“And a 4 will have to work harder to propel the same vehicle than a 6.” Just where in this statment did I mention a VW?
by New '09 A4 Owner
from Phila, PA
on 01/19/2009
Overall 2 stars
Appearance 5 stars
Comfort 4 stars
Performance 2 stars
Value 2 stars
Reliability 2 stars
Trim Reviewed
2.0 T Sedan quattro Tiptronic
ProsGreat looks and superb quattro handling ConsUnderpowered, noisy 2.0T engine New
A great new chassi providing great handling in all-weather condition is compromised by a noisy, underpowered engine. In addition to excessive noise (caused by the new fuel pump assembly), the new engine design appears to present component problems: two water pump failures in the first 12k miles (!!). The '09 A4 confirms the popular notion that no 4-cylinder car should be sold above $30k. This is no exception. Let’s also stop comparing it to the BMW 3-series - truth is Audi has made great progress w/ the A4 but not enough to close the gap w/ the 3-series, not even close…read morehide
Was searching for something else and ran across this. The 6 cyl is the winner. Same weight and similar gas mileage means both are using the same amount of fuel at cruise and generating the same heat energy, but the 6 is distributing that among 6 cylinders, giving lower rpm (less wear) and cooler combustion temperatures per cylinder (less affect on the rings, oil, etc.). Given the same model with a 4 or a 6, we almost always see the 6 last longer (given the same maint and environment). I also agree with the person who suggested the BMW as an alternative in the same class. Long term, it will require less repairs, but you have to go with what you like. You are paying for it and driving it.
I thought this discussion died weeks ago…
you know someone’s just going to disagree and we start all over.
Engineering is more important than the number of cylinders or anything else, so this will NEVER be settled.
Don’t you think the same engineering goes into a 6 as does a 4? Mastertech is 100% correct.
There’s engineering as we all know it.
Then there’s engineering with the corporate bean counters breathing over the engineers’ necks.
And guess who has more say on the actual product that gets built and shipped to customers?
I guess there’s no way to bury a discussion…not to bring facts (as opposed to theory or opinion) into this, but I just looked at about a dozen cars on Consumer Reports that had both 4 and 6 or 6 and 8 cylinder options (Accord, Malibu, Mustang, etc.). There was NO consistent difference in either “engine, major” or “engine, minor” trouble indices for the different engines. Between brands, yes, but for a given car there was no difference. From this I conclude that number of cylinders has no significant effect on longevity. So maybe this thread can pass over…
Amen! Engines are now so well made that they tend to last the life of the car with normal maintenance. So the body will give out in the rust belt long before the 4 cylinder engine wears out.
When buying a European import, though, I would go with the base engine in the home market, and that’s usualy a 4 cylinder for most cars. Most cars exported to the US often have the larger engines because of cheaper gas here. The larger engine will require more gas and more expensive maintenance. But the 4 cylinder may last longer because it received most of the engineering attention in the home market.
To which I agree…loping off or adding two cylinders to an existing motor and calling it engineering because it’s cheaper to do, is engineering for economics not longevity. Some 6’s will last longer, some actually less. Again, it’s the engineering. And who’s to say a chronic head gasket problem in a 6 doesn’t shorten it’s life (later Camry 6’s). Let’s keep stretching this out///
To which I agree…loping off or adding two cylinders to an existing motor and calling it engineering because it’s cheaper to do, is engineering for economics not longevity. Some 6’s will last longer, some actually less. Again, it’s the engineering. And who’s to say a chronic head gasket problem in a 6 doesn’t shorten it’s life (later Camry 6’s). Let’s keep stretching this out///
I think it’s time for a middle of the road opinion. If I find the mean of 6 and 4, I calculate (6 + 4)/2 = 5. Therefore, I think my next vehicle should be a Chevrolet Colorado pick-up with the 5 cylinder engine.
Or an '88 Audi!
Well, Whitey, I went back to one of your “brilliant” statements “With all other factors being equal, a six cylinder engine will weigh more than a four cylinder engine. That extra weight will make the six cylinder engine work harder too. So the lower weight of the four cylinder means it doesn’t have to work as hard”.
“So your assumption (like many assumptions) isn’t based on anything but an unsupported supposition. If I am wrong and you have some kind of proof, please show it”.
If all this is true than we would be better off using a one cylinder Briggs & Stratten engine. They are lighter than most 4 cylinder engines.
–
I just hate to leave this a dead issue when you are so misinformed, example:
a 4 cylinder Accord weighs 3362# at 162# torque. That’s 20# weight to 1# torque
a 6 cylinder Accord weighs 3553# at 254# torque. That’s 14# weight to 1# torque.
And you said that Ford found out that shortening the interval between (sparks) made the engine smoother. Now just how did they do that?
You also said a 4 would warm up faster than a 6 because it had less to warm up. Don’t you know that a 6 has more cylinders (and displacement) firing to help warm it up?
that’s just a few of your, not too smart, posts.