Engine layouts

It may seem stupid, but why are V4 engines not more popular in cars? I know that i4 is well established, but why isn’t V4? A smaller footprint layout would have a lot of advantages, especially since safety regulations require more crumple and impact zones in new cars.

>Turn the I4 sideways XDddd

>being this much retard
I4 is cheaper to produce for the projected power

A V4 adds a lot of complexity over an i4, especially on OHC engines. Double the cylinder heads, double the camshafts, more complex crankshaft geometry etc.

Harder to balance
Twice as many cylinder heads
Twice as many camshafts (OHC)
More complicated exhaust routing
Packaging advantages are only really there for a large transverse engine in a narrow car, or longitudinal engines
More expensive
Much harder to turbo

But sounds sexier so seems worth it

Because most cars with four cylinders are FWD econoboxes, and a transverse engine actually makes designing a FWD gearbox easier because the crankshaft rotation is already happening in the same orientation as the wheels spinning. Also an inline engine features a far simpler design and will require only one cylinder head and all the other shabang.

So basically if you're designing an econobox you want it to be transverse I4 FWD, if you're designing a sports car you'll want a longitudinal engine and also four cylinders won't be sufficient anymore. V6 is almost as small and much more potent.

More complexity and cost for no real advantage. In a motorcycle a V4 makes sense, since it's much narrower and improves handling, in a car, not so much. What I want to know is why there are no crossplane crankshaft I4s in cars, I think that could work pretty well.

Hang on a minute, what about vr4s? Lancia used them. So far I've found they made a:
DUHC (Double Under Head Cam)
Sohc but with 2 rows of cylinders
DOHC using pushrods.

The Italians are insane lunatics. Dumping lancia pictures

...

...