i know there are V6, V8, V10...... V20 engines..

but do V2 and V4 engines exist? i've never heard of it or heard anyone talk about it, as far as i know, anything below 6 cylinders (for a car) is an inline4 engine (yes i know there's also inline6..but not the point)

my dad says there are many cars all over europe with V4 engines. if so, why aren't there any in the US?

Inlines last longer. And motorcycles might have a variation of a v2. I thought they were called twins, but we'll see.

The Geo Metro had a 3 cyclinder engine.

Also, the VW Jetta has a 5 cylinder:
http://cars.about.com/od/volkswagen/ss/ag_05jetta_gall_7.htm


V-Engine configurations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_engine

V2 and V4 engines DO exist, my country is full of 'em almost all japan cars have a V4 engine (at least all 2000 and below). Why doesn't northamerica has? Dunno

you sure it aint an i4?

i think you're right on that..

so it seems that they do exist, but now i need to find out why they don't sell/make/import them here.

WTH there's no such thing as V4 because the cylinders of a four-cylinder car aren't shaped in a "V" (anymore, the wikipedia article said it did until the 60's

There are 'V-2' in motorcycles, better known as twits. (Harley Davidson, Ducatis) and a few V-4s in motorcycles (Honda Interceptor is the only one I know of off the top of my head). Honda's RC211V MotoGP bike is a V-5.

But V-4s don't make enough power to justify the cost of mass producing them. You can get more power out of an inline 4 and with an inline 4 you only have to make 1 cylinder head and whatnot.

make sence?

great, thats what i wanted to read.. i just won myself a $50 bet

Wait. I thought most cars were stock with a V4?

nope..

i did some more research.. looks like Ford was still producing V4 engines until the late 80's.. they have these cargo vans, i don't know the model name, but they're running on V4 engines..

and they simply don't use them now since they are not reliable and very low in power.. a 1700cc V4 only produces about 68HP.. while an inline4 1700cc produces.. what? 130HP??


and just looking at pictures of a V4.. it just looks cheap and weak.. like an oversized lawn mower engine.

Also: Inline sixes have more torque, so most suvs will stray away from the v-6.

Piston configuration does not has as much to do with torque as displacement does. An inline-6 and a V-6 with similar displacement and similar amounts of technology will produce very similar torque numbers. Just for illustration purposes, I'll give some figures below.
BMW 3.0 I6: 220lb-ft
Honda 3.0 V6: 211lb-ft
Now for the SUV engine comparison...
GM 4.2 I6: 277lb-ft
Nissan 4.0 V6: 291lb-ft

Doesn't make sense to me at all...
Let's wind back to 1963 when 100bhp was a lot in a European family saloon.
Lancia (who produced the first V engines) had a V4 engine that in 1.1 form made 60bhp, and later 70bhp. That's pretty good for a modern 1.1 car, let alone a 40 year old one.
In 1.6 form it put out a very healthy 135bhp. That's a lot even today - 85bhp / litre.
So, V4's can put out as much power as an inline 4. (For comparison, the contemporary European (Ford) Lotus Cortina put out 105bhp from a 1.6, and it was classed as a performance car in it's day)

V2's are also known as V-Twins and are common in bikes.

Unless Nissan, Toyota, Honda and the lot all engineered totally different engine lines for NA and Japan, you have I-4s also.

The reason there aren't (many) V-4s is that an inline cylinder engine is inherently smoother and more stable (and hence more reliable in the long run) than a V-configuration. So whenever, possible (read: whenever space permits), manufacturers use an inline engine. Most cars, however, don't have the space for an inline-6 unless it's very precisely engineered (BMW, Porsche), and they don't want to spend the money/time so they stick a V-6 in there. V-configurations -- and VW's new "W" configuration -- are all more compact than inlines.

So in short, given the space it's better to use an inline-cylinder engine. Which is why you always see inline-4s.

There is V4s but are now uncommon, They had them in old classic cars in the 1900 - 1960 really.
The reason why some cars use a V instead of an inline is to do with vibrations. Sometimes if there is space and you want alot of power a V would be better as it more balanced and stress on the engine isn't as high.

Small cars normaly have 3 cylinders family cars have 4 cylinders. 4x4 will normaly use both on differnt version. More powerful versions are normaly V6's

You're incorrect. Inline engines are smoother and with less vibration, but they take up more space than a V. BMW has used inline 6 engines for ages, as has Porsche, and now GM is starting to use them in some SUVs. They're generally better than V-6s, but as I said take more space and therefore require more careful engineering to package correctly.



That may be true for the UK/EU, but the original poster is from the US and we have almost no 3-cylinder cars (can't think of a single one that's still sold here, actually), and 4-cylinder cars are only the smallest of the small. Most family cars here are V6's. And there's not a whole lot of 4-cylinder SUVs here that anyone would actually buy. The least an SUV here needs is usually a 6, more commonly an 8. Not that I condone our buying habits, I'm just informing.

EDIT: for clarity, I should add that Porsche actually uses what some consider a variant of the inline, called the flat-6. The cylinders are horizontally opposed.

I dont know why people are saying 4 cylinders are uncommon, there are plenty of them around.

The '90 something Corsica I drove was a 4 cylinder. So was my parents hunk of crap Taurus, and so is my dads Truck....4 cylinder truck.....why.....WHY?!

A flat 6 (or flat 4/8/12) as in the Boxster, Cayman and Carrera is actually a V6 engine, not an inline-6.
It just happens to be a very wide angle V6 (180 degrees, as opposed to the more common 60 or 90 degree angles of a regular V)

The only inline engines used by Porsche were in the 924, 944 and 968 inline-4's

That makes sense. Like I said, I've heard some people call them inline-6s before but I supposed that's incorrect.

4-Cylinders are common... V4's aren't.

I've driven a ton of 4-Cylinders... each very different. I've had some very fast I4's that could run circles with other v6 cars and heavy cars that use v8's. Then I've had I4's that were sooo slow. Upsettingly slow. Right now I'm stuck with a fuel eating gas guzzler 3.5 v6.

the boxer shares similarities with both inline and v engines, the pistons crank in the same axis as a inline (albiet half do it the other way) but in the same way as a v engine they have separate cam gear and intake/exhaust.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but a flat 4 or 6 in not a V engine. That's like saying an inline 6 is a very narrow V6. A V is so named because the 2 banks of cylinders form a V shape when viewed from the front. A flat engine, also called a horizontally opposed engine is a different configuration, just like V engines and inline engines are different configurations.

I have a 1996 Ford Thunderbird with a V8 4.6L 240HP and a 1993 Thunderbird with a 3.8L V6 150HP and also an 2004 F-150 with a 4.6L V8 at 250HP My friend has SVT Mustang Cobra R with about 400HP (Now back on topic. I think the 2 Cyl would be in a Motorcycle it it resembles a V2 the V4 is in the Mini Cooper)

^Your friend has a Cobra R!

Wow! some of you know a lot about cars

Don't forget VW's "VR6" configuration (15 degree V). Exceptionally compact, it was the only way they could cram a 6 cylinder into the old Golfs. And they're almost as smooth inline 6s.

The Mini has an inline-4 (both the current one and the classic one)

Honda Insight

BMW and Porsche have always used rear-wheel drive where engine packaging isn't as big of a concern. They never had to compromise with a V6.

And what about before the 80s, when almost all cars were rear-wheel drive? Did American cars have I-6s then? Not exactly. Having the front wheels doing the driving doesn't take up hardly any additional space in the front of the car. And there's plenty of 4WD or AWD cars that have inline sixes -- the BMW 325xi and 330xi, the 530xi, the new Chevy Trailblazers or whatever they're calling them now...and they all have to have the mechanics to drive the front wheels as well.

Actually, yes. Inline sixes were very common in American cars before the 80's. And yes, FWD does take up a lot of room in the front of a car. That is why the vast majority of FWD cars have either a V6 or an I4. Also, the 4WD and AWD vehicles that you mention have complex and expensive drivetrains. It is not as easy to package, so they cost more.

Omg dude, how old are you?


YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF A 4CYL car!?!??!

uhh...what's wrong with his question? Perfectly good quesiton...

Yea, Honda does make a sport bike (RC-51) that's a Twin (V-2). It sounds nicer...hahah

They make some Geo's that are inline 3 cylinder, but I've never seen a V-4 around.

Here's question...can you get higher RPM with I4 then V6 or V8 (or just the "V" configuration in general)?

Engine size will effect how many RPMs your able to crank out per minute, but if they're both displaceing the same amount, does the configuration alter that? Thanks :-)

The BMW IX (not XI) as far back as the e30 models (80somthing to 92) was a AWD car. But the reason they used the I-6 was because it would be retarded for them to re-engineer everything because of the addition of front 2 wheel drive.

The e30 IX's used the same m20b25 as the post facelift (1988) BMW's used mostly the same suspension as well as the same basic body frame.

Also the 1954 Vette was an inline 6. Chevy didnt start using V6 untill 1955. The 1972 Ford mustang was an I6 as well. as where many many more cars before the 80's.

i'm am pleasantly suprised by the intelligent comments made on here. i thought i was gonna have to come on here and argue with people lol. nice job neowin.

I'm asking you the same thing. That was an immature post from an immature person. If you have nothing useful to say then don't post.





Nothing wrong with the question at all. The person was being immature and wanted to imply that they know all there is to know about cars, but didn't even bother to try answering the question.

Neither will I, but I hate when people want to post things to make others feel stupid.

There are two main types of flat engine:
* The boxer engine, also known as a horizontally opposed engine, in which the corresponding pistons reach top dead centre similtaneously, thus balancing each other with respect to momentum. Flat engines with four or fewer cylinders are most commonly boxer engines.
* The 180° V engine, in which corresponding pistons share a crank pin, and thus each will reach top dead centre half a crankshaft revolution after the other. Flat engines with more than six cylinders are most commonly V engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_engine

Well, blow me down. I learned something today. I've never heard of the 180 ° V configuration. All of the flat engines I've ever seen were horizontally opposed.
It is worth noting, however, that the majority of flat engines are boxers and cannot be referred to as V's. And is it really true that the Carrera's flat 6 is not a horizontally opposed engine?

The Carrera engine is actually a boxer (I only learnt the difference when I found that article - I assumed that all flat engines were 180° V's).
Things like the Testarossa and other flat engined Ferraris had 180° V12's

Ok, I'm going to motorcycles as an example here..

1000cc sport bikes are either V-twins or inline fours. Inline 4s rev into the 12,000RPMs or somewhere around there, it might be less. V-twins go rev up to about 10,000rpm or so. This is becuase the bore and stroke are larger on the v-twin becuase there are only 2 cyclinders to make 1000cc.

Now when this comes to V-6s and V-8s compared to Inline 4, i'm not really sure. You don't normaly see inline 4s or 6s go over 3 liters in displacement, and most V engines are larger, 4 liters and up. The smaller engines are able to rev higher, and the larger engines arn't able to

I think I am making a little bit of sence..?

I don't think the limitation is so much the design (v or i) or overall displacement of the engine, but the sizes of the pistons and the length of their stroke.

A few examples:

A small engine, with small pistons and a short stroke is going to have no problem doing high rpm's. Case in point...R/C car engines. They have one very small piston and will do [42,000 rpm.

In the case of Indianapolis Racecars, they have 3.5 liter V8 engines, making about 800 hp. These are designed for long periods of high rpm usage, with a subsequent rebuild. They are probably going to have a short stoke and small cylinders, as well, as they can hit about 10,000rpm.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the diesels you find in large trucks. These commonly have an inline 6 cylinder, with about 12 liters of displacement. They are designed for massive quantities of torque (1200 ft lbs and up), with not a whole lot of horsepower (300-600 or so). They have gigantic pistons ( think coffee can), and very long strokes to give them these numbers. They tend to redline around 3000 rpm.

So, it seems to me that it boils down to size, as there is only so much weight an engine can throw around back and forth with the pistons so fast, and the smaller the piston is, the faster it can do so.

Perfect! I kinda hinted at that with my I4 and V-twin comparison. It all comes down to bore/stroke

You guys are right on. Long strokes are the real killer for high RPMs. With a longer stroke the piston has to travel further with each revolution, meaning it has to travel faster. When you think about it, each piston has to stop and change direction twice for each revolution. That's 10000 times per minute at 5000 RPM. This is harder to do with higher piston velocities. The trade off is that longer strokes give you higher torque. Because the crank has a longer stroke, it gives the connecting rod and piston a bigger mechanical advantage.

there is a car that is 669cc, yet has 100bhp. heh, i think that equates to 133hp/litre.

yeppp they sure do...anything under V6, is known as inline-4 or what ever... or I-4

Hi. Welcome to the thread. If that was an answer to the original poster, I invite you to read the last three pages of discussion.

i'm sure daimler invented the v-engine... wasnt it a revoloutionary four stroke two cylinder motor?

Read the ****ing thread...

There are plenty of I4's... v4's though... thats another story.

i dunno, i didnt even know that that sort of engine existed, wouldnt a V4 take up more room and produce less power. i mean whacking a turbo on one would be a hard job i would imagine, and because you still only have 4 cylinders there is no point.

its only a v8 and v10 because you cant really have a straight 8 or 10 withtout having a massive bonnet, plus the center of gravity will be a bit buggered.

They put four cylinders in an inline configuration now adays. This is because four cylinders cannot balance each other well enough in a v formation so the car rattles and vibrates pretty horrible. They now put four or fewer cylinders in an inline configuration this reduces shake and vibration and increases comfort. Has little to nothing to do with power output seeing as both configurations could have the exact same bore size, etc. Also less shake equates to a longer lasting engine seeing as it takes less direct wear and tear.