Drew Dowdell

V4s

62 posts in this topic

You could get a larger displacement into a smaller package...... what are the downsides?

Could you imagine a Mini with a 2.7 litre or so V4?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is the Saab 95, 96 and Sonett had V4 engines, and it's used in motorbikes and boats nowadays. I don't have a clue as to why V4 engines haven't had more applications in cars.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is the Saab 95, 96 and Sonett had V4 engines, and it's used in motorbikes and boats nowadays. I don't have a clue as to why V4 engines haven't had more applications in cars.

Have you seen the size of the average American? :smilewide:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the size of the average American? :smilewide:

Maybe a V4 doesn't have enough power/torque to haul your average American fat-ass :scratchchin: Edited by ZL-1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They generally don't make cars small enough that it becomes an advantage. Lancia also built a V4, but there are balance and vibration issues. A boxer 4, which has height benefits, is the closest you are going to get these days. There will be some twin-cylinder engines produced for vehicles larger than quadricycles though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in line 6's are too long, hence the v6.

i doubt you'd reduce the size of inline4 much by going to a v4. in fact, it probably becomes heavier and more complex.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's little reason to make a V4. Since most minicars are FWD-based, the engine is going to be transversely mounted, so if the hood of the car is very short it would actually be worse for space efficiency.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking more for mini and micro cars

Northstar's probably right. A V4 would make the engine wider and most small (REALLY SMALL) cars don't have much room between the firewall and the radiator. Inline engines fit better.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the absolute first post (not response) a 2.7L four cylinder of any type would be a NVH project.

However, for cars with longitudinally mounted engines, a V4 could theoretically work better than an inline, as in such an application (like for Audi) could be more compact especially as Audi uses V6's in the A4 range.

It is a good question!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the absolute first post (not response) a 2.7L four cylinder of any type would be a NVH project.

However, for cars with longitudinally mounted engines, a V4 could theoretically work better than an inline, as in such an application (like for Audi) could be more compact especially as Audi uses V6's in the A4 range.

It is a good question!

The harmonic balance for a four-cylinder engine is 180 degrees. The layout you described is used in Subarus, where they have a flat (180-degree V) four in a longitudinal layout. Any other angle and the engine will require additional balancing. There are very few longitudinal FWD cars using four-cylinder engines. Most manufacturers have found the benefits of transverse mounting in such designs, and inline engines make the packaging more compact than a V4 would.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acknowledged.

However, despite the facts, there are also the facts that mantufacturers make 90* V6s which require additional balancing, and thus, if innovation, a mere need to be different were there, I'm sure it would happen. It's just not really worth the money, time, research, and development. Other engine designs have come to the fore and are being continuously refined.

A V4 would be behind the times automatically in that regard.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone beat me to mentioning the subaru. the additional benefit of the boxer 4 is low COG.

v4's would require extra bends in the intake path vs. an inline 4.

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V6 are a stupid idea when an I6 is a WAY better motor, 99.9% of the time

a V6 is a necessity because of the beauty of WRONG-wheel-drive but a

V4 is just silly.... there's much more benefit to packaging a 4 inline.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

someone beat me to mentioning the subaru. the additional benefit of the boxer 4 is low COG.

v4's would require extra bends in the intake path vs. an inline 4.

two heads versus ONE, two valvecovers versus ONE,

double the cams assuming it's OHC, double the timing

belts/chains, two exhaust manifolds versus ONE....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

two heads versus ONE, two valvecovers versus ONE,

double the cams assuming it's OHC, double the timing

belts/chains, two exhaust manifolds versus ONE....

Aside from your previous "wrong wheel drive" and V6 comment, I agree.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just trying to think outside of the box here.....

what if it were something like VW's VR series engine?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inline motors will always be smoother than stagered

(the whole VR crap) so why even bother? ow big is a

typical inline-4? do you really need to save on width?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inline motors will always be smoother than stagered

(the whole VR crap) so why even bother? ow big is a

typical inline-4? do you really need to save on width?

It's length. The biggest transverse mounted <I know, I know 68> Inline 4 runs about 2.6 litres. VW's VR6 is 2.8 litres but isn't very fuel efficient for an engine of that size. Especially considering teh suxors pushrod 3500s and 3800s can pull off similar mileage in larger cars with similar engine performance numbers.

If you did a VR-4 it would have the width close to an I-4 but you could have a larger displacement than 2.6.

I'm just trying to think of ways to have decent power when needed but good efficiency when gas prices start heading back towards $4.00 a gallon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's length. The biggest transverse mounted <I know, I know 68> Inline 4 runs about 2.6 litres. VW's VR6 is 2.8 litres but isn't very fuel efficient for an engine of that size. Especially considering teh suxors pushrod 3500s and 3800s can pull off similar mileage in larger cars with similar engine performance numbers.

If you did a VR-4 it would have the width close to an I-4 but you could have a larger displacement than 2.6.

I'm just trying to think of ways to have decent power when needed but good efficiency when gas prices start heading back towards $4.00 a gallon.

It's probably cheaper, more space efficient, and will develop more power, to just add a turbo onto an existing I4 design, than to develop a V4.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's length. The biggest transverse mounted <I know, I know 68> Inline 4 runs about 2.6 litres. VW's VR6 is 2.8 litres but isn't very fuel efficient for an engine of that size. Especially considering teh suxors pushrod 3500s and 3800s can pull off similar mileage in larger cars with similar engine performance numbers.

If you did a VR-4 it would have the width close to an I-4 but you could have a larger displacement than 2.6.

I'm just trying to think of ways to have decent power when needed but good efficiency when gas prices start heading back towards $4.00 a gallon.

The largest (by displacement, not necessarily external size) transverse-mounted inline-4 is about 2.6L...but there are inline-5 and inline-6 engines as well.

And I blame Volkswagen's engineers, not the VR design, for its relative inefficiency.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...



  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room