i drive a 2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STi. and i have to say, it is one heck of a four cylinder engine. even not driving it how it 'should' be driven is quite an experience. granted, i only get around 20 mpg, but this car is seriously fun to drive as a daily driver - accelerating from a stop, merging onto the highway, taking corners...
4 bangers- Love'em or Hate'm?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
I have two four banger: 1999 Accord 2.3 VTEC with a 5 speed manual and a 2003 Accord 2.4 VTEC with a 5 speed manual. The '99 has 72,000 and has always felt a bit underpowered. It has a piston slap when cold. The shifter is balky and the mileage for a four cylinder is nothing to write home about (about 25 MPG in mixed driving). And yes, it has been maintained religiously. The 2003 is a dream. It has a lot more power, is smoother and is not a handful to drive like the '99, which rides like a truck. I test drove an Accord 3.0 litre v-6 coupe with the 6 speed and honestly, if I could have afforded it, I would have purchased it rather than the four. The V-6 mated with the 6 speed delivers effortless thrust and I think the coupe looks better than the 4 door.
pbm, those older SE-Rs are awesome cars! And the Sr20de engines are in my opinion the absolute best 4 cylinder ever made. 7500 rpm redline, timing chain, and hydraulic lifters means it's low maintenance.
Drew: I agree about the SR20DE. I used any type of dino or blend oil 5/30 in winter and 10/30 in summer and never burned a drop (changed @ 3 to 4K). I sold it with 120K and I'm sure its still running. It just wasn't practical enough with 2 children and a wife that didn't drive a 5 spd.
I did enjoy it though.
Eljefino - the 1.8 litre motor that was in the Cimmaron was different than the 'Opel 1.8'. The one in the Cimmaron was the OHV, chevrolet-built engine that was also put in the Cavalier. The 'Opel 1.8' was an OHC engine built in Brazil for Pontiac. It was used in the Sunbird, Firenza, and Skyhawk, in either natuarally-aspirated form, or with a turbo, which put out 150 hp, and wasn't a bad performer at all for the time.
I like these little 'j-cars' a lot; my first car was a 1985 Buick Skyhawk with a 2.0 litre version of the OHV engine, but I agree with you the early OHV engines weren't the best!
I like these little 'j-cars' a lot; my first car was a 1985 Buick Skyhawk with a 2.0 litre version of the OHV engine, but I agree with you the early OHV engines weren't the best!
It depends on what your purpose in driving is. I like my weak little non-turbo 1.8L '93 Corolla because it gets great mpg even though I sometimes have to zip through traffic a little faster than I should. It is very, very realiable (hasn't needed anything other than clean oil and a grommet for the pcv for over 4 years). I'm going to change the fuel filter and manual transmission fluid soon, and take it for brakes (which it does need) and tuning/check-up soon, just to be on the safe side. But the engine's performance has actually only improved since I've had the car and changed the oil more consistently than the previous owner and Auto-Rxed it. Another 10k and it will be time for a timing belt, so we'll see what the mechanic says then.
I really REALLY like my four-banger.
It does 26 mpg on its daily commute while on the other hand it puts out 240 horses at 8300 rpm and at request will go up to 9000 rpm.
Of course that's a Honda F20C engine.
It does 26 mpg on its daily commute while on the other hand it puts out 240 horses at 8300 rpm and at request will go up to 9000 rpm.
Of course that's a Honda F20C engine.
My '84 Accord 4 cyl is a GREAT engine. Ultra-gutless but still smooth after 205K miles and good gas mileage too.
I've had Escort, 'vette (Chevette), Toyota and Volvo 4 cyl too. Honda is the best of the batch.
I've had Escort, 'vette (Chevette), Toyota and Volvo 4 cyl too. Honda is the best of the batch.
20 MPG? You're doing better than I. I've been averaging about 18.5 MPG in my '05 STi with my mix of 95% suburban street / 5% highway driving. But then again, I didn't buy this car for it's mileage rating.
Got to agree there. Our '85 had 260,000 miles when the starter died. Since it was impossible to get to, we had the car recycled.
Even after running 15W-40 on a 9000 mile OCI, 95%
It had good torque, and since the car was so light it was fun around town. On the highway, it was gutless.
What I find interesting is my '84 engine seems smoother than a few other newer model Civics I've driven in ('97 and 2000). ?? Not something I would have expected. IMO Honda had engine technology figured out a long time ago—I am continually impressed hearing their high mileage stories.
I notice you say "once the engine warmed up." Ha!
My beater SUnbird used to be my wife's car. Her parents bought it for her when she was in college. The car was a year or so old when she got it.
It now has 157k miles on it. It doesn't smoke or use oil and it still runs like new. We haven't exactly babied the car either! We still take it on fairly long trips pretty regularly.
It has the 2.0L OHC engine with 90 stomping horses. We use them all though.
We've always used Quaker State in it, and we even used the dreaded Fram filters for years and years. The oil has always been changed at 3000-3500 miles. We know use QS High Mileage oil.
It now has 157k miles on it. It doesn't smoke or use oil and it still runs like new. We haven't exactly babied the car either! We still take it on fairly long trips pretty regularly.
It has the 2.0L OHC engine with 90 stomping horses. We use them all though.
We've always used Quaker State in it, and we even used the dreaded Fram filters for years and years. The oil has always been changed at 3000-3500 miles. We know use QS High Mileage oil.
Just replaced a 2000 Taurus that crapped the tranny out at 96k miles with a 2006 Corolla. Have to admit that the Taurus was a lot more comfortable to drive and ride in.
But I got 32 mpg with my last tank in the Corolla, commuting/city/highway. The Taurus got about 22-24 same stretch.
The Corolla is no dog at all, just a little "buzzy". The six had a comfortable "growl" when you needed it, but mostly just shut up and moved nice and smooth down the road.
The tragedy is that my savings in gas will not pay for the increase in property tax between the two vehicles.
Sure, we should save energy -- not much incentive yet......
But I got 32 mpg with my last tank in the Corolla, commuting/city/highway. The Taurus got about 22-24 same stretch.
The Corolla is no dog at all, just a little "buzzy". The six had a comfortable "growl" when you needed it, but mostly just shut up and moved nice and smooth down the road.
The tragedy is that my savings in gas will not pay for the increase in property tax between the two vehicles.
Sure, we should save energy -- not much incentive yet......
Well, my 4 banger is an Audi TT 225. I like the power and it is a hoot when I let the top down on nice days. Good gas mileage. and fast. i still love my v8 Dodge though!
I took mine out today with the top down, we hit 15 Deg C.quote:
Originally posted by SpitfireS:
I really REALLY like my four-banger.
It does 26 mpg on its daily commute while on the other hand it puts out 240 horses at 8300 rpm and at request will go up to 9000 rpm.
Of course that's a Honda F20C engine.
At $1.30/L Cdn for 87.... I love my Corolla!
They still make cars with more than four cylinders?
Wow, what do your backseat passengers say when you wind your S2000 up to 8300 rpm??? Oh wait, that's right. . .quote:
Originally posted by SpitfireS:
I really REALLY like my four-banger.
It does 26 mpg on its daily commute while on the other hand it puts out 240 horses at 8300 rpm and at request will go up to 9000 rpm.
Of course that's a Honda F20C engine.
=======================================
Four-cylinder cars? What are those? Oh, they must be those little things that shrink in my rearview mirror.quote:
Originally posted by 9296D21B14:
They still make cars with more than four cylinders?
========================================
Yeah, with premium at $2.75-ish per gallon, I could love my G35 a little more, but there isn't a four-banger on the planet that can duplicate the "torque generation profile" of a VQ35 V-6. And can anyone identify a 4-Banger, front-engine, rear drive five-passenger sedan available for a reasonable price (I added that last condition to rule out the C230...
4-Bangers? Don't love 'em, don't hate 'em. I want more, and I get it from my gutsy V-6.
I can’t believe I haven’t gotten involved in this thread yet. To answer the primary question: Love ‘em.
Some sentiments I agreed with the most:
rpn453: ”The most enjoyable car I've driven is a Miata, since I can legally use all the good things about it: great ergonomics, nice short shifter, light clutch, light-weight, great handling, 50-50 weight distribution without much overhung weight, minimal body roll, rear-wheel drive, smooth engine, and enough power to do a burn out and chirp the tires going into 2nd if I want.”
Titan: “It's MUCH more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow.”
I’ve had only 6 cars total but have driven nothing but 4-bangers since 1990. I started with a ’76 V8 Caprice, then went to an ’85 Escort GT, missed a V8 so I got a ’68 Camaro convertible, came to my senses and bought a 1990 Acura Integra and never looked back.
My current car (as many BITOGians probably know) is an ’03 Nissan Sentra SpecV. It has the 2.5L QR25DE engine that Patman was so impressed with ... but in a car weighing 500lbs. less.
The motor has 175hp and 180 ft.lbs. of torque. Mated to 6-speed manual it’s pretty quick (1/4 mile in 15 ½ seconds)and gets an average of 28-29 miles per gallon in mixed driving.
And the most recent 4 cylinders have as much or even more torque than horsepower … this makes them pretty peppy … even with an automatic. I drove a rental Mitsu Lancer a few years ago with an automatic … very peppy!
The Sentra SE-R with it’s 165hp QR25DE is also bound to be a quick little car even with an automatic.
I remember when the Honda Accord was first available with a V6. I think the I4 version was actually faster as the first V6 was tuned pretty mild … and added a lot of weight to the car.
This feeling of the trade off between I4s and V6s have stuck with me ever since … even if it isn’t true for all cars. In many smaller platforms, I don't think the extra cylinders and the added displacement that comes with them are worth the trade-off. The Fiero was another good example of this. The V6 version made the car too heavy to be a solid performer in the twisties ... or so Road & Track said at the time. The Quad4 version was the engine the car should have had since the very beginning.
If I was to buy a weekend/fun/project car, I might consider a bigger motor but then again, my #1 realistic dream car is a Honda S2000.
One really good post went by quietly but it bears repeating:
Christopher Hussey: "Number of cylinders has little to do with an engine's power. Displacment, tuning and technology have a much greater impact on HP and torque. Any engine can be tuned for all low RPM torque, or all high rpm HP, regardless of number of cylinders."
I think most people forget this ... just as they confuse horsepower and torque.
--- Bror Jace
Some sentiments I agreed with the most:
rpn453: ”The most enjoyable car I've driven is a Miata, since I can legally use all the good things about it: great ergonomics, nice short shifter, light clutch, light-weight, great handling, 50-50 weight distribution without much overhung weight, minimal body roll, rear-wheel drive, smooth engine, and enough power to do a burn out and chirp the tires going into 2nd if I want.”
Titan: “It's MUCH more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow.”
I’ve had only 6 cars total but have driven nothing but 4-bangers since 1990. I started with a ’76 V8 Caprice, then went to an ’85 Escort GT, missed a V8 so I got a ’68 Camaro convertible, came to my senses and bought a 1990 Acura Integra and never looked back.
My current car (as many BITOGians probably know) is an ’03 Nissan Sentra SpecV. It has the 2.5L QR25DE engine that Patman was so impressed with ... but in a car weighing 500lbs. less.
And the most recent 4 cylinders have as much or even more torque than horsepower … this makes them pretty peppy … even with an automatic. I drove a rental Mitsu Lancer a few years ago with an automatic … very peppy!
I remember when the Honda Accord was first available with a V6. I think the I4 version was actually faster as the first V6 was tuned pretty mild … and added a lot of weight to the car.
If I was to buy a weekend/fun/project car, I might consider a bigger motor but then again, my #1 realistic dream car is a Honda S2000.
One really good post went by quietly but it bears repeating:
Christopher Hussey: "Number of cylinders has little to do with an engine's power. Displacment, tuning and technology have a much greater impact on HP and torque. Any engine can be tuned for all low RPM torque, or all high rpm HP, regardless of number of cylinders."
I think most people forget this ... just as they confuse horsepower and torque.
--- Bror Jace
Hey, how about putting a VQ35 in the SpecV?quote:
Originally posted by Bror Jace:
If I was to buy a weekend/fun/project car, I might consider a bigger motor but then again, my #1 realistic dream car is a Honda S2000.
You know what I'm talking about.
- Status
