[xway]

Voted for 4 cylinders.

Putting it bluntly 3 cylinders are nothing but cost cutting exercise.

Its like asking if on a wheel we prefer 3 bolts or 4 bolts, though smaller wheels can make do with 3, but 4 will not take away anything.

If on a mobile do we prefer 6 gb ram or 8 gb, no matter if they market how 6 gb will reduce the weight by 2 gms or some other gimmick, its cost cutting in the end.

The answer is obvious, its nothing more than cost cutting.

[Kosfactor]

Was driving an unusual drive train recently - iMT , courtesy Kia Sonet.

Got used to it pretty quickly and realised it is the easiest of vehicles to drive, everything is spot on, super light , accurate steering and all controls work exactly as you expect it to be. If AMT is hit or miss, this one is a smooth operator - the operator being you for the most part.

While I was enjoying the comfort and all that , I only realised after parking the vehicle and thinking about it that it was petrol - it pulled as effortless as a diesel at slow city traffic and the up and down roads of Banasankari.

It's ever more incredible that it's a 3 cyl, never thought about that even once during driving. A very refined experience overall. I'm good with 3 Cyl if they are this good, I'm good with iMT too.

[tejascshetty]

Originally Posted by ajayc123

Just curious, since it is a 3 cylinder, does it come with higher noise and/or higher vibrations during idling/ driving under certain conditions?[ ...] 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?

Vibrations are an inherent trait with a 3 cylinder unit. However, the Skoda-VAG 3 cylinder turbo units have kept the vibrations to a minimum. At start up, there is mild vibrations, but none on the gear box, and the same also smoothens out as the ride progresses. Its not something I have consciously noticed, unless I pay specific attention to it.

TBH, I would not pick a 3 cylinder turbo over a 4 cylinder turbo unit. The 4 cylinder turbo unit would be clearly much more superior. The Skoda-VAG group's 1.5 TSI would be a great choice, coupled with its cylinder de-activation technology, which would also ensure a decent FE in sedate driving conditions.

[shashanka]

This thread reminds me of the one I had tried to start on FWD vs RWD vs AWD/4WD. There seem to be too many variables (apart from the tech wizadry that keeps raising the bar with the passage of time) of the subjective kind and after a stage (like Jeroen put it) it becomes difficult to know what configuration one is driving!

Rather like turbo-diesels and NA petrols - in a simpler world one knew that a turbo-diesel had lots of low down grunt while an NA petrol felt anaemic in the lower range. Whereas today, I've opted for the turbo-petrol Thar, which reaches peak torque around 1250/1300 rpm - sort of best of both worlds really. Except of course for the FE!

[ron_9191]

I wish someone made a 5 cylinder engine that we could actually buy! Don't ask me why but Google for the mighty Audi Sport Quattro S1. That engine with a proper exhaust sounds absolutely brutal.

I'd take both the 3 cyl and 4 cyl engines in the survey here, throw away 2 cylinders, or donate it off to Tata to make a 4 cylinder Nano and make a 5 cylinder beast.

Realistically, it is definitely a 4 cylinder engine for me any day.

[ajayc123]

My conclusions so far:

3 cylinder, by its nature comes with higher NHV (noise and vibrations) due to its inherent inertial characteristics. The experience can be improved by engineering (tuning, vibration dampening, sound control - silencer etc), but the core still is the same.

A couple of analogies come to mind:

mediocre meal spiced up by tasty sauces and dressing
A wild beast tamed by setatives and chains ( junglee billi )

A 4 cylinder has a better core (inertial characteristics), when combined with good engineering, it will get even better.

Ultimately, it boils down to what you are game for (read budget).

I chose 4 cylinder.

[itsmeparvathy9]

Originally Posted by ajayc123

My conclusions so far:

3 cylinder, by its nature comes with higher NHV (noise and vibrations) due to its inherent inertial characteristics. The experience can be improved by engineering (tuning, vibration dampening, sound control - silencer etc), but the core still is the same.

A couple of analogies come to mind:

mediocre meal spiced up by tasty sauces and dressing
A wild beast tamed by setatives and chains

A 4 cylinder has a better core (inertial characteristics), when combined with good engineering, it will get even better.

Ultimately, it boils down to what you are game for (read budget).

Exactly, the budget plays a major role here, to minimize costs as well as get powerful engines, manufacturers have gone towards downsizing and adding turbochargers in 1 litre and 1.2 litre 3-cylinder engines.

[anshu1101]

Voted for "Depends on the car/ brand"

At the outset, a 4 cylinder seems like the obvious choice. But, after test driving the Skoda Kushaq/ VW Taigun 1.0 3 cylinder turbo petrol ATs while hunting for a car for my wife, I was smitten. She was too.

Now, a Skoda Kushaq 1.0 AT Monte Carlo shares the garage with my Hyundai Tucson Diesel Auto AWD.

[rahulmuk07]

Originally Posted by GTO

Thread moved from the Assembly Line to Tech Stuff. Thanks for sharing!

Going to our homepage today .

We have an older thread on Triple vs 4-cylinders, but the game has much moved on since, so we can certainly have a fresh discussion on this topic.

All things being the same, I would obviously pick 4-cylinders over 3 (and 6-cylinders over 4, 8 over 6 but NOT 12 over 8 due to complexity ). But in the real world, all things aren't the same. As an example, Skoda-VW's 1.0L turbo-petrol is a maniac to drive - too much fun. I would buy that over some competitor 4-cylinders. Among NA motors, Ford's 1.5L 3-cylinder Dragon was a jewel of a motor and I'd pick that over Maruti's 1.5L 4-cylinder NA & Hyundai's 1.5L / 1.6L NAs. Although there are many tamer ones too (Maruti's 1.0L Boosterjet) and ones that suck (Ford's 1.0L EcoBoost with horrible lag, questionable FE & suspect reliability).

Hence, voted for "depends on the car / brand".

Originally Posted by ajayc123

When in the market for a car, one encounters engine options with 3 and 4 cylinders. Sometimes, the same model offers both 3 cylinder and 4 cylinder variants, and that becomes confusing. Add turbo to the mix, it becomes even more confusing.

Each of the options have their use cases & value proposition with some of the variables including: refinement, NHV, cost, fuel efficiency, power spread.

While theoretical comparisons are available, and even engineering solutions to overcome some of the weaknesses of each type have been devised, but the available information is often laced with the hype and the marketing.

Real user feedback is the ultimate armoury to improve the understanding (proverbially: separate the wheat from the chaff), and help reach an informed decision on the choice of a suitable engine for a specific use case.

I am requesting the team-bhp members for their poll on their preference for 3 cylinder vs 4 cylinder. Also requesting for their commentary on their experiences about these and use cases where one option should be preferred over the other.

Also, if its a turbo engine, how different would be the experience between a 3 cylinder vs a 4 cylinder when compared to an NA engine?

What are good and bad use cases for?
3 cylinder NA
3 cylinder turbo
4 cylinder NA
4 cylinder turbo

PS. I have intentionally left out 6 cylinders or more so that we can stay focussed on the two options, but any commentary that helps the discussion is welcome.

Hopefully, this discussion will be helpful in choosing the right engine for the our needs and make us happy.

Thanks !

4 cylinder NA & 4 Cylinder Turbo engines any day, Direct injection turbo 3 cylinders are slightly better, however most 3 cylinder engines suffer from a flat spot in lower RPM's, this is evident on flyovers are inclines where the lack of torque is makes these vehicles struggle big time. Whereas a 4 cylinder engine can easily cruise in a higher gear with a lower rpm as baseline torque is much better. Vibrations are also a big downside of 3 cylinder engines most are extremely thrummy. They tend to wear our the engine mountings quite quickly.

The newer generation 3 cylinder TSI engines from VW are no doubt better but long term reliability of these engines are a big question mark.