“Preach it Brother”
Just what “fact” are you refering to? The FACT is that a 4 has to work harder than a 6 to do the same job and that equates to shorter life.
I wouldn’t buy either one. Do you want to spend twenty cents more per gallon for premium fuel for all those years you might have this thing? The A4 quattro turbo 4 gets 21/27 mpg, and the 6 cylinder gets 17/26. Do you need this much power and AWD in exchange for lower gas mileage? This is near for example Dodge Caravan territory, and they use regular. In general, the turbo 4 will be more fun to drive and the 6 will be smoother. Notice that the highway mpg is almost the same. If you have lots of turbo fun with the 4 you will only get 6-like fuel economy. As far as “working harder”, these are cars, not people, as someone else pointed out. If you do a lot of highway driving, the most important factor in longevity (besides engine engineering and quality) is the engine revs in high gear for a particular speed, or to rephrase, engine revolutions per mile or overall gear ratio. The four might be reving higher. Plus, the turbo if used a lot adds heat to the engine, and besides will probably fail way before the engine is worn out and cost tons of money to replace.
That fact would be that small engines warm up faster than large engines.
Why do you insist that cylinder count is the only factor that matters? Do you really not realize that a car with an I4 has a transmission with different gear ratios than one with a V6? This alone would mitigate the difference between the output of the two engines. Each engine is mated to a transmission that takes advantage of its optimal RPM range. Some engines are designed with a higher optimal RPM range and some are designed with a lower optimal RPM range. The engines with a higher optimal RPM range will pump more oil and coolant as the cylinders pump up and down to mitigate the wear of increased RPMs. It is a fact that as an engine revs faster the oil pump and coolant pump turn faster, preventing excessive wear.
I realize that when you first learned to work on cars the only difference between a car with a V6 and the same model with an I4 was the engine. That just isn’t the case any more. The four cylinder car will have different gear ratios and a lighter body. If a modern I4 was expected to produce the same output as a modern V6, you would be right. The amount of cylinders is such a small piece of the longevity picture because there are many other factors that basically make the comparison a wash.
What fact??
Whitey, I never did say that the cylinder count was the only factor that matters. I was refering to the power, strength and torque of a 6, 8, or 10 cylinder engine. I am not aware of any 4 with 3 liters or more. As for a 4 warming up quicker than a 6 is crazy. If you want to warm up a larger engine quicker you could run it in low gear for a few miles, the extra rpm should be good for it, so you say. Or you could drive with the park brake on , that would heat it up faster, or you could sit in the garage or driveway and rev it up to about 4 grand till it gets hot. Better not do it in the garage. And a 4 cylinder Honda Accord will not have a lighter body than a 6 cylinder Accord, except for a few pounds for a better transmission, a bigger radiator, or large brakes, and it would not be enough weight to burden a 6. You said in a post above, and I quote, “If a modern I4 was expected to produce the same output as a modern V6, you would be right”. This is what I have been trying to say all along. Well I could go on but I think you should get the idea by now. Have a good nite.
My understanding is that turbos CAN be engineered to increase MPGs, but this requires outfitting it with an “appropriately sized” (large) turbine wheel, which tends to produce a very laggy boost. A trubo optimised for performance will have a much smaller wheel, with less lag, that can produce boost at comparatively low RPMs. It will, however, be less efficient than a normally-aspirated engine of similar power.
As most turbos are installed in “performance” autos, they are generally of the latter setup.
I would think that the longevity of an engine would depend more on the robustness of engineering and many other factors than just the cylinder number. This, then, would make each case unique.
I don’t know enough about the respective merits of the two engines offered to say which is better as far as longevity.
One consideration is that many times the transmission/drivetrain are common between engines, so that they are “overbuilt” for the smaller engine. I don’t know if that’s the case here; it IS the case for my '98 Contour, where the manual is more problematic when connected to the 6 than the 4.
Also, the larger-engined, more expensive car is likely to have more opitons, which all have certain probabilities of failure (to be sure, most of these options won’t prevent use of the car in a failed condition, but will cost to repair).
Also, for the guy who mentioned “infinite life,” I know a bit about bicycles, and one thing those who ride steel love to mention to Al riders is that Al has no “fatigue free service limit” (i.e. it’ll eventually fail of metal fatigue). Thus, does this mean that ANY Al block is destined towards eventual failure?
meanjoe, I have NEVER implied that the number of cylinders was the issue. I am refering to LARGER engines. Most 6s are larger, more powerful, and smoother urnning than a 4 cylinder. And the issue has been a 4 or 6 in the same car. I don’t mean a 4 cylinder Honda and a 6 cylinder Buick.
I’m beginning to wonder how the original VW Beetle managed to run with only 4 cylinders. This engine didn’t turn at a very high rpm. In fact, it could be driven wide open all day long. Top and cruising speed, I think, was about 68 mph. This engine didn’t turn over as many rpm as many 6 cylinder engines of the day. There are so many factors involved that I think it is really not possible to say that a 4 cylinder engine has to “work harder” than a 6 cylinder engine without specifying a host of other conditions.
Whitey, old buddy, It’s still not about the number of cylinders. It’ about more power and torque. The same goes for a V8 or V10.
even a larger 4 probably would live longer than a small 4, pulling the same vehicle. According to you a child could carry a heavy load as far as a young man, and do it as quickly. Go ahead and buy a 4 cylinder car, I never will. I just have to bring this up. Here is one of your GOOD quotes. “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”. Just what I have said all along. Surely you know that MOST 6s have more displacement than MOST 4s. Even the twin cylinder that you just mentioned has much more displacement than the 4 cylinder. You know 2 is bigger than 1, 3 is bigger than 2 and 4 is bigger than 3 and so on. You know 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10. Kinda like A, B, C, D, E, F, and so on.
“I’m beginning to wonder how the original VW Beetle managed to run with only 4 cylinders.” Well, you said it was running at low RPMs and you said “wide open” was about 68 mph. They weren’t hard to keep up with. And a 4 will have to work harder to propel the same vehicle than a 6. The original question was which engine should I buy for THIS car, not a larger car.
The original VW Beetle had an optional six cylinder engine? You learn something new every day.
Where did say anything about an optional 6 cylinder engine, are you hyperventilating??
It’s time to modify this discussion. Back in the late 1950’s, DKW imported a car with a 2 cycle, three cylinder engine. The grille emblem read: “3 = 6”. This refered to the fact that there was a power stroke on every revolution of the engine as opposed to a power stroke on every other revolution as is true with a 4 cycle engine. Now there are two cylinder, two cycle engines. Let’s now have a debate about two cylinders vs. three cylinders.
Nope, I am not hypervenilating. I am just reading, and I think I read something like:
“(the original VW Beetles) weren’t hard to keep up with. And a 4 will have to work harder to propel the same vehicle than a 6.”
I have never seen a Beetle with a six cylinder engine, so I thought you might be teaching me something new. I guess I was wrong.
You know darn well I was not refering to a 6 cylinder Beetle Yes you were wrong, as usual.
there were 2 cylinder, 2 cycle engines as far back as the 40s. probably earlier!
I’m just checking in to make sure you guys are still discussing 4 v 6 and not getting off on some other tangent.
Carry on !
You have never seen a hot rod Beetle with big wide tires and a big engine sticking out of the back? I thought maybe you were referring to one of those.
If you want to beat me up for asking a question, go ahead. I can take it.