We should bring in some 3-cylinder cars again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I like big cars - when I steal their gasoline, they haven nice big tanks and I get lots of free gasoline. Then I flatten their tires so they wont drive anymore. He He.
I need a big car = I live in fear. I am Weak. I am underendowed. I cant drive.


I hope your are kidding because I would not consider the Forester small. It about the same size as a new Equinox.
Equinox 187 inches long 66 inches tall 62 inch track
Forester 179 inches long 65 inches tall 60.5 inch track.
 
Originally Posted By: addyguy
It really bothers me, the OP's condition of not mentioning the Sprint/Metro et al - those cars were very reliabl, well-built, and delivered good mileage for the time they were built in.

They were very, very good cars for what they were designed for.
Exactly! How can you have a topic about 3cyls and not bring up the Metro? That car is exactly what this topic revolves around. Getting back to what that car was. The fortwo is a joke compared to the Metro. Its 41mpg compared to the Metro's 50mpg puts it to shame. The XFE model was truly insane. I dont see how that model got discontinued. Chevy should have never killed off this car or at least it could have lived on through the Aveo. That car sucks. Feel bad for anyone who bought one.
 
Back On Topic--

Three cylinders works well on a bike-- nice compromise between 2-lung rev for power and 4-lung low-end. The strokes are still short enuf on a bike that the vibration isn't too bad.

In a car, the three I3's I've driven were either anemic (old rental kia - surprisingly good appliance car) or a justy and a geo, which were pretty harsh by today's standards.

Harder to balance a 3-banger-- so to keep the vibe's down you'd need to shorten the stroke but then torque goes away. Power would be in the higher revs--- need 6+ speed AT or a CVT to make it work right (the justy was available with a CVT IIRC?). Reminds me of the S2000--- some folks were just fine driving a car that needed to cruise at 2500 rpm and accelerate in th 6k range (not romping it), others will have issue because it's new, sounds different, etc.

It took some getting used to the x's FEH. the atkinson cycle + cvt always had the engine well above 3k for any power. at first it was weird. Then it just became pure music. ford tuned it right. I liked it. and with the mpg it returned, I trusted its programming.

I think a tiny four will still be easier to work with than a 3. A tiny H4 would be smooth, wouldn't require crazy balancing, promotes low CG and/or gives plenty of room on top for accessories.
 
Originally Posted By: meep

In a car, the three I3's I've driven were either anemic (old rental kia - surprisingly good appliance car) or a justy and a geo, which were pretty harsh by today's standards.


Which Kia had a 3?

The Festiva, Aspire, and Sephia had variants of the Mazda B-engine. The Sportage had a variant of the Mazda FE-engine. All 4 cylinders.

I'm not saying there wasn't a 3 cylinder Kia. I just don't know of any. Perhaps you rented one in the Carribean or Europe....
21.gif


The Justys I dealt with had okay engines. They just had a CVT that no one could repair or maintain properly and the manual felt like an un-synchronized '50s transmission. The engine was okay....for Subarus lone inline engine of that era.

I actually kinda' liked the Daihatsu Charade. It felt fairly well built. The doors felt substantial and made a satisfyingly solid "thunk" when you closed them, and the interior and switchgear felt suprisingly good. But all that solidity must have weighed a lot more because the Swift and Festiva would just run away from it 0-60.
 
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith


Apparently you know very little how on how insurance works.


Who cares about insurance? I care about me and my family. Insurance is just money, not people.

Nimbleness. That's no help. You rarely get to see it coming. There's just a big bang and you may wake up later if you were in a decently made car.

Ignorance is what allows you to presume your choice of car upon me. Thank god you aren't in charge of my life or my car purchases. [/quote]

Huh I never said anything what people should drive nor did bring up the insurance bit. The only ignorance is thinking a bigger car will save your life. Well first since everybody is starting to think that do you actually assume if you slam your so called wonderful SRT8 into another that you're going to be better off than 2 small cars slamming into each other? Or live in a head on crash with a semi? And again frankly I've never mentioned what people should drive or not I'm arguing against the stupidity that smaller cars are unsafe. And I've been in plenty of wrecks in my younger years with small cars a few with the engine in the firewall and guess what I'm still here. [/quote]

Whew! Glad I could help you get that off your chest. Got any more cheap shots or are you done now? maybe you're just jealous of my 4 door luxury sedan that goes 180 mph. Hee Hee, it's pretty "nimble", too! But I assure you, i could really care less.

You really should re-read your own posts first, though.

Then read up on 300's. They are EXCELLENT in a crash. A good friend was rammed from behind by a dump truck and squished like a bug between cars, but the car protected him and he walked away uninjured. Had he been in a "nimble" small car he would most certainly be dead. There are many more examples available.

When you're not raving and taking cheap shots at others cars do you ever do physics problems? Try the formula suggested above and see for yourself. No matter how nimble you imagine your car is, a bigger vehicle is going to smush you like a bug. I have a much better chance than you do by virtue of sheer mass, not just 9 air bags and all those controlled crumple zones.

If we all drive 3 cylinder micro cars then I'm in. I'll have me a hopped up Abarth 500 and be having fun. Until then, I have this and a few other toys to entertain me.

Remember, you get to buy exactly what you want, too.
 
Last edited:
Good video explaining small(micro) vs larger vehicles of same make.



I will stick with larger vehicles with my family and suffer at the pump.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Spazdog


Which Kia had a 3?



I don't recall. it could have been a hyundai. I just recall it being korean as they were relatively new to market at the time. I had to crack the hood to see if the engine had a size stamped on it... 3 plugs! it was a rental I had back in... 2001? small, basic car. speedo and fuel and maybe a temp gauge... maybe. 13" wheels. Red. was very good for basic transport and rode well for what it was. There was not much gettupandgo. none. It was a casual steer.

M
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Good video explaining small(micro) vs larger vehicles of same make.



I will stick with larger vehicles with my family and suffer at the pump.

I agree with this. I would not buy a car smaller than a Ford Focus or Nissan Versa. They're badly underpowered as they are and anything slower would be road hazards on the open highway.
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Good video explaining small(micro) vs larger vehicles of same make.



I will stick with larger vehicles with my family and suffer at the pump.


Man...that Smart car got tossed at the end...
 
My only experience with big vs small vehicle in a crash situation involved my 73 Buick lesabre broadside into early 90's Chev Corsica. Thankfully, no injuries to any people involved.
I was doing about 45 downhill on a rural highway when the Corsica ran a red light and I nailed it on the rear door. Everything rear of that door got sent into a nearby lake, while the rest spun/skidded safely to the side of the road.
Damage to 73 lesabre=$1.50 for a used headlight was only essential repair. There was some cosmetic damage to bumper and fender and crushed headlight bezel.
 
Originally Posted By: SS1970chrysler
My only experience with big vs small vehicle in a crash situation involved my 73 Buick lesabre broadside into early 90's Chev Corsica. Thankfully, no injuries to any people involved.
I was doing about 45 downhill on a rural highway when the Corsica ran a red light and I nailed it on the rear door. Everything rear of that door got sent into a nearby lake, while the rest spun/skidded safely to the side of the road.
Damage to 73 lesabre=$1.50 for a used headlight was only essential repair. There was some cosmetic damage to bumper and fender and crushed headlight bezel.

A Dodge Neon will do the same thing.

Import compact cars of the 1990s were less likely to be split in half.
 
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Good video explaining small(micro) vs larger vehicles of same make.



I will stick with larger vehicles with my family and suffer at the pump.


Man...that Smart car got tossed at the end...


That's the one I was talking about.
The Yaris got crumbled up. Crushed driver. The Dumb ForAll bounced off like a baseball off a bat, but the passenger compartment stayed intact. You would be uncrushed but probably have a concussion from having your brain continue on it's forward trajectory while the car violently rocketed the other direction....if you didn't suffer an internal decapitation.

It would probably be like crashing an Outlaw Sprint car without a helmet, harness, and Hans device or firesuit...oh, and with 5 of it's sparkplug wires removed....no wait; make that 6. An Outlaw Sprint car would still make more horsepower than a Dumb ForAll pushing 5 dead cylinders.

If you are in good physical shape, you might do alright.

But I still don't like the Dumb ForAll.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


Whew! Glad I could help you get that off your chest. Got any more cheap shots or are you done now? maybe you're just jealous of my 4 door luxury sedan that goes 180 mph. Hee Hee, it's pretty "nimble", too! But I assure you, i could really care less.

You really should re-read your own posts first, though.

Then read up on 300's. They are EXCELLENT in a crash. A good friend was rammed from behind by a dump truck and squished like a bug between cars, but the car protected him and he walked away uninjured. Had he been in a "nimble" small car he would most certainly be dead. There are many more examples available.

When you're not raving and taking cheap shots at others cars do you ever do physics problems? Try the formula suggested above and see for yourself. No matter how nimble you imagine your car is, a bigger vehicle is going to smush you like a bug. I have a much better chance than you do by virtue of sheer mass, not just 9 air bags and all those controlled crumple zones.

If we all drive 3 cylinder micro cars then I'm in. I'll have me a hopped up Abarth 500 and be having fun. Until then, I have this and a few other toys to entertain me.

Remember, you get to buy exactly what you want, too.


If you're going to get mad on a forum and try to prove a point at least quote correctly. You're the one always bragging on your car and one of the few. As you can see I never said or applied anything negative about your car. Even though Plymouth or whatever they are this year has screwed my family over more than the other makes combined. And I can give you just as many examples from people surviving horrific wrecks in small cars. If it's your turn to go six feet under you going doesn't matter what you're in simple as that. This is entertaining anything you like to discuss? Frankly I wouldn't own the current lineup of 3cyl cars either unless they put in the Fiesta or Focus. My cars are bigger than the 500 and smart car combined.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

IIRC, the early Luminas had a really low CD. Very aerodynamic. A six passenger car getting 45+ mpg freeway?
21.gif
maybe....
I had to look it up. Lumina APV (pictured http://chrisoncars.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/lumina.jpg ) was specified at .30 cd - quite excellent.


Ahh the plastic dustbuster Lumina van!

I was thinking about the Lumina sedan.
22803657.jpg


Couldn't find the drag coefficient of the early Lumina specifically but other W-bodies like the Cutlass and Grand Prix were .29. Not too bad compared to a current Prius with .25


The early 90's Dodge Monaco had a cd of .28 which is fantastic considering the car didn't look like other early 90s polished turds in terms of body-lines.

fb9bhv.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi
The idea of less cylinders equating to better fuel economy automatically is well past...
No it isn't - the thermodynamic fundamentals are still there, it's just that 3-cyl engines are unappealing to the market.
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Wasn't Monaco a re-branded import? It does seem to have Mitsubishi lines on it.

- Vikas


Renault/AMC made in Canada then Chrysler acquired it, but I don't think they sold it in Canada or France. Just the US and Mexico.

We had one at the used car lot I used to work at. It was a hideous piece of junk but when that V6 ran right, I have to admit it sounded really good.
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Yes, we need lighter vehicles.
But they are getting larger and heavier!
Too bad the extra weight is useless foo foo crud.

Old VW rabbits and scirrocos were around 2,000 lbs or less. Now, a GTI is 3,200-3400 lbs!


Right, and Civics used to run around a ton or even less.
Light weight has so many advantages beyond inherently good fuel economy.
An old Civic is just so much more entertaining to drive than a current one, as well as being far easier to maintain and repair.
Our '86 Civic wagons were so easy to work on that even changing the timing belt or the clutch was a pretty simple driveway task.
You are right in noting that most of the added weight in current cars is for useless "convenience" features.
It is, for example, no great hardship to crank down the windows, or to open the doors using the key.
If a car is reasonably light, like our old Civics, it doesn't even need power steering, and a car with reasonably light unassisted steering is quite pleasant to drive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top