Displacement vs Cylinders
06-09-14, 07:49 PM
#31
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
not following really - sure people want clean air/water, etc., but when (if) you go to local car meets, or see vettes, camaros, chargers, mustangs, exotics, jacked up trucks, or talk to nascar or f1 fans, do you think they're that concerned about 'green'? 
no, didn't think so.
no, didn't think so.
06-09-14, 09:45 PM
#32
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IS250 in Australia is faster than;
BMW 316i
Merdedes C200 & C180
Audi A4 1.8T
Infiniti Q50 2.2 diesel
So in conclusion the IS250 is the fastest, smoothest and most reliable base entry level sports luxury car in Australia
And based on real world comparisons it gets better real world MPG than the 3 petrol German rivals above..
The 316i is especially pethetic with its 100kW motor LOL
BMW 316i
Merdedes C200 & C180
Audi A4 1.8T
Infiniti Q50 2.2 diesel
So in conclusion the IS250 is the fastest, smoothest and most reliable base entry level sports luxury car in Australia
And based on real world comparisons it gets better real world MPG than the 3 petrol German rivals above..
The 316i is especially pethetic with its 100kW motor LOL
06-09-14, 09:49 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, b/c people race 200hp entry level luxury cars...
Obviously people buying a 200hp luxury car don't have speed as a priority and one of them will be slowest. The trashing of the IS 250 has been hilarious as it sells better today than it ever has. When the 235 I-4 replaces the 2.5 V-6, these same people will shift the argument and then say how dumb it is to have a 4 cylinder instead of a 6.
Meanwhile consumers will be happy.
They all sell to women. Do you have data speaking to this?
FYI, there was a 4 banger in the IS...it was in Europe...and a diesel...
Clearly a 200hp AWD car around 3600lbs will be slow.
Obviously people buying a 200hp luxury car don't have speed as a priority and one of them will be slowest. The trashing of the IS 250 has been hilarious as it sells better today than it ever has. When the 235 I-4 replaces the 2.5 V-6, these same people will shift the argument and then say how dumb it is to have a 4 cylinder instead of a 6.
Meanwhile consumers will be happy.
The 07-current IS250 sold well, particularly with women because it was relatively cheap to get into and the cost of the IS was cheap relative to what a Lexus with a 3.5 usually would start at.
A 4 banger in 2007 would never of worked in an IS. Too much weight and way too loud for what Lexus stood for back then.
Don't get me wrong, the IS250 is good car, its a good engine as well. Its just the car does weight a lot and the AWD bogs it down.
A 4 banger in 2007 would never of worked in an IS. Too much weight and way too loud for what Lexus stood for back then.
Don't get me wrong, the IS250 is good car, its a good engine as well. Its just the car does weight a lot and the AWD bogs it down.
FYI, there was a 4 banger in the IS...it was in Europe...and a diesel...
Clearly a 200hp AWD car around 3600lbs will be slow.
06-09-14, 09:55 PM
#34
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, b/c people race 200hp entry level luxury cars...
Obviously people buying a 200hp luxury car don't have speed as a priority and one of them will be slowest. The trashing of the IS 250 has been hilarious as it sells better today than it ever has. When the 235 I-4 replaces the 2.5 V-6, these same people will shift the argument and then say how dumb it is to have a 4 cylinder instead of a 6.
Meanwhile consumers will be happy.
They all sell to women. Do you have data speaking to this?
FYI, there was a 4 banger in the IS...it was in Europe...and a diesel...
Clearly a 200hp AWD car around 3600lbs will be slow.
Obviously people buying a 200hp luxury car don't have speed as a priority and one of them will be slowest. The trashing of the IS 250 has been hilarious as it sells better today than it ever has. When the 235 I-4 replaces the 2.5 V-6, these same people will shift the argument and then say how dumb it is to have a 4 cylinder instead of a 6.
Meanwhile consumers will be happy.
They all sell to women. Do you have data speaking to this?
FYI, there was a 4 banger in the IS...it was in Europe...and a diesel...
Clearly a 200hp AWD car around 3600lbs will be slow.
06-09-14, 09:58 PM
#35
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the average driver, especially female the IS250 has more than enough power.
06-09-14, 10:08 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think there's going to be a lot less drama. Every car in the class will now have a turbo I4 as base engine. People never complained because it was a V6. They complained because it was a tiny V6 with about the same amount of power as these family 4 cylinders in a 3500 lb car.
The IS currently is selling better than ever, most are 250s and yet internet geniuses are stating how its bad.
06-09-14, 10:24 PM
#37
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
06-09-14, 11:54 PM
#38
^ getting down in the back country nice. Of course there will always be a large number of people who don't care but you look at Prius and Tesla S sales and there's just as many environmentalists. The struggle continues.
Keiffith, mmarshall, Sulu and Och got it best before this thread turned into a discussion of the IS250's 2.5L V6. We're asking why V6's are not replaced with smaller V6's rather than engines with less cylinders. I propose the question because of the inherently smoother nature (V6 > I4) especially when it pertains to an automaker. Factors like trends, costs and application seem to restrict low displacement high cylinder engines.
Keiffith, mmarshall, Sulu and Och got it best before this thread turned into a discussion of the IS250's 2.5L V6
. We're asking why V6's are not replaced with smaller V6's rather than engines with less cylinders. I propose the question because of the inherently smoother nature (V6 > I4) especially when it pertains to an automaker. Factors like trends, costs and application seem to restrict low displacement high cylinder engines.
06-10-14, 04:32 AM
#39
Small capacity multi-cylinders are certainly better eg the 1.5L V6's used in F1 racing, but cost is the main problem.
I'm sure eventually, small capacity multi-cylinders will gradually appear.
I'm sure eventually, small capacity multi-cylinders will gradually appear.
06-10-14, 05:54 AM
#40
Lexus Champion
In most cases a 2.0 engine with 4 cylinders will actually make more low end torque than a 6 cylinder engine with same displacement. The 6 cylinder will make more maximum torque at high RPMs, but down low the 4 cylinder will have better response. And once the turbo spools up, it will have plenty of high RPM torque as well, and as a result the car will have more or less linear acceleration.
Are you talking about a boosted (turbo- or supercharged) 2-litre 4-cyl engine? I would think that a small-displacement 6-cyl would have more torque than a same-displacement, naturally-aspirated 4-cyl, because of the greater number of power strokes, and the smaller, lighter pistons in the 6-cyl engines.
06-10-14, 07:10 AM
#41
Lexus Test Driver
the idea is that an engineered for turbo 4 cylinder is equivelent to an N/A V6.
there is a 3rd dynamic here, and that bore and stroke ratio. heres some stuff copied from wiki
A square engine has equal or very nearly equal bore and stroke dimensions, giving a bore/stroke value of exactly or almost exactly 1:1. the 2jz is a square engine
An engine is described as oversquare or short-stroke if its cylinders have a greater bore diameter than its stroke length, giving a bore/stroke ratio greater than 1:1.
An oversquare engine allows for more and larger valves in the head of the cylinder, lower friction losses (due to the reduced distance travelled during each engine rotation) and lower crank stress (due to the lower peak piston speed relative to engine speed). Due to the increased piston- and head surface area, the heat loss increases as the bore/stroke-ratio is increased excessively. Because these characteristics favor higher engine speeds, oversquare engines are often tuned to develop peak torque at a relatively high speed.
An engine is described as undersquare or long-stroke if its cylinders have a smaller bore (width, diameter) than its stroke (length of piston travel) - giving a ratio value of less than 1:1.
At a given engine speed, a longer stroke increases engine friction (since the piston travels a greater distance per stroke) and increases stress on the crankshaft (due to the higher peak piston speed). The smaller bore also reduces the area available for valves in the cylinder head, requiring them to be smaller or fewer in number. Because these factors favor lower engine speeds, undersquare engines are most often tuned to develop peak torque at relatively low speeds.
An undersquare engine will typically be more compact in the directions perpendicular to piston travel but larger in the direction parallel to piston travel.
these things are all considered when engineering engines. personaly, i believe displacement for a car under 3 liters is a waste. my favorite engine is the buick 3.8l turbo found in buick regals/ GN's from 85-57. the volumetric efficiency is such with the 3.8 that forced induction allows moderate streetable power numbers without putting too much stress on the motor. smaller engines can make the same power numbers, but are often not engineered for the amount of power output and can often lead to failures in the valvetrain/bottom end.
there is a 3rd dynamic here, and that bore and stroke ratio. heres some stuff copied from wiki
A square engine has equal or very nearly equal bore and stroke dimensions, giving a bore/stroke value of exactly or almost exactly 1:1. the 2jz is a square engine
An engine is described as oversquare or short-stroke if its cylinders have a greater bore diameter than its stroke length, giving a bore/stroke ratio greater than 1:1.
An oversquare engine allows for more and larger valves in the head of the cylinder, lower friction losses (due to the reduced distance travelled during each engine rotation) and lower crank stress (due to the lower peak piston speed relative to engine speed). Due to the increased piston- and head surface area, the heat loss increases as the bore/stroke-ratio is increased excessively. Because these characteristics favor higher engine speeds, oversquare engines are often tuned to develop peak torque at a relatively high speed.
An engine is described as undersquare or long-stroke if its cylinders have a smaller bore (width, diameter) than its stroke (length of piston travel) - giving a ratio value of less than 1:1.
At a given engine speed, a longer stroke increases engine friction (since the piston travels a greater distance per stroke) and increases stress on the crankshaft (due to the higher peak piston speed). The smaller bore also reduces the area available for valves in the cylinder head, requiring them to be smaller or fewer in number. Because these factors favor lower engine speeds, undersquare engines are most often tuned to develop peak torque at relatively low speeds.
An undersquare engine will typically be more compact in the directions perpendicular to piston travel but larger in the direction parallel to piston travel.
these things are all considered when engineering engines. personaly, i believe displacement for a car under 3 liters is a waste. my favorite engine is the buick 3.8l turbo found in buick regals/ GN's from 85-57. the volumetric efficiency is such with the 3.8 that forced induction allows moderate streetable power numbers without putting too much stress on the motor. smaller engines can make the same power numbers, but are often not engineered for the amount of power output and can often lead to failures in the valvetrain/bottom end.
Take Example of those F1 Engine. More cylinders and less displacement. It gives off a very unique sound, and loud. But their HP is higher than Torque due to the low stroke spreading across the board of cylinders. Typically they Launch it at a very High RPM, and to get it moving, you will have to tap into somewhere 8-9k RPM at first gear.
Compares the sound of a Diesel Truck vs F1, and you will learn the differences sound of the moving cylinders at speed.
The Technologies you talked about are still being produced by Ferrari and Lambo, and Toyota just did in LF-A. But due to Production for street use (Emission+Reliability+Usable Torque Range) They become so expensive......and can only be considered (Super-Car)
The closest to anything you have spoken off was IS-250. Grab it before they thrash it and replace it with 2.0T
Last edited by Whitigir; 06-10-14 at 07:23 AM.
06-10-14, 07:18 AM
#42
Lexus Test Driver
Are you talking about a boosted (turbo- or supercharged) 2-litre 4-cyl engine? I would think that a small-displacement 6-cyl would have more torque than a same-displacement, naturally-aspirated 4-cyl, because of the greater number of power strokes, and the smaller, lighter pistons in the 6-cyl engines.
And, Bigger Bore = Less Compression = weaker expansion of burnt air, but it moves much faster. That Equals to Faster Rotations At the Moment. That is your HP
Torque = Explosive power. Horse Power = faster rotational speed with less Twist. So the Transmission comes into play, it is used to transfer and translate this Torque, and HP
A car with more Torque and low HP can Tow big stuff....say Diesel Truck. But they can not move too fast due to the restriction of HP which comes from the Diesel Engine Foundation. Pay attentions, almost all Diesel vehicles has higher Torque rating than HP. That is Explosive power from Diesel (No Ignition)
A car with more HP and low Torque can Accelerate pretty fast, but off at a standing Launch it will not have enough Torque to move the Weight it has on, so it will lag behind 0-60. This affect will be very noticeable the more Weight you have on your car. Take Example of an FT86 or an S2k. Load it, and see how it react.
06-10-14, 07:25 AM
#43
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
ford, vw/audi, now lexus, others, all focused on the ~2L 4 turbo... because it represents the best compromise of cost, power, complexity, reliability and fuel economy right now.
these engines are extremely sophisticated and definitely do the job. they'll never be as smooth or sound as nice as a 6 or 8, but it's the world we live in.
these engines are extremely sophisticated and definitely do the job. they'll never be as smooth or sound as nice as a 6 or 8, but it's the world we live in.
06-10-14, 07:29 AM
#44
Are you talking about a boosted (turbo- or supercharged) 2-litre 4-cyl engine? I would think that a small-displacement 6-cyl would have more torque than a same-displacement, naturally-aspirated 4-cyl, because of the greater number of power strokes, and the smaller, lighter pistons in the 6-cyl engines.
This is why many truck engines are huge displacement with 6 cylinders. They need as much power as possible available from dead stop, before their turbines spool up enough.
06-10-14, 07:53 AM
#45
Lexus Fanatic
ford, vw/audi, now lexus, others, all focused on the ~2L 4 turbo... because it represents the best compromise of cost, power, complexity, reliability and fuel economy right now.
these engines are extremely sophisticated and definitely do the job. they'll never be as smooth or sound as nice as a 6 or 8, but it's the world we live in.
these engines are extremely sophisticated and definitely do the job. they'll never be as smooth or sound as nice as a 6 or 8, but it's the world we live in.