Thread Tools
Old 04-07-2014, 10:47 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,481
4 verses 6 cylinder engines

What are the advantages and disadvantages on a 4 cylinder verses 6 cylinder
engine for cars-SUVís these days ?

New crossover SUV to me this year and starting the search. I drive a fair bit, and would say on average every week I do a drive of 2-4 hours round trip. Just wondering if I should have the 4 verses 6 cylinder a high consideration or not.

Thanks in advance to you knowledgeable car folk out there.
Old 04-07-2014, 11:07 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,791
Four cylinder engines tend to be more fuel-efficient, getting better gas mileage. Six cylinder engines tend to be a bit heavier and peppier. "Stepping on it" in a six-cylinder engine is likely to get you faster acceleration than a corresponding four-cylinder. A six is also typically heavier and you might be able to feel differences in inertia when braking.

I drive a six.
Old 04-07-2014, 11:10 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bigfork, Montana
Posts: 4,160
Better gas mileage for one, and less moving parts to break down for another, but it really depends on what kind of driving you do and where you live.

If your car is fully loaded (with people or stuff) and you live in the mountains and are driving up steep roads everyday then a 4 cylinder may not make a lot of sense.

However if you live in the flat lands, do mostly highway driving, and are typically alone in your car and not carrying a lot of stuff then a 4 cylinder may work just fine for you, and save you money on gas every week.

Some 4 cylinders have almost as much power as some 6 cylinders, so it depends to some degree which car you are considering getting.

I would suggest you test drive both, or perhaps rent both types for a week if you can swing that, and see which works better for you. You may decide that you need more pep than a 4 cylinder can muster, or that a 6 cylinder is a waste of power.
Old 04-07-2014, 11:11 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NY USA
Posts: 7,635
Well, there's a lot of leeway in a lot of things, but basically a V6 is going to have noticeably more power than any 4 cylinder. Conversely a four-cylinder is going to get noticeably better gas mileage than a V6. There are extremes on both sides that may contradict this a little, but that's the gist of it.

In terms of a crossover SUV I would favor the 4 cylinder, because 'crossover' essentially just means a 'small' SUV, no towing or hauling big loads etc. If you need to do either of those do not get a crossover and certainly do not get a four cylinder. And if you drive that much I would consider gas mileage to be a priority.

One thing: If you're considering a Subaru note that their four cylinder engines are flat-4s or 'boxer' engines, similar to the style the old VW Beetles had (but not air-cooled). They are very reliable, but those engines have a distinctly different feel and sound to them which some don't care for (myself included).
Old 04-07-2014, 11:20 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: S. GA
Posts: 2,908
If you'd like to keep long-term maintenance costs down, get an engine with timing chain(s) instead of belt(s). Timing belts have to be replaced periodically while chains don't.
Old 04-07-2014, 11:32 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 20,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Ants View Post
One thing: If you're considering a Subaru note that their four cylinder engines are flat-4s or 'boxer' engines, similar to the style the old VW Beetles had (but not air-cooled). They are very reliable, but those engines have a distinctly different feel and sound to them which some don't care for (myself included).
All of the Subaru six cylinder engines are boxers as well.
Old 04-07-2014, 11:32 AM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,562
4 verses 6 cylinder engines

While this doesn't specifically reference 6 cylinder engines, I think it still applies.
Old 04-07-2014, 12:00 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 15,126
Ultimately the main thing that determines how much power an engine produces is how much air/fuel is being burned per unit time. That's why larger displacement engines (more volume) engines are more powerful, all else being equal. They also (obviously) burn more fuel to generate that power.

As a result, for the same displacement, a 4 and a 6 cylinder engine will have similar power, and similar fuel economy, with both being slightly higher for the 6 cylinder, all else being equal.

But... these days, I'd go with a combination of fuel economy and test drive to make the choice, because "all else" is rarely equal anymore. Things like turbo and superchargers and stratified charge burning, and the like change the playing field and make things much less dependent on straight-up displacement or # of cylinders.
Old 04-07-2014, 12:02 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: F.O.S.O.N.E.
Posts: 19,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by california jobcase View Post
If you'd like to keep long-term maintenance costs down, get an engine with timing chain(s) instead of belt(s). Timing belts have to be replaced periodically while chains don't.
AFAIK, all moderately-priced OHC engines use belts. Only the shrinking number of OHV 6 and 8 cylinder engines and OHC's in fairly expensive tiers use chains.

Do any moderately-priced cars with OHC engines use chains with more durability than belts?
Old 04-07-2014, 12:21 PM
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 20,079
My personal experience with cars is that a 4 cylinder will get better mileage, and with today's transmissions will still be surprisingly peppy, if it is a small and lightweight car. However, if you are going at highway speeds and need to stomp on it, or you need to go up a big hill (I occasionally have to drive up a few West Virginia mountains), the performance of a 4 cylinder will be noticeably lacking. A 6 cylinder won't be too much peppier on flat ground, but will have a very noticeable improvement in performance when going up steep hills or when the acceleration as at the top end.

My experience with larger vehicles (minivans and SUVs) is that 4 cylinders do get better mileage, but surprisingly it's not that much better, and their overall performance in these larger vehicles is sluggish.

This is just speaking in generalities from personal experience though. It is entirely possible for a specific 4 cylinder engine to actually be more powerful than another specific 6 cylinder engine. So literally, YMMV.
Old 04-07-2014, 12:27 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
...But... these days, I'd go with a combination of fuel economy and test drive to make the choice, because "all else" is rarely equal anymore. Things like turbo and superchargers and stratified charge burning, and the like change the playing field and make things much less dependent on straight-up displacement or # of cylinders.
Ding! This is the right answer. There are so many differences between cars that you simply can't boil a decision down to cylinder count. Go look at cars, look at the specs (mileage, safety ratings, etc.), test drive some, then buy the one you want. After all, you'll be the one driving it, you'd better find one that you like and that works well for you.
Old 04-07-2014, 12:29 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,965
It's a lot trickier to make blanket statements about "V6 versus 4 cylinder" than it once was. On a few cars the V6 is the economy engine and a turbocharged 4 cylinder is the upgrade. Others may just have a whole myriad of 4 cylinders options some of which would be comparable to a V6. You really do just have to consider the particular engine you're looking at without worrying too much about the number of cylinders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Barbarian View Post
AFAIK, all moderately-priced OHC engines use belts. Only the shrinking number of OHV 6 and 8 cylinder engines and OHC's in fairly expensive tiers use chains.

Do any moderately-priced cars with OHC engines use chains with more durability than belts?
Pretty much everyone is going to chains these days, thankfully.
Old 04-07-2014, 12:34 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 317
As far as disadvantages - for the 6 cyl, it's simply cost. For models that offer the option between a 4 or 6 cylinder engine, the 6 cyl is more costly. Also, 4 cyl engines generally get better mileage (so more $ for gas with a 6 cyl), but this gap has been closing over the years. The gap will also vary by model and transmission. With some CVT transmissions, the difference in mileage is practically negligible (some only 1-2 MPG difference).

Some car makers, Ford specifically, is mating their smaller engines to a turbo. They call this their "eco-boost" option. Instead of a 6 cyl in a midsize car or small SUV/Crossover type, they drop in the 4 cyl with a turbo charger, increasing the power to weight ratio without sacrificing any fuel economy (theoretically at least - depends more on how you drive). But the cost of the Ford eco-boost option is higher.

You may also want to consider if you do any towing whatsoever or if you think you might want to tow some sort of trailer in the future. A larger engine will tow better, all else being equal.
Old 04-07-2014, 12:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreasyJack View Post
...Pretty much everyone is going to chains these days, thankfully.
But do the line workers sing "That's the sound of the men working on the chain" while assembling engines?
Old 04-07-2014, 12:38 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 32,759
During the summer, my wife had surgery at Stanford, requiring the rental of a car for each trip. Fourteen cars in all, a mix of cross-overs, minivans, fullsize(6 cyl.) and mid/small size(4 cyl). Almost all freeway (135-140 miles) with a couple of modest climbs(Altamont Pass, Sunol grade), 10 miles in-town and 15-20 miles stop-n-go on the return trip.

All but one vehicle fell within a 28-30 mpg window. The one outlier gave 23.
Old 04-07-2014, 12:49 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,337
I am now driving a 2001 VW Passat with a 6-cylinder engine. My previous car was a 1996 VW Jetta with a 4-cylinder engine. There is no comparison! The difference in mileage is small. On a trip to Cincinnati from Columbus last summer, I got 31mpg using the air conditioning. Today's 6-cylinder engines are so much superior it is scary! But the same thing is happening with 4-cylinder engines. Nonetheless, I would say go with a 6-cylinder engine.
Old 04-07-2014, 01:10 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert_columbia View Post
But do the line workers sing "That's the sound of the men working on the chain" while assembling engines?
I would hope so, but it may be done by robots so some sort of techno remix may be in order.
Old 04-07-2014, 01:42 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
As a result, for the same displacement, a 4 and a 6 cylinder engine will have similar power, and similar fuel economy, with both being slightly higher for the 6 cylinder, all else being equal.
All else being equal (including displacement), I'd expect a 4-cyl to have better efficiency than a 6-cyl. Heat loss to the cylinder walls during the power stroke is an important inefficiency; energy pissed away through the radiator is energy that's not being used to move the car. For equal total displacement, a 4-cyl is going to have less combustion chamber surface area, on a per-unit-volume basis, than the 6-cyl - and therefore less heat loss.

That said, it's pretty hard to find one vehicle that can provide a direct comparison between 4-bangers and V6's of equal total displacement.
Old 04-07-2014, 01:49 PM
BANNED
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Antioch
Posts: 11,459
Try comparing the horsepower to weight ratio of the engine to the entire car. Add your weight plus 50 pounds for your "stuff" when doing the calculations.
Old 04-07-2014, 02:02 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,337
The thing to remember is that the greater the number of cylinders, the easier it is for the engine turns to achieve a certain RPM.
Old 04-07-2014, 02:34 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Ants View Post
One thing: If you're considering a Subaru note that their four cylinder engines are flat-4s or 'boxer' engines, similar to the style the old VW Beetles had (but not air-cooled). They are very reliable, but those engines have a distinctly different feel and sound to them which some don't care for (myself included).
Subaru owner here (turbocharged 2.5L flat-4 in a WRX). I really doubt if most people who aren't "car people" (ie, people who buy a car to get from point A to point B) would ever really notice that the car sounds different...and if they did notice, they probably wouldn't care.

The boxer sound is pretty obvious with a louder aftermarket exhaust, but with the stock setup on my car, you pretty much had to be standing behind the car when it was running to really hear the difference (the turbo does tend to quiet the exhaust, but my in-laws' non-turbo Impreza isn't much different).

As far as feel goes, to me the only real difference in feel from most other cars is the feeling of boost, although that's definitely not boxer-specific. What's the difference in feel to you?
Old 04-07-2014, 02:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,635
My limited experience with 6 cylinder engines indicate they are a poor compromise between 4 and 8 cylinders. Give me fuel economy or give me muscle.
Old 04-07-2014, 02:53 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: S. GA
Posts: 2,908
I don't get what you mean, Melchior. For each single revolution of an engine, the crankshaft will turn 360 degrees. The piston on a single cylinder engine will, if starting at TDC, go all the way down and then up. Each additional cylinder's piston will do the same, although some will be starting at a different places in their cylinders. Given the same stroke, each of the pistons in a V-12 will be moving the same speed as those in a four cylinder engine at the same engine RPM.
Old 04-07-2014, 03:05 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
My limited experience with 6 cylinder engines indicate they are a poor compromise between 4 and 8 cylinders. Give me fuel economy or give me muscle.
This was true once upon a time...but now, things aren't so black and white. You can get pretty darn good fuel mileage in a high-performance V8 like the Corvette's, and you can get pretty darn good performance out of turbocharged four- and six-cylinder engines. The Vette gets better highway fuel mileage than my turbo 4-cylinder, and my car is faster than a lot of V6 and V8 cars out there.

The V6s in the Camaro, Mustang, and even some Hyundais make over 300 horsepower...and then there's the Nissan GT-R, which sports a 3.8L V6 that makes 500+ horsepower.
Old 04-07-2014, 03:07 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,564
Shouldn't this be in IMHO?
Old 04-07-2014, 03:16 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: 192.168.0.1
Posts: 9,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by california jobcase View Post
I don't get what you mean, Melchior. For each single revolution of an engine, the crankshaft will turn 360 degrees. The piston on a single cylinder engine will, if starting at TDC, go all the way down and then up. Each additional cylinder's piston will do the same, although some will be starting at a different places in their cylinders. Given the same stroke, each of the pistons in a V-12 will be moving the same speed as those in a four cylinder engine at the same engine RPM.
I believe he is referring to the fact that under load, the additional cylinders will generate more torque therefore accelerate more quickly for a given load.

Lower torque engines like my old VW rabbit diesel you can floor the gas pedal and still just slowly watch the RPM creep up in higher gears. My 74 Formula 400 Firebird had no such problem, (and about 1/4 the gas mileage <sob>)
Old 04-07-2014, 03:42 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 15,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
All else being equal (including displacement), I'd expect a 4-cyl to have better efficiency than a 6-cyl. Heat loss to the cylinder walls during the power stroke is an important inefficiency; energy pissed away through the radiator is energy that's not being used to move the car. For equal total displacement, a 4-cyl is going to have less combustion chamber surface area, on a per-unit-volume basis, than the 6-cyl - and therefore less heat loss.

That said, it's pretty hard to find one vehicle that can provide a direct comparison between 4-bangers and V6's of equal total displacement.
I made a mistake- I meant that power & fuel consumption would be somewhat higher, not fuel economy.

Another consideration might be balancing, as in 4 cylinder cars tend to be harder to balance than 6 cylinder ones, esp. straight-6. I think all the pertinent engineering has been done though, and there's not much difference in the in-the-seat feel between them though.

Last edited by bump; 04-07-2014 at 03:44 PM.
Old 04-07-2014, 03:43 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedwayRyan View Post
Subaru owner here (turbocharged 2.5L flat-4 in a WRX). I really doubt if most people who aren't "car people" (ie, people who buy a car to get from point A to point B) would ever really notice that the car sounds different...and if they did notice, they probably wouldn't care.

The boxer sound is pretty obvious with a louder aftermarket exhaust, but with the stock setup on my car, you pretty much had to be standing behind the car when it was running to really hear the difference (the turbo does tend to quiet the exhaust, but my in-laws' non-turbo Impreza isn't much different).

As far as feel goes, to me the only real difference in feel from most other cars is the feeling of boost, although that's definitely not boxer-specific. What's the difference in feel to you?
The last couple of generations of Subaru boxers also haven't felt especially boxer-y. Normally boxers tend to be fairly high-revving engines because they need to have a shorter stroke to keep the external dimensions of the engine manageable, but recent (as in the last decade and a half or so) Subarus have had decent low-end power and pretty much drive like a normal inline four. Of course, if you're talking about a new one (and don't go for a 3-pedal) they're mostly CVT's, so who cares where the engine makes power?
Old 04-07-2014, 04:44 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreasyJack View Post
The last couple of generations of Subaru boxers also haven't felt especially boxer-y. Normally boxers tend to be fairly high-revving engines because they need to have a shorter stroke to keep the external dimensions of the engine manageable, but recent (as in the last decade and a half or so) Subarus have had decent low-end power and pretty much drive like a normal inline four. Of course, if you're talking about a new one (and don't go for a 3-pedal) they're mostly CVT's, so who cares where the engine makes power?
That makes sense. I'm a three-pedal (and turbo) guy all the way, but I've driven a CVT Impreza and was fairly impressed. I've owned a lot of cars that really need to be revved up to make power, so I probably wouldn't have noticed anyway.
Old 04-07-2014, 05:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,421
A note about the Subaru's boxer engines and why they may feel different (though i have not noticed it), 2 cylinders fire at the same time always. So in some respects it is a 2 cylinder engine (or 3 for their 6). Other 4's (6's and 8's) fire individually.

Last edited by kanicbird; 04-07-2014 at 05:04 PM.
Old 04-07-2014, 05:04 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by california jobcase View Post
I don't get what you mean, Melchior. For each single revolution of an engine, the crankshaft will turn 360 degrees. The piston on a single cylinder engine will, if starting at TDC, go all the way down and then up. Each additional cylinder's piston will do the same, although some will be starting at a different places in their cylinders. Given the same stroke, each of the pistons in a V-12 will be moving the same speed as those in a four cylinder engine at the same engine RPM.
It's less strain on an engine. The V8 is loafing at speeds that a 4 cylinder is working hard.

http://cars.chicagotribune.com/fuel-...leage-20131017

Last edited by Melchior; 04-07-2014 at 05:08 PM.
Old 04-07-2014, 06:00 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
A note about the Subaru's boxer engines and why they may feel different (though i have not noticed it), 2 cylinders fire at the same time always. So in some respects it is a 2 cylinder engine (or 3 for their 6). Other 4's (6's and 8's) fire individually.
That's not right. How would that have worked back when they had distributors?

The thing that's weird with them, firing order wise, is that because the two opposed pistons have to be at TDC at the same time, this necessarily means that the cylinders in each bank have to be next to each other in the firing order (so imagine LLRR). On most V-type engines, the firing order switches from side to side (LRLRLR). That's what leads to the unique exhaust noise from a boxer-- on a V-type engine you've got more or less steady flow through each of the exhaust manifolds/headers, but on a boxer one side flows for 360 degrees and then the other side flows for the other 360, resulting in pulses in the exhaust note.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior View Post
It's less strain on an engine. The V8 is loafing at speeds that a 4 cylinder is working hard.

http://cars.chicagotribune.com/fuel-...leage-20131017
That has absolutely nothing to do with the number of cylinders, though. That article is just using "V6" and "V8" as examples of a less powerful and less powerful engine. By putting a bigger bore or a longer stroke, you can make a 4 cylinder that has the same displacement as a V6 and those two engines will be for the most part functionally identical. Looking at the number of cylinders alone tells you very little about an engine.
Old 04-07-2014, 09:12 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreasyJack View Post

That has absolutely nothing to do with the number of cylinders, though. That article is just using "V6" and "V8" as examples of a less powerful and less powerful engine. By putting a bigger bore or a longer stroke, you can make a 4 cylinder that has the same displacement as a V6 and those two engines will be for the most part functionally identical. Looking at the number of cylinders alone tells you very little about an engine.
I think that car mfrs aim for an optimum size of piston and all that, perhaps also to standardize production. Reliability may be better at a certain size. So, it does boil down to number of pistons after all.

Last edited by Melchior; 04-07-2014 at 09:13 PM.
Old 04-07-2014, 09:22 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedwayRyan View Post
This was true once upon a time...but now, things aren't so black and white. You can get pretty darn good fuel mileage in a high-performance V8 like the Corvette's, and you can get pretty darn good performance out of turbocharged four- and six-cylinder engines. The Vette gets better highway fuel mileage than my turbo 4-cylinder, and my car is faster than a lot of V6 and V8 cars out there.

The V6s in the Camaro, Mustang, and even some Hyundais make over 300 horsepower...and then there's the Nissan GT-R, which sports a 3.8L V6 that makes 500+ horsepower.
I guess it's not surprising. I drove cars where the 6 was intended to provide better fuel economy and lower cost than the 8s that those truck and big cars needed. Also, I forgot about the Toyota Supra. It's 6 cylinder turbo charged engine was economical and powerful, and in a cool looking car too.
Old 04-08-2014, 05:11 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior View Post
I think that car mfrs aim for an optimum size of piston and all that, perhaps also to standardize production. Reliability may be better at a certain size. So, it does boil down to number of pistons after all.
The point is that if you're shopping for a car, a specific engine configuration with a specific number of cylinders shouldn't be one of your criteria in and of itself. Especially at this particular point in automotive history where many of the car makers are in the process of dropping the V6's as their "premium" engines in favor of turbocharged, direct injected and otherwise pepped up four cylinders. Most of the V6's still getting put in small to midside cars and small SUV's at this point are older designs. It would be a big mistake to insist on one of those instead of one of the newer four cylinder designs because you're counting cylinders instead of actually comparing performance.
Old 04-08-2014, 06:39 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta Metro
Posts: 2,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreasyJack View Post
The point is that if you're shopping for a car, a specific engine configuration with a specific number of cylinders shouldn't be one of your criteria in and of itself. Especially at this particular point in automotive history where many of the car makers are in the process of dropping the V6's as their "premium" engines in favor of turbocharged, direct injected and otherwise pepped up four cylinders. Most of the V6's still getting put in small to midside cars and small SUV's at this point are older designs. It would be a big mistake to insist on one of those instead of one of the newer four cylinder designs because you're counting cylinders instead of actually comparing performance.
QFT

Asking 4 cylinder versus 6 cylinder is too high level a question. I would take VW's Turbo 4 cylinder over their 6 cylinder offering. But I might choose a Ford V-6 over their 4. There are so many variables amongst manufacturers, designs, etc., that asking generally 4 cyl vs 6 cylinder is like asking should I marry a blond or a brunette.

Last edited by leftfield6; 04-08-2014 at 06:39 AM.
Old 04-08-2014, 09:30 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftfield6 View Post
QFT

Asking 4 cylinder versus 6 cylinder is too high level a question. I would take VW's Turbo 4 cylinder over their 6 cylinder offering.
Of which vintage? If you mean late 1990s to mid 2000s, I would disagree.
Old 04-08-2014, 10:08 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,239
Reported for forum change, since only about three people have posted anything factual.
Old 04-08-2014, 11:33 AM
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 20,079
Moderator Action

Since this is both factual and opinion related, and we are getting a lot of opinions, off to IMHO it goes.

Moving thread from General Questions to In My Humble Opinion.
Old 04-08-2014, 11:41 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 57,893
Re: Better gas mileage:

I bought a new Jeep Cherokee in 1999, with a 4.0 l straight-six engine. A few months later, a coworker bought a new Jeep Wrangler. He bought one with a four-cylinder engine because he wanted better gas mileage. It didn't work. My 'six' got better mileage than his 'four'. Despite heavy traffic on the 405 and a 55 mph speed limit in the L.A./Orange County area, freeway speeds are often more than 70 mph. At 70+ mph, my coworker was flogging his engine. Meanwhile, my engine was just loafing along.

(FWIW, if I kept my speed to 55 to 60 mph on my commutes, I could get 25 mpg in the Cherokee. Nowadays, where the speed limit is 70, and driving that fast, I can get about 19 mpg. The SO has a lead foot and enjoys stomping on the pedal because the Jeep leaps forward compared to her 4-cyl. Tacoma. She gets about 16 or 17 mpg in the Jeep.)
Old 04-08-2014, 11:50 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 6,263
I split the difference and went with 5 cylinders....

A bit peppier (and a heck of a lot torquier) than a four
A little less thirsty than a six

2.5L inline 5, 150 HP 172 TQ

Also makes a great growly noise under hard acceleration, and technically speaking, at least one piston is always creating a power stroke (120 degree stroke) whereas a four cylinder can have times when no piston is on a power stroke (180 degree stroke)
Old 04-08-2014, 08:01 PM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta Metro
Posts: 2,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior View Post
Of which vintage? If you mean late 1990s to mid 2000s, I would disagree.
Anecdotal for sure, but I had a 99 Passat 1.8T that I ran to 325K. Regularly scheduled maintenance (including 3 timing belt changes that I did myself). Maybe a sensor or two, but the engine itself was solid.

It was a 5-speed wagon. Damn I loved that car.

Last edited by leftfield6; 04-08-2014 at 08:01 PM.
Old 04-08-2014, 08:05 PM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta Metro
Posts: 2,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
Re: Better gas mileage:

I bought a new Jeep Cherokee in 1999, with a 4.0 l straight-six engine. A few months later, a coworker bought a new Jeep Wrangler. He bought one with a four-cylinder engine because he wanted better gas mileage. It didn't work. My 'six' got better mileage than his 'four'.......
See, that kinda proves the point. That inline 4.0L 6 cylinder that was in your Jeep is one of the best engines ever!! It's origins go back to 1964 and was a stalwart engine for AMC and then Jeep for decades.
Old 04-09-2014, 10:28 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by davida03801 View Post
What are the advantages and disadvantages on a 4 cylinder verses 6 cylinder
engine for cars-SUVís these days ?
In a very general sense, the difference is usually in quoted power figures, mpg, and at times, octane requirements. In actuality, it really depends what you're looking for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
But... these days, I'd go with a combination of fuel economy and test drive to make the choice, because "all else" is rarely equal anymore. Things like turbo and superchargers and stratified charge burning, and the like change the playing field and make things much less dependent on straight-up displacement or # of cylinders.
Agreed, it comes down to a lot more than just the motor. Everything from the method for fuel injection, to the gearbox and drivetrain determine fuel mileage. My current 8 cylinder makes better mpg numbers than my previous 6, thanks in part to gearing and refinements, elsewhere, among other things.

In other cases, a turbo system and plumbing can add weight to a four cylinder and make the weight difference from a 6 negligible, while providing superior mpg returns, so the actual driving dynamics may not differ much, where power will. A manufacturer will more generally engineer a greater list of eco-friendly traits into a car with a 4 cylinder motor, with the idea that the buyer is looking for those things. For this reason, I'd pursue the car which feels better to drive, fits the budget, and meets the minimum criteria for practicality.

Personally, I'd rather have more available power from the motor, plus good gearing, and control fuel consumption with my right foot.
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: albuterol drug test define fash nomad biker patch obgyn bush eating habanero toilet liquid plumber olympia wa hippies alyson hannigan fhm iggy pop diet potenza vs turanza basilisk images porn star id storing gasoline indoors pai mei beard o black betty rhyming foods homoerotic meaning diddy mau science themed nursery exposed nipple anybook amazon lens marks what is coletus talking crow cheesecloth home depot sexy black names alvin tostig anagram fresh water oysters batteries getting hot green dimes im all set euphemisms for masterbation canucks meaning cat's body temp come or comes super fancy names bnh hours what's the hottest part of a flame what is a legitimate government how many slices are in a large pizza papa johns the four monkeys hear no evil weather underground classic format harrys or dollar shave club tell her i said hi tape for dryer vent every 30 minutes my internet disconnects what do baby moles eat wd40 as fish bait what does human feces taste like best frozen foods at walmart does hertz have unlimited mileage radioisotope thermoelectric generator for sale how old is roger in rent good deed in a weary world turn off water when on vacation is it safe to send a check through the mail i hate my aunt is using someone else's wifi illegal i hate anti vaxxers what juice to mix with tequila best place to park in chicago can you drink animal blood to survive schick injector razor blades walmart how to dress like a pimp why doesn't teller the magician speak golf ball hitting steel at 150mph stepped on a nail cant walk white christmas vs holiday inn do you say happy yom kippur wii games for 2 player holding breath until passing out post nasal drip and stomach problems