You just repeated what I have been saying in several posts. (ask a weaker motor to perform in the realm of a motor with greater torque esp. you are asking for shorter life).
…But that wasn’t your original position. If that was what you were saying all along, I would have agreed with you. You said a four cylinder engine won’t last as long as a six cylinder engine, which just isn’t true.
What are the most reliable vehicles on the road? In no particular order, they are the Honda Civic (which is only sold with four cylinders), the Honda Accord (most of which are sold with four cylinders), the Toyota Corolla (which is only sold with four cylinders), and the Toyota Camry (most of which are sold with four cylinders).
Having four cylinders doesn’t necessarily make an engine weaker than a six cylinder engine. Engine displacement and other factors are more important than the number of cylinders. Just look at motorcycles for evidence. A 750cc four cylinder engine is weaker than a twin cylinder 1,200cc engine. Displacement is MUCH more important than the number of cylinders.
Is this evidence enough proof for you or do you still need more?
I agree that asking a small engine to do the work of a big engine will shorten its life, but your assumption that this is being asked of cars with four cylinder engines is a faulty assumption. That is where we disagree.
By the way, dagosa also supported my arguement when he said:
A more powerful engine usually has a greater stipulated performance envelope. If the weaker engine stays within it’s, and the more powerful one the same…longevity should be equivalent.
Let’s not cherry pick supporting statements from other people’s posts to make our points. If we can’t make our own points in this debate, the least we can do is not drag others in and claim they support our positions.