I found the web site: www.e31.net I hope this answers all questions.
Only if it is a pretty big cylinder, a pretty small car, and the driver doesn’t care about the loads of vibration and the jerky feel of the engine.
I think the Fiat 500 had a two-cylinder engine.
Yes, an inline-2. The about same-era Citroen 2CV, had a flat-2 engine.
Well, first you have a need, then you have to find an engine to best fit that need.
In terms of configs, a six can be smooth and need little (relative) attention to balance if flat, in V-form, or straight configs. A four can go V, but it doesn’t happen alot, and it’s not ‘fun’ to do for designers.
Mant boats have V-4s, for space issues. Not pleasant.
Need to squeeze in an engine behind the driver? Maybe a four is best.
Think about this: Fours came to the forefront when economy and size where the emphasis, then mfgrs justified their existence by getting more HP out of them. However, when you got lots of metal to move, you dodge the four and go to the six, or try to make a four act like a six (on paper, it might). And most HP tricks that work on fours, work even better on sixes.
At some point, you get too many cylinders to have a practical and simple balance with power and economy.
I’ve had the exact opposite happen to me.
I went from a 1988 Bonneville LE with the 3800 V6 doing about 11-12L / 100 KM to my I4 Toyota Matrix (2003) doing about 7.5-8.3L/100 KM. I do understand 15 years is a lot of space between the 2 cars but the Bonnie, weighing in at what, 4000 lbs? Was a beast to drive and sucked gas like the monster it is. My 2800 lbs Matrix is faster above 4000 RPM (I didn’t have a tach on the Bonnieville).
The thing with high strung Japanese engines is that all the power is in the high RPM range. If you granny drive (in the 3K range) you sip gas until you start racing the engine. In a big V6 (I also had a 1992 Voyager LE 3.3 V6) you tend to waste gas pretty much any time you’re touching the pedal. My Voyager had a MPG computer and I could never beat 15-18 mpg on that thing unless I was coasting.
The more power you’re making = more gas you’re wasting. My dyno tests on my Matrix show that I make about 105 HP @ 3000 RPM (my normal highway driving range) unlike my Voyager, which probably made most of it’s power in that RPM range.
[QUOTE=Balthisar]
I had a similar to Johnnie L.A.'s co-worker. I leased a brand new Ranger pickup at the same time as having a Bonneville. The Bonny had a good sized V6, but I opted for the 4-banger on the Ranger to save gas. Of course it was all highway mileage, so that poor little enginer wined and wasted a lot of gas at 70 to 80 mph. The Bonny – even at higher speeds (cars handle better than trucks, remember that you wreckless truck a**holes) got absolutely great mileage, and that was even while beating the hell out of it.
[QUOTE]
I think that is due more to aerodynamics than engine configuration. The fair comparison would be a 4 cylinder Ranger versus a 6 cylinder Ranger, or a 4 cylinder Bonneville versus a 6 cylinder Bonneville. I don’t think you’ll find too much of a difference then.
Many Volvos have 5 cylinder engines. Some subarus and metros had 3 cylinder engines.
Good point. There’s no little, wimpy, 4-banger for a Bonneville :wally but I’ve just heard there’s a new V8. I don’t know if the supercharger V6 is still available.
Checking the Ford website, I see EPA hwy estimates for the Ranger at 29mpg for the 2.3L I4, and 22 for both the 3.0L and 4.0L V6. Interesting that the two V6’s are rated for the same mileage.
On the other can, I can say absolutely that I never, ever got anywhere close to 29mpg on the freeway with the Ranger. The EPA estimates at 55mph still, and if you drive in this part of Michigan at 55mph, well, you get run over. The poor little motor on the Ranger just wasn’t designed for 80mph use, and the poor thing wined like crazy and noise made the ride rather uncomfortable. It also got really, really crappy mileage as a result. I imagine if I’d slowed down, I’d have gotten much better mileage, but at the expense of getting rear ended regularly. Now I genuinely don’t know if the V6 would have gotten better mileage or not. It would have been a lot quieter, though!
Back in the 1930’s henry Ford experiemented with a 4-cylinder engine, which had the cylinders in an “X” configuration. From what I read, the attraction was that the crankshaft was very short and easy to machine. However, the engine proved to be very unreliable. Anybody know more about this oddball configuration?
I’ve got a Subaru SVX with the high compression 3.3 Flat 6. It is a masterpiece of a smooth, powerful and bulletproof engine. If only they hadn’t decided to bolt it to such a shitpile of a transmission(what on earth were they thinking. :mad: ) I think it would have become very popular, but as it was nobody ever heard about the engine since the tranny failed at 40-60 in heavy driving in the summer.
If I ever get the money together I’m gonna have it modified to a Manual tranny that is actually built to handle the power.
Yeah, they lopped off a cylinder from the 6 cylinder engines to make it fit transversely when they switched their larger models over to front wheel drive.
It sounds nice and burbly like a 6 cylinder engine too 
I guess that’s an important point for some, engines with 6 or more cylinders have that nice burbling engine note that only small hatches with larger exhausts can hope to match.