Advantages of a four cylinder?

[RippyMan]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have a 04 civic EX with 1.7L 4-banger and manual gearbox, it revs 3000 at 60mph, 4000 at 80, and 5000 at 90mph. I took a trip to Seattle, WA from Los Angeles CA. Before trip I put 10w30 Mobile 1 oil with M1 filter. Traveled the whole way at 85+ mph which is 4700-5000rpm constantly, got 32mpg average, and was surprised to see oil clear as new when I came back to LA after almost 3000 mile road trip under those conditions. The car has 60k miles, has zero oil consumption and purrs like a kitten every morning. Also under the valve cover it is incredebly clean. Must have cleaned up after high speed driving

I have also noticed that high rpm doesnt increase fuel consumption as much as load.

---

Those rpm numbers seem high. I too have an '04 Civic LX 5 speed MT (non V-tec). and at 80mph I turn 3300 RPMs. I have 45000 miles. Is your clutch slipping?

---

No, these seem about right. The EX Civics, which have VTEC, have a much lower fifth gear than the non-Ex's. My mom's 04 EX does about 4000 RPM at 80 MPH. I've never measured the MPG on it though. It's so noisy at highway speeds!

 

[ThirdeYe]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have a 04 civic EX with 1.7L 4-banger and manual gearbox, it revs 3000 at 60mph, 4000 at 80, and 5000 at 90mph. I took a trip to Seattle, WA from Los Angeles CA. Before trip I put 10w30 Mobile 1 oil with M1 filter. Traveled the whole way at 85+ mph which is 4700-5000rpm constantly, got 32mpg average, and was surprised to see oil clear as new when I came back to LA after almost 3000 mile road trip under those conditions. The car has 60k miles, has zero oil consumption and purrs like a kitten every morning. Also under the valve cover it is incredebly clean. Must have cleaned up after high speed driving

I have also noticed that high rpm doesnt increase fuel consumption as much as load.

---

Those rpm numbers seem high. I too have an '04 Civic LX 5 speed MT (non V-tec). and at 80mph I turn 3300 RPMs. I have 45000 miles. Is your clutch slipping?

---

I agree that those numbers seem high. At 80mph in my 1.8L it's usually around 3300-3500 RPMs, I can't imagine it being vastly different than a 1.7L in terms of RPMs.

 

[ThirdeYe]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have a 04 civic EX with 1.7L 4-banger and manual gearbox, it revs 3000 at 60mph, 4000 at 80, and 5000 at 90mph. I took a trip to Seattle, WA from Los Angeles CA. Before trip I put 10w30 Mobile 1 oil with M1 filter. Traveled the whole way at 85+ mph which is 4700-5000rpm constantly, got 32mpg average, and was surprised to see oil clear as new when I came back to LA after almost 3000 mile road trip under those conditions. The car has 60k miles, has zero oil consumption and purrs like a kitten every morning. Also under the valve cover it is incredebly clean. Must have cleaned up after high speed driving

I have also noticed that high rpm doesnt increase fuel consumption as much as load.

---

Those rpm numbers seem high. I too have an '04 Civic LX 5 speed MT (non V-tec). and at 80mph I turn 3300 RPMs. I have 45000 miles. Is your clutch slipping?

---

No, these seem about right. The EX Civics, which have VTEC, have a much lower fifth gear than the non-Ex's. My mom's 04 EX does about 4000 RPM at 80 MPH. I've never measured the MPG on it though. It's so noisy at highway speeds!

---

Interesting

That would probably explain it. I haven't driven a VTEC Honda, just non-VTECs (Accord, Integra, etc.)

 

[crw]

My 4 will beat your 6 from 70 to 90mph...

 

[Warlord]

My 4 banger ranger has plenty of power for what I use it for. It will never tow a house trailer but it will pull a quad trailer and 2 quads with ease. Since it is pretty light it can rip around pretty good. It is probably quicker than my old v6 car and it has no trouble at all merging onto the highway. It has enough power in 5th to climb any hills I come across and it gets great gas mileage. I see absolutely no reason why a 4 cyl camry can't do everything a camry is intended to do. If you plan on towing regularly you may need the v6, but if you tow reguarly just get a truck.

 

[CBDFrontier06]

You and I have completely different experiences with 4-cylinder Rangers. My '97 was awful. Merging onto a highway was an experiment in daring. The cooling fan seemingly took 1/2 the hp away when it got warm. 1st thing in the morning before it warmed up was the best it ever ran. I was seriously considering an electric cooling fan before it was stolen and totalled. Wish I could buy that guy a drink...

 

[santiago]

Afew months ago I bought a 2007 Camry LE with the I4 engine. It has plenty of acceleration for me at this stage of my life. Mileage has been 22-23 city and over 30 on the highway and that running the a/c most of the time.

santiago

 

[BradC]

I went from a 3.1L V6 w/170HP to a 2.4L VVT I4 w/175HP.

Torque curve is obviously different, but I much prefer the I4 to the V6. Better mileage and better performance in a smaller and lighter package.

I think it only revs about 500 RPM higher than the V6 did at the same speeds.

 

[01rangerxl]

Quote:

---

You and I have completely different experiences with 4-cylinder Rangers. My '97 was awful. Merging onto a highway was an experiment in daring. The cooling fan seemingly took 1/2 the hp away when it got warm. 1st thing in the morning before it warmed up was the best it ever ran. I was seriously considering an electric cooling fan before it was stolen and totalled. Wish I could buy that guy a drink...

---

Are you sure there was not something broken? My truck does not seem bothered by any of its belt driven accessories. Even turning the A/C on makes no real difference in power (that I can feel). Merging is no big deal.

 

[CBDFrontier06]

Well, it was brand new and never gave me a CEL, so I can only assume it was ok. I noticed pretty decent power in the mornings before the temp guage started moving, but after that when I could hear the cooling fan start to work, all bets were off. I even took it in for service thinking some temperature sensor was malfunctioning and they gave it a clear bill of health (other than the bad factory alignment that chewed up the front tires in less than 4000 miles and took them two attempts to fix).

 

[Ramblin Fever]

Quote:

---

For those occasional trips when you load entire family, a lot of baggage, etc. V6 will be superior. But how often do you do that?

---

For us, a LOT.

We are a very active family and tour the great outdoors almost every weekend in the summer; which is why we do have 2 V6 daily drivers, but have recently acquired an older 2-door car for one of us to drive daily and save on gas mileage, so that we can take longer drives/weekends.

I agree totally though, if you're only using the car for what 90% of the population does, i.e. work, take the kids to school, errands, shopping, etc. there's no need for a V6. However, if you do a lot of highway driving, or have 2-3 kids, spouse, family dog, etc. you're better off with a V6.

 

[ThirdeYe]

I just took a long vacation with my mother, and a full load of luggage, along with 40 lbs. of speakers in the hatch and still had plenty of power and got nearly 36mpg, I see no personal need for a 6-cylinder. My 4-cylinder gets me everything I need and more. Just my opinion.

It probably helps that my car doesn't weigh that much and I take good care of it.

 

[ex_MGB]

The 4 cylinder if you want manual, the 6 for AT. That's the bottom line. Cost means nothing if you don't get what you want.

Some people demand a manual transmission because they last forever and a fluid change out is easy. No AT on planet Earth after 100k will give the same peace of mind.

 

[Warlord]

Quote:

---

You and I have completely different experiences with 4-cylinder Rangers. My '97 was awful. Merging onto a highway was an experiment in daring. The cooling fan seemingly took 1/2 the hp away when it got warm. 1st thing in the morning before it warmed up was the best it ever ran. I was seriously considering an electric cooling fan before it was stolen and totalled. Wish I could buy that guy a drink...

---

Was it an auto? The newer rangers use a different 2.3 as well. My duratec has significantly more power than the older lima 2.3. The duratec has roughly the same bottom end power but a boatload more top end. Even so, I almost never get it over 2500 rpm. I have driven older rangers and they were slow but not dangerously so.

 

[Big O Dave]

Personally, I'd rather drive a

 

[brad_d]

I've got a '97 Ranger-clone Mazda B2300 with that Lima 2.3, and yeah - it's not exactly quick. It is practically indestructible, and adequate for my needs. 206,000 miles and going strong, despite a lot of full-throttle, rev-it-to-5,000 freeway merges. Even so, I'm averaging north of 25 MPG these days, which I think is pretty good for a compact pickup.

It's really not suitable for towing - I towed a small trailer and had trouble making it up steep-ish hills, although I think I was at (or even slightly over) the GCWR specified in the owner's manual.

Our '06 Accord has a 4-banger (and an automatic transmission) that's only very slightly larger (2.4L), but wow, is it different! Like I said before, that thing zips - and the curb weights of the two vehicles aren't really that different.

All I4's are not created equal, even when their displacements are similar. Some are pretty marginal, but others hold their own just fine. Blanket statements are rather meaningless.

 

[defeated]

Quote:

---

You and I have completely different experiences with 4-cylinder Rangers. My '97 was awful. Merging onto a highway was an experiment in daring.

---

Maybe 97 was a bad year for Ford 4 cylinders...I had a 97 4 cyl Escort wagon for a very short time - loved that car, but it was absolutely dog slow. Not dangerously so, though, just annoyingly, especially compared to another recent 4 banger, a 98 Cavalier. The Cavi was pretty darned quick.

 

[brianl703]

My mom had a 97 Escort sedan, it was fast enough (it had a 5-speed manual in it). It would pretty easily hit the built-in 110MPH speed governor, according to my brother. (*I* don't drive like that). It also consumed barely 1/4 of a quart of oil in 5000 miles. (I'd change the oil twice a year).

She sold it when it had 88,000 miles on it to get a car with an automatic.

 

[Ramblin Fever]

Quote:

---

I just took a long vacation with my mother, and a full load of luggage, along with 40 lbs. of speakers in the hatch and still had plenty of power and got nearly 36mpg, I see no personal need for a 6-cylinder. My 4-cylinder gets me everything I need and more. Just my opinion.

It probably helps that my car doesn't weigh that much and I take good care of it.

---

With just 2 people I don't either, that IS what I'm saying. There is no NEED for anyone to have a V6 truly, if it's just themselves and/or one other person.

If you have a family consisting of 2-3 kids, 3 dogs, spouse, 500#+ luggage, etc than I would highly recommend at LEAST a V6, especially if you DO like to go out beyond city limits.

Just wanted to clarify that I do agree a 4-cylinder will work just fine for the average everyday individual - however, if this individual TRULY thought it would be just fine, he wouldn't have asked the question.

 

[Ramblin Fever]

Wanted to also add one last post to this thread: one needs to know that it has been YEARS since I drove a 4-cylinder beyond city limits; the one's I had years ago were very easy to maintain, and fantastic around town, but were horrible dogs anytime more then 2 people were in the car, and forget luggage. You could walk faster then the cars could move with any kind of luggage added in.

I have driven a friends 5-spd newer Corolla from time to time, but only in town, and only with myself and maybe one other person - for that comparison, I say that particular 4-cylinder is GREAT! I love driving that car, and will someday take a one day cruise to the mountains in it - just to see.

And, maybe I need to find out for sure how a 4-cylinder can handle 3 kids, 3 dogs, etc at 12k feet so that I know, cause we may be coming to that point if gas prices keep increasing!