Advantages of a four cylinder?

[javacontour]

Rambling Fever,

I think you are on to something.

Many of today's 4 cylinder engines are producing power like V8's of the 1970's produced. Not torque, but horsepower numbers.

I do believe there are a number of folks who are not comfortable with RPMs much above 3K or 4K, so they prefer large engines with lots of torque to a 4 cylinder that has to turn 3K+ on the highway.

So in many cases, a 2.4L four cylinder that produces 160HP and about the same peak torque is comparable to many V8 powered cars from the 1970's at least from a horsepower perspective. Again torque is where there is little replacement for displacement.

If those folks formulated their opinions regarding 4 cylinder cars from the offerings of the 1970's, I certainly understand why they think they are not sufficient.

It would be interesting to compare the 0-60 times of a 2005 Camry with the 4 and an automatic with say a 1975 Malibu, a 1975 Granada, or a 1975 Dodge Aspen with a 5.0 or similar V8 and automatic.

 

[meep]

I have no regrets buying the 2.3L I4 in our 02 accord. I miss "knowing" I had a 6, and I miss lower rpm torque of the 6. BUT, it's all in how you drive...anticipate, shift, and hang on, that honda 4 will pull. AND, the VVT in the newer motors (toyota vvt-i, honda i-vtec) is even better. I swear the civic-si has the torque curve of a 6. I don't feel very manly to say that, but it really does. The vvt in the matrix gives very usable torque.

For me, I get the extra 1-2 mpg, more room under the hood, and a lighter, slightly more nimble front end. Might argue more crumple zone.

Either way, I can cram 2 adults and 300 lbs of music gear into the accord and comfortably cruise at 75 (limit here is 70) with zero problems, and collect 28mpg at the pump.

mike

 

[wileyE]

Forget the #'s and go drive both, and see what the difference is.

My parents 4 cyl Camry works great for their use, around town just the two of them. Out on the highway with 4 adult passengers it's underpowered in my opinion, but fine for occasional use. My simular size lexus with a v6 works much better for hauling passengers on the highway and probably gets about the same mpg , but around town I'm sure it uses more fuel.

 

[outersquare]

the current manual i4 accord coupe can run high 15s in the quarter mile, that is decent acceleration

 

[JHZR2]

Quote:

---

the current manual i4 accord coupe can run high 15s in the quarter mile, that is decent acceleration

---

And anyone trying to act sporty, fast, and high performance ot of their 3 or 6 cylinder camry, accord, etc. (even if it is tuned and an MT version), is kidding themself.

THey just arent sports cars, and 'sporty' doesnt cut it. If you want 4-dr performance, buy an M5, G35, heck, even an MT maxima (if they still exist), and if you can't afford it and dont care, then cut your losses and live frugally until you can.

JMH

 

[Black Bart]

JHZR2 Your use of the word SPORTY brings up something I have been trying to figure out how we got to the point of calling so many cars SPORT CARS when actually they are SPORTY CARS.
Last Summer I was in a Ford dealership and this sellsman said let me fix you up with that Sports car and I ask him where it was and he pointed to a new Mustang sitting on the floor.
He was probably in his early twenty's. I told him it was a Sporty car but not a sports car.
I see many people on this forum calling cars sport cars that are nothing more than a sporty looking sedan.
Somehow the younger generation has turned nearly everything into a sports car.

 

[JHZR2]

Well, I have to ask you to quantify there.

I would consider a properly equipped mustang GT or cobra to be a sports car, not a sporty car. A 6-cyl mustang, that would be 'sporty'. Why? Its capability and ability to provide high-performance driving, which is the cross between high-power output from the engine, extremely fast acceleration, and equipment set up for performance driving.

Some cars have some of the package - think 'sline' audi that is not an S4, or putting M-spec wheels on a 3-series that is not an M3. Of course these c ars are sporty, but theyre not the whole deal.

Sports cars are entirely high performance. I think of everything from Ferarri and Porsche to the STi, lancer evo, M3, M5, S4, S6, S8, S2000, etc.

Sporty cars try to pretend, but really arent much of anything special. They go faster than the average car, but so what? It is the package. I think of everything from the SVT focus and civic SI, to the subaru legacy GT and the nissan altima 3.5 MT. Id also consider most euro cars to be in this group.

Then you have garden variety commodity applicance cars. THings like the camry, accord, stratus, civic, cobalt, focus, fusion, 500, impala, etc. Though there is a V8 equpped impala that is a decent performer, and though the camry v6 puts out 269hp, they dont come with MT, and nobody would confuse even a sub-6sec 0-60 time as being particularly sporty.

So I must ask why you do not consider a new mustang to relatively be a sports car..

Thanks!!!

JMH

 

[Black Bart]

So I must ask why you do not consider a new mustang to relatively be a sports car..

Because I use the old school definition not just 0 to 60
A car with more than two seats or has a slush box tranny is not a true sports car or at least it was not until the last ten years or so.
The FORD Lighting truck is fast would you say it was a sports car. If you use 0-60 it would qualify more than some of the cars that are referred to as sports cars.
Years ago the die hards would not recognize anything with roll up windows as a sports car. No PS-PW-PB but now most will accept them'
I think a large portion of what is referred to as sports cars are quick sporty cars not the true definition of a sport car.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

The difference between sports cars and sporty cars is this: sporty cars have higher than normal insurance rates, sports cars have stratospherically high insurance rates.

 

[Black Bart]

Quote:

---

The difference between sports cars and sporty cars is this: sporty cars have higher than normal insurance rates, sports cars have stratospherically high insurance rates.

---

Yes but that is not the cars fault it is because of all the Stupid drivers that can't handle them.
I have a 1178HP Corvette and all the teenager boy's say boy I would sure like to drive that one time.
I tell them that their life expectancy would be less than 15 seconds behind the wheel of it.

 

[pidster]

Most any young male wants a fast car. Most cant afford a real one(myself included). It's a selling point.

Being realistic, some of the slowest and least sport imaged cars can be the most fun to drive. I drive a toyota tercel, and with an upgraded suspension and a few bolt on performance parts (yes there are tercel performance parts believe it or not) it's a ton of fun to drive around town. It's pushing a beastly 100HP and no torque to speak of, but the light weight, small size coupled with a stick shift and good suspension I can honestly say I'd rather drive this than many of the faster cars I've driven. And I save a LOT of gas money.

But back on topic, test drive both. IMO, like someone else said, if you're driving around town mostly, or not loading the car up with people/stuff a 4cyl will do you just fine. If you are going to be hauling the wife and 2 kids and a trunk full of heavy stuff, you'll probably need the torque of the V6 or driving can become a chore in that circumstance.

 

[brianl703]

Quote:

---

The difference between sports cars and sporty cars is this: sporty cars have higher than normal insurance rates, sports cars have stratospherically high insurance rates.

---

By that definition, the 2-door Honda Civic is a sports car.
So is the Scion tC.

At least State Farm thinks they are, anyway. They rank cars based on comprehensive and theft claims, liability, and vehicle safety. For liability, most of the cars that appeal to the Fast 'n' Furious crowd are ranked as poor as they can be. (Liability=how often the drivers of that car tend to cause damage to other's property)

The Corvette is ranked, as I recall, pretty good in terms of liability.

My 2006 Saab 93 (a turbocharged 4 cylinder) is ranked very good in terms of vehicle safety, pretty good in terms of liability, and average in terms of comprehensive and theft claims. It ended up costing me about the same to insure that Saab as it did to insure the 1996 Ford Contour it replaced.

 

[The Critic]

The demographics of Corvette owners is much different than the demographics of Civic Si and Scion tC owners, which can easily explain the difference in insurance cost.

On flat roads, I was in a loaded (load wise) 03 Camry with the 2ZA-FE and 4-speed Auto and the car had no trouble passing or going 80-85 on flat roads. Good point about the 6AT as well, I'll have to rethink that.

 

[Jaymus]

Sports car usually means two seater. I'd almost have to say that even a Miata is a sports car... but a Corvette is definitely a sports car.

Then, Muscle Cars are more like Camaros/Trans Ams, Dodge Magnums/Chargers. And Mustangs are pony cars, lol.

 

[Rico567]

This thread demonstrates one thing- that even the choice of engine is more complex than it appears. Some things:

1. Contemporary 4 cylinder engines significantly outperform older versions.

2. How one plans to use the car is very important.

3. Fours are undeniably cheaper to buy and maintain.

4. What one is used to (comfortable with) is a huge factor, regardless of the facts of the case.

We have been 4-cylinder drivers for most of the vehicles we've owned for 40 years. There have been exceptions- a '67 Mercedes 250S 6-cyl that would upchuck any of the gas sold today, a pure premium car that wanted 98 octane minimum; a '73 Dodge Ram 318 V-8, sucked gas like a bathtub drain; an old '78 Buick Century V6 that would get 15 mpg with a tailwind, reliable as a concrete block but fell apart from rust; my current ride, an '02 Dodge Dakota 3.9 V6, will get 17-19 mpg if it is babied.
The exceptions are put in to indicate that we DO know and have experience the difference. The other 14 cars? All SAABs, all but 3 bought well-used, some driven to nearly 200K mi. without engine work, and all 4-cylinder.
We like the SAAB because it's versatile and performs well, and will also deliver very respectable mileage. There's no better example than our current ride, an '04 9-5 Arc wagon 2.3T. It's quite utilitarian, serves my wife as her commuter vehicle, will also haul, getting 25 mpg on the daily cycle of driving to town. On the road, this past week we drove 1K miles from the Midwest to Rhode Island, getting a solid 34 mpg on the trip computer. The 2.4L DOHC four will thus deliver great economy for a 3400 lb curb weight car, and the turbo in this model will crank up 220 HP very fast when you need it to pass or go up steep grades without downshifting, so there's plenty of power in reserve when needed. The road miles tend to dominate, so this is important to us.....which is the most important point: get a car that fits your needs and that you're happy with, but don't expect that to suit the next person.

 

[Benzadmiral]

I'd parrot what others have said and suggest that if you drive mostly in the city, get the 4. As for merging and passing situations, three points:

1) No matter what kind of engine your car has, plan ahead so you can avoid all but the worst situations.
2) You can always downshift to a lower gear and rev the I-4 a little (or a lot) higher and get the power you need. I do that on occasion, when merging from a steep bridge ramp.
3) The true test of a car's power in the real driving world is not 0-60 times. It's how easily does the car boost from, say, 40-70. A good four will handle that okay.

My '97 MB C-Class, w/ a 2.3 liter, normally-aspirated I-4, usually beats its EPA numbers (23/29) by about 10 percent in both cases, even though I don't drive much highway. And others here have echoed that. So if you go by the EPA figures, they could be considered pessimistic. . . .

 

[The Critic]

As a side note, my next door neighbor showed me her brand new 07 RAV4 V6 Limited yesterday, and I must say, wow! That 3.5L V6 engine is amazing. Chain driven, very powerful, and delivers amazingly good economy (20/28).

 

[Aldaris]

Quote:

---

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

---

Who are you talking to? My (turbo Supra) 6 will beat your 4 from 0 to 165mph...

 

[Aldaris]

Quote:

---

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.

---

Maybe no domestic/FWD AT will give you peace of mind after 100k, but the Toyota A340-series transmissions will give you over 200,000 miles of trouble-free shifting on their original oil fill!

Been there, seen that on many different cars.

 

[rjundi]

Quote:

---

....

Sporty cars try to pretend, but really arent much of anything special. They go faster than the average car, but so what? It is the package. I think of everything from the SVT focus and civic SI, to the subaru legacy GT and the nissan altima 3.5 MT. Id also consider most euro cars to be in this group.
.....
JMH

---

I own a Legacy GT(wagon) and it is not even considered really a "sporty car". The type of car it is in the name GT(eg Grand Touring). GT means performance with comfort for longer drives. The GT is on the cheap in this car at
Our LGT has an incredible engine to drive coupled to the 5MT or 6MT(spec B). Its weakpoint is fuel mileage since coupled to AWD but our family could care less driving <8k annually.