Four cylinder vs six cylinder

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • russc2542

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Oct 24, 2015
    2,127
    83
    Columbus
    As for the 4 vs 6 arguement, remember that the car is a system. Different engines get different gearing too. Slushbox vs manual also matters in the feel. In a car for general car uses, it doesn't matter as much.

    Now, if you're talking trucks and using the truck as a truck (with spark-ignited gasoline engines) displacement > Turbo. In light use (using the truck like you would a car) the turbo-downsize thing works but if you load it down with a trailer or heavy load, the engine no longer cruises at stoich off-boost, it's in boost and runs rich to mitigate cylinder temperatures and knock. It also pushes the engine from the peak efficiency (volumetric and thermal efficiency) toward peak power whereas most larger engines are set up to be in the less efficient but lower rpm range to cruise and towing puts them at peak torque (higher volumetric and thermal efficiency). Of course all of this is very general and varies on a case-by-case basis. If you go big enough non-turbo it'll never be efficient.

    Being Honda,I am sure they know what they are doing.For the turbo guys,you should probably unhook the coil after a oil change,crank it till the oil pressure comes up,and rehook up the coil,so as to not start it with a dry turbo.Those rpms could prematurely kill the bearings....jmo

    :D :D :D You obviously haven't looked under the hood of a modern car. There is no such thing as a coil per say anymore. :D :D :D

    But you are correct that after an oil change it is not a bad idea to try to spin the engine without firing to get the oil pressure up. On the other hand, there are some engines that have check valves in the oil system to maintain pressure so that at fire up you already have some oil pressure for early lube.


    Not really necessary with newer engines, smaller filters, and thinner spec oils. Dry starts from oil changes are one of those things engines are tested to endure. On startup and idle, turbos only spin a few hundred rpm and the residual oil in the system is more than enough to prevent damage.

    If you're that worried about it this'll really make your eye twitch: you're doing more damage unplugging the ignition. You're injecting fuel without igniting it so you get blowby diluting your new oil as well as dumping raw fuel down the exhaust. You should be disabling fuel injection, not ignition if you want to prevent problems.
     
    Last edited:

    Route 45

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Dec 5, 2015
    15,096
    113
    Indy
    Don't know about Honda but Ford is all over the relatively small displacement turbo engines with their Ecoboost engines. Look at their website for info on the turbo 4 cylinder in the Mustang. Around 300 HP IIRC. My 2015 F150 has the 2.7 liter Ecoboost V6. 325 HP, 375 lb/ft, getting 22 mpg around town. Turbo lag is a thing of the past. Drive that Honda before you make a decision. No doubt they are keeping up.

    I used to own a 2011 Ford Mustang Premium with the 300+ hp 3.7 V6. I test drove a new Ecoboost Mustang a few months ago. Ignoring financials, I would not have traded my V6 for that turbo 4-banger. It just didn't feel or sound right.

    This is specific to the type of car, though, where you expect an entire experience and not just a 0-60 time on paper. The acceleration character, the engine note, etc. I'm sure a turbo 4 in a commuter car like an Accord will be just fine for most.

    I'm not a mechanic, but it seems to me that a naturally aspirated larger engine would be more durable over the long haul. Is that not true anymore? Ford's Ecoboost engines have been out for a while, how are they holding up?
     

    russc2542

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Oct 24, 2015
    2,127
    83
    Columbus
    I used to own a 2011 Ford Mustang Premium with the 300+ hp 3.7 V6. I test drove a new Ecoboost Mustang a few months ago. Ignoring financials, I would not have traded my V6 for that turbo 4-banger. It just didn't feel or sound right.

    This is specific to the type of car, though, where you expect an entire experience and not just a 0-60 time on paper. The acceleration character, the engine note, etc. I'm sure a turbo 4 in a commuter car like an Accord will be just fine for most.

    I'm not a mechanic, but it seems to me that a naturally aspirated larger engine would be more durable over the long haul. Is that not true anymore? Ford's Ecoboost engines have been out for a while, how are they holding up?

    While turbo engines do have slightly higher standards of maintenance (usually less tolerant of cheap oil and long oil change intervals) and a few more parts to fail, we're at the point in engineering (mechanical, materials, fluid, controls) that it matters a lot more how they're cared for. Really, a turbo 4 probably has fewer]/i] parts than a DOHC V8.

    Either one can outlast the car's body and other systems if even halfway decently cared for. I agree, it's about the whole package and intended use. A friend of mine is a big ford guy with a driveway full of old V8s (also has family with both v8 and ecoboost v6 F150s hence my comments on the problems there) but recently bought a 6-sp turbo-4 mustang and likes it a lot. doesn't work in the truck, does work in the car.

    Personally I prefer a V-twin! My Honda Goldwing with a 6 cylinder sounds land a da**ed Accord:xmad:

    You need different mufflers. Only sounds like an Accord because both are so quiet. When you can hear it, an H6 has a different beat from a V6. Hardley v-twins, not so much. Ducati V-twins oooohh yeaaaa.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    Just read that this is the last year Honda will offer a V-6 in the Accord. I am on my second Accord with a V-6 and love it. It has serious speed when needed. Now, all they will offer appears to be a 1.5 liter four with a turbocharger. No info on 0-60 time, etc. Not an engineer but I figure a smaller displacement engine has to work harder to do the same thing a larger displacement engine has to. The saying used to be: "there is no substitute for cubic inches". Is that no longer true? Does a turbocharger really make up for the lack of displacement all thing being equal? Honda says only ten percent of Accords are V-6. That still seems like a whole lot of cars whose owners (me included) will consider other brands the next time around.

    I think the whole move to the four cylinder turbocharged engine is driven by the ridiculous Obama regulations on fuel economy. From memory, I think that clown demanded 54 mpg by 2025.

    If you aren't a driving enthusiast and don't know or care how much power is under the hood, God love you. For me, I want the performance. Many times, the ability to accelerate out of a problem has helped me.

    How do the rest of you feel about this trend?

    For the question that hasn't really been answered: You get more power from having more air molecules and fuel molecules meet at the right ratio for efficient combustion. Cramming in fuel is easy. Cramming in more air can be done two basic ways: More volume into which the air is drawn or by compressing the air, which is how a turbo gets more power out of fewer cubes.
     
    Top Bottom