- they're more efficient
- lighter
- much smaller of course
- cheaper to build
- way more lively
- sound incredibly better than inline 4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xWItsdqKxk
I'm sick of those decades of inline 4 engines.
they're fucking lazy, too nowadays.
>meh, don't spool me up to 5000, I don't like that
>meh, there u have your full torque at 1300, now let me be u meanie
>stop revving me wahwahhh
>Having to rev to 8000 to merge
I'll stick to my turbo 4 bangers mate
why are most 3 cyl more smooth than the 4 banger?
a bmw k75 comes to mind
>>14105240
>>14105257
they're innately unbalanced and need heavy balancing components to make them not shit. any smoothness you get is because of heavy and complex additions added to the engine.
>>14105240
>he thinks this is a good sounding 3cyl
Let me show you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMq9K20hSsk
>>14105240
You're autistic as hell.
meanwhile V8's
>you don't have to rev me to 13K RPM bro
>neeed all your torque, just feather the pedal
>need to me merge? rev me to 2K RPM.
>sorry about the speeding tickets and the tire wear bro
>we are pulling a boat? no problem.
>>14105328
>turning? nah dude, this is a 4200 lbs barge
>did you know im using less fuel than an airliner?
>>14105335
>being this poor
enjoy your GEO metros I guess cucks.
>>14105341
cunt looks like a cunt
Sweet marauder though
>>14105353
she is just HIGH TEST
>>14105358
>Tattoos
Dropped even harder
>>14105305
I hate sound of 3 cyl unless it's 2 stroke
https://youtu.be/y2jEgSU4h8c?t=8
>>14105240
Balance.
Four cylinders work in pairs. Three is inherently unbalanced because it's an odd number.
![eco1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NgEXlpy.jpg "eco1[1].jpg")
>>14105240
Ask Ford.
>>14105313
>he's a car enthusiast
>HE MUST HAVE TEH AUTISM
Why are you here then?
>>14105358
>those legs
>that broad back
>those arms
>HIGH TEST
Yeah, I'm sure "she" has high test for you
>>14105701
levirginmaymay.meme
>all this faggotry about how ~unbalanced~ uneven cylinder count engines are
Fuck, are you men or are you whiny faggots?
If that shit runs efficiently, reliably AND sounds good it's a good engine.
>>14105240
Fine, you like 3 cyl engines? Here, you can have it. Have them all, please.
>>14105725
a-a-n-n-o-n-n-n i-i-i t-h-i-i-i-n-n-k s-o-o-m-e-e-e-e-t-h-h-i-i-n-n-g-g-g-g i-i-s w-r-r-r-o-o-n-n-n-g-g w-i-i-t-h-h y-o-o-o-u-u-r-r-r c-a-a-a-a-r-r-r
>>14105740
>>14105366
>>14105313
>>14105305
>>14105245
>shitting on 3cylinders when they're the only hope in times of this downsizing madness
How do you like those 2 cylinders that are about to get shoved into your face more and more then?
Enjoy the lawnmower sound and get used to it because that's how they want the future to sound like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBHz3XkdF0I
>>14105769
2 cylinder god tier
>>14105335
>being so poor you cant afford to fuel a V8
>>14105769
>2cylinder engine
[rattling intensifies]
>>14105725
based straight-5 agrees
>>14105769
>Implying I'm ever going to buy a new car
I doubt I'll ever buy a car newer than 2005, they're all underpowered, heavy, unreliable shitheaps barring a couple ultra high performance car I'll never be able to afford
>>14105341
>>14105786
Not everyone lives in the US where fuel prices are kept artificially low in order to sustain your horrid urban planning.
>>14105818
>they're all underpowered
No
>heavy
Yea, they are pretty heavy. But when you get crashed into you no longer have a 100% to die.
>unreliable
Absolutely fucking untrue.
>>14105877
>horrid urban planning.
Yea that nature, she sure is terrible at planning.
>>14105260
Actually in terms of a 120 degree crankpin triple, the only balance issue a triple experiences is the fact it has to be a linear firing pattern. This is offset with a simple balance shaft that helps shift moment in a counter motion.
Otherwise triples don't experience the polar moment of inertia which flat plane four cylinders experience, with all four pistons assemblies reaching tdc/bdc at the same time. With the triple, when each assembly reaches its peak, there's always one other 1/3rd of the way accelerating and one 2/3rds of the way decelerating, so they don't require the crankshaft counter balancing of an inline four to maintain momentum through that moment of inertia.
>>14105810
My first two cars were Audi coupes of that vintage. Sadly in America we never got the fucking turbo. The n/a 5 was not terribly inspiring and I dreamed of a motor swap.
>>14105881
>No
200hp for a 3600lbs sedan is fucking nothing
>But when you get crashed into you no longer have a 100% to die.
I'd rather die than drive a new fucker
>Absolutely fucking untrue.
Just cause they always start doesn't mean that all the interior electrics aren't already broken
>>14105891
>200hp for a 3600lbs sedan is fucking nothing
I guess it's good a V6 Camry has 270HP and weighs less than 3500lbs :^).
>I'd rather die than drive a new fucker
That's your own retarded, autistic preference.
>Just cause they always start doesn't mean that all the interior electrics aren't already broken
You faggots are always hilarious. Electronic equipment is far more reliable than mechanical equipment.
>>14105260
This.
4 cylinder is the minimum and the most cost effective. Unless you go to two wheels, in which case, get a bike.
>>14105899
>I guess it's good a V6 Camry has 270HP and weighs less than 3500lbs :^).
Only in top trim, the vast majority have a 145hp 4 banger
>That's your own retarded, autistic preference.
Only because I can actually drive and don't rely on driving a tank to save my stupid ass like you seem to do
>Electronic equipment is far more reliable than mechanical equipment.
It really isn't, especially when everything in interconnected. Your shitty built in sat nav not working? Hope you like not having ABS
>>14105901
But that's wrong.
>>14105887
They sound fucking awesome though, turbo or not.
>>14105914
>Only in top trim, the vast majority have a 145hp 4 banger
>Your shitty built in sat nav not working? Hope you like not having ABS
[citation needed]
>>14105260
You can use an asymmetrical flywheel to accomplish the balancing more simply.
>>14105925
What, do you honestly think everyone, or even the majority of people are buying the top tier camrys?
>>14105914
>Only in top trim, the vast majority have a 145hp 4 banger
Maybe in your country. The worst we can get is 200HP. That's really plenty, but obviously not enough to cater to your autistic ass.
>Only because I can actually drive and don't rely on driving a tank to save my stupid ass like you seem to do
I would imagine you're probably one of the worst drivers on the road. You don't have to be a bad driver to get hit.
>It really isn't, especially when everything in interconnected. Your shitty built in sat nav not working? Hope you like not having ABS
That doesn't work that way. No car has ever worked that way. Plus, you would know if the ABS wasn't functioning so it's not like it would be a surprise.
You just confirm that everyone who hates electronics doesn't know anything about electronics.
>>14105966
>That doesn't work that way. No car has ever worked that way.
First generation Land Rover Freelander works like that. Remote locking fails, so does the ABS. Sat nav fails, so does the tailgate release.
>>14105978
Yea, I'm going to need to see proof of that. No anecdotes, either. That's absolutely not compliant with best practices of automatic electrical engineering.
>>14105966
>Maybe in your country. The worst we can get is 200HP. That's really plenty, but obviously not enough to cater to your autistic ass.
"Plenty" is what they sell to you. "plenty" is never actually enough
>I would imagine you're probably one of the worst drivers on the road. You don't have to be a bad driver to get hit.
Cool proof bro, and you only get hit if you're an idiot
>That doesn't work that way. No car has ever worked that way. Plus, you would know if the ABS wasn't functioning so it's not like it would be a surprise.
Everything is tied together you know. Cascade effect and all that shit
>>14105983
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/land-rover/freelander-land-rover/essays-land-rover-freelander-why-i-loathe-it-so-much/
>>14105990
>Everything is tied together you know.
Not in the way you seem to think. You don't have to keep proving you're clueless, I already know.
>>14105995
That says nothing about anything you mentioned. Maybe it does, I skimmed because I said no anecdotes.
>>14105914
>145 hp 4 banger
wrong. edmunds says 178 hp 170 tq from their 2.5L 4 banger. Curb weight is 3240.
http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/camry/2015/features-specs.html?sub=sedan&style=
>>14105990
>prove it!
we elementary school nao
>>14106006
>Not in the way you seem to think. You don't have to keep proving you're clueless, I already know.
You must be a font of fucking knowledge. How am I wrong? Oh yeah, I'm not cause you're defending your POS camry you're mom is paying $900 a month for
>>14106010
>120hp/ton
Oh my god, it's almost the same as my 15 year old MR2!
>>14106013
>Ur a kid XD
I keep forgetting it's christmas vaction
>>14106019
>How am I wrong?
You're wrong because you don't know anything about electronics, that's how. You know you're wrong because all you can do is bluster about the Camry you imagined that I owned.
>>14106030
>You're wrong because you don't know anything about electronics, that's how
Oh yes, that's exactly it. I actually don't know anything and you're desperatly defending the camry you don't own.
Cause its your moms, and you only get to drive it on special occasions
>>14106041
>I actually don't know anything
Long established.
>>14106042
>Long established.
Like my dick in your dad arse
>>14105877
>artificially low
We just don't tax the shit out of our gas
>>14106152
You'd think larger countries would have higher fuel taxes to pay for more roads (as a fraction of vehicles driving on them).
>>14106152
spics get paid to fill up?
>>14106189
Britain has some of the worst roads in the EU, all the money from fuel tax goes to benefits and foreign aid
>>14105946
A flywheel is literally a heavy balance component
>>14105240
>- they're more efficient
It's been proven that 4cyl is more efficient in city than 3cyl, but then again 3cyl is more efficient on highways than 4cyl (but then you experience vibrations)
>- way more lively
Yeah, vibrations and rattle are a really nice feature.
>- sound incredibly better than inline 4s
Subjective but I disagree.
I'd only get a 3cyl if I was buying one of those cute little Japanese kei cars or living in some shithole such as the UK where the taxes rape your pockets.
>>14106152
mexican here, that shit is incorrect as fuck.
We get taxed the fuck for our gas, we pay almost twice as much as americans for our gas and its all in taxes
>>14106274
mow my land ese
>>14106231
Ford's new 1.0L Ecoboost 3-cyl uses an 'unbalanced' flyshaft/pulley to balance the 3 cylinder. Pretty clever.
Cool example of using modern computing power to simplify a product instead of making it more complicated.
>>14105240
>- they're more efficient
That's not a rule
>- lighter
Could be heavier, too
>- much smaller of course
33% smaller
>- cheaper to build
Needing stronger/heavier parts eats into that
>- way more lively
What units are lively measured in?
>- sound incredibly better than inline 4s
Sound like a V6 with uneven secondary header lengths.. shitty
And then there's the balance issue.
>>14106811
So much talk while saying so little
>>14106857
>So much talk
Really? That's a lot of "talk" to you?
>saying so little
Comprehension is a bitch when you're mentally challenged aint it.
ps- I3 fucking sucks the bag
>>14105958
No, that's not what I think what soever. Now, a citation on either of those points please.
>>14106246
That's the thing, they don't "vibrate or rattle" any more than a four cylinder.
Good job talking out of your ass.
>>14106938
Not even that guy, but are you really that dumb bro?
>>14106811
>Sound like a V6 with uneven secondary header lengths..
>Needing stronger/heavier parts eats into that
What the fuck are you talking about?
![5c221b8529[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/LNEfigO.png "5c221b8529[1].png")
I dont know why niggas gotta have strong opinions one way or the other.
I'd certainly like all the engine configurations to be an option.
Gone are the days of just checking off what you wanted from the factory.
Inline 6 in mustang when.
Fiesta ST motor in it when?
I don't even care. Let me have all the options you fuck faces. Pic related, my dad's options when he bought his 69 impala.
>>14105245
>not wanting to rev to 8000
sounds like a diesel would be more suitable for you
>>14106952
Are you?
>>14105885
Don't be this guy >>14105530.
>>14106965
>not a big vee ate
>>14105240
People like cars that move forwards that's why.
>>14106958
Woops wrong pic.
What upsets me is that ford has an inline 6 in the land down under, but apparently finding a way to put it into the Mustang is too much effort. Yet they'll throw in an ecoboost.
Which is cool, i6 is longer. But come on senpai.
>>14105530
Then why do 5 cyl work so well and last longer than any 4 cyl?
Plus they are great at high RPM and don't start squealing in 4th at 4000RPM
>>14106993
That's because the grossly undersquare and overweight inline 6 they have down under is heavily dated. It's good at achieving peak power numbers on a dyno due to their capacity with forced induction, and that's about it.
>>14107024
Still would be cool. Especially if it got the attention from Ford like the 2.3 did.
>>14105885
>3 cylinders
>4 strokes
Unbalanced.
4 cylinder can reduce it's second order vibration internally with balance shafts.
3 cylinder can never achieve this, requiring external balancing on both ends of the engine.
>first order imbalance = thumping/rockiing/infrasonic = 4 cyl is superior
>second order imbalance = buzzing/shallow vibration= 3 cylinder is superior
>>14107001
Because an extra cylinder imparts magical powers that permits the rule of "5 cyl work so well and last longer than any 4 cyl".
https://youtu.be/RatRte6m8Q0
because the LS is a joke.
>>14107059
F-fuck you
>>14107034
>Still would be cool
When they have a superior V6 and V8 option anyway?
>Especially if it got the attention from Ford...
It already had plenty of attention and revision on an effort to keep it going into the 21st century.
An arbitrary cylinder configuration doesn't make it a better option.
>>14107088
but it's cool though
>not wanting a 7, 9, 11 cyl engine
>>14106903
Calm your autism.
>>14105335
The number of cylinders has little to do with the rev characteristics and power output of the engine.
If we switched to 3 cylinders manufacturers would just build them for economy as well and you would be on here talking about switching to 2 cylinders because they're better and rev higher and blah blah blah even though it is how the engine is designed not how many cylinders it has.
>>14107560
That's just Ford Fucking around with the gearing.
Those fuckers.
>>14107606
Yeah, you can do that when your engine pulls strong from 1000 RPM.
>>14107560
That's fucking rubbish.
The Saab 900 gets about 25mpg combined.
Source: I used to drive a 900 turbo 16S and fuelly confirms 25mpg.
The 535i is also more like 20mpg.
>>14107641
shh let the carfags be angry about econoshitbox-triples
>>14107639
And my grandpa makes 30 mpg in his towncar. Those are the official govt' test results, bro.
To be fair, it's the turbo vert automatic saab. I'm sure the manual n/a hardtop does much better.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=8791
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=8839
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=9103
The whole point, though, is that there's far more to fuel economy than displacement or cylinder count.
>>14107714
are you seriously saying that you can bribe your way to a better CAFE rating?
>>14107697
Fuelly indicates ±20mpg for the 4.6L Town Car.
>>14107735
I don't personally trust fuelly as a way to compare different cars, because driving style has such a huge impact on MPG, and you have no idea how the chimps using fuelly are driving their towncars or saabs. EPA/CAFE tests use the exact same drive cycle for every car, making it the best available way to compare different cars.
But even if I did trust fuelly, a 20% difference in MPG from double the cylinders, over double the displacement, and carrying around 33% extra weight, is still respectable. Cylinder count/displacement is a minor factor in fuel economy.
>>14107720
░░░░░░░░░░░▌▌▄▀▄▒░░░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░░▄▄▄░▐▄▀▄▀▄▒░░▒▄▄▄▄░▄░░▌
░░░░▄▀░▄░▐▐▄▀▄▀▒░░░▀░░░░▀░▄▀▐
░░░█░▌░░▌░▐▐▀▄▀▒░░░▒▌$$▐░░▌▄▐
░░▐░▐░░░▐░▌▐▐░▐░░░░░░▀▀░░░░░▀▌
░░▌░▌░░░░▌▐▄▀░▀▄▒░░░░░░░▄▀▄░░▐
░▐▐░▌░░░░▐▐░▌▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█▄▄▄░░░▌
░▌░░▌▌░░░░▌░▐▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▄▄▀
░▐░░▌▌░░░░▐░░▌▀▄▀▄▀█▄█▀█▀█▀
░▌▌░▌▌░░░░░▌░▐▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▄█▄
▐░░░▐▐░░░░░▐▐░▌▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▀▄▀█
▌▌░░░▌▌░░░░░█▐░▌▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀░▄▐▄▄
▌░░░░▐▐░░░░░░▀░▐▀▄▀▄▀▄▀░░░▀▀▄▀▌
░░░░░░▌░░░░░▄▀█▄█▄▀▀░▀▄░░░░▀░▀▐
░░░░░░▐░░░░░░░▌░░░░░░▐▐░▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
░░░░░░░█░░░░░▐░░░▌░░░█▀▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
░░░░░░░░▀▄░░▄▄▄▀▐▄▄▀▀
░░░░░░░░░░▀▄▄▄▄▄▀
>>14107814
Yeah, you're right. I missed that it said 3-spd auto on the Saab, it doesn't surprise me that that would ruin fuel economy.
>>14105240
Three cylinder engines sound like tractor engines at idle, even my daytona does, but they scream like a motherfucker though.
I6's and V8 sound good throughout the rev range.
>>14106811
New PSA engines use camshafts made out of pipe. I don't really know about the need for stronger parts as long as shit is balanced properly.
>>14107814
And I don't trust that your "grandpa makes 30 mpg in his towncar"
It should be noted that fuel economy in cars is far more defined by how you drive than the engine.
And, in a gutless shitbox, people put their foot down way more and have shittier real world mileage.
My cav gets on par with what the mustang did simply because I could keep the mustang under 2500 rpm and still keep up with traffic.
In real world driving smaller/less cylinders often doesn't mean more fuel efficient.
>Needing cylinders
>>14107649
bikefags will all die in traffic accidents eventually.
>>14105341
>enjoy your GEO metros I guess cucks.
oh i will cuck.
235K miles and still going will go on until the heat death of the universe
no rust
50 mpg
your fedora vic you posted wont even last half that
>>14109423
>changing piston rings is a normal maintenance routine
>>14109423
>needing complete engine re-build every 5000 miles
>>14111907
>piston rings
ok
>>14112350
>5000
you pull your head out of your ass and learn how to properly run a rotary and ittl go 200k
>>14111907
>piston rings
>rotary
Pistonfags, ladies and gentlemen.
>>14112350
Not everyone peripheral ports their engines.
>>14105877
>fuel prices are kept artificially low
It's the exact opposite Mr. Gustav Al Bavaree.
You're getting cucked by the government(and the EU) and paying well above market value for fuel because 'muh environment' taxes.
Do you know what the profit margin for public fuel sales is for a megacorp like Exxon-Moblie?
FUCKING NOTHING. At most 1% if we're lucky.
My point is, the US market for fuel is the closest to the real market value. The price to produce and refine and distribute is almost the same globally but EU fuckery makes it a lot more difficult for you to afford.
tldr We only produce oil for you fags because we have to; we're making no money doing so.
The way I see it, for a given displacement, 4 cylinders is the minimum number of cylinders necessary for maximum power.
>360 degree rotation
>90 degrees per stroke
>4 stroke design
>360 / 90 = 4
With less than 4 cylinders, there's going to be a gap in power ie. dead time when the crankshaft is not receiving power.
The fact that 4 cylinders have piston pairs that cancel out the "rocking" motion from end to end for great balance is the final nail in the 3 cylinder coffin
>>14109316
Youre not supposed to, youre supposed to realize that responding to standardized testing data with
>well me m8 says X
Makes you a fucking retard
>>14114580
Excuse me, but that's bullshit.
The dead time doesn't matter because of the inertia. Old tractors used to have only 1 (large) cylinder, but a huge flywheel.
>>14115121
>Old tractors used to have only 1 (large) cylinder, but a huge flywheel.
>so do old traction engines
lol cant rev
bouncing up and down on the ground because they cant even into counter weights either
>>14105240
>- they're more efficient
>- lighter
Only because they're usually less than 1.5L where 4s are usually more than 1.5L
>- cheaper to build
No because you can use established architecture for 4s, less R&D than developing a new engine
>- way more lively
Wrong
>- sound incredibly better than inline 4s
Subjective.
>[YouTube] Exhaust Sound: BMW 3-cylinder Engine (embed)
Sounds pretty awful desu
>>14105240
DD a Smart fortwo turbo, the sound it makes at 5.5k is great
>>14109767
How gay am I that I totally want one of these to make a sleeper
>>14109767
I rented one of those once.
Had 4 people in it, driving on any hill and it had to be floored to maintain speed.
Acceleration and power to pass or merge was nonexistent; couldn't get out of it's own way.
