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?

NVH?

NVH?

I've seen marine V4s that seemed very smooth.

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.

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?

Have you seen the size of the average American?

Maybe a V4 doesn't have enough power/torque to haul your average American fat-ass

Edited August 7, 200717 yr by ZL-1

I don't see why it would be any different than an I4

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.

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.

I'm thinking more for mini and micro cars

honda's oval piston v engine would be an interesting application of that.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 August 9, 200717 yr by regfootball

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.

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....

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 August 9, 200717 yr by CaddyXLR-V

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).

How did they run?

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 March 4, 200817 yr by K.C.

If you want a compact engine, how 'bout a turbocharged, direct-injected, three-cylinder mated to a 7-speed DSG with BAS-II assist?

Necro-posters!!!

That being said, i would rather have a small 1.4L I4 that revvs to 9k rpm with twin turbos so it has decent low end grunt + great high end grunt... you know best of both worlds, good daily drive ability and fun to string out too.

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.

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.

a small 3.5L turbo V8 might be fun too.

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).

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.

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).

Agreed. It could be done...

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..

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.

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).

I think you stole that from me! :AH-HA_wink:

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?

Mmmm Flat Fours...

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.

I think you stole that from me! :AH-HA_wink:

Prove it. :AH-HA_wink:

Besides international copyright laws mean jack in the EU.

Prove it. :AH-HA_wink:

Besides international copyright laws mean jack in the EU.

Let me introduce you to the Omnipresent GM Legal team, you know the same boys that won in court, that we did not steal the Jeep grille and put it on a Hummer. :AH-HA_wink:

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.

what ever bank angle that gives me that picture of course

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

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.

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 March 5, 200817 yr by Teh Ricer Civic!