You can't draw parallels between the viability of I4 vs V4 with that of I6 vs V6.
I am not drawing parallels between their viability. I understand viability as "business case", and under current circumstances there is no viability. I am making parallels betewen their technical similarities, that is 1 head vs 2 heads. Deciding between 1 head or 2 heads has never been the main question as far as I am aware. The questions revolved around other factors like chassis layout and engine modularity for example.
The context of the argument in the case of the latter is completely different to that of the former. Just look at the inline six - once a cornerstone of BMW's longitudinal RWD products, the case for its applicability reduced even further with the introduction of the new FWD platform for the 1 Series. But guess what: you see inline fours all the way down the range from a 5 Series...
The reusability of the inline 4 in both longitudinal and transverse applications is its trump card. With the advent of turbocharging we've long seen the disuse of V6 engines in transverse FWD cars to all but a handful.
True. That is context of viability, under current circumstances.
A V4 just isn't versatile enough to justify its complexity to size ratio. That's why the only V4s available to end consumers are in expensive motorcycles.
Indeed, at this point of ICEVs market, V4 is not versatile enough to justify development costs. But I do not understand what is "complexity to size ratio".
Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that a V4 will offer any tangible performance advantages over an I4. There just isn't (and has never been) a cost vs benefit case for a V4 in an automobile.
How can there be any evidence that suggests a V4 will offer any tangible performance advantages over an I4 if their never has been any car made to demonstrate the evidence? It is then the engineer's job to scientifically present them.
I suggest there is a performance advantage. If I mention some, you will bring up all the other factors, which I do not dismiss. But I am not talking about the sum, just one part. Rather than you telling me simply the is none, better to determin in which case. FMR layout? etc...
Then I such said "better". Better can be more than simply performance. Packaging can also be a benefit, which should not be put aside. And tangible? Who decides when it is tangible and when not? That is subjective, depending on the party.
I urge you to read my posts more thoroughly. I take time to construct my statements carefully.
Where did I say that the V4 was "abandoned" (your word not mine) due to the turbo era?
Furthermore, I'll be 50 years old this year and I have never seen a production car with a V4 engine in it.
Why? Because it's not viable. Period.
Now, what have I said that you disagree with, again?
I later gave you an example, you decided to ignore it. V4 has been deemed viable for ZAZ from 1960 till 1994. That is more than 30 years.
Ok, I understand you now; sorry but what you were disagreeing with wasn't clear.
I can certainly appreciate the packaging benefits afforded by the compact construction of a V4 configuration but this would only be a benefit in longitudinal applications where engine length starts to become a factor. A fine example is of the Audi and Subaru types of lengthways powertrain configurations where the engine hangs out ahead of the front differential. The short length of the Boxer engine (no material difference in length over a V4) is an often touted virtue in Subaru's marketing material.
I do not remember Subaru "touting" the short length of the Boxer engine in their marketing material. I do know though, that they "tout" the low center of gravity of the Boxer engine, and that the F4-L layout permits their "touted" Symmetrical AWD, the same one as the AWD 911.
An Audi A4 no doubt would benefit dynamically from a V4 placed in their longitudinal application but the engine would be a one trick pony - completely impractical for use in transverse FWD applications.
I may be bad in comprehension, but as I understand it, you agree there would some dynamical benefit in the one case you use as an example. To you later point, I agree that is it not the best, but I do not find it a trick pony.
With RWD-centric longitudinal layouts such as those in C-Class and 3 Series, the V4 offers no packaging advantage over an I4 because of how the engine is mounted back behind the front axle into the bulkhead. Again, no justification for a V4.
I do not understand why you see no justification. BMW touts in their marketing material [how dare i use your language?] their best in class handling thanks to -- in part -- 50/50 weight distribution achieved by mounting the engine back behind the front axle. On the same chassis, the bigger the engine, the heavier, ans so the car gets nose heavier. Some reviewers (I won't find them so don't ask me) mentioned how the I4 was nose heavy than the I6, thus dynamically "better" (yes, I know there other factors too). "Behind the front axle" has various degrees. For example BMW's I4 in 3 Series if further back then the I4 in Lexus IS. The shorter the engine the further back it is, so in length it is from shortest to longest: V4, V6, I4, I6 (yes, I know we are only talking about the block and not ancillaries). Why would a V4 have no benefit? Not tangible? Again who decides when it is an when it isn't? Oh, and don't bring up the other topics of center of gravity and polar moment of inertia, I know that stuff and it has no relation to the point I make.
Another point I was making is that one can't treat the V4 vs I4 debate in the same context as that of V6 vs I6.
In the case of V6 vs I6, purely due to the extensive use of both in many models, is there merit to an argument over the two.
When it comes to V4 vs I4, the sheer volume of I4 engine applications over the ages vs nearer to zero V4's means there's no argument to be had at all. There simply is exceedingly little rationale for a V4 in an automobile.
Little rational because there have been I4 for decades and the whole production model is based on I4. No argument, it is the way it is. I argument is theoretical and related to technical benefits without consideration of business viability. How many time should I repeat that? In retrospect, V4 could have been just as I4. With transition from ICEVs to BEVs and less and less engine with more than 4 cylinders, I am of the opinion V4 can be reconsidered for certain cases, does not mean any car maker will.
Sweeping statement, you have no facts to back this up. In the transverse FWD application an I4 makes efficient use of the width of an engine bay.
By "striping" componentry in the transverse plane, in the space freed up by an inline engine being mounted sideways, the packaging advantages of the I4 are clear.
Don't take my word for it though. Go ask a certain Sir Alec Issigonis. A V4 - especially your beloved 90° iteration - would afford none of those packaging advantages. It is its own packaging disadvantage.
Indeed, a 90° V4 in FF-T layout is not beneficial at all compared to I4. But in the example you gave above, if instead of I4 that powers everything from 5 Series below, if it was a V4 it still could be made for FF-T layout. I hope you understand I am not expecting FF-T I4 to "just" be replaced by V4, the car has to be designed around the engine.
I do not understand, what should I ask Alex Issigonis?
As for 90° FF-T layout, while not small cars by any means, the Honda Legend and Accord have 90° V6s mounted in FF-T layout. Best idea? No. Doable? Easy. Nothing compared to Lamborghini Miura's RMR-T mounted 60° V12 or Volvo's F4-T mounted 60° V8.
You say this all the time. Those moronic car makers and their denizens of idiotic designers and engineers - you should write them and let them know how you feel.
Or perhaps, before you do, consider that car makers have frequently attempted to innovate within the confines of a certain concept's paradigm.
Look at how VW innovated with the VR6 engine. Those filthy, dirty, lazy motherf#ckers actually went a step beyond the V4 and put a V6 sideways in an engine bay without incurring any of the additional packaging concessions a 60° V6 would. Now, please, before you go and spout off how you think there's nothing special in the very un-lazy undertaking of the narrow-angle V6 by VW, consider first how you need to provide a tangible example of a commercially successful V4 competitor to the VR6. Oh wait... you can't.
Besides the point. You are asking for a commercial example as evidence of benefit. That is a flawed way of approaching the question of V4. Volkswagen has done interesting things, like W8 and W12, makes the new FR layout FlyingSpur the most interesting car in class for me. That now also have RWD BEV now compared to all other lazy carmakers (except Tesla) that pump out FWD BEVs. They even made the fastest Lamborghini RWD. No, I don't have only hate as you try to show.
Not sure what the relevance of the 911 is in this discussion but yes, I do find it idiotic when people in the 21st century refer to it as a Beetle of sorts.
The argument around the virtues of a V4 has nothing to do with the 911's legacy of (way long ago) having its origins in a rear-mounted flat-four concept.
That comparison won't hold water on a car forum of knowledgeable enthusiasts so I don't know why you choose to go off on such tangents.
Ok, you did not get it, no problem, no more that important, the way things turned out. I just tried to unticipate you response, did not work.
Ok, and where is this car now? In fact, where is the Russian car industry? Still no meaningful example of an advantage of a 90° V4.
I bring up the 90° V4. Two questions arise: commercial viability and technical benefit.
You are dishonest and twisting arguments, that is not he behavior of a respected knowledgeable person you claim to be. When I try to explain the benefit (valid or not, meaningful of not), you say there is no viability. When I bring up an example to demonstrate that is possible for a 90° to be viable, you say my example shows no meaningful advantage. Are you serious???
The car sold more than 30 years in Soviet Union. What does Russian car industry today have to do with the that fact a 90° V4 sold in the past? Are you saying if a 90° V4 was that better, Russia would yet a have a car industry? The collapse of the the car industry is due to the collapse of Soviet Union. The ZAZ-965/966/968 successor, which is the ZAZ Tarvia with FF-T water-cooled I4 never saved the Russian car industry. Does that mean I4 is not viable and not beneficial?
Your response was the Holy Grail of Straw Man.
Not too wide for Subaru, it also wasn't too wide for Alfa many years ago.
The engines are mounted in front of the front axle, thus does not intefeer with the steering system.
I beg to differ.
There is something called design philosophy that sets the tone for architectural layout, engine, profile,cost and the economics, etc of a product.
Design philosophy is what creates requirements and constraints envelopes that engineers have to work with. The interesting thing about design philosophy is that for the most part it is a confluence of the customer and corporation.
So I will not say car makers are lazy, stubborn.
Just my two worthless cents.
Of course. When I say that, I say that lightly or with anger, but I understand the underlying principles, that is how the business works. For this reason, knowing whatever position I would get (unlikely to be at the top), I would not be satisfied. So I stopped pursuing the automotive industry when focus was shifting to BEVs and SDVs.
That was totally uncalled for.
If you disagree with his opinions, just leave at that and be respectful. I did not see in that exchange where Martin was disrespectful to you.
I know we have different opinions and that is normal. But he is discussing dishonestly.
drivetribe.com
