|
Over the last few years I have got quite into really old cars, particularly the fad for putting aero engines in cars back when that was just the done thing if you wanted big power. One of my favourites is the Fiat S76 (The Beast of Turin!) which used a 27.5 litre four cylinder aero engine, that is 6875cc per cylinder. But go to another extreme and look at the BRM V16 racing car of the late 40's, that had a mere 93.75cc per cylinder!.
|
|
|
|
Legendary engine designer Keith Duckworth (the 'worth' of Cosworth) maintained that c400cc per cylinder was optimal, but that was a few decades ago.
|
I really dislike three cylinder engines in particular my previous Audi A2 Tdi which I found so lumpy and noisy but bags of power at the right revs.
Same experience with the C1/Aygo. And IMHO the 130 bhp 1.9 Tdi engine in my Audi A4 is my favourite in terms of pure useable power and effortless driving. Driven out by the Eco brigade and good for up to 500k miles.
Can someone explain the need for counterbalance shafts in three cylinder engines , driven by a chain , consuming energy just to smooth out the power delivery.
|
I really dislike three cylinder engines in particular my previous Audi A2 Tdi which I found so lumpy and noisy but bags of power at the right revs. Same experience with the C1/Aygo. And IMHO the 130 bhp 1.9 Tdi engine in my Audi A4 is my favourite in terms of pure useable power and effortless driving. Driven out by the Eco brigade and good for up to 500k miles. Can someone explain the need for counterbalance shafts in three cylinder engines , driven by a chain , consuming energy just to smooth out the power delivery.
Pretty sure that most 3cyl engines do not have balancer shafts. As for the reason for those which do, well you have answered your own question. To appease those who feel the natural noise and thrum of a 3 cyl is just too uncouth for their refined ears.
Just to be clear, you get balancer shafts in 4 cyl engines too, are you fine with them?
|
edit resulted in DP. Shouldn't happen, surely?
Edited by edlithgow on 24/02/2021 at 01:25
|
|
|
I really dislike three cylinder engines in particular my previous Audi A2 Tdi which I found so lumpy and noisy but bags of power at the right revs. Same experience with the C1/Aygo. And IMHO the 130 bhp 1.9 Tdi engine in my Audi A4 is my favourite in terms of pure useable power and effortless driving. Driven out by the Eco brigade and good for up to 500k miles. Can someone explain the need for counterbalance shafts in three cylinder engines , driven by a chain , consuming energy just to smooth out the power delivery.
Pretty sure that most 3cyl engines do not have balancer shafts. As for the reason for those which do, well you have answered your own question. To appease those who feel the natural noise and thrum of a 3 cyl is just too uncouth for their refined ears.
Just to be clear, you get balancer shafts in 4 cyl engines too, are you fine with them?
Mine has a balancer shaft but still manages to be uncouth.
(Doesn't have much remaining paint though.)
A lot depends on habituation.
Driving the Honda Accord after the Skywing I was (mildly) irritated by not being able to tell if the engine was running stopped in traffic.
If I was used to that, I'd probably find the "appalling cacophany" of the Skywing upsetting, but I'm not, so I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Are 'the Eco brigade' the nasty people who want to reduce carcinogenic emissions in our towns and cities?
|
Pretty sure that most 3cyl engines do not have balancer shafts. As for the reason for those which do, well you have answered your own question. To appease those who feel the natural noise and thrum of a 3 cyl is just too uncouth for their refined ears.
The 3 cylinder engines in our Note and Fabia have/had the thrum at low speed but once you are on the move you never notice it. Never felt either uncouth but the Fabia is certainly more refined than the Note and has a load more pull from low down, blame Nissans decision to use a Supercharger instead of a turbocharger for that. However, before we bought the Note we drove a Polo with the 1.2 90 PS TSi (4 cylinders) and it was dreadful, no go at all, very disappointing after the 1.4 TSi in the Leon we had at the time. The 3 cylinder in the Fabia is a massive improvement but I suppose the Polo demonstrator could just have been a bad one.
If you want uncouth engines try a Vauxhall slant 4 as fitted to the Viva, Victor, Magnum, Bedford CF and possibly some more. Best place for it was the CF van, in the back on its way to the tip. Bizarre thing was that engine was the daddy of the Lotus 907 engine that amongst its other achievements powered the Talbot Sunbeam Lotus to the World Rally Championship.
Another dreadful engine was the Ford CVH in the XR3i. No mid range and so rough at anything above 4000 rpm you lost the will to live. Don't think that engine won a thing of note.
|
Another dreadful engine was the Ford CVH in the XR3i. No mid range and so rough at anything above 4000 rpm you lost the will to live. Don't think that engine won a thing of note.
CVH also known in the trade to stand for Constant Vibration & Harshness.
|
Another dreadful engine was the Ford CVH in the XR3i. No mid range and so rough at anything above 4000 rpm you lost the will to live. Don't think that engine won a thing of note.
CVH also known in the trade to stand for Constant Vibration & Harshness.
Don't know if it was the same family of engines, but my first car when learning to drive was a 1977 Fiesta 1.1. That was a horrible engine, sounded like a cement mixer full of nails!, and as far as memory serves, the only truly objectionable engine in cars I've owned or driven.
That includes a whole heap of 3 cyl's thanks to working at a Daihatsu dealer in the late 90's, and later also includes the same 1.4 turbo diesel as steveieb's A2 while working at a VW dealer. We had a Polo demonstrator with that engine which I absolutely loved, mid range grunt was amazing!.
The 2.0 n/a diesel in my Caddy is a pretty gruff thing, especially with the DMF deteriorating, but I quite like it!.
|
|
CVH arrived with Escort Mk 3 in 1980/81. The 1.1 would have been a Kent, cross flow engine.
|
CVH arrived with Escort Mk 3 in 1980/81. The 1.1 would have been a Kent, cross flow engine.
Fiesta didn't use the 1.1 Kent, it used the 1.1 Valencia - this was a backward step as it was only 3-bearing and not robust like the Kents.
|
CVH arrived with Escort Mk 3 in 1980/81. The 1.1 would have been a Kent, cross flow engine.
Fiesta didn't use the 1.1 Kent, it used the 1.1 Valencia - this was a backward step as it was only 3-bearing and not robust like the Kents.
There seems to be a pattern with Ford engines being a bit rubbish. Granted they've made a few good ones as well but a few clangers to.
|
|
I think they are better at big displacement engines, say 4.0 and above.
|
I think they are better at big displacement engines, say 4.0 and above.
Nothing wrong with the 4lt Barra engine in my Australian Ford Falcon. Heaps of power and very smooth. I have it converted to dual fuel petrol or LPG so it is cheap to run also. Lovely engine.
|
|
|
Don't know if it was the same family of engines, but my first car when learning to drive was a 1977 Fiesta 1.1. That was a horrible engine, sounded like a cement mixer full of nails!, and as far as memory serves, the only truly objectionable engine in cars I've owned or driven.
When did you learn to drive, and how old was the car? I had one of those (actually a 957cc) from new in 1980, and loved it. In its day it was a good 'un, but as stated it was not OHC and on an old and neglected engine the tappets would be rattling away, but it didn't really bother them . I also had a an Escort 1100 Popular Plus (the Plus was cloth seats) for a while, whose only fault was pathetically low output owing to being a low compression version I believe. They were essentially the Kent/Crossflow engiine, renamed 'Valencia' when they were adapted - for the Fiesta - perhaps for where they were made, and probably stood up to neglect better than the CVH I suspect - in common with the Pinto (my 74 Cortina 1.6 anyway) the CVH if it sludged up could block the oil holes in the camshaft spray bar, and wear flats on the cam lobes.
Edited by Manatee on 23/02/2021 at 19:38
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty sure that most 3cyl engines do not have balancer shafts. As for the reason for those which do, well you have answered your own question. To appease those who feel the natural noise and thrum of a 3 cyl is just too uncouth for their refined ears.
The 3 cylinder engines in our Note and Fabia have/had the thrum at low speed but once you are on the move you never notice it. Never felt either uncouth but the Fabia is certainly more refined than the Note and has a load more pull from low down, blame Nissans decision to use a Supercharger instead of a turbocharger for that. However, before we bought the Note we drove a Polo with the 1.2 90 PS TSi (4 cylinders) and it was dreadful, no go at all, very disappointing after the 1.4 TSi in the Leon we had at the time. The 3 cylinder in the Fabia is a massive improvement but I suppose the Polo demonstrator could just have been a bad one.
If you want uncouth engines try a Vauxhall slant 4 as fitted to the Viva, Victor, Magnum, Bedford CF and possibly some more. Best place for it was the CF van, in the back on its way to the tip. Bizarre thing was that engine was the daddy of the Lotus 907 engine that amongst its other achievements powered the Talbot Sunbeam Lotus to the World Rally Championship.
Another dreadful engine was the Ford CVH in the XR3i. No mid range and so rough at anything above 4000 rpm you lost the will to live. Don't think that engine won a thing of note.
If you think that engine was bad, the lean burn 1.4 version in my Dad's old K-reg Escort was even worse. 75bhp and no go in it at all - had some very hairy moments in that turning onto faster moving roads and roadabouts.
|
|
|
|
They’re the people who think banishing brand new diesel engines, for example, who are cleaner than ever is fine, but who also think it’s not ok for police to spend money to catch those b******s who remove their DPFs and pollute more in a second than 1000 new cars in a year.
You’re not heroes, mate, you’re just too focused on a one-sided dragon slaying story.
Edited by chris87 on 23/02/2021 at 20:00
|
They’re the people who think banishing brand new diesel engines, for example, who are cleaner than ever is fine, but who also think it’s not ok for police to spend money to catch those b******s who remove their DPFs and pollute more in a second than 1000 new cars in a year. You’re not heroes, mate, you’re just too focused on a one-sided dragon slaying story.
I'm having to use esp and a bit of guesswork here since there is absolutely no indication who you are talking to.
Are 'the Eco brigade' the nasty people who want to reduce carcinogenic emissions in our towns and cities?
I think it might be the above though (feel free to correct if this isn't the case?).
If so, firstly, are the 'eco brigade' really responsible for the Police's budget?. Secondly, mcb100 doesn't, as far as I can tell, claim to be one, nor does he say or suggest they are heroes.
|
|
'If so, firstly, are the 'eco brigade' really responsible for the Police's budget?. Secondly, mcb100 doesn't, as far as I can tell, claim to be one, nor does he say or suggest they are heroes.'
Oh, to have such power...
To state that diesels are 'cleaner than ever' is a fairly meaningless statement. I'm sure coal burning power stations are cleaner than they've ever been, but I'm confident that no one of sane mind and with an eye for cleaning up global emissions will say they're a good thing.
|
To state that diesels are 'cleaner than ever' is a fairly meaningless statement. I'm sure coal burning power stations are cleaner than they've ever been, but I'm confident that no one of sane mind and with an eye for cleaning up global emissions will say they're a good thing.
Not your main point I know, but (questions of sound mind aside) I would say they are a good thing relative to nuclear, if I lived on a small crowded island which could be rendered largely uninhabitable by a significant nuclear accident.
Like Taiwan, where I live now.
That won't apply to you since I assume you are in the UK.
Oh wait...
|
|
|
|
|
Chris87 - will you please moderate your language. This isn't the only thread where you have shown yourself in a poor light.
If you can't manage this, please go to another forum.
|
|
Is there any evidence of the take up of three cylinder engines in the USA, which is the home of those smooth V8 s or on Australia, Canada, South Africa , Russia or China or is this just a European phenomenon
|
Is there any evidence of the take up of three cylinder engines in the USA, which is the home of those smooth V8 s or on Australia, Canada, South Africa , Russia or China or is this just a European phenomenon
V8's, especially American ones, are not actually that smooth. If you want smooth, you want a straight 6 or V12.
As for the take up of 3 cyl engines in places other than Europe. Plenty of 3 cyl cars in the USA, we just don't see them, as any films are going to be featuring V8 muscle cars just to fit in with the stereotype. Same goes for Canada and Australia, though in both of those, plus the USA, smaller cars are much more common in cities, you won't find many out in the sticks. Having spent a fair amount of time trawling through Autotrader South Africa, I know there are plenty of small basic cars available there, including Chinese and Indian stuff. Russia?, not sure about them, but I suspect there are low cost Chinese stuff available. China?, definitely heaps of cars out there with less than 4 cylinders. Yes the economy is very strong, but it is a huge country with a huge population, most of which are poor. So while they may dream of some huge white western SUV, most will be driving some 1, 2 or 3 cyl locally built contraption which offers all the crash protection of an empty crisp packet.
Also, 3 cyl engines are not a phenomenon, they are the result of common sense and business logic, about as far away from what phenomenon means as it is possible to get. A 1.0 3 cyl engine uses less raw materials than a 1.0 4 cyl engine, saving costs. It also takes up less space, allowing more interior space and/or more 'crumple' space, making the car more spacious, safer, or both. Because there are less moving parts, there is less friction, meaning greater efficiency.
Edited by badbusdriver on 24/02/2021 at 11:19
|
|
Just to expand a little further on the 'less raw materials' point. As well as lower costs (which is going to benefit the manufacturer more than the owner/driver), it means lower weight in the nose than an equivalent capacity 4 cyl, so it has the potential to handle better. Also, because of that less weight on the front of the car, tyre wear will be reduced. And because of the lower weight in general terms, a 100bhp 1.0 3 cyl car will have a better power to weight ratio than a 100bhp 1.0 4 cyl car.
So all in all, the many positives for a 3 cyl far outweigh the one negative, that of (some) folk not liking the noise and low rev lumpiness.
|
Thanks for the explanation Badbus.
I've read that Mazda are considering fitting a six cylinder engine in their petrol 6. But in view of their reluctance to fit turbos to their petrol engines , does that mean that they are yet to go down the three cylinder route ?
|
Thanks for the explanation Badbus. I've read that Mazda are considering fitting a six cylinder engine in their petrol 6. But in view of their reluctance to fit turbos to their petrol engines , does that mean that they are yet to go down the three cylinder route ?
I don't recall any 3cyl engines of theirs, at least not in the last 25 years. They are now fitting turbos to a limited amount of their petrol cars, though mostly the high end ones and in parts of the world that don't have corporate CO2 fines.
The North American Mazda3 (possibly the 6) and some of the bigger MPV CXs (that we don't get anyway) have a 2.0 SA-G turbo option in addition to the standadrd 2.0 and 2.5 SA-G. SA-X engined cars are mainly sold in markets with more strigent CO2 rules.
It would be nice for them to go back to 6cyl engines, as they did this on their some of the cars in the mid 90s if I recall. They are still planning on bringing out a successor to the RX-8 with a rotary engine, though when is up for grabs under the current climate.
|
So all in all, the many positives for a 3 cyl far outweigh the one negative, that of (some) folk not liking the noise and low rev lumpiness.
So why were they not more common in the last century? I'm sure William Morris could have made them had he wanted to.
Not all negatives and positives are equal. 3's are cheaper, lighter, and do the job, just not as well. Any differences in weight and what flows from that are trivial.
Sophisticated some of the 3's may be, it's lipstick on a pig:)
|
So all in all, the many positives for a 3 cyl far outweigh the one negative, that of (some) folk not liking the noise and low rev lumpiness.
So why were they not more common in the last century? I'm sure William Morris could have made them had he wanted to.
Not all negatives and positives are equal. 3's are cheaper, lighter, and do the job, just not as well. Any differences in weight and what flows from that are trivial.
Sophisticated some of the 3's may be, it's lipstick on a pig:)
Not much lipstick on my pig, but it does the job well enough for me.
I notice a bit more vibration than on my 4 cyl cars, but not enough to bother me much.
I'd guess its significantly quieter than my first 1 cyl car (Heinkel Kabine) but thats a long time ago when my hearing was probably sharper.
Never had a 5, 6, 8 (10?) or 12. Probably nicer, but I might not want to pay much for the extra cylinders.
|
|
|
The Charade bombed in the US, so much so that Toyota pulled the brand in 1992. OTOH, it was quite successful in Australia.
These are/were both big engine long distance countries, bur US petrol was and is among the cheapest relative to the countries wealth (0,781 dollars per litre in USA V. 1.039 dollars per litre in Australia, 1.725 in the UK)
Edited by edlithgow on 24/02/2021 at 15:23
|
The Charade bombed in the US, so much so that Toyota pulled the brand in 1992. OTOH, it was quite successful in Australia.
These are/were both big engine long distance countries, bur US petrol was and is among the cheapest relative to the countries wealth (0,781 dollars per litre in USA V. 1.039 dollars per litre in Australia, 1.725 in the UK)
We don't buy petrol in dollars in the UK. Its £1.167 a litre at Asda. If you must have it in dollars that is about $1.64
|
The Charade bombed in the US, so much so that Toyota pulled the brand in 1992. OTOH, it was quite successful in Australia.
These are/were both big engine long distance countries, bur US petrol was and is among the cheapest relative to the countries wealth (0,781 dollars per litre in USA V. 1.039 dollars per litre in Australia, 1.725 in the UK)
We don't buy petrol in dollars in the UK. Its £1.167 a litre at Asda. If you must have it in dollars that is about $1.64
Hmm... What would an American say?
They might point out that the unit of currency doesn't affect the comparison, and that, given US dominance of trade generally and the oil industry in particular, USD is as good a standard as any, especially as the numbers were supporting a comparison between the USA and Australia.
OTOH they might not have much patience with Little England Attitude and just say something like
No kidding? So sue me
Or sue them
www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/
which is where I got the numbers.
I dunno why they give a higher price than you pay, but I suppose they might not be shopping at ASDA.
Not everything is about U, and less and less is going to be about the UK (AKA Brexitistan).
The point remains: US petrol is exceptionally cheap relative to purchasing power and this limits consumer demand for small engined vehicles.
Edited by edlithgow on 25/02/2021 at 00:33
|
The Charade bombed in the US, so much so that Toyota pulled the brand in 1992. OTOH, it was quite successful in Australia.
These are/were both big engine long distance countries, bur US petrol was and is among the cheapest relative to the countries wealth (0,781 dollars per litre in USA V. 1.039 dollars per litre in Australia, 1.725 in the UK)
We don't buy petrol in dollars in the UK. Its £1.167 a litre at Asda. If you must have it in dollars that is about $1.64
Hmm... What would an American say?
They might point out that the unit of currency doesn't affect the comparison, and that, given US dominance of trade generally and the oil industry in particular, USD is as good a standard as any, especially as the numbers were supporting a comparison between the USA and Australia.
OTOH they might not have much patience with Little England Attitude
Nothing to do with a "Little England Attitude". Its because the forum is based in the UK (look at the site address) and most of the members are in the UK. All the fuel we buy is in £'s and in litres. It simply makes sense to use the currency used here which is the £.
But the daftest bit is where in the US do people buy fuel in litres. All they know is their unique gallons.
|
The Charade bombed in the US, so much so that Toyota pulled the brand in 1992. OTOH, it was quite successful in Australia.
These are/were both big engine long distance countries, bur US petrol was and is among the cheapest relative to the countries wealth (0,781 dollars per litre in USA V. 1.039 dollars per litre in Australia, 1.725 in the UK)
We don't buy petrol in dollars in the UK. Its £1.167 a litre at Asda. If you must have it in dollars that is about $1.64
Hmm... What would an American say?
They might point out that the unit of currency doesn't affect the comparison, and that, given US dominance of trade generally and the oil industry in particular, USD is as good a standard as any, especially as the numbers were supporting a comparison between the USA and Australia.
OTOH they might not have much patience with Little England Attitude
Nothing to do with a "Little England Attitude". Its because the forum is based in the UK (look at the site address) and most of the members are in the UK. All the fuel we buy is in £'s and in litres. It simply makes sense to use the currency used here which is the £.
But the daftest bit is where in the US do people buy fuel in litres. All they know is their unique gallons.
It would indeed have been daft to quote petrol price in those wee toy US gallons.
But then I didn't
|
|
US price per litre say 78 cents call it 55p per litre
UK Price per litre is £1.20
i.e. UK price is 2.18 x the US Price
US incomes are both lower (minimum wage is around $10 on average ($7 to $15 per hour depending on state).
I have seen statements that over all US salaries are 1.6 x the UK average
Price of petrol in UK is 2.18 x US price x 1.6 = 3.48 x more expensive to the average wage earner i.e. equivalent to us paying 34p per litre
|
US price per litre say 78 cents call it 55p per litre
UK Price per litre is £1.20
i.e. UK price is 2.18 x the US Price
US incomes are both lower (minimum wage is around $10 on average ($7 to $15 per hour depending on state).
I have seen statements that over all US salaries are 1.6 x the UK average
Price of petrol in UK is 2.18 x US price x 1.6 = 3.48 x more expensive to the average wage earner i.e. equivalent to us paying 34p per litre
Tax, tax, tax on tax.
Take ours and their taxes out of the equation and report back please.
|
|
Before all this Honest John Bull started I was responding to a post on the acceptance of 3-cyl engines in other countries. The UK was not one of the countries mentioned.
I should have just left the UK price out, since it had no relevance to my comparison of Australia and the US.
This was a relevant comparison for the topic at hand, since US and Australian driving and general environments are similar (though not of course the same) so the observed difference in Charade acceptance is plausibly explained by the difference in petrol price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
