4 Cylinder, V6, V8?

[D12IF7]

So I'm curious...

a 4 Cylinder engine has 4 cylinders... and a 6 cylinder engine has 6... etc. So wouldnt a 6cylinder or 8cylinder engine ALWAYS be faster then a 4 if it were in the same car, or at least one of simillar weight?

I'm curious mostly because I have a Celica (4cylinder) and my buddy has a 05 MustangGT (V8). I don't know much of anything about cars, and he is saying that his v8 has a much larger threshold to gain horsepower and torque, because the engine is bigger.

So say we both had unlimited ammount of money to put into our cars, would his be faster simply because it has a larger engine? If that is so, then why do all of the racecars I see have 4-cylinder engines? This question has always perplexed me, the argument makes sense to me, I mean, bigger engine = more room for improvement, and a higher maximum WHP right?

Thanks guys.

[Haulin]

If it were that simple, every red neck driving a pickup with a Hemi would be a god.

Most V8 engines are big, poorly designed lazy engines that have a torque curve that falls off the higher you rev them. And most V8's are installed in big heavy vehicles. That aside, you have differences in drive train efficiency and the fact that Celicas are really goddam light.

Look at a Lotus Exige or Elise, they have same HP as a GTS +10, but don't ever try to race one, it will wipe the floor with you because its under 2,000LBS.

But yah, displacement is a definite advantage, maybe not always, but in general if you go forced induction that Mustang has far more capability than a 1.8L motor.

This being said, each engine has its own limitations & replacement of internal parts also plays into it. How much the rods will hold, what type of crank and bearings are in it.

If you spend enough money, a K20 is capable of at least 750WHP & possible a hundred or so more with available manufactured parts. But it will cost twice as much as getting a Mustang to that level.

The reason for buying an RSX or a Celica isn't drag race speed, its handling, looks, a bit of performance, reliability, durability & most of all, gas mileage.

Race cars? Which ones? Most are V8's or at least 6's.

[31073]

So say we both had unlimited ammount of money to put into our cars, would his be faster simply because it has a larger engine?

Given unlimited cash, yes he will always be able to get more hp out of his 8 cylinder than you can get from your 4.


If that is so, then why do all of the racecars I see have 4-cylinder engines? This question has always perplexed me, the argument makes sense to me, I mean, bigger engine = more room for improvement, and a higher maximum WHP right?


it depends on what kind of races you are watching. There are advantages to 4 cylinders. Mainly they weight much less, allowing the race car to be more nimble.

Indy car and Rally cars are usually 4 cylinder engines to keep the cars as light as possible so they can go/turn/stop quicker.


nascar where they drive on oval tracks,

and drag racing where they run a straight line use larger engines because they are more concerned with top acceleration and speed than handling.

[DIRomberger]

Mostly the only advantage to owning a 4 in a car like a celica is becase of the weight. That mustang with the v8 is one heavy mofo. Yes it has more whp potential but because of the weight most of that whp isnt relevent.

[Gas-n-Grease]

Mostly the only advantage to owning a 4 in a car like a celica is becase of the weight. That mustang with the v8 is one heavy mofo. Yes it has more whp potential but because of the weight most of that whp isnt relevent.
generally speaking... but there are exceptions. LS1 (V8) weight ABOUT the same as a 13BTT, hence, the popular swap for the FD Rx7.
If you're talking about engine power alone, then any engine with larger displacement will have greater power potential.
Going fast is another thing. It depends on aerodynamics and the engine ability to push/pull the car. If you wanted Discovery Channel recently, there was a program on future cars. One car featured was an Opel Eco-Speedster. Uses a 1.3 Turbo Diesel engine only making about 113hp, but the thing hauls, top speed of 155mph.

oh yea... it weighs about 1450lbs.

[ACE0000]

Mustangs... especially the newer ones are beasts... nearly 3500lbs... and they don't have absolutely huge v8s only a 4.6 liter... so it would actually be interesting to see them run against a Celica where money is no object... assuming no engine swaps and no extreme weight reduction... I'd probably still give the edge to the Mustang just because it is RWD if nothing else...

[enthennd]

If it were that simple, every red neck driving a pickup with a Hemi would be a god.

Most V8 engines are big, poorly designed lazy engines that have a torque curve that falls off the higher you rev them. And most V8's are installed in big heavy vehicles. That aside, you have differences in drive train efficiency and the fact that Celicas are really goddam light.

Look at a Lotus Exige or Elise, they have same HP as a GTS +10, but don't ever try to race one, it will wipe the floor with you because its under 2,000LBS.

But yah, displacement is a definite advantage, maybe not always, but in general if you go forced induction that Mustang has far more capability than a 1.8L motor.

This being said, each engine has its own limitations & replacement of internal parts also plays into it. How much the rods will hold, what type of crank and bearings are in it.

If you spend enough money, a K20 is capable of at least 750WHP & possible a hundred or so more with available manufactured parts. But it will cost twice as much as getting a Mustang to that level.

The reason for buying an RSX or a Celica isn't drag race speed, its handling, looks, a bit of performance, reliability, durability & most of all, gas mileage.

Race cars? Which ones? Most are V8's or at least 6's.

Wow your retarded, poorly designed? your kidding, most v8's can get better gas mileage than japan v6's, poorly designed yeah?

a k20 capable of 750 whp ay, the new mustangs have a supercharger that can get them there with that and bolt-ons, and possibly nitrous. im thinking thats a nice fraction of what it costs for a 2L engine to make that kind of power too.

btw, displacement is always an advantage. ;)

[enthennd]

Mustangs... especially the newer ones are beasts... nearly 3500lbs... and they don't have absolutely huge v8s only a 4.6 liter... so it would actually be interesting to see them run against a Celica where money is no object... assuming no engine swaps and no extreme weight reduction... I'd probably still give the edge to the Mustang just because it is RWD if nothing else...

celica..15/16 second car
mustang..13 second car

thats not interesting, thats domination.

[ACE0000]

Mustangs... especially the newer ones are beasts... nearly 3500lbs... and they don't have absolutely huge v8s only a 4.6 liter... so it would actually be interesting to see them run against a Celica where money is no object... assuming no engine swaps and no extreme weight reduction... I'd probably still give the edge to the Mustang just because it is RWD if nothing else...

Considering that the highest 1/4 time in the newcelica database for a 6 speed GT-S is 15.9 I'd say you'd have to actually try pretty hard to get into the 16s with it and it isn't too hard with bolt ons to get very low 15s if you are a really good driver... but the point of the this is actually not that, it's literacy see the bolded part I said where money is no object... I'm pretty sure a Mustang would still most likely win but how much more hp would a 3500 lb car need to beat a 2500 lb car? That is also assuming the Celica would get traction which it probably wouldn't... darn FWD

[Kani]

The trick isn't the 4 or the 6 or the 8, but the displacement. Larger displacement engines will make more power than smalls ones. There are a lot of ways to make small engines make more power through various methods including forced induction, although the same applies to large engines. So, yes larger displacement engines make more power, and a V8 tends to be a large displacement engine.

That said, in general you can make enough power out of a small engine to the point of insanity, where power isn't even an issue anymore. Look at F1 cars, the old turbo 1.5L engines made absolutly ridiculous power, nearing 1000 hp. Given you would not do this in a production car, there are small (around 2L is what I'd call small) engines making nearly 1000 hp, and the supra (which is 3.0L) has been known to make 1500 or so hp when its taken to the limit. Although you could probably make over 2000 using the same techniques on large V8 (probably 5+L), the problem is what to do with it. Tires just don't hold that kind of power, and humans can't react fast enough to steer that around a track (This assumes its 2000 hp in a car, not in some giant construction equiptment thing).

[mikhalidis]

I still think a 4 cylinder low displacement super lightweight car like a celica is better than the Mustang, u can definitely rev a lot higher than any other V8 u're right the V8's got torque but better gas mileage, "durability", better handling, reliability comes from japanese small light cars. just think about it that way u can make 500 HP on a stock V8 and make that same 500 HP on an extremely modded 2.0 or 2.4 so the displacement is an advantage but it can be overcome by the fact that a smaller engine can rev higher and is responsive to mods

[Haulin]

Wow your retarded, poorly designed? your kidding, most v8's can get better gas mileage than japan v6's, poorly designed yeah?

a k20 capable of 750 whp ay, the new mustangs have a supercharger that can get them there with that and bolt-ons, and possibly nitrous. im thinking thats a nice fraction of what it costs for a 2L engine to make that kind of power too.

btw, displacement is always an advantage. ;)


You obviously didn't read what you quoted retard. :fawk:

[Haulin]

If you look at a V8 with the same performance specs per liter as a GTS, you are looking at a aluminum high reving V8 that is found say in a Ferrari. There are very few V8's that can maintain a nearly flat torque curve to 8,000.

[ACE0000]

If you look at a V8 with the same performance specs per liter as a GTS, you are looking at a aluminum high reving V8 that is found say in a Ferrari. There are very few V8's that can maintain a nearly flat torque curve to 8,000.

yeah that's pretty much right and actually most of the V8s and even V12s used in exotic cars aren't huge like some american ones none bigger then 6 liters and most quite a bit smaller, it isn't so much the size of the engine as how you use it the reason why the displacement is less is probably because of the smaller stroke and thicker walls allowing higher rpms and more efficient use of the gearing rather then just a bunch of torque in the low end which is very inefficient and doesn't produce much actual power and then running out of breath at the top.

[Red Falcon]

AWD Turbo 4 cyl (Evo) > Rustang. It will win in the 1/4, it will win on the track, and it's safer to drive in harsh weather.

[Streetluger06]

I dont know if a mustang really is 13 second car or not but i have a friend with a 1998 mustang gt and it ran high 14's. When both of our cars werefully stock we were neck and neck. After he got headers intake and straight pipes, and i got an intake and exhaust we were still dead even. With that experience it seemed to me that his extra horse didn't amke up for his heavy car.

[As a Weapon]

Considering that the highest 1/4 time in the newcelica database for a 6 speed GT-S is 15.9 I'd say you'd have to actually try pretty hard to get into the 16s with it and it isn't too hard with bolt ons to get very low 15s if you are a really good driver... but the point of the this is actually not that, it's literacy see the bolded part I said where money is no object... I'm pretty sure a Mustang would still most likely win but how much more hp would a 3500 lb car need to beat a 2500 lb car? That is also assuming the Celica would get traction which it probably wouldn't... darn FWD

15.9 for a 6MT GT-S? That would take a very terrible driver. Stock 6MT GT-S runs a 15.2 to 14.8. So yeah, you would have to try pretty hard (to suck) to get into the 16's. I'm not sure, maybe that was a typo on your part. I believe the fastest 2ZZ- GE Celica is Monkey Wrench Racing's, which is running 11's.

[As a Weapon]

Weight does play a big role. You should see what my 96' Turbo Miata (1.9 now, used to be 1.8) does to Mustang GT's (4.6 and 5.0).

[ACE0000]

15.9 for a 6MT GT-S? That would take a very terrible driver. Stock 6MT GT-S runs a 15.2 to 14.8. So yeah, you would have to try pretty hard (to suck) to get into the 16's. I'm not sure, maybe that was a typo on your part. I believe the fastest 2ZZ- GE Celica is Monkey Wrench Racing's, which is running 11's.

yeah that's what I meant you would actually have to try to do bad to get into the 16s, the GT-S is rated at 15.6 by car and driver but... the slowest I found in the 1/4 mile database was 15.9.

[As a Weapon]

My bad, sorry, you said highest.

[enthennd]

I still think a 4 cylinder low displacement super lightweight car like a celica is better than the Mustang, u can definitely rev a lot higher than any other V8 u're right the V8's got torque but better gas mileage, "durability", better handling, reliability comes from japanese small light cars. just think about it that way u can make 500 HP on a stock V8 and make that same 500 HP on an extremely modded 2.0 or 2.4 so the displacement is an advantage but it can be overcome by the fact that a smaller engine can rev higher and is responsive to mods

high rev's do nothing, just proves the small displacement engines need to stress the engine more to even move, v8's arent made to rev high, theres no point.

reliability from japan? yep, sure, btw bigger engines can respond better to mods than a smaller engine, common sense.

You obviously didn't read what you quoted retard.

ok.

If you look at a V8 with the same performance specs per liter as a GTS, you are looking at a aluminum high reving V8 that is found say in a Ferrari. There are very few V8's that can maintain a nearly flat torque curve to 8,000.

Hah, at least a v8 HAS torque, and hp/liter comments are all rice, hp/liter doesnt do crap to anything.

Most v8's dont even rev to 8,000?

[enthennd]

I dont know if a mustang really is 13 second car or not but i have a friend with a 1998 mustang gt and it ran high 14's. When both of our cars werefully stock we were neck and neck. After he got headers intake and straight pipes, and i got an intake and exhaust we were still dead even. With that experience it seemed to me that his extra horse didn't amke up for his heavy car.

Well the 94-98 IMO are the worst ever made, they had very low hp, but the new ones are 13 second cars, and pretty nice.

[reguile]

So I'm curious...

a 4 Cylinder engine has 4 cylinders... and a 6 cylinder engine has 6... etc. So wouldnt a 6cylinder or 8cylinder engine ALWAYS be faster then a 4 if it were in the same car, or at least one of simillar weight?

I'm curious mostly because I have a Celica (4cylinder) and my buddy has a 05 MustangGT (V8). I don't know much of anything about cars, and he is saying that his v8 has a much larger threshold to gain horsepower and torque, because the engine is bigger.

So say we both had unlimited ammount of money to put into our cars, would his be faster simply because it has a larger engine? If that is so, then why do all of the racecars I see have 4-cylinder engines? This question has always perplexed me, the argument makes sense to me, I mean, bigger engine = more room for improvement, and a higher maximum WHP right?

Thanks guys.

The mustang will be faster. What kind of racing have you been watching? o_O You never see 4 cylinders do 5 seconds at the 1/4. Bigger engine = more power but kills more gas. Unless you're planning to drive a go kart like some people.

[FITGT]

There are so many more factors than just number of cylinders that determine how fast a car is.

[Pulsar1]

high rev's do nothing, just proves the small displacement engines need to stress the engine more to even move, v8's arent made to rev high, theres no point.


Do you even know what you'er talking about? Theres less rotating mass so the engine can rev higher, and if a engine is designed to do so there is no extra sress. High revs do nothing? lol You do know F1 uses v8s that rev to 20K rpm and make near 800hp as a result right? But yeah revs do nothing. Hp/liter speaks volumes about the amount of technology used in the engine. V8 can and have gotten to 100hp/liter but not by any American maker, they play the bigger is better game for guys like you. As long as makes a hp/cu inch thats good enough for you.

[jaisonjk]

If you can get a good hp to lbs(wieght of the car) ratio you will be able to make your car keep up with the high end exotics! I was always told that bigger displacement made more torque, so you will be able to take off from the start line like a rocket but keeping up with top speed you will need horse power!

While I was in Germany I have seen american muscle cars like V8 camaros, mustangs and even corvettes get smoked by german station wagons on the autobahn! these muscle cars might take off but when they pegged out on their top speed of 140's these germans will fly by like the muscle cars were staying stationary! :werd:

[Haulin]

high rev's do nothing, just proves the small displacement engines need to stress the engine more to even move, v8's arent made to rev high, theres no point.

reliability from japan? yep, sure, btw bigger engines can respond better to mods than a smaller engine, common sense.

Hah, at least a v8 HAS torque, and hp/liter comments are all rice, hp/liter doesnt do crap to anything.

Most v8's dont even rev to 8,000?

High rev's do nothing? You not know how HP is calculated? HP is equated from a multiple of torque and RPM. Yah, V8's have torque, but since most can't hold it into hold it into high RPM's, they don't push the HP numbers.

And your damn right most V8's don't rev to 8K, their inferior designed cams, lifters, rods, bearings can't take the stress. Domestic crap.

If a GM 350 was designed as well as stock 4 cylinder or a Ferrari for that matter it would be pushing 400 ft/lb torque, but also rev to 8K producing 575HP. Instead, you would be lucky to find one making 350HP.

A Ferrari 8 cylinder if you ever have the chance to drive one will show you exactly what an 8 cylinder is like when it is built and designed as well as a performance 4 cylinder.

[As a Weapon]

Dudes, what about the Cadillac Super Sixteen? If I had that I could single handedly raise gas prices for everybody.

[enthennd]

High rev's do nothing? You not know how HP is calculated? HP is equated from a multiple of torque and RPM. Yah, V8's have torque, but since most can't hold it into hold it into high RPM's, they don't push the HP numbers.

And your damn right most V8's don't rev to 8K, their inferior designed cams, lifters, rods, bearings can't take the stress. Domestic crap.

If a GM 350 was designed as well as stock 4 cylinder or a Ferrari for that matter it would be pushing 400 ft/lb torque, but also rev to 8K producing 575HP. Instead, you would be lucky to find one making 350HP.

A Ferrari 8 cylinder if you ever have the chance to drive one will show you exactly what an 8 cylinder is like when it is built and designed as well as a performance 4 cylinder.

Good job comparing a 10k dollar v8 to a few 100k exotic. almost as cool as how you all compare heavily modded 4 cylinders to a stock v8, domestic crap huh. your whole statement about how superior 4 cylinders are is such a laugh, you have no idea.

I also do know how hp is calculated.

And pulsar, wow omg stfu with the hp/liter comments, thats rice 2 the max. hp/weight is what matters. I like the large engine is for the beautiful sound. I would hate to drive around some 4 cylinder with a melon launcher fart can on it.

[Haulin]

I've owned a half dozen V8's including 70's muscle, a few 6's & more recently Japanese 4 cylinders. I remember on the V8's how they just puke out when you reach the top of a gear & how when you shift, suddenly the HP is back.

Yah, the muscle was actually faster than my RSX, but the feeling of an engine that just wants to pull right past the rev limiter and keep giving is one that can't compare.

Take a sport bike out for a spin and hit 11K to 14K, its a similar feeling. The engine just wants to give instead of give up.

[jaisonjk]

I would hate to drive around some 4 cylinder with a melon launcher fart can on it.


if you hate 4 cylinders how come u are on this site? :closed:

[DaElongatus]

enthennd and reguile SHUT THE FCUK UP FA GS.

ill smoke both of u start at second.

[31073]

do you guys get through a single thread w/o it turning into a pisssing contest?

[enthennd]

if you hate 4 cylinders how come u are on this site? :closed:
I never said i hated 4 cylinders..read sir.

"enthennd and reguile SHUT THE FCUK UP FA GS.

ill smoke both of u start at second."

and DeElongatus, dont get all butt hurt by the facts, so what if your celica/prelude is faster? that proves what? huh?

[enthennd]

do you guys get through a single thread w/o it turning into a pisssing contest?
rarely

[KnockonWood]

To each his own? There is no replacement for displacement :)

[GSBoek]

I wonder why so many threads endup like this, but anyways, here go my 2 cts:

I do agree on the displacement argument, but unfortunately not all manufacturers put the same kind of tech into their engines, consequently it all becomes blurry when discussing threads like these.
If I go by displacement only, if the 2ZZ was a 6.0 liter like the LS2 it would be making 600hp (not counting reciprocating masses, inertia, engine design and all that) and if the LS2 was a 1.8 liter like the 2ZZ it would be making only 120hp. It doesn't work like that though in practice, and it doesn't necessarily mean an LS2, or a Hemi is lower tech than the 2ZZ or a K20, it's just a statement of what manufacturers chose to do with what they have available and what the market will respond to. If the big V8 and it's potential was all it was about, then nobody would buy Celicas, RSXs and such for the same amount of money as a Mustang.
Manufacturers push 4 cilinder technology (such as on the 2ZZ and K20) seemingly "higher" because from a business point of view it's relatively cheap and makes sense. If they do the same on a big V8, they won't be able to put it into a Mustang and still sell the car for 25K and make a profit. The enthousiasts loose if they do so.
I love my Celica, and it's revhappy 8.4k rpm little 4-banger is part of the joys of driving it, but ultimately it's not about it being better than a large displacement V8, it's about finding what suits me best and for me the Celica's speed/fuel economy compromise suits my style and my pocket better at this time cuz I can rev it around and have fun all day and still get 24mpg in the city. That won't happen with a Mustang or a Camaro or Vette. I think the key word here is respect: I respect what Ford does with the Mustang and even Chevy with the Vette while still keeping them relatively affordable. Guys driving Stangs and Vettes will look down on me, they will be faster, they will get more power easily and all that. Guys driving Supras will do the same thing too, but ultimately all of that is fine with me.