4 bangers part II

[bob_ninja]

Quote: "The Hornet uses a 1.6-liter 16-valve OHC supercharged four-cylinder engine putting out 127 kW (170 hp) and 224 Nm of torque @4,000 rpm." 170 hp from 1.6L Hornet article This would seem to support the argument that you can get all the power you want/need from 4 cylinders, BUT what about engine longevity? Does/can an engine that is supercharged to that extent last as long as a regular engine, 4 or 6???? Opinions about using turbo and superharging on 3 and 4 cylinder engines to get 6cyl type performance. Another popular trend seems to be turbo diesels, 3 cylinder (Smart) and 4 cylinder (VWs). Does this give us the best of both worlds, fuel economy and performance? Or are 6 cylinder engines still better choice because they last much longer or ....?

 

[VNT]

Depends on how it is designed and weather people beat them into the ground. I have a 89 shadow with a 2.5 turbo. with a bigger turbo, exhaust, intercooler and + 20 injectors and a calibration I should see about 210-225 WHP and 320WTQ. That would be about 260HP and 350TQ at the flywheel. I dynoed it at 12 PSI with stock injectors last year and got 170WHP and 289 WTQ before I ran out of fuel. With larger injectors I should be able to squeeze some more A friend with a bigger Turbo T3/T4 and larger cooler with a 2.2 in a Shadow runs 340 WHP and 390sh WTQ all day long, add 18 % to that for the flywheel figures. He has had it like this for going on 7 years, 100K miles of driving and countless runs at the drag strip. If you can get em tuned correctly so you dont run lean, they will live a long time. But it only takes one shot where you run out of fuel and detonate and you will have a nice ash tray or two:) Oh I get 29 MPG and he is in that range on the highway. also for reference go look at the SRT4 ad PT GT guys. My PT GT with a stg 1 kit ran 227 WHP and 254 WTQ, so I consider 275HP and 300Tq pretty good for a stock car, the SRT guys with Stg 3 get 300+ WHP and 350 WTQ no problem.

 

[Zaedock]

Four cylinders can get the job done and do it quite well. However, there is no replacement for displacement. I can make 300HP from the 350 in my Malibu drag car by unplugging two cylinders oke:

 

[bob_ninja]

Hacker, Well that is the question, if supercharged engines don't last as long as regular engines. Who is to say that a supercharged engine that is "taken care of" won't last 500K??? So if they have both power and fuel efficiency then why are they not more prevalent?

 

[ikeepmychevytoo]

I'd prefer turbo on countries where the displacement is taxed, otherwise I don't. I drove fours that looked much better hp-wise on the paper before. One was the Rover 220 turbo, despite the high pressure it had the earliest opening turbo in the industry in its time. If one would race, it is faster than my heavier six, but it does guzzle the gas when pushed, it lugs on the climbs if you ever need to slow down for once. For taking over you need to stir the the gears and interrupt the thrust. Per my opinion fours do lack adaptability and flexibility of the real world driving conditions and eventually fatiques the driver on long distance. Locating the good torque to 4000rpm is just awkward. On the long climbs their temps are not nearly as stable. It is good that fours now can give the performance too, but they are not practical for that. They are still what they are, either performance or economy, and behave strictly discrete for these. I've considered the turbo Saabs more than once, but they are lighter and consuming more than a typical US six.

 

[Titan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by OriginHacker21: If a supercharged 2.2L can go 100,000+ - then a stock 2.2L should be able to go 500,000 (if taken care of)!!!

---

OR, perhaps proper supercharging/turbocharging simply don't add as much extra stress as many people ASSUME. IOW, adding 25% HP may not decrease life of the engine by 25%. It just depends...

 

[robbobster]

I think the type of duty plays a part. A high-performance 4-cylinder is great for the street, as it is rarely asked to put out max power for extended period of time. But IMHO, it would not be well-suited for, say, a speedboat, where high-power demands can go on for quite some time. I know torque curves play a big part, as well as other facots. But generally, I think a low-stressed 300hp small-block V8 would last longer in a boat than a 300-hp turbo 4-banger, IMHO.

 

[Thermo1223]

I agree robbobster, although VW is starting to release TDI's for marine apps. A lot of torque to drive that prop. 300hp for a V8 is nothing to sneeze at but like you said the amount of work that goes into a 4 cyl. to do that is a little more expsensive in nature. Plus on the reliability side adding a turbo or S/C is just one more thing that can fail and cause other damage when doing so. It's another variable. They do tend to work well on the street with a limited high power demand. It has been known for quite some time that the VNT15 is the weakspot in a TDI's realiability. Shaft breakage, seal failures, VNT jams and then of course the associated controls with it. When the seals go the pressue can litterly suck all the oil from the crankcase and cause a runaway engine which if not stopped will ruin itself. It's a rarity but it can happen.

 

[Ryan00TJ]

quote:

---

170 hp from 1.6L

---

You also count in the added displacement from the blower. Many 03+ Cobra owners for example add 2.2 or 2.4L Kenne Bell Twin Screws to their 4.6L engines. With a 2.4L displacement blower that makes 7.0L of displacement now. My LS1 is 5.7L and with the new KB 2.2L Blower will come up to 7.9L.

 

[rpn453]

You could make a 300hp supercharged 1.6L with a design life of 2 million miles, just as you could make a 50hp 1.6L with a design life of 1000 miles. It's just a question of what option makes the most sense in terms of economics and automotive design.

 

[Thermo1223]

VW's 1.4l FSI engine makes 170hp as well. It uses a supercharger coupled with a regular exhuast driven turbo. Still gets 30-40mpg too.

 

[OriginHacker21]

If a supercharged 2.2L can go 100,000+ - then a stock 2.2L should be able to go 500,000 (if taken care of)!!!

 

[Shaman]

Honda has had a 170 hp 1.6 liter for about 13 years now.

 

[TurboLuver]

My 1999 civic si made 160hp from 1.6 liters naturally aspirated.. 100hp per liter is pretty good without a blower or turbo...

 

[97tbird]

didn't the naturally aspired VTEC 4-banger in the Prelude (98-01) make 195 HP or something? (or am I mistaken?)

 

[n8wvi]

Current Subaru 2.5L normally asp. makes 175HP/169tq Does anyone really know the life one could get out of one of these??? I've got a hundred miles shy of 150,000 on my EJ22 and it honestly runs like the day it was new. Dave

 

[Bret Chase]

The last JDM version of the Toyota 4AGE (1.6l) was a 20 valve 170hp unit.. which was what, 15 years ago?

 

[n8wvi]

Just a hunch, but I'm thinkin' the torque & HP curves on the Subaru EZ25 and the Toyota 4AGE are going to look a little different. I'm sure each is/was built for a different type of driving. Dave

 

[Bret Chase]

the 20v 4age was a revver 8000RPM redline and 170hp@7800 rpm. the 16v 4age I had in my MR2 had zero torque below about 2500rpm... the "sweet spot" was about 4500-6000. I really don't know anything about the subaru motor other than it's more than 50% larger.

 

[brianl703]

So how long could one expect the 2.0L engine found in the 2006 Saab 93 to last, assuming proper care? It makes 210HP.