Jump to content

V4s


Drew Dowdell

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
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!

Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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....

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...