Jump to content
Create New...

V4s


Recommended Posts

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

No offense but ythat seems really silly.

Suzuki managed a transverse mounted I6 so I do not

think there is ANY need to have a four cylinder in any

other configuration other than flat-4 or inline-4.

Why woudl you want a super-big four cylinder?

2.6 liters is already silly... Colorado & trucks aside.

If anything I think a modern 215 that would allow for

active fuel management and smooth power would

make sense moreso than some awkward, BIG VR-4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suzuki managed a transverse mounted I6 so I do not

think there is ANY need to have a four cylinder in any

other configuration other than flat-4 or inline-4.

Why woudl you want a super-big four cylinder?

2.6 liters is already silly... Colorado & trucks aside.

If anything I think a modern 215 that would allow for

active fuel management and smooth power would

make sense moreso than some awkward, BIG VR-4.

You mean Daewoo. And that I6 is 2.5L with 155 hp and gets lousy gas mileage. Oooh... Ahhh... Not.

Personally, I think a VR4 would be interesting and different. I'm all for more engine configurations and choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense but ythat seems really silly.

Suzuki managed a transverse mounted I6 so I do not

think there is ANY need to have a four cylinder in any

other configuration other than flat-4 or inline-4.

Why woudl you want a super-big four cylinder?

2.6 liters is already silly... Colorado & trucks aside.

If anything I think a modern 215 that would allow for

active fuel management and smooth power would

make sense moreso than some awkward, BIG VR-4.

It may seem silly.... but no one has tried it yet now have they? The transverse mounted I5s and I6es and H4s and H6s still have relatively low displacement limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may seem silly.... but no one has tried it yet now have they? The transverse mounted I5s and I6es and H4s and H6s still have relatively low displacement limits.

Just because no one tried it, doesn't mean it should be tried. I would think it would be horribly unbalanced, especially with larger displacements. I also don't think it would give an advantage in fuel economy compared to a small V6. The best way to achieve fuel economy and power, is to downsize an I4, and put a turbo on it. Instead of a 2.0L 260hp turbo ecotec, why not a 1.4L turbo ecotec with 182hp? Edited by CaddyXLR-V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may seem silly.... but no one has tried it yet now have they? The transverse mounted I5s and I6es and H4s and H6s still have relatively low displacement limits.

Saab and Ford actually did try it. The Saab V4 that was mentioned earlier is a Ford engine. Ford had a program called Cardinal which was designed to be a FWD V4-powered compact car in the era of the Corvair and Beetle. Ford's 60-degree V4 (which required a balance shaft) was to be transversely mounted in the front of this little car. While the Cardinal didn't make production in the US, it was produced as the Ford Taunus in Germany from 1962 until 1970. The next generation of the car used an inline four instead and the V4 became the Cologne V6 now found in the Explorer/Mountaineer and Mustang.

Saab used the V4 in a longitudinal setup in a few models. It was replaced by the 99 which used a conventional inline four cylinder engine (mounted longitudinally "behind" the transaxle).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Thinking outside the box is good Oldsmoboi, shows your brain is working unlike some who's brains still can't accept front wheel drive and V-6 engines. I think a V-4 or VR-4 could work, especially if they can work out the NVH problems and strap on a turbo or two with an intercooler. I still think that the I-4 is more efficient and a smaller one could make some good horsepower and good mileage with a turbo on it. A boxer engine would be good as well if they can get the NVH under control.

Edited by K.C.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread reminds me of a topic over at CZ28 a while back. The proposal there was for a V8 that is smaller in all dimensions yet retained the inherent balance of that configuration.

I found the idea to be very interesting.

That was my topic. I think it is something GM could design and sell a common block to Ford and Chrysler for their base V8s (using different heads or induction could yield enough differences to keep the 'faithful' happy while still sharing costs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my topic. I think it is something GM could design and sell a common block to Ford and Chrysler for their base V8s (using different heads or induction could yield enough differences to keep the 'faithful' happy while still sharing costs).

Selling it to Ford and Chrysler is a whole new topic, but the idea intrigues me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised we haven't seen V4s in recent years for packaging reasons (I would think a V4 would take up less space than inline 4).... for A- and B- class subcompacts..

Well the idea is that subcompacts are FWD Therefore the engines are mounted longitudinally.

---------hood

OOOO

---------cabin

makes more sense than

---------hood

OO

OO

---------cabin

now for RWD applications... its a bit different... although I4 are still small anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the idea is that subcompacts are FWD Therefore the engines are mounted longitudinally.

---------hood

OOOO

---------cabin

makes more sense than

---------hood

OO

OO

---------cabin

now for RWD applications... its a bit different... although I4 are still small anyways.

True...I wonder if there would be applications in ultra-small models.. though the Smart has a rear mounted inline 3, I think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the idea is that subcompacts are FWD Therefore the engines are mounted longitudinally.

---------hood

OOOO

---------cabin

makes more sense than

---------hood

OO

OO

---------cabin

now for RWD applications... its a bit different... although I4 are still small anyways.

what cylinder bank angle were you thinking? I was thinking more along the lines of VW's VR4.... which I can't draw in ascii.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I can't draw it, I'll steal it.

vr6_length.jpg

Take that cylinder head all the way to the right and lop off two cylinders.... notice how much shorter it gets compared to the inline 4? Now it will have the same displacement as the inline 4 but fit in a smaller package.....

or

Increase the displacement of each cylinder, make the block as long as the other 4 cylinder, but with much more displacement while still maintaining relatively narrow characteristics of an inline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well the idea of investing money into building a VR seems rather silly considering that small cars are going to be using either very small 4s or 3 cyls. small cars are fuel economy oriented not performance.

Cost-wise its not very practical.

The only application i can see for this, is to help make room for a turbo or something on a small car.

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!
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.



×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings