)-and that was only done as a precaution. I don't abuse the car, but once fully warmed up I will hit the redline more than once-especially on track days...

 

[doubleshockpower]

'03 Honda Accord EX 2.4 mated to their 5sp auto....unbelievable smoothe machine...bip..bip..bip..bip..bip..right matched gear through every situation, I sell and carry 400lbs. of samples 40k per year, so 30mpg (overall) is great for the pollution and Islamic problems (I don't pay for any fuel), seat is marvelous too.

My wife drives a '97 CRV 2.0 since '97, 108k, only oil it uses is what we wipe from the dipstick....I use it to trailer our Aquatrax, Big Reds or Foremans all over the north woods....not ideal, but has done the job for years yet gets the groceries and commutes through snow and PIA weather at 25 mpg.

4cyl Honda engines & autos?...good decision, especially now.

 

[thunderchild]

Well I am liking my 4 banger alot now since gas has gone up. The truck is sitting at home guarding the garage. I am going to have to switch my vehicles and let my 4 banger be the daily driver for awhile. It is a blast to drive though, and I am enjoying the money I save in fuel costs. Boy that Belgian beer is good!

 

[thunderchild]

Well after hearing on the news this morning that the price for crude could got to $100.00 a barrel, I guess that the old 4 banger is looking better and better. I see nothing wrong with 4 cylinders. I have owned a number of them over my lifetime and find they are enjoyable enough to drive but very reliable.

 

[Jeepster_nut]

Gas just hit $3.02 a gallon here in CT for self serve regular. I would say that 4 bangers are the future!!

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

4 bangers? Love 'em.

 

[OriginHacker21]

What about GM's 4 bangers?

My 04 Sunfire does 35MPG average @ 70mph during my 220 mile daily trip to and from work. My co-worker's Prius on same route gets 37-40mpg.

From near empty I fill up for ~$30.00 with 10 gallons (14.1 gal tank). I get a lot of looks at gas station from SUV/Truck owners who gas up for over $70... I could not imagine paying that much for gas.

4 cyl engines are definitely the future if gas is going to go higher.

 

[burnout]

I absolutely love 4 cylinder engines. GM has a great one on their hands, the ecotec. Hondas may sound annoying when the exhaust is "opened up," but they are SO fun to drive.

 

[ajwan]

I've always had a 4-banger and will never depart from that. I used to have an '85 Mazda 626 that pumped out 90 hp on 2.0 L. Pathetic little thing, however, I had the unfortunate "privilege" of driving it up until 2003, when I finally got rid of it. Since then, I've been driving an Acura RSX Type-S

200hp at 7800 RPM, and willing to rev to 8000RPM. May not have the best torque out there (142 ft/lbs at 6000 RPM), but it sure is fun to drive. Best of all, from my records, the car will do 25.6/34.4 mpg city highway!

Cheers!
AJW

 

[ekpolk]

Here's another twist to complicate the debate a bit. Lexus is now selling a version of the IS series, the IS-250, with a tiny V-6, that in most respects, mimics the essential qualities of a modern I-4. See the particulars here. This V-6 is down-sized to the displacement range of a modern "large" I-4, it gets about the same mileage as an I-4 mid-sized car, with slightly better performance. Obviously, cylinder-count-dependent maintenance, such as plug replacement will cost more (as will everything at a Lexus dealer...), but otherwise, this one is a bit of a "gender bender" in the traditional V-6 vs. I-4 comparison. I wonder if this line will blur more in the future -- or perhaps this car is just an anomaly.

 

[JHZR2]

see, I dont quite understand the point of an undersized v6... My impression was that inline engines are superior for torque delivery... maybe not.

I wonder if Honda made a high end 2.5L 4 cylinder engine, if they could meet the lexus specs... how much less torque does the tsx make???

I guess since the IS is RWD, maintenance wouldnt be quite so hard... but Ill bet its a challenge all the same, at least compared to the old I6 in the old IS, or any 4 cyl... say, the tsx, which is surely a big competitor.

What ought to be noted is that at 29 MPG, the economy is poor for the MT version... the AT version is the same 0-60 and gets 32 MPG... which is decent.

JMH