• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

YACT: How many cylinders do you prefer?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
well i drove 4 cylinders for about 8 years.

Now I drive an 8 cylinder and would never think about down grading.

eyeing a v-12 or turbo charged v-8 in the future when i can afford it.
 
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
8, for the lazy power, the sound, and the fact that the ford 4.6 is a wonderfully easy motor to maintain.
Click to expand...
While I love, love, love the Ford modular engines and the smoothness of the 4.6, I have to say that I still prefer the little buzzy turbo 4 in the 951. The turbo surge is addicting. The half-second reaction time for the turbine to spool is strangely fun as well. (That and I can get 30 mpg at 65 with the 951. Not bad for 275 RWHP.)

ZV
 
6.0L 400hp LS2 V8 FTW!

(And it now has a set of JBA shorty headers and Corsa exhaust, so in the general badassery department, my car now goes to eleven.)
 
my truck has 6 and i wouldnt mind if it had 8, wheelin in deep snow you need all the power you can get

and it already gets 15 mpg so it cant get much worse
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
6.0L 400hp LS2 V8 FTW!

(And it now has a set of JBA shorty headers and Corsa exhaust, so in the general badassery department, my car now goes to eleven.)
Click to expand...

Pontiac Monaro? 😛
 
Both of our vehicles have trailer hitches which are used frequently (at least once a week) - 4 cyl vehicle wouldn't be able to handle it.
 
The number of cylinders and their configuration has nothing to do with peak power and torque, but with smoothness and power delivery. In other words, it's all about NVH.

The most absolutely ideal configuration for use in automobiles is the inline-6 (or V-12, which is two I-6's put together). It is the smoothest and strongest.
That is followed by any horizontally-opposed configuration, then any flat-plane V configuration, followed by a cross-plane V but a V-6, then any V-6, then the I-4 (the last 2 are chosen solely for their compact packages), and lastly any configuration with an odd number of pistons or less than 4 pistons.
 
I prefer durable engines, and I believe that each engine has it's purpose.

I've owned several four cylinder engines (between 1.9 and 2.5 liters), I've owned several V6s, one inline six, and two V8s.

I guess the question comes down to whether I want a buzzy engine or to feel like I have lots of lazy power.
If a four cylinder has nice output and is mated to a transmission with proper gear ratios, it can be just fine in a mid sized sedan.
I love a 6 cylinder in a mid-sized sedan though just for the power.

 
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
What if I like rotary engines? What do I choose then? 🙂
Click to expand...
The most common form of rotary engine, the twin-rotor, is equivalent to a piston engine V-12 insofar as they both fire 6 times per revolution with virtually no unbalancing forces. The rotary also has the advantage of an extremely compact package. Unfortunately, they are very inefficient and unreliable.
Yes, yes, I know wankel fans think their rotaries are efficient. They are not. For example, Mazda rotaries are not really 1.3 liters. That's cheating to say so, because it uses total displacement like a piston engine while forgetting that the same volume is simultaneously in use by the 3 sides of each rotor, which makes the effective size is actually 3.9 liters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top