Why do car companies use V6s and V8s for large displacement engines when I4 engines get much more power / liter ?
For example the Honda F20C 125hp/L
The Mustang 5.0 V8 only makes 85HP/L,
If you scaled up the F20Cto 5L it would be making over 600HP.
So why don't auto makers build large displacement 4cyl engines ?
Other urls found in this thread:
Because you'd need balancing shafts the size of your leg.
>comparing a 4cyl stressed to within an inch of its life to a lazy V8 that still gets good MPG and won't ever break
what about cars like the 968?
what if sports cars could rev higher than 9k rpm?
That had balancing shafts the size of your leg.
That's the second largest petrol straight four in a passenger car since the Second World War, and both it and the even larger Pontiac 195 are notorious for roughness and shaking.
What if it was a boxer engine ? The FA20 makes 100HP/L easily.
it looks pretty small to me,
Assuming you're not baiting and just somebody who learned what hp/l is today from your ricer friend with a stock base model 2002 civic, if you made a 4 cylinder have 4+L of displacement you would lose the ability to rev high since the pistons would be so damn big and heavy. You can't just "scale up" engines.
The only good thing in a big 4 banger is the noise
Porsche 944S2 has a 3L 4-cylinder.
210HP
That's cute. 6.3 liters.
oops
>stressed
people have gotten 400hp from an all motor F20
>that still gets good MPG
If the handa only has a 2.0L engine (Just for comparison) and is making 125hp/L that's only 250hp. If the 302ci(5.0L) is only making 85hp/L that's 425hp. There is no Replacement For Displacement.
you can't just "scale up" an engine you fucking retard. as you get to higher displacements you would have to have gigantic pistons which heat unevenly and inhibit complete combustion. more smaller cylinders is more efficient at high displacements.
>more smaller
wat
>more smallerer
happy now?
Except for the I6 master race.
a high strung 3-4 cyl in a land yacht vs a comfy v8 in a land yacht. What is torque?
Flat 4s run like shit.
>So why don't auto makers build large displacement 4cyl engines ?
Because reciprocating mass.
more smaller = a higher number of smaller cylinders
Kek. No. Just no.
Hnng, those air cooled airplane engines. Isn't it pretty much two companies that have been making the same thing for decades? Continental and Lycoming I think. How high do those even rev? I thought it was fairly low. Plus boxer.
Four cylinders are flatplane and naturally imbalanced, the same reason car companys don't use flatplane V8s. The bigger they are the harder they are to.balance and the.less smooth thay are and considering most car companys like to make atleast sort of well rounded vehicles it makes sense not to see many large displacment I4s
>implying a 5L 4cl engine that revs to over 9000 rpm would be anywhere near reliable or cost effective enough to use in a mass produced car
Go drive a Colorado. 2.8 or 2.9 4 cylinder depending on year. They have a couple of balance shafts, and they still vibrate a bit. And driving one of those little trucks is like driving a forklift, or maybe an old 300I-6. Pulls hard, but isn't that fast.
ive raced an AP1 S2k in my LS1 trans am
we were dead even but i left him after 80 mph
>stock V8 with 170k miles