Don’t blame Jerry Hirsch for this headline. Heck, don’t blame the LA Times either. This headline comes courtesy of the Modesto Bee, which demonstrates its auto reporting incompetence by making the oldest assumption in the non-car-guy book: if they make V6 and V8 engines, they must make V4s as well. And though this abject ignorance may be good for a chuckle, it’s indicative of a larger problem: no matter how good of an auto writer you are, chances are you have to send your piece through an editor who knows little to nothing about cars.
And this is not just a problem in instances of syndication, like this Modesto Bee embarrassment… even Hirsch’s original LAT piece had to include the following correction:
An article in the May 28 Section A about Americans shifting to cars with smaller engines said that BMW would still offer the Z4 sports car with a V-6 option. It will be offered with an inline six-cylinder engine, not a V-6
And lest you think that these kinds of writer-editor disconnects only create embarrassment when technical issues are being discussed, consider this: when I was asked by the NY Times to write an op-ed on the Chevy Volt, that august paper slapped my piece with the headline “GM’s Electric Lemon,” a highly loaded turn of phrase I would never use to describe a car that had not yet been produced (as the word “Lemon” implies mechanical disfunction or lack of reliability, an issue my piece didn’t touch on). That one headline, over which I had no control, has become the major cudgel with which my detractors have sought to prove my unsuitability as a legitimate auto writer.
So non-car-versed editors take note: before you slap a clever or provocative headline on a piece, you might want to consult the piece’s author first. It may go against the fine traditions of editorial hierarchy, but it could just save you (and your writer) some serious (and unnecessary) embarrassment.
Yeah but, “GM’s Electric Lemon” is such a catchy sensationalist headline. What use is accuracy when it is dull and unemotional?
“For profit” news has its downsides. When profit is job #1, the product or service has just become (at best) job #2.
Just to be picky, the V4 is not unheard of. Ford built one for the Taunus in the 1960s, and Saab used that engine in the 96 when they replaced their 3cyl two stroke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taunus_V4_engine
Murilee’s beloved Zaporozhets had a V4.
BMW is going to be making a turbo V4
http://www.bmwtalk.org/2011/03/bmw%E2%80%99s-new-2-0-liter-turbocharged-v4-engine-is-coming-to-us-market.html
There were 2 V4s in the 60’s from Ford. Ford Germany and UK had two different engines. The UK version was 1662cc and eventually 2000cc.
The plan was to use all V engines in Europe.
However after experimenting with the motors on the German Taunus and the UK Corsair they used them for only the commercial Ford Transit as they were rather rough.
My family had a Corsair, the motor had lot’s of torque but vibrated a lot.
That BMW piece also talks about BMW’s “trademark” V6. I don’t think the author knows what the V means. A V4 design makes no sense unless the engine bay is so cramped that an inline four won’t fit. More complexity, more weight, less smooth, more expenive.
Michael, that’s a particularly stupid gaffe on their part because if any engine is identified with BMW it’s the inline six.
I don’t know whether BMW is really thinking about a V4 or not, but a 90 degree V4 can have better balance than an inline 4 or a 90 degree V6. It is also lighter than an inline 4 for the same reasons a V6 is lighter than an inline 6. It has a shorter crank, fewer bottom end bearings, and a lighter crank case. As for complexity, that will be the price of many drastic efforts to meet CAFE going forward.
Better balanced V6 must be 60 degree, but still it is not as balanced as 90 degree V8 because of having 3 cylinders in row so two fires or one fires in row. For that reason I3 has to be less balanced than I4. I do not know for sure but I guess V4 might be better balanced than V6. On the other side e.g. Honda engines are pretty good balanced so it is also level of engineering what matters
BTW GM made short-star V6 which was 4 cylinders cut out from Northstar V8 and it is 90 degree V6 and was pretty unbalanced because it is wrong angle for V6.
Some bikes have V2 engine and yes Russian Fiat 500 ripoff had V2 and I suspect it was bike engine.
When I was stationed in Europe with the military during the seventies, I owned a used Bedford delivery van that had a V4 in it, with a manual gear box. We used that van to carry all our musical instruments and amplifiers for our band and traveled to many military bases to perform on our off-duty time. In the seven years I owned it we never had any problems with the engine and it was smoothest at 4000rpm at 100kmh. Could cruise at that speed all day without wearing us out. By the time I sold it, it had over 300,000km on it and was still running strong. Never did anything to it except change oil and filters. Speculation is that Ford’s new 3-cyl is even smoother since it is an inline that fires every 120-degrees, like the Yamaha 750 motorcycle engine and the Suzuki 3-cylinder car engine. Only better, with a turbo-charger pressurizing it for greater output power. No doubt it will come at a premium price.
“Speculation is that Ford’s new 3-cyl is even smoother since it is an inline that fires every 120-degrees”
Not if it’s 4-cycle. 3 cylinders for 720 degrees means a power stroke every 240 degrees.
My mistake. It should have been 240, for a 4-stroke. I briefly owned a 2-stroke 3-cyl watercooled Suzuki motorcycle during the seventies until the middle cylinder seized. But the (used) 4-stroke 3-cyl Suzuki car I had briefly, was pretty darn smooth too. If Ford copied that design and improved on it, it should be a potent little power plant.
The Ford Transit was a V4 for many years same engine was used in the English Zephyr an Corsair.It was a crap engine but that didnt stop em using it
Lancia had a V4 for many many years as well.
That was a Lancia trade mark
Re “BMW is going to be making a turbo V4”
Your “correction” article is wrong … they are going to be making a turbo INLINE four. Actually, BMW already makes such engines and has for years, although they run on diesel.
There is no reason whatsoever for BMW to go away from an in-line configuration for a four-cylinder engine. There is an argument for the use of a V6 rather than an inline-6 for crumple-zone reasons – it would allow BMW to shorten the inordinately long nose that they have – but even that is something of a BMW trademark and there’s no indication of them going in that direction.
Mercedes already made the switch from inline-six to V6 years ago.
Here’s the KMV4 that Katech designed for Motus motorcycles. It’s based on GM’s LSx architecture:
http://www.katechengines.com/katech_inc/news_release.php?id=60
I think Aprilia makes a V4 racing engine.
Also, if a V-Twin in your Harley just isn’t enough, there’s always the V-Quad:
http://v-quad.com/
Don’t forget the V-MAX!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_V-Max_and_VMAX
And the Honda NR series! A V8 in the form of a V4! 500cc, 130hp @ 20,000rpm!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_NR
Or one of the greatest all-around motorcycles ever…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_VFR800
VW (which seems to be a perpetual fountain of oddball engine designs) has the W12 which was imagined from the joining of two VR6s, and also had the W8, but I can’t seem to find any record of VW ever building a VR4. Does anyone with a more thorough knowledge of Wolfsburg know if they ever built one?
No VR4…but they did produce a VR5.
The balance shaft could double as a mariachi band.
Here’s a PDF of a VW publication that’s really informative concerning V, VR and W engines:
http://thepitcrew.org/images/w_engine_concept.pdf
It may open slowly – sometimes I have to refresh it once or twice. But well worth it.
Thanks, that’s very cool.
Doesn’t the Veyron have a W16?
I checked on Edmunds.com, it does.
Most entertainment (including news) is about JPM (jolts per minute) and a bold controversial headline was intended to deliver the first of these. Who can blame them? They compete with cable news which is giving you a steady diet of violent crime stories (the killers in YOUR neighborhood), natural disasters (it could happen anywhere!) and health scares (is your shampoo killing you?) delivered with loud graphics and underscored with a soundtrack that is part Mozart’s requiem and part Wagnerian opera. How is a humble print publication to compete except with a headline? Personally I would have gone with “Could the Volt kill your family?”
From reading the article, it’s clear the writer understands the popular engine architectures in use, but whoever wrote the headline is not the same person.
And V4s have a history in automobile use, albeit a history of rarity. They’re far more popular in the motorcycle arena, where compact engine packaging is a more critical factor
Next thing we’ll be hearing about is the fabulous new V-1 engine!
These folks haven’t got a clue what cylinders, crankshafts are and some configurations are inherently smoother than others.
I can see a lot of small cars being powered by a V-2…
A V-twin makes *plenty* of power for a 2-person microbox.
Actually, V-twins have downright awful power-to-weight and power-to-displacement characteristics. And they’re impossible to balance. You can make an I4 so narrow that you can sit astride one of them long-ways, there isn’t really a good argument for a V-twin.
I beg to differ. Properly designed and setup a V-twin can make some serious power, reliably. It won’t have the top-end punch of a similar 4 but it will have better torque and a broader spread of power. 1000cc could pump out around 120hp with ease, up it to 1200 and you can have 140 or more. Lots of power for a microcar in a very compact and light package (say around 250 lbs or less). Balancing is just a matter of the angle – a 90 degree twin can have near-perfect primary balance with no need for balance shafts.
Problem is “sport” v-twins have never been mainstream, they have a cult following (and great success in racing). Ducati and Aprilia have banked on them, Honda and Suzuki dappled in them for a time. Most people think Harley when they think V-twin. And that is a shame, because there is nothing like a high-powered V-twin sportbike.
V-4 engines were popular with motorcycles in the 1980’s however mechanical problems and weight prompted a move to inline 4 engines. The Honda V 4 engines were notorious cam chain eaters and replacing the carburetors required a PhD in mechanical engineering. They were quite powerful and smooth though. The Yamaha V-Max remains a V-4 powerhouse still in production after 25 years,
Marine applications would be the best use for a V-4 and possibly lawn and garden machines.
GS, the early V4 Hondas I’ve dealt with ate the cams themselves(VF500 and 750 Interceptors)through poor oiling and coolant spraying the cams through poor-sealing casting hole plugs in the heads. I’ve repaired several of them for this.
The earlier CX500 V-Twins ate the chains.
The ST1100 and ST1300 V4 engines have been paragons of reliability.
When I was a SAAB tech I worked on quite a few 96s and Sonnets with the V4 engine. Never really had a mechanical issue with them, usually problems with carbs and ignitions like all the o9lder engines had.When that engine became the Cologne V6 as used in the Mercury Capri, I saw quite a few broken timing gears.
BTW..I’d love to have a 650, 850, or 1100 G-model in the garage alongside my CB750K and ZRX1100.
My GS650G is a remarkable ride and very underated for it’s time. I’ve had several models and brands of UJM but it just seems right and balanced.
So any advantages to V4? I’m guessing it would be a packaging nightmare though. (BTW I do think that more automakers will be following Hyundai’s lead with 4cyl only in the Sonata (and it’s cousin the Kia Optima.)
Only for longitudinal mounted engine probably.
More space in front of the motor for improved crash protection and also possibly better weight distribution.
For transverse mounting not worth the trouble.
Oil pump/disyributor drives were a weak spot on Fords V4 and V6 if they didnt cook to a stop first, There was a thriving industry in NZ fitting Ford or Chevvy V8s into MK4 Zephyrs and new MK4s sold at a discount due to the unreliability of the Essex V6 it was a crap motor
In the motorcycle applications, the uneven firing order leads to a distinctive engine sound, and in certain racing applications, there is an argument that a slightly irregular torque delivery is better for the rider’s “feel” of the amount of traction available.
In cars, where a primary objective is (in most cases) keeping the engine as silent and vibration-free as possible, that irregular firing order is a problem rather than a feature.
The engineering changes that would be necessary to achieve an even firing order on a V4 layout lead in one of the following directions: either the angle of the “V” becomes zero (i.e. an in-line engine), or 180 degrees (i.e. a “flat” boxer engine like VW air-cooled or Subaru flat-four), or the crankpins are offset in a manner that ruins the engine’s primary balance so that you have to use a balance shaft (more complexity, more friction). For automotive applications nowadays, it’s not worth the trouble.
I remember V4s from USAC midgets many years ago, I think they were derived from outboard motor engines? Or cut-up Chevy V-8s?
Headlines are designed to catch eyeballs, not to tell the truth.
During my short stint as a freelance writer I was surprised at the headlines attached to my pieces a few times.
The only BMW I’m familiar with is the E 28.. It has an I 6 and the nose is one big crumple zone. The cabins will often survive a nose hit unharmed, even with out airbags. The rear end too. They did “crumple’ well in those cars. I drove bugs with a little pancake 4 for ages. Transverse I 4s are perfect for wrong wheel drive appliances. A V6 is harder to service anything behind the rear bank. A V 4 has little practical use in that situation.
Other than the Z3/4/8 roadsters I don’t think BMWs have extremely long noses. Maybe compared to a Prius or a Yaris, but a Camry has a really long snout compared to either of those cars.
The E46 and E90 BMWs manage to package their long inline 6 engines well.
And a V6 is fine for longitudal applications (Infiniti RWD sedans and coupes) but a total pain in the rear to service in transverse applications – especially the 3 rear spark plugs.
I remember back when multi-valve engines were the latest thing in small cars (late 1980’s). A Houston dealer ran an ad in our paper touting some or other V6-equipped car with a “16-valve engine”. We had a grand old time calling the dealer’s service department in an effort to find out which cylinders got the extra valves!
The V-4 is one of the most under-appreciated engine configs out there. It is a virtual unknown in cars, but in bikes it has come in cycles (no pun intended). I’ve had two, both Hondas, a VFR400R a few years back and now the infamous VF750F as my city scooter. Honda has led the charge for decades, originally as a racing effort in the VF750/1000 and RC30/45 which later “evolved” into a sport touring rig with the VFR (longitudinal 700-750-800 and 1200cc) and ST (1100-1300 transverse) series. Hardcore sports bikes have emerged recently featuring the V-4 – the Aprilia RSV4 superbike and the Ducati Desmosedici RR MotoGP replica.
In bikes the V-4 has a strong cult following. They have an offbeat cadence that distinguishes them from inline designs. Where an inline is electric smooth and linear, the V-4 has a burble and a different power delivery that has more character in my opinion. With a set of loud pipes a V4 sounds exactly like half of a V8 – amazing. It also allows for a different torque delivery which is advantageous in racing. The staggered power pulses of the V is “gentler” on the rear traction (for lack of a better description) allowing a rider to exit corners harder and faster with less chance of highsiding. It’s supposedly the main reason Ducati dominates superbike racing despite a significant power deficit and only two cylinders vs the high powered inline fours of the competition.
In the real world a V-4 has better packaging if not smoothness. It’s as narrow as a parallel twin and as long as a V-twin. When Honda came out with the VF it was way more compact than the big across-the-frame inline fours the competition was fielding. Makes them easier to handle as they are significantly narrower.
The main reason it didn’t catch on wasn’t because of a lack of performance – the VF was a staggering bike back in the day and damn quick. It was poor assembly, shitty quality control, and a bad top end oiling design. The VF series was the first engine to be assembled almost entirely by advanced robotics and computer controlled assembly lines with minimal human intervention. It was a disaster. Tolerances were way off and weren’t checked before the bike was delivered to dealers. Corners were cut by not line-boring the cams, which were also not properly hardened by the supplier. On top of this oil to the heads lacked pressure and sufficient volume to keep the cams intact when the engine was cold. The chocolate camshaft problem was a combination of poor surface hardening and lack of oil flow. Other problems existed but this is the one that most people remember, with the cam faces chipping and pitting within 10K in most cases.
The whole debacle destroyed Honda’s stellar reputation for reliability and condemned the V-4 to infamy despite being one of the finest sport engines of the early 80s (self-destruction aside, these mills are sweet engines with a great spread of useable power). Public perception was enough to kill the V4 program even though everything was sorted by 1986. After that, the VFR became one of the most celebrated sport-touring rigs and all-around great bikes with a reputation for excellent reliability. But a mainstream V4 was not to be, and after the exotic RC30 and RC45 supersport V4s pretty much disappeared.
These editors must be the same folks who wander cluelessly onto my lot and argue with me about how the Envoy XUV I’m showing them as the same Vortec motor that they hate in their uncle’s S-10 Blazer. Or call Galants “Mishibishis.”
At least we were spared the editorial creation of a V-5. I’ve quit being surprised by the level of ignorance among the general population of what goes on under the hood of a car. One of my wife’s co-workers swears by her Audi (A4, I think), but states that she’d never own a VW due to the stories she’s heard about high maintenance costs. I haven’t had the heart to explain to her the relationship between Audi and VW.
There does seem to be a notion among a lot of drivers that “V” in an engine’s description is some kind of performance indicator, and not a reference to the actual shape of the engine.
V-4 are potentially more powerful than i-4’s. In a straight engine, when two of the cylinders are at top dead center, the other two are at BDC. In a V-4, this doesn’t happen, when one piston is at TDC, it’s ‘opposing’ cylinder is mid-stroke. Hence, you can use a lighter flywheel on a V-4 rather than on an i-4. But you’ll get a secondary rocking motion that moves the engine side to side, like on a flat-crank V-8.
An i-4 engine isn’t perfectly balanced either. It has good primary balance, but unless you use dual counter rotating balance shafts ala Honda K24 or Porsche 944, the secondary forces cause the engine to hop up and down with each rotation. This has nothing to do with manufacturing tolerances, it’s inherent to the design of the engine.
A V-4 only makes sense if you are mounting the engine north-south. Since most 4-cylinder applications are front-drive, it’s small wonder why it’s not used in cars nowadays. Still, with a set of balance shafts, it would make an intriguing layout for something like the Honda S2000, you could set up a front-mid layout with a shorter engine bay than what we are seeing now.
Regading the NYT piece, If you look at it a certain way, I can understand their use of the work “lemon” in the title. I say this because when I read your piece, it seemed to me that you were creating a direct connection between the development of the Volt and the demise of GM and, specifically, that the entire amount of the bailout was being flushed down the Volt development tubes.
I think the word I’m looking for here is “metaphor” which is something altogether different than mis-naming an I4 as a V4.
I thought this piece was well-written. I have some slight knowledge of the author of the original LAT piece; enough to suggest that he’s smart enough and a good enough writer not to have committed even the “V-6” mistake himself.