Why do 4-cyl engines max out around 600cc per cylinder, while V8's are often above 800cc per cylinder?
>>14810820
Stop using this picture
>>14810820
It's called efficiency, something people making V8 engines don't understand
Because why the fuck would you build a 1 liter per pot i4 if you could just stretch it into a i6 with smaller pots, using the same volume of space and reaping all the balance benefits?
That's a very good question. Completely guessing, I figure that most 4 cylinder engines are going to be more focused on fuel economy, and the performance ones are based on revving high and thus being able to use shorter gearing.
>>14810820
650cc per cyl
I think 4 cylinders have an issue with vibrations beyond a certain size point. Not sure though.
>>14810820
625cc per cyl
>>14810837
A C7 gets better fuel economy than any V6TT does, actually. It can shut down half of its cylinders when cruising.
>>14810863
Nissan and Subaru makes 2.5L ones as well, before you post them.
>>14810820
1425cc per cyl
>>14810885
rev limit of 800rpm
Engine balance, read up on it. It's also why they can build straight sixes in excess of 2 liters per cylinder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_balance
500cc per cylinder is the perfect balance of power and efficiency
no one gets an 8 with efficiency in mind so they can stray further from it
>>14810902
Still super fun to drive though
>>14810920
12L straight-six when?
>>14810950
That's called a semi tractor
>>14810950
Cat c 15. Cummins n14. Detroit series 60.
>>14810820
harder to balance big I4's
ei: 2nd gen challenger 2.6
>>14810878
It also has this hidden feature in which the ENTIRE engine shuts off and then shits itself
>>14810820
Because people making I4 get more HP/L.
>>14811219
>"haha sorry i shat myself xd"
>>14810820
In laymans terms at some point its more practical to add two more cylinders. Its the same reason we dont have 800cc single motorcycles
>around 600cc per cylinder
u wot m8
>9L i4
>>14810950
Driven 13.5L
>>14810878
You're about to enter a world of butthurt my friend...
>>14810862
Yeah this is the main reason, same reason flat plane V8s are generally a lot smaller than crossplane.
Crossplane doesn't really have an upper limit
Why aren't there more 2-3L V8's and more 3L+ i4s?
the larger the bore,the worse the flame propagation gets.(how fast the flame is)
a i4 needs RPMs to make up for the displacement, a big 4+in bore would hurt top end
this is why Ferrari or Lambo makes 6.0L V12s instead.
rpm capable, but have larger displacements.
>>14814310
Porsche 911 uses a 4"+ bore and can rev over 9000, so no
>>14813617
With the 2L V8, it could be done but it means double the parts of the I4 so not really cost effective in your 2L econobox for not a significant gain in power for a road car.
>>14810878
>fuel efficiency
>power efficiency
mpg != hp/L my friend.
if your car makes less than 100hp/l then your car is objectively shit.
>>14810820
Americans don't know how to make a powerful small displacement engine without adding over nine thousand alternators to it.
>>14810820
Porsche 968 was a 3L I4. I think it's more a situation where if you've got a high-displacement engine you are probably making something fast/sporty enough that people won't want a 4-cyl, rather than a limitation of the engine config.
>>14814450
>power efficiency
>mattering one bit
only europoors who get ass raped by their masters on displacement taxes care about such trivial shit. this isn't a racing series anon.
