"Under-sized" engines are not inherently bad.

[-]

GeneralCommand4459@reddit

In Europe a lot of people start out their driving life in a 1 litre economy car and then when their insurance and license allows they might move up to a 1.5ltr, like a VW Golf manual. When I was growing up a 2ltr engine in anything was considered a performance car.

A lot of the reason for the trend of smaller engines is the tax system. Up until taxing moved to emissions the yearly car tax on a 2ltr was almost 1000 euros, every year. So if you kept your car for 10 years you paid an additional 10k in tax and that was on top of the original 30+% sales and registration tax at the time of purchase.

Even now after years of driving my insurance bumped up by 30% because I bought a 2.5ltr hybrid SUV.

All of which is to say lots of places have had small displacement cars for decades often due to tax based on engine size and when that is all that is available you learn to enjoy it, even if from a car persons point of view you'd like to experience some more displacement.

[-]

aaayyyuuussshhh@reddit

Does insurance factor in HP and if it's a turbo or not? A 2.0 no turbo vs a 2.0 with turbo can have like a 200hp difference

[-]

GeneralCommand4459@reddit

Well if the car is taxed based on engine size it's 1800 a year for anything above 3ltr.

Newer cars are taxed based on emissions and the top rate of that is 2400 a year.

For both of them you pay this amount every year for the lifetime of the car.

[-]

aaayyyuuussshhh@reddit

Wow. At least it's capped at 1800/2400 or whatever...

[-]

ManBearKwik@reddit

I moved from 3.5L V6 to 1.0 in my small European SUV and it’s just… OK. It runs better than one of the 1.6 I had and is much quieter and has torque available from very beginning. I do like it!

[-]

Open-Struggle-153@reddit

4 cylinders are nice in certain cars, inline 5 and six is even a nice layout. But v6 shouldn't exist. They are too large and impractical and don't sound good. V8 should be kept around for sound alone and because V8 pushes engine technology making factory 4s better every year.

[-]

They’re also built with far better materials and maintained religiously. Those are two things that don’t happen in the consumer market anymore.

Commercial buyers aren’t brand loyal, so they aren’t afraid to drop a supplier in the snap of a finger if they’re dissatisfied. Therefore, the market is much more competitive.

[-]

velociraptorfarmer@reddit

Used to own a 5.0L F-150 and a 2.7L F-150 for towing a boat. The 2.7L was the better towing motor of the 2 by a fucking mile.

[-]

Astramael@reddit

This is correct. There’s no issue with being underpowered or working hard, so long as vehicles are designed for those loads and duty cycles.

[-]

AWD and ground clearance for getting around in the winters in rural Wisconsin (i had to tow my wife's Fusion out of the neighborhood multiple times before we got this), and the upright seating position is infinitely more comfortable than the low, car-style seating position in our opinions.

[-]

OverallCandle5102@reddit

but a Subaru Outback has better AWD, and just as good ground clearance.

And maybe ur right i care about speed, handling, and MPG (hence why i have a bmw coupe) but most people see a car as an appliance nothing else.

I would love a truck but the MPG is so shite, cannot wait until we get real hybrid trucks with good torque.

[-]

velociraptorfarmer@reddit

The Outback is also 20" longer and 3" wider

[-]

And that’s exactly what VW does with the EA888 in the Atlas. Only option now since they struck the V6. A 2.0T with ~270HP for a 4600lb car that also can tow up to 5000lbs. The EA is a bad ass though. Although not super fast, 25 mpg from a car that large is impressive. I’d be curious to hear how they’re doing long-term in reliability in this application given the Atlas has only been in production for about 6 years.

[-]

Bombaysbreakfastclub@reddit

The EA888 in my opinion in the best corporate 4 cylinder engine out there.

[-]

JournalistExpress292@reddit

Till the water pump goes out

[-]

Bombaysbreakfastclub@reddit

I don’t believe that’s an issue with the 3rd version

But I just read shit in here so I don’t really know

[-]

JournalistExpress292@reddit

I would like to believe you because the EA888 is a fantastic engine performance and efficiency wise

[-]

AmNoSuperSand52@reddit

I was gonna say if any 2.0L turbo is able to haul a 3 row SUV with a towing capacity, it’s the triple-8

[-]

H4RZ3RK4S3@reddit

I remember the first two generations to have quite some issues, but the last two have been solid so far. Now, that VW has learned how to build proper down-sized engines, they need to learn how to write good software haha.

[-]

capncanuck1@reddit

Ime at Enterprise they got closer to 20 ish.

Rule 3: "No memes, trolling, copypasta, or low-quality joke posts or comments."

biggersjw@reddit

If it says “ecoboost” just move on unless you like spending money.

As to the original question, its dependent on the weight of the vehicle as compared to the engine. If the weight makes the engine strain at a higher frequency rate, then the engine will fail more frequently. Having to use turbos also puts a strain on an engine. Couple a underpowered engine with turbos on a heavy vehicle and its just dumb.

[-]

Realpotato76@reddit

The 1.6L ecoboost doesn’t have a plastic oil pan

[-]

Mediocre-Cat-Food@reddit

They’re different complaints, my bad. Plastic oil pans in general, and the ecoboosts endless list of issues

[-]

yourlocalFSDO@reddit

ecoboosts endless list of issues

You want to list some of those issues? The 1.6 is known as a pretty reliable engine from what I understand

[-]

but here we have plenty of cheap to maintain cars around

for example we have all the shitty cheap bmw variants here that never went to US or other markets

and there is a lot of junkyard and aftermarket parts for them

also some of this european cars have interchangable parts between different models and brands so with a litlle of research you can find cheaper solutions or backyard hacks

[-]

JewHateUs@reddit

So weird, I don’t know anyone who has bought a Mercedes in the last 25 years whos had anything but amazing reliability. They just work. Too bad the styling has dropped off so badly.

[-]

diamon1889@reddit

"shitty cheap BMW variants"
114/116/216/316 moment

This is simply not true. In 2003, the J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) showed an industry average of 273 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) within the first three years of ownership. By 2023, this rate improved significantly, with an average of 186 PP100.

Your next argument is going to be that this only covers the first 3 years, but the first 3 years is a good indicator of what the next 10-15 years will you like.

Cars have gotten more complex, but they also got more reliable at the same time.

[-]

Outrageous_Fig_9565@reddit

Most turbos end up going out around the 100k mile mark. It's difficult to design something that spins at 100k rpms that can last much longer.

Turbos are not cheap to replace. On a lot of these cheap appliance cars, the repair can be nearly the cost of a new engine.

Whereas a well-built NA V6 can easily go 300k miles without repairs of that size. Timing chains + belts are going to be a maintenence item in both cases, so not really any argument there.

Reliability in 3 years is absolutely not an indication of how a car will last over 10-15 years. It almost has no correlation

Cars are becoming disposable. They're so complicated to repair that by the 100k mile mark you're usually better off selling them and getting a new one. Which is not at all what I'd call reliable.

Compare that to a V6 honda accord which can last for 300k miles with basic oil changes and periodic timing chain repairs. The cost over 10 years isn't even a comparison.

[-]

Hrmerder@reddit

Absolutely untrue. The first 3 years of neglect or non neglect from the owner will see out the next 10-15 years, but there are many examples (Ford Ecosport, Kia Soul, etc) where it's designed to only really outlast the first 3-5 years, and then it goes to shit from there depending on some things like climate, age, and mileage. They are built to a price with reliability only in the drivers seat until it's not as much of a manufacturer liability. More complexity absolutely does not equal more reliability either. Yes, more effective QC is required upon building more complex systems, which means they are built better from factory than before but when it does break, it's exponentially more expensive to replace, and at that manufacturers are pushing 3rd party parts manufacturers out of the way as fast as they can.. Hell even some Chevy's now you can't just replace a battery or a headlight without going to the dealer to clear a code it creates that only the dealer scantool can clear... It's insane.

[-]

Outrageous_Fig_9565@reddit

Most turbos end up going out around the 100k mile mark. It's difficult to design something that spins at 100k rpms that can last much longer.

Turbos are not cheap to replace. On a lot of these cheap appliance cars, the repair can be nearly the cost of a new engine.

Whereas a well-built NA V6 can easily go 300k miles without repairs of that size. Timing chains + belts are going to be a maintenence item in both cases, so not really any argument there.

Reliability in 3 years is absolutely not an indication of how a car will last over 10-15 years. It almost has no correlation

Cars are becoming disposable. They're so complicated to repair that by the 100k mile mark you're usually better off selling them and getting a new one. Which is not at all what I'd call reliable

Compare that to a V6 honda accord which can last for 300k miles with basic oil changes and periodic timing chain repairs. The cost over 10 years is incomparable.

[-]

Dull-Fisherman2033@reddit

If the car was neglected would that really be a manufacturer issue?

[-]

hi_im_bored13@reddit

The argument is usually that it’s easier to neglect modern cars because of the complexity and cost of maintenance.

Now personally I don’t agree, but it’s something worth considering

[-]

Dull-Fisherman2033@reddit

Degrades faster with neglect due to complexity. Makes sense, thanks for sharing.

[-]

In 2003.. yeah let me stop you there. Whatever that data shows 20 years ago is NOT true now.

[-]

bmessina@reddit

Not sure what numbers your quoting so I checked it out myself. I picked, for Volvo, the years 2010 and 2020. I did this because in between those years is when they changed strategies to only use the 2.0L engine with various power adders (turbo, etc).

In 2010 the "PP100" was 109, they were actually pretty well ranked. In 2020, 4 years after the launch of the more complex drivetrains, the PP100 was 185.

[-]

Dragon1us@reddit

JD power is absolutely not a reliable resource for any sort of statistics

[-]

The_GeneralsPin@reddit

Somebody hasn't learned about planned obsolescence

[-]

Hop-Dizzle-Drizzle@reddit

They may be more reliable in some ways. But a turbocharger system is eventually going to have issues that a simple intake tube will never have.

There are simply more complex components that will require service at some point. Service intervals and overall engine life may be longer. But the issues with an old sluggish pushrod engine are likely to be less severe and simpler to repair.

I think the overall need for service may be less, but the potential variety and complexity of eventual issues is off putting to some. Especially people who DIY a lot of simpler issues common in older vehicles.

[-]

Drone30389@reddit

In 2003, the J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) showed an industry average of 273 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) within the first three years of ownership. By 2023, this rate improved significantly, with an average of 186 PP100.

Do they give any indication of the severity of those problems? I'd rather have 273 rattles than 180 rattles and 6 dead engines.

[-]

wetchuckles@reddit

They also have to work much harder. A little 1.something turbo engine moving a 4000lbs+ sedan or SUV is going to be much more strained than a larger engine.

[-]

eirexe@reddit

All of them fixable by retrofitting quality aftermarket parts if available and done before the engine blew up.

Royal_Thrashing@reddit

Agree with that second portion.

I'd like to know the cost vs. benefit of disposable vehicles compared to older vehicles, or newer vehicles but built to a higher standard (thinking W123 or W124 quality), while taking into consideration the cost and pollution of disposing or crushing short lifespan vehicles and parts. And the impact of disposing pure waste and pollution associated with it, or as part of the recycling process, and comparing it to a vehicle with a long, usable lifespan with high quality replaceable parts, one that makes better sense to repair over years of use.

smaller engines are inherently more complex in order to meet or exceed the power levels of the larger engines

Serious question - why is this the case? w/ an I4 vs a V6, there are 50% fewer pistons, rods, crank bearings, 1 head instead of 2 (with all the associated timing), and pretty much the same computer, cooling, lubrication, electrical, etc systems in terms of complexity. Does adding a turbo really add that much more complexity to the system?

[-]

Dragon1us@reddit

Yes. Yes it does. That and the individual components are under much more stress due to forced induction

[-]

bmessina@reddit

By smaller I meant displacement not cylinder count, otherwise I would agree with you.

I have a perfect example at home. I drive a car with a 6 liter that makes about 400 horsepower. My wife drives a car with a 3 liter that makes about 400 horsepower, but hers has two turbochargers. These are stock power figures, no shenanigans.

unnecessary to you

i started with a compact 4x4 but now need to move to mid-size

I already have compact camping gear but add in kids and a dog..ye no

[-]

Dragon1us@reddit

Unnecessary to a large portion of drivers on the road; you might have a use for it but a LOT don't. And it's not even their fault to be fair; manufacturers are incentivized to push for more SUV and similar large vehicles due to less strict emission/mpg laws.

[-]

srsbsnssss@reddit

how do you know a lot don't?

have you surveyed most drivers? or just a wild guess by a single snapshot as you drive by them

[-]

Dragon1us@reddit

Have you paid attention to people on the road? I don't need a data survey to see a significant portion of people driving SUVs as the only person in the car, or trucks with absolutely pristine beds that have never seen a load. Don't get me wrong, I'm not even saying I disagree with it since that'd be hypocritical of me. I have a truck, and although it does see actual use, I don't use it that way all THAT often. But I have other reasons for owning it, much like you have reasons for moving up to a midsize. But it's a pretty widely accepted thing that a lot of people do not need as large of a vehicle as they do

[-]

srsbsnssss@reddit

you're jumping to conclusions based on the split second of witness behind glass and metal

[-]

Dragon1us@reddit

And I could say the same to you, you're jumping to conclusions that since you need the space then everyone else does too. I know for a fact through plenty of people that I know that they do NOT need as large of a vehicle as they do. Friends, family, neighbors, coworkers. Just so we're clear I'm by no means saying nobody needs em, but there's no way you can deny that there are plenty of people who do not. I'm not gonna bother arguing this any more with you

[-]

srsbsnssss@reddit

WHAT when did i say they do or don't?

i didn't judge anyone in my examples...

your friends family coworkers is not the sample representation of everyone on the road in the country/region

[-]

nicerakc@reddit

Not really. I have the ford 2.7 l V6. Just towed 8000lbs around for a few hours and it handled it like a champ. RPMs stayed below 2k.

[-]

velociraptorfarmer@reddit

Agreed. I've owned 2.7L and 5.0L F-150s, and the 2.7L was the better towing motor by a fucking mile. The 5.0L had to have its neck wrung to make any torque to get going with a load.

[-]

randeus@reddit

Agreed.

[-]

thesalo@reddit

Hit me right in the feels man. Would take thousands in power add-ons for this fuddy duddy to get more from his V8...meanwhile M2Boyz are doin downpipes and tuned and getting big HPs!

[-]

Tuxedo_Muffin@reddit

Dodge might change minds if the Hurricane is as good as they say. I hope so!

[-]

Vhozite@reddit

On paper the Hurricane should be the American B58. Both are closed deck, water cooled, turbo, 3.0L inline 6’s making a ton of power. They are putting in a bunch of vehicles so hopefully it’s not a complete heap.

[-]

FrankReynoldsCPA@reddit

I chose both.

I have a V8 in my F-150 and it's fantastic.

I have a turbo-charged I6 in my BMW and it's a riot.

[-]

srsbsnssss@reddit

3-3.5L is not a MASSIVE engine

it's the right amount for a mid-size esp when laden

[-]

Captain_Alaska@reddit

It is for a European econobox lol. My Octavia is a midsized wagon and the base engine in Europe was a 1.2L turbo for my generation. Even if you were to upsize into the Superb it got a 1.4T with the largest engine being a 2L.

[-]

srsbsnssss@reddit

i6 v6 is a good balance between power and efficiency

i have no interest in force-induction

I believe the ford 4cyl in that era was incredibly reliable though, It was great in the FoST and the FiST, Ford just made a terrible decision putting it in a 3600lb sedan.

Focus was a 2.0L, Fiesta was 1.6.

[-]

frankztn@reddit

Yes, which is why I said "Ford 4cyl in that era" then said FoST and FiST because ford put both the 1.6 and the 2.0 in the fusions.

[-]

GimmeChickenBlasters@reddit

It was great in the FoST and the FiST

But cheap shitty engines are, along with id personally rather have the horsepower increase of the same size engine but modernized. Something with a torque curve that doesn’t require you to rev 3/4th the way to redline to make your car go

[-]

Correct_Roll_3005@reddit

I like my 2014 Nissan Versa Note with a NA 1.6. my previous vehicle was a 325 HP truck that was lucky to get 20mpg in 6th gear on the highway. My Note is utilitarian, agile and zippy, I've been overall satisfied. Now my normal is 43 on the highway, 38.5 combined. It's a decade old now, and I'm dreading a new car. I don't want a turbo, don't want a Kia/Hyundai....but also do t want to give up gas mileage for my commute.

[-]

Wischtoal@reddit

You have a company with 6 employees. They do good work, come in reliably and it’s all around a great environment because everybody can enjoy their job, nobody is overly stressed out, and your company will run great for years.

Now, all of a sudden, you get more work to do, but also you want to save on wages now so you let two employees go, but set the deadlines on the workload shorter at the same time. To ensure the work is done on time, you start patrolling the workspace, micromanaging your employees and force them to do overtime to to get the workload done.

Totally depends on the purpose of the vehicle in question.

I do actually. 1986 Toyota 4runner with the 2lt. She'll push 15 PSI from 2000 RPM and up.

My experience has lead me to believing that the blown v8 has my heart and provides the experience (physically, auditorily, and emotionally) that I'm looking for in most of my vehicles.

[-]

Syscrush@reddit

I don't hate 4 cylinders because they're not capable - they're perfectly capable.

ThMogget@reddit

We live in a day when V8s have less power than the latest turbo 4-bangers which need clutch destroying launch control and anti-lag to keep up with zero-cylinder electrics off the line.

[-]

carguy143@reddit

It depends on what you call "under sized". For example, a Mondeo (Fusion) was available as a 1 litre ecoboost here in the UK. Yes, the engine puts out 120 or 130bhp or whatveer, but I would worry about the strain of such a small, 3 cylinder engine in such a large car, especially if fully loaded.

I personally feel that the downsizing has only been done to claim better emissions or fuel economy in lab conditions as in the real world, many reports suggest the smaller engines need working more to get the most out of them.

[-]

joncaseydraws@reddit

The enthusiast population is absolutely loving the new 3 cylinder GR Corolla!

[-]

Shalashaska19@reddit

Well until it changes on fire. Not sure where you’re getting all the love for that engine.

[-]

To answer your question, since they won’t.

2 “unexplained” car fires, although I still don’t think the why on these has ever been settled. It’s plausible/likely that we are not getting the full story there and never will at this stage. Wish Toyota would fully investigate these but it seems like they didn’t, or they aren’t saying.

One fire after a collision with a big rig. And another person claiming a fire on social media, but some investigation found that they actually traded it in and were lying.

I agree but disagree.

A Trax is a pretty large vehicle. 137 HP (or whatever, it's around that) does not make any sense to me. The last time I had a car with about that many HP, I never ran the air conditioning unless I was just dying because it just got so slow - and it was a much smaller car.

There is so many armchair, car designers out there that insists their views are the correct views and they do a lot of off the cuff reasoning that isn’t supported by substantial evidence. At best, it will be anecdotal stories or strange beliefs that are not supported that drive their opinion on engine and car design. It’s bonkers to hear some of the things that get floated as common wisdom among car enthusiasts.

[-]

The_GeneralsPin@reddit

Mass produced, unappealing A-to-B transport devices that nobody cares about should be downsized and made to be as efficient as possible.

Desirable, low-volume niche-appeal sports cars shouldn't.

[-]

bentnotbroken96@reddit

Turbo I-4's put out more power than my '90 5.0 Mustang had.

My concerns are more:

Does it make adequate power/torque?

And

How stressed is the engine?

Hell my wife's NA 2.4L Mazda CX-5 makes 180HP, and that's more than adequate.

[-]

AdorableState9428@reddit

I dont think thats the problem I think its the fact the engines are made smaller but also worse like the wet belts in ecoboosts

[-]

chris8535@reddit

The 2.5L 4cy Cayman S is actually the best road going configuration. Fight me!

[-]

BlackCatFurry@reddit

I am plenty content with my 1.0L turbo petrol engine with 115hp. My car is a hair over 1000kg in weight, sp the weight to power ratio is decent and it's a swift car in traffic.

[-]

HailOfHarpoons@reddit

They're not bad, they just, without exception (yes, even A45), sound like shit, which is a problem for people that enjoy cars.

For practical purposes, they are entirely adequate.

[-]

fatitalianstallion@reddit

Disagree. Anything body-on-frame 1/2 ton or large SUV sized needs a blown V8. Once you get used to power you realize that what you were putting up with before is subpar. Ex. I can't stand our Tahoe 6.2 after dailying my TRX. A 6,000lb vehicle needs at 650-750hp to get out of its own way.

On the flip side, just under 500hp seems fine in a larger sedan for daily driving. I'm content with my 6.4l, but would never go below that power level for daily driving.

Additionally, I don't want an overstressed engine. I'm not interested in a high strung low end engine that puts out acceptable power. There will be more issues than a low stress low end engine (ex GM 2.7 v 5.3).

[-]

Bluecolt@reddit

Your frame of reference is definitely on the high end, because even a stock NA 6.2 Yukon/Tahoe can do 0-60 under 6 seconds, that's probably better than half the vehicles on the road including smaller sedans and whatnot, let alone not being able to "get out of it's own way". Or put a Whipple on it, I've been reading about them personally (I have a 6.2 Yukon) and apparently they are good up to about 650hp on the stock internals. Then you'll get under 5, which is probably in the top % of average road cars around you in day-to-day life.

It's easy as a vehicle enthusiast to compare our vehicles to the best and ignore the typical, but in reality the average traffic you see day-to-day is made up primarily of 8-10 second 0-60 econo cars.

[-]

fatitalianstallion@reddit

The typical needs to get from A to B and back to A as transportation that is both reliable and dependable at modern highway speeds up to 80mph. Everything else is extra, but that doesn’t make the baseline absolutely terrible.

B58 is the lowest drivetrain I would go in any vehicle I personally own based on my current situation having a 4 person family and not being willing to cram tightly into anything compact

[-]

Bluecolt@reddit

I feel ya brother, I'm a family man who bought the 6.2 for smiles while hauling the fam. That TRX just got you spoiled, sounds fun though, hell, maybe I'm a little jelly.

When I think of one single car to be a proxy for the 'average' car I see on my daily commute, my mind lands on Honda CRV. A practical little crossover, super common around my city, and kinda stands in for the 'average consumer' who uses a vehicle as an appliance. A CRV is around 8 seconds 0-60, so even your 6.2 Tahoe is gapping them while taking your kids to practice. The TRX is leaving them in a different area code, lol. Being spoiled by power is nice problem to have, I'm just saying you're already in the top % of cars on the road and should keep a level head about what has enough speed to get out of it's own way.

[-]

Joooooooosh@reddit

1.4 VW TSI engine is a fantastic unit.

Good engine. 150bhp, very reliable and very smooth.

1.0 Ford Ecoboost with wet belts…

Shit engine that comes with ridiculous costs for what should be routine maintenance and without specific oils, potential engine failure.

I think what you’re missing is the reality of these kinds of downsized engines over the life of the vehicle.

These downsized motors require a lot more parts and components shoved into increasingly tight areas. Then, because they are so power dense, and power is essentially related to heat in a car engine, you are generating the same or more heat than before in a smaller area.

Yes they are built to handle more stress, but for how long? And with more components and parts, there is more to fail. The chances of having a bad part on an engine with 100 parts is lower than one with 300 parts. Combine that with a more power dense engine stressing each component more, and you have a recipe for longevity problems.

Then you have to ask yourself what the real benefit was to the consumer. These downsized engines don’t seem to provide very much fuel economy benefit in the real world. Downsized turbos do an excellent job on the test. But in real world driving, they seem to burn just as much or more fuel.

I have one silly example for you that illustrates the point. I have a 2015 Camaro Z/28 and my brother has a 2014 Nissan GT-R. Two 500+ hp, 3800 lb coupes. The GT-R is all wheel drive, but the Z/28 is a brick by comparison (0.26 Cd vs 0.44 Cd). My car has a 7.0 liter v8, the GT-R has a 3.8 liter twin turbo v6. The Z/28 is rated 13/19 and the GT-R is rated 16/23. While it’s rated much better, the real world economy is about the same for both cars (we both average 16-17 mpg). However, the harder we drive them, the Z/28 actually starts to get slightly better mileage since turbo engines tend to use more fuel per horsepower under heavy loads.

Then when you look under the hood of both cars, I can tell you fixing something on the Camaro is MUCH easier. And that simple pushrod motor has a whole lot less stuff that can go wrong with it.

moeseb@reddit

Loved the 1.8 V6 in my MX-3. So fun

[-]

chlronald@reddit

I disagree. undersize engine doing same number as v6 v8 is not magic but a lot of trickery to do so, and all of those add complicity to an engine and reduce reliability.

[-]

electronickoutsider@reddit

A big factor is how well the engine is built, and it's harder and more expensive to make a high strung, high stressed engine reliable. An engine that operates at 15% load 99% of the time can get away with cheaper manufacturing and still have decent reliability and longevity. If you apply that same standard of quality to an engine operating at 50% load 99% of the time, it's going to break down more often and wear out faster, just as if you were using the less-stressed engine for track use or towing.

Of course, using more advanced metallurgy and more precise manufacturing can offset that, but consumers don't want to pay more up front, so the compromise becomes shorter vehicle life. If manufacturers didn't cut costs and overbuilt the engines with better quality parts just like they used to overbuild them with larger displacement, smaller engines wouldn't be an issue at all. It's just much easier to pass the spread out cost of increased repairs to the buyer just as they used to pass on the cost of increased fuel consumption.

If more people bought cars as a long-term investment, expecting to get 20 years and a quarter million miles out of them, this wouldn't fly at all. There's a reason the average age of vehicles on the road is increasing, because those old understressed engines are still ticking while the new lease-mobiles blow up barely past warranty. That isn't inherently the fault of smaller engines, but the fault of an industry shifting towards cheap and fuel efficient over reliable because consumers want cars that are cheap to run and replace frequently instead of cars that will last for a generation.

[-]

ptclaus98@reddit

Honestly after reading up on the new porsche six stroke engine, and their electric turbocharger, a big bore six stroke three with an electric turbo mated to a hybrid system seems like a platform with a lot of potential for cheaper performance cars.

[-]

Chemical_Appeal_2785@reddit

The main problem with downsizing concerns sports cars, more specifically those who have earned a reputation for their engine layout (ex: muscle cars) and sometimes brands just decide to downsize thinking what we want is performance. Also, small engines with a huge turbo are not reliable, and those who dont have one are usually either slow or inefficient.

[-]

Retr0r0cketVersion2@reddit

A lot of what we enthusiasts actually like are kinda gimmicks (not bad, just they are). They don't make it theoretically a better car for the sake of being able to drive it, but we still like it regardless. Engine cylinder count and displacement are part of this.

no one would complain if the engines were built to last, but they just really arent anymore. plastic components for areas prone to heat cycling and wet belts in oil pans spring to mind right away, if some of the components in these little engines were made of more durable materials no one would bat an eye because that would get rid of the usual points of premature failure. but corporate bean counters win out every time so these stupid designs are basically forced onto the market. its not the displacement thats the issue, its manufacturers being cheap.

another thing to note here is the ongoing extension of maintenance intervals. when we see new cars using 0w-8 or whatever for oil to chase efficiency, we shouldnt be surprised when they burn a lot more oil. problem is, they have less oil to start with because of the smaller displacement and the intervals are longer now to look good for customers. a lot of average drivers wouldnt overshoot a 4500 mile interval by 5k miles, but when the standard interval lengthens out to 10k or even more on some stuff, a few thousand miles doesnt seem so bad anymore. people get lazy with their maintenance, and that kills motors.

[-]

Emotional-Royal8944@reddit

Half the population neglects their vehicle i.e goes way past their oil change which is going to wreak havoc on all turbocharged 3 and 4 cylinder engines that are going to be the norm and engines are going to be imploding left and right. It’s happening already and that’s going to put a bad taste in peoples mouths. It’s not going to be their fault, they’ll blame the manufacturer.

[-]

Hrmerder@reddit

AKJangly@reddit

There's a variety of issues with downsizing engines. I get that manufacturers are still doing it, but it's not always a good idea.

Cranking 100HP out of a 1.6L engine is much easier than cranking 100HP out of a 1L engine. When you downsize, you pack more heat into an area with less cooling due to reduced surface area. Pistons have to deal with the majority of this extra heat, and it can potentially cause long term reliability concerns.

Downsized engines with turbochargers typically require higher octane fuels, or they have low compression to prevent the need for high octane fuel. They also typically have a much richer fuel to air ratio under load to compensate for the extra heat. Neither of these things is good for efficiency.

There are points to be made about packaging and tuning. Turbo engines can have their powerband tuned for a smooth driving experience, whereas a naturally aspirated engine may have peaks and valleys in it's powerband. Packaging a turbo I4 into an SUV is easier than packaging a V6 or V8.

Cost is obviously another consideration. Turbo I4 engines require a lot less machine work to manufacture. There's only one cylinder head and one head gasket. Less rotating parts to balance. Less weight. Nothing is wrong with those things so long as corners don't get cut. Unfortunately, corners often get cut.

Wet belt oil pumps are a prime example of cutting corners. Looking at you Ford.

[-]

Metaknight2215@reddit

Smaller engines have been quite prevalent in many parts of Europe and SEA for decades now. I guess it is partly about the need for power and driving conditions in each country/region.

[-]

ajrf92@reddit

r/unpopularopinion

[-]

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

No memes, trolling, copypasta, or low-quality joke posts or comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

rudbri93@reddit

I really only care about the power curve, honestly.

[-]

RoyalISF@reddit

I don’t think people think “under-sized” engines are bad per say, but are mainly speaking of the experience. In econo boxes, most are a dog yet in a luxury experience it feels like it cheapens the ride

[-]

lowstrife@reddit

For a econo-box with 4 seats and a wheel, the engine hasn't really been relevant for a long time. It's a pretty binary thing, does it make enough power, "yes\no".

[-]

limitless__@reddit

"Bad" is impossible to define. What they are, are unresponsive to an absolutely hilarious extent. I recently had my daughters car at the dealer for a few months and they gave me a new rental every month. All new vehicles, all with 4 cylinder turbos. If you thought the turbo lag was bad in group B rally in the 80's, it was nothing compared to the gutless shitboxes they're churning out now. The throttle response of those 3 and 4 cylinder turbo vehicles is appallingly bad. The V6's and larger 4 bangers are superior in EVERY way except fuel economy. Making more peak power with the turbo is irrelevant for driving on the street. What people need in commuters is usable torque. You can't compare older engines and say they're worse because they're less reliable unless you compare the new turbo 4 cylinders to new naturally aspirated engines which are even more reliable.

[-]

Bderken@reddit

My in laws have a GLE 4 cylinder turbo. It’s a decent size SUV, and it drives fine. Everyone says it’s “undersized” and they’d get the bigger one. But I don’t see it performing worse than my old “top of the line” 2007 Volvo T6. The T6 has more power (by like 40hp). But they both drive nice.