[revver]

Depends on the car/brand.

I prefer a 4 cylinder any day. but we can't rule out 3 cylinder engines blindly.
If done right, a 3 cylinder can be fun as well as fuel efficient during everyday use.

3 cylinder engine in Altroz is quite ordinary to drive whereas the VAG 1.0 TSI is a blast to drive. So it all depends on the car/brand.

[SulemanP]

Voted For : Depends on Car/brand

I have Tiago 1.0 ltr Diesel (3 cylinder engine) and one of my colleague has a Maruti Brezza 1.3 ltr Diesel (4 cylinder engine). Both of them are not equal to VW's 1.0 engine but if driven sedately both the engines give similar Average +/- 1-2 kms...

Based on this outcome i would go with a 4 cylinder engine rather than going for a 3 cylinder one for a normal user like me. Unfortunately Tata was not giving 4 cylinder engine in Tiago, i believe they were giving it in Zest/Bolt...

Regards

[Phantom 510]

I have a list of engines that I really admire
1. Maruti's F8D (Maruti 800, Alto).
2. PAL's 1.2L (Premier Padmini)
3. Fiat's 1.6L (Palio 1.6 GTX) and 1.4L turbo petrol (Abarth Punto).
4. Toyota's 1.4L D-4D ( Etios Liva).
5. Hyundai's 1.2L Kappa (Gi10 Nios).
6. Renault/Nissan's 1.5 k9k (Micra/pulse).
7. Maruti's 1.3L DDiS/ Multijet 1st gen (1st gen Swift).
8. Mahindra's 2.2L mHawk.
9. Ford's 1.6L Rocam.

[Raghu M]

I drive the 1.2 turbo XUV3OO petrol and it's a 3 cylinder. You wouldn't notice unless someone told you. It's super silent, packs a heavy punch when you floor the pedals and is very smooth when during cruising speeds between 90 to 120 kmph.

[GForceEnjoyer]

Originally Posted by ajayc123

Do you imply that the 4 cylinder engine would have better low end torque because typically the 4 cylinder engines are usually higher cc that their 3 cylinder counterparts ? Or is due to the different mechanical characteristics of the two engines?

Well, according to my layman understanding, having more cylinders means that a greater number of cylinders fires in one rotation of the crankshaft so that should be the cade in theory. My real life experience also say the same. But now that you've said it, I do think that displacement plays a bigger role here. The highest displacement I've ever experienced with a 3-cylinder (naturally aspirated) is 1.5 litres, while it's 2.4 litres with a 4-cylinder, so my image of then could be skewed. Not exactly a fair comparison for sure. I simply summed up my experiences in my post. The 1.5 litre dragon engine felt more alive low down than the 1.5 sigma in the same car though, so making a generalisation is difficult, and it depends a lot on the gearing, tuning of the engine etc.

Once again induces the long-felt confusion I faced while trying to answer the poll.

[NiInJa]

I've never driven a Turbo charged petrol engine, but I've had experiences with Turbo diesel 4 cylinder in Fiat Linea and 3 cylinder in Beat Diesel, and the usual 3 and 4 cylinder NA.

The 3 cylinder diesel engine was fun initially, but after some years it did become boring with the vibrations and a certain thrummy note. 4 cylinders are inherently balanced and in case of diesel engines with iron block, they become smoother over time. Our Linea was the smoothest when we sold her at 80,000km. The Beat Diesel, not exactly.

In today's world, I think the turbo petrols will be more fun to drive (based on my experience with turbo Diesels), but if I had to own one personally, I would any day go for a bigger NA engine, at the expense of less power and excitement. For me, it is as good as loving dogs so much as long as they belong to my neighbours and neighbourhood I personally can't have one at my home due to cost and practicality.

Direct Injection gasoline engines have tighter tolerances and are extremely complex. In India, only time will tell how Turbo DI engines fair in longest term when it comes to reliability. They are sensitive to how they are driven and at optimal temperatures. They need to be taken care of extremely well with oil changes and other inspection done meticulously on schedule and I am honestly not sure if our service industry is having all that knowledge.

Here is one video of the channel I dig:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVd-ZS5bnyY

[tejascshetty]

Voted for 'Depend's on the car/brand'. Being the owner of Skoda's 1.0 TSI unit on my Rapid, here's my two cents.

While I agree that the general norm of 'no replacement for displacement' and more cylinders is better, would be the rule, ultimately one would have to drive the car in question to make an informed choice, depending on one's own needs and expectations.

Having extensively driven the famous Honda V-Tec in the Honda City, I really liked it, and enjoyed the lag free experience in the low revs, largely attributable to the 4 Cylinder NA Engine. However, to really extract the most out of the engine, one would have to revv it to 5k-6k RPM. No complaints there, and it is a good city rider, while providing an element of fun of highway drives/ on the twisties.

But, I must insist on the much more fun nature of my Rapid 1.0 TSI. To have the entire torque output available at a much lower RPM, and accross a wider RPM spread has to be driven to be believed. The way this tiny 3 Cylinder turbocharged unit can climb up to speeds, and the manner in which it puts down its power has to be experienced.

Furthermore, I have also gone ahead and got myself a simple Stage 1 Remap, which has made this seemingly inconspicuous 3 Cylinder 1 litre turbocharged unit all the more desirable.

Hence, the ease with which a turbocharged engine can be modified to extract higher gains as opposed to a NA engine, would make me pick the turbocharged unit any day (notwithstanding the fact that the FE you can obtain is almost entirely reliant on throttle inputs). Similarly, the Skoda-VW 3 cylinder tubocharged units, are in my humble opinion, far superior to their 4 cylinder NA engines couterparts in their class.

Ultimately, it is what works for you, that you pick. Hence, 'Depends on the car/brand' is my way to go!

[ajayc123]

Originally Posted by tejascshetty

.

But, I must insist on the much more fun nature of my Rapid 1.0 TSI. To have the entire torque output available at a much lower RPM, and accross a wider RPM spread has to be driven to be believed. The way this tiny 3 Cylinder turbocharged unit can climb up to speeds, and the manner in which it puts down its power has to be experienced.

Wow, this is an interesting point. The fun element of the 1.0 TSI turbo vs the NA. Just curious, since it is a 3 cylinder, does it come with higher noise and/or higher vibrations during idling/ driving under certain conditions?

One could also choose a TSI 1.5 which has 4 cylinders that can overcome the limitations of the 3 cylinder inherent dynamics. What could be a good reason for choice of 3 cylinder TSI 1.0 over 4 cylinder TSI 1.5, if any, or vice-versa?

[sunikkat]

Voted for ‘depends on the car and brand’.
While I would love to have a 4 cylinder car, if the comparison is between VAG 1 TSI vs. it’s competition I would gladly pick the 3 cylinder. But then I think, it’s the Turbo vs NA which is deciding factor for me over 3 vs. 4 cylinders. Any day I would pick a turbo over NA, irrespective of the no.of cylinders.

[ramgkulkarni]

Man! what a touch one to select. I own a Skoda 3 cylinder and it is a blast to drive. With MT or Torque converter, it is a beast. However in simple terms, a 4 cylinder is still refined compared to a three cylinders. I graduated from K1.2 Suzuki engine to Skoda 1.0, the 1.2 has its own charm. The high revving engine, low body weight made it a blast on city streets.

If given a chance between 3 cylinder and large 4 cylinder, the large 4 cylinder is the blind option to go with. Unfortunately though, those days are over. There are hardly any large NA 4 cylinders now which are affordable. For the mass-market, 3 cylinders are the stable now.

[m_sobin]

Depends on Car/Brand

I own Ford's 1.5 Dragon 3 Cylinder and the vibration during idle is very minimal. And I felt comparatively more vibration from my Ritz DDis 4 Cylinder.

If anyone compares Maruti's (or other's) small 3 Cylinders with bigger 4 Cylinder, the difference is very much noticeable. But in the same class, I don't think there is enough to distinguish.

[anuragbagur]

I had the 3 cylinder 1.2 TDI from VAG group in my Skoda Fabia (owned it for 8 years). It was lame and certainly felt under-powered during pick-up/ overtaking manoeuvres although the mid-range was pretty good owing to ~180nm. I replaced it last year with 1.0 TSI mated to TC gearbox in VW Polo. Yes, the 3-cylinder characteristics can be felt initially but the difference in power delivery is night and day. This little beauty is relentless. It begs you to go hard whereas it was the otherway round with 1.2 TDI :-P

I also own the 4 cylinder 1.8 TSI again from the VAG group in my Skoda Laura ('fine-tuned' to ~220bhp with a Stage 2 setup). This one pulls like a freight-train even after 10 years!

So I voted for ‘depends on the car and brand’

[Livnletcarsliv]

Voted for 4 cylinder.

My point of view - I always like to drive a car for as long as possible. I don't change it every 4-5 years.

4 cyl engine is significantly more durable and long lasting than a 3 cyl engine. And a 4 cyl engine is more powerful than a 3cyl in almost all cases.
Many of the comparisons here are between a 3 cyl turbo engine and a 4cyl NA engine which is not an apple to apple comparison. Obviously the turbo engine will more powerful in this case. But is that the reason why still 4 cyl NA engines are given an option? Definitely NO.

Additionally 3cyl engines are more noisy on the long run than the 4cyl engines. And again its not an apple to apple comparison to compare today's engine with a 8-10 or more years old engine.

Of course 3cyl engines are cheaper compared to a 4cyl engine for the same model. But as an Bhpian and enthusiast, I dont mind spending another 1-2 lakhs for a 4cyl engine of the same model of the same engine type. (4cyl NA engine over a 3cyl NA, 4cyl Turbo over a 3cyl Turbo).

[aquavivarium]

Naturally aspirated 4cyl is the obvious choice . Since the cycle is 4 stroke thus inherently engine is balanced.

Coming to the present , due to enhanced high temp materials we have turbo in most cars. And one cylinder is compromised as power/torque values are obtained using turbo.

Guys let it be very clear that turbo is useless in city driving. It's boost is useful on long stretches. Plus as turbo engines work with higher cylinder head temperature, rich mixture is maintained for cooling. Also turbo itself has a very high running RPM thus.. long term reliability is a question unless you have a German high priced machine. I have experienced fortuner and Innova turbos fail.

1.5 litre naturally aspirated will suffice almost all the requirements and will last forever. Pls note even if you consider yourself a race driver, your biological limits will trigger prior to you actually taking turbo to a level where it actually makes a difference. Thus this elite turbo niche is reserved for high performance cars with professional drivers.

[ajayc123]

Very interesting perspectives emerging from this thread. Reading your posts has been a meditative experience. Thanks to each of the contributors.

At this point, I want to put two more questions.

1. How does the 3 cylinder engine age when compared to a 4 cylinder? Due to the inherent mechanical / dynamic nature, does the 3 cylinder engine wear out faster, and does the NHV start to gradually increase due to faster wear and tear (and starts becoming a less pleasant experience in a few years time) as compared to a 4 cylinder? Would it be a better option to go for 4 cylinder if one were to think of keeping and enjoying your vehicle for longer?

2. How much is the cost difference between a 3 cylinder and a 4 cylinder engine and the associated delta cost for the mechanism to use the engine? Maybe about 1 to 2 lakhs for a 1.5l.

To explain this better, let's take the example of the Kushaq MT, where the price difference of style variant between the 1.0 and 1.5 engine is slightly less than 2 lakhs.

Would somebody who has got the 3 cylinder mid/top variant switch over to a low/mid variant of a 1.5 cylinder if that were availabe at a delta of less than 2L ? My guess is many would. What do you think?

The real question is why manufacturers like Skoda/VW are not offering 4 cylinder in lower/mid variants? I can't reason this out? Can somebody?