RE: Six of the best | Four-cylinder engines
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Peugeot Mi16 Engine in XU9 format. A 2.0 litre 16 valver, first production in the 405 mi16 of 1988.
Went on to form the basis of "Hot" Peugeot and Citroen engines for 15 years!
I've never established its exact lineage, but it certainly owes something to the pure motorsport 16v engines used by Peugeot for their dominant Group B 205 Turbo 16. If the road engine cylinder head was designed by the motorsports team i wouldn't be suprised looking at its architecture!
I 100% agree and am glad people still openly love this engine. It was designed by the motorsport department later called Peugeot sport. The head is a work of art considering it was fitted to a road card. Every advantage you speak of was due to Peugeot cheating homologation in a sense. If the production engine had these traits then they utilise it for motorsport. Even simple things like the front facing inlet and the long design of the exhaust manifold. This was an engine with serious pedigree. Went on to form the basis of "Hot" Peugeot and Citroen engines for 15 years!
I've never established its exact lineage, but it certainly owes something to the pure motorsport 16v engines used by Peugeot for their dominant Group B 205 Turbo 16. If the road engine cylinder head was designed by the motorsports team i wouldn't be suprised looking at its architecture!
Not only is the AMG M139’s 208hp/litre impressive, its fuel efficiency is also useful; according to Autocar’s recent AMG A45 S road test:
“As for fuel consumption, our test car averaged 31.1mpg overall and recorded 41.5mpg touring economy”, compared to the same mag’s Golf R figures: “We recorded 33.7mpg at a cruise and 28.7mpg as an overall test average.”
It’ll be interesting to see what the M139’s effective lifespan will be before the turbo or internals need a rebuild.
“As for fuel consumption, our test car averaged 31.1mpg overall and recorded 41.5mpg touring economy”, compared to the same mag’s Golf R figures: “We recorded 33.7mpg at a cruise and 28.7mpg as an overall test average.”
It’ll be interesting to see what the M139’s effective lifespan will be before the turbo or internals need a rebuild.
Max_Torque said:
Definately this:
Let me explain why:
It was an engine (XU9) that made significantly more power when released in 1998 than the vast majority of 8v & 16v competitors, even in std production tune. Making 160 bhp vs 120 to 130 bhp typically for it's competition . Even the powerful Vauxhall XE 2.0 16v'er with it's Cosworth head had to give second best in terms of power, although only just in non cat format. The Pug engine was also a very sweet rev'er, making power at 6500rpm to 7k, just when most contemporary engines were all done, and certainly a lot sounded rather strained above 6k.
But what marks it out as special for me is the exceptional design detail and architecture put into the engine, either through 'over specification' or with an eye on future competition useage (most probably, a bit of both). Things like huge diameter valve buckets, meaning a high lift cam with a large base circle could be accommodated without significant metal work mods. Really, really nice intake ports and both large diameter valves (for a big total valve area) but also with perfect spacing, angle and relatively small stems to allow larger valves to be inserted, again without significant rework required. Capable of an easy 100bhp/litre without significant internal work, and up to 130 bhp/litre in more exotic states of tune (Touring car etc).
Although largely conventional for the time, the bottom end of the engine did use an atypical alluminium wet linered architecture, making it significantly lower mass than it's competitors, something that really matters for lightweight FWD applications. It also was 'square' at 86 x 86 bore/stroke meaning with it's tall block it had decent rod angularity and a good total valve area potential.
IMO, until BMW released their S50B32 engine in the E36 M3, 8 years later in 1996, this little 4 cyl engine probably had the best production cylinder head ever made!
(The 2.0 16v XE gets an honerable mention and probably slots into second place, because whislt it had a similar ultimate power potential, i mark it down for requiring more rework/mods to get big big power, and for simply not being as nicely made in std production format)
Good engines but Honda were making 160hp from 1.6l NA engines in 1989 that not only revved to 8400 RPM, but would go on to 200k+ miles without ever being opened. That truly amazes meLet me explain why:
It was an engine (XU9) that made significantly more power when released in 1998 than the vast majority of 8v & 16v competitors, even in std production tune. Making 160 bhp vs 120 to 130 bhp typically for it's competition . Even the powerful Vauxhall XE 2.0 16v'er with it's Cosworth head had to give second best in terms of power, although only just in non cat format. The Pug engine was also a very sweet rev'er, making power at 6500rpm to 7k, just when most contemporary engines were all done, and certainly a lot sounded rather strained above 6k.
But what marks it out as special for me is the exceptional design detail and architecture put into the engine, either through 'over specification' or with an eye on future competition useage (most probably, a bit of both). Things like huge diameter valve buckets, meaning a high lift cam with a large base circle could be accommodated without significant metal work mods. Really, really nice intake ports and both large diameter valves (for a big total valve area) but also with perfect spacing, angle and relatively small stems to allow larger valves to be inserted, again without significant rework required. Capable of an easy 100bhp/litre without significant internal work, and up to 130 bhp/litre in more exotic states of tune (Touring car etc).
Although largely conventional for the time, the bottom end of the engine did use an atypical alluminium wet linered architecture, making it significantly lower mass than it's competitors, something that really matters for lightweight FWD applications. It also was 'square' at 86 x 86 bore/stroke meaning with it's tall block it had decent rod angularity and a good total valve area potential.
IMO, until BMW released their S50B32 engine in the E36 M3, 8 years later in 1996, this little 4 cyl engine probably had the best production cylinder head ever made!
(The 2.0 16v XE gets an honerable mention and probably slots into second place, because whislt it had a similar ultimate power potential, i mark it down for requiring more rework/mods to get big big power, and for simply not being as nicely made in std production format)
Edited by Max_Torque on Sunday 15th March 12:25
Edited by Max_Torque on Sunday 15th March 12:43
NGK210 said:
Not only is the AMG M139’s 208hp/litre impressive, its fuel efficiency is also useful; according to Autocar’s recent AMG A45 S road test:
“As for fuel consumption, our test car averaged 31.1mpg overall and recorded 41.5mpg touring economy”, compared to the same mag’s Golf R figures: “We recorded 33.7mpg at a cruise and 28.7mpg as an overall test average.”
It’ll be interesting to see what the M139’s effective lifespan will be before the turbo or internals need a rebuild.
Not sure what they'd been doing with their Golf R, but mine's currently showing a 38.3mpg long-term average, and it gets into the low 40s on a run. “As for fuel consumption, our test car averaged 31.1mpg overall and recorded 41.5mpg touring economy”, compared to the same mag’s Golf R figures: “We recorded 33.7mpg at a cruise and 28.7mpg as an overall test average.”
It’ll be interesting to see what the M139’s effective lifespan will be before the turbo or internals need a rebuild.
There's a lot to be said for a 40 mile each way motorway commute
V8fan said:
Zag_a_muffin said:
Lotus 910 and versions of it was used in Jenson Healy, Lotus Sunbeam and the Elite, Eclat and Excel. Is that sufficient front engine applications?
I've had 3 x Lotus Excels so I know what I'm on about. They may all be from the 900 series, but all those engines are the 912 including the N/A Esprit. The turbo dry sump is the 910.
And 300 hp from a 2.2 4pot in 1989 wasn’t half bad.
Ive thrashed mine to within an inch of destruction and it has proven rugged and resilient. 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, not bad.
Edited by Oilchange on Sunday 15th March 15:25
Hillman Imp - Coventry Climax FWMA derived - and no, they didn't all overheat. Introduced in 1963, a lightweight aluminium , free reving, overhead cam engine, used at a time when the competition still had cast iron OHC blocks. The refinement of the Imp engine (also used in Ginettas & the Clan Crusader) was streets ahead of the "A" series used in the mini at the time. The IMP engine was in fact ahead of its time, and defined the architecture adopted by many others until 4 valve heads came in. Peugeot later adopted the engine and used it, still with some interchangeable parts up until 1990.
Not a well known or very widespread engine but the Toyota 3s-ge in “beams” red top/blacktop was a good four cylinder, 197bhp for the fwd red top and about 210 for the blacktop.
The red top had intake vvti, sodium filled exhaust valves and it had a nice intake plenum with trumpets inside it. Standard redline was about 7500rpm but it Would pull up to and past 8000rpm on an aftermarket Ecu, they were used in a race series where the engine was stock except for a motec sci with limited set to 8400rpm.
Blacktop had both inlet and exhaust vvti and titanium valves. Pretty good engine for the late 90s. And only variable valve timing so no variable lift, good spread of torque for an na. 2 litre. Both would see about 220bhp with a good map on them.
The red top had intake vvti, sodium filled exhaust valves and it had a nice intake plenum with trumpets inside it. Standard redline was about 7500rpm but it Would pull up to and past 8000rpm on an aftermarket Ecu, they were used in a race series where the engine was stock except for a motec sci with limited set to 8400rpm.
Blacktop had both inlet and exhaust vvti and titanium valves. Pretty good engine for the late 90s. And only variable valve timing so no variable lift, good spread of torque for an na. 2 litre. Both would see about 220bhp with a good map on them.
Edited by Zuban on Sunday 15th March 16:51
Max_Torque said:
Definately this:
Let me explain why:
It was an engine (XU9) that made significantly more power when released in 1998 than the vast majority of 8v & 16v competitors, even in std production tune. Making 160 bhp vs 120 to 130 bhp typically for it's competition . Even the powerful Vauxhall XE 2.0 16v'er with it's Cosworth head had to give second best in terms of power, although only just in non cat format. The Pug engine was also a very sweet rev'er, making power at 6500rpm to 7k, just when most contemporary engines were all done, and certainly a lot sounded rather strained above 6k.
But what marks it out as special for me is the exceptional design detail and architecture put into the engine, either through 'over specification' or with an eye on future competition useage (most probably, a bit of both). Things like huge diameter valve buckets, meaning a high lift cam with a large base circle could be accommodated without significant metal work mods. Really, really nice intake ports and both large diameter valves (for a big total valve area) but also with perfect spacing, angle and relatively small stems to allow larger valves to be inserted, again without significant rework required. Capable of an easy 100bhp/litre without significant internal work, and up to 130 bhp/litre in more exotic states of tune (Touring car etc).
Although largely conventional for the time, the bottom end of the engine did use an atypical alluminium wet linered architecture, making it significantly lower mass than it's competitors, something that really matters for lightweight FWD applications. It also was 'square' at 86 x 86 bore/stroke meaning with it's tall block it had decent rod angularity and a good total valve area potential.
IMO, until BMW released their S50B32 engine in the E36 M3, 8 years later in 1996, this little 4 cyl engine probably had the best production cylinder head ever made!
(The 2.0 16v XE gets an honerable mention and probably slots into second place, because whislt it had a similar ultimate power potential, i mark it down for requiring more rework/mods to get big big power, and for simply not being as nicely made in std production format)
I could not agree more, I had one in a 205 GTi and that has been my favourite car, due to the engine, of all that I have owned. Despite many others being on paper far superior. I currently have a fairly high spec XE in my Westfield, it has much more power and runs to a high RPM it does not make me giggle like the Mi16.Let me explain why:
It was an engine (XU9) that made significantly more power when released in 1998 than the vast majority of 8v & 16v competitors, even in std production tune. Making 160 bhp vs 120 to 130 bhp typically for it's competition . Even the powerful Vauxhall XE 2.0 16v'er with it's Cosworth head had to give second best in terms of power, although only just in non cat format. The Pug engine was also a very sweet rev'er, making power at 6500rpm to 7k, just when most contemporary engines were all done, and certainly a lot sounded rather strained above 6k.
But what marks it out as special for me is the exceptional design detail and architecture put into the engine, either through 'over specification' or with an eye on future competition useage (most probably, a bit of both). Things like huge diameter valve buckets, meaning a high lift cam with a large base circle could be accommodated without significant metal work mods. Really, really nice intake ports and both large diameter valves (for a big total valve area) but also with perfect spacing, angle and relatively small stems to allow larger valves to be inserted, again without significant rework required. Capable of an easy 100bhp/litre without significant internal work, and up to 130 bhp/litre in more exotic states of tune (Touring car etc).
Although largely conventional for the time, the bottom end of the engine did use an atypical alluminium wet linered architecture, making it significantly lower mass than it's competitors, something that really matters for lightweight FWD applications. It also was 'square' at 86 x 86 bore/stroke meaning with it's tall block it had decent rod angularity and a good total valve area potential.
IMO, until BMW released their S50B32 engine in the E36 M3, 8 years later in 1996, this little 4 cyl engine probably had the best production cylinder head ever made!
(The 2.0 16v XE gets an honerable mention and probably slots into second place, because whislt it had a similar ultimate power potential, i mark it down for requiring more rework/mods to get big big power, and for simply not being as nicely made in std production format)
Edited by Max_Torque on Sunday 15th March 12:25
Edited by Max_Torque on Sunday 15th March 12:43
Good shout for the Coventry Climax. Very impressive for a fire pump.
The only 4 pot that has ever really stirred my soul from first hand experience was the MV Augusta 1078cc in the F4-312. That was a cracker of an engine with a lovely power band and noise everywhere above 4K rpm. But they did tend to run a bit warm!!!
My four cylinder experience in cars has been somewhat limited and I struggle to think of any that I enjoyed purely for the motor. Possibly the Saab turbo....
The only 4 pot that has ever really stirred my soul from first hand experience was the MV Augusta 1078cc in the F4-312. That was a cracker of an engine with a lovely power band and noise everywhere above 4K rpm. But they did tend to run a bit warm!!!
My four cylinder experience in cars has been somewhat limited and I struggle to think of any that I enjoyed purely for the motor. Possibly the Saab turbo....
helix402 said:
Pooh said:
This, particularly the 1.5 twin carb version which in my opinion is better than the 1.7.
The 1.5 was very smooth, free revving and sounded great, I never driven a better 4 cylinder engine and I have driven a lot including some on the above list. I think it misses out in these sorts of lists because so many people have never experienced one.
The original 1186cc feels even sweeter than the 1.5. Revs ridiculously high. I had one in my first car and compared to contemporary Novas/metros etc it was a world apart. Even came with a 5 speed box!The 1.5 was very smooth, free revving and sounded great, I never driven a better 4 cylinder engine and I have driven a lot including some on the above list. I think it misses out in these sorts of lists because so many people have never experienced one.
Mention also of the Imp engine , based on a Coventry Climax engine and all alloy. I had an 875 and then a 998 Rallye Imp engine in my Clan Crusader . Revvy , ,turbine smooth and pokey , but would overheat if you looked at it the wrong way
Anyway , good to expand the discussion into earlier eras , and not just the usual suspects (however clever stuff like VTECs etc are )
I'd also mention the Fiat Twin Cam from the Sixties - they felt like something from the future compared to some of the horrors we had to endure - sorry BMC but the B series a tad clunky , if a veritable DFV compared to that heap of rubbish in the engine room of HA Vivas . And we won't even talk of dad's Humber Hawk - 2.3 litre Four with a wheezing 70bhp..
I can confirm the AMG 4 pot in the Evo is incredible
I drove a power pack Evo I, which I think is basically the Evo II engine. The extra 30 or so BHP cost the original buyer the equivalent of about 15k!
It seemed very unhappy about the 7k redline though, clearly designed for more. Sounded epic even with the stock airbox though.
I drove a power pack Evo I, which I think is basically the Evo II engine. The extra 30 or so BHP cost the original buyer the equivalent of about 15k!
It seemed very unhappy about the 7k redline though, clearly designed for more. Sounded epic even with the stock airbox though.
The 16v engine in the Mk II Golf GTi. My second-fave 4-pot of all time, behind the truly astonishing Integra type r.
The VW 4 was bullet-proof; economical; faster at 100k miles than when new; torquey; responsive - and, best of all, sounded gloriously rorty, esp when you caned them.
Some prejudice against including them, of course, especially from people who've never owned one. Germans - they're just "efficient" aren't they? Only the Italians have soul, etc; the usual tired clichés based on ignorance.
This bloke, an experienced car journo, wasn't expecting much; but he got his eyes (and ears) opened:
"The big surprise, however, is the engine. I thought this car was going to be all about the chassis, but the 16-valve 1.8-litre N/A inline-four is a rev-hungry hero. It’ll keep going to 7000rpm, letting out a glorious induction bark during the final 1000rpm before the redline. It reminds me of the four-pot in the Mercedes 190E 2.3 16, which remains just about the best-sounding inline-four-powered road car I’ve ever heard."
See: https://www.carthrottle.com/post/the-mki-vw-golf-g...
The VW 4 was bullet-proof; economical; faster at 100k miles than when new; torquey; responsive - and, best of all, sounded gloriously rorty, esp when you caned them.
Some prejudice against including them, of course, especially from people who've never owned one. Germans - they're just "efficient" aren't they? Only the Italians have soul, etc; the usual tired clichés based on ignorance.
This bloke, an experienced car journo, wasn't expecting much; but he got his eyes (and ears) opened:
"The big surprise, however, is the engine. I thought this car was going to be all about the chassis, but the 16-valve 1.8-litre N/A inline-four is a rev-hungry hero. It’ll keep going to 7000rpm, letting out a glorious induction bark during the final 1000rpm before the redline. It reminds me of the four-pot in the Mercedes 190E 2.3 16, which remains just about the best-sounding inline-four-powered road car I’ve ever heard."
See: https://www.carthrottle.com/post/the-mki-vw-golf-g...
Zuban said:
Not a well known or very widespread engine but the Toyota 3s-ge in “beams” red top/blacktop was a good four cylinder, 197bhp for the fwd red top and about 210 for the blacktop.
The red top had intake vvti, sodium filled exhaust valves and it had a nice intake plenum with trumpets inside it. Standard redline was about 7500rpm but it Would pull up to and past 8000rpm on an aftermarket Ecu, they were used in a race series where the engine was stock except for a motec sci with limited set to 8400rpm.
Blacktop had both inlet and exhaust vvti and titanium valves. Pretty good engine for the late 90s. And only variable valve timing so no variable lift, good spread of torque for an na. 2 litre. Both would see about 220bhp with a good map on them.
I had the black top in a an MR2. The cylinder head was designed by Yamaha. It went ok but lacked torque. A careless miss shift saw a spun big end bearing. The red top had intake vvti, sodium filled exhaust valves and it had a nice intake plenum with trumpets inside it. Standard redline was about 7500rpm but it Would pull up to and past 8000rpm on an aftermarket Ecu, they were used in a race series where the engine was stock except for a motec sci with limited set to 8400rpm.
Blacktop had both inlet and exhaust vvti and titanium valves. Pretty good engine for the late 90s. And only variable valve timing so no variable lift, good spread of torque for an na. 2 litre. Both would see about 220bhp with a good map on them.
Edited by Zuban on Sunday 15th March 16:51
tommy1973s said:
The 16v engine in the Mk II Golf GTi. My second-fave 4-pot of all time, behind the truly astonishing Integra type r.
The VW 4 was bullet-proof; economical; faster at 100k miles than when new; torquey; responsive - and, best of all, sounded gloriously rorty, esp when you caned them.
Some prejudice against including them, of course, especially from people who've never owned one. Germans - they're just "efficient" aren't they? Only the Italians have soul, etc; the usual tired clichés based on ignorance.
This bloke, an experienced car journo, wasn't expecting much; but he got his eyes (and ears) opened:
"The big surprise, however, is the engine. I thought this car was going to be all about the chassis, but the 16-valve 1.8-litre N/A inline-four is a rev-hungry hero. It’ll keep going to 7000rpm, letting out a glorious induction bark during the final 1000rpm before the redline. It reminds me of the four-pot in the Mercedes 190E 2.3 16, which remains just about the best-sounding inline-four-powered road car I’ve ever heard."
See: https://www.carthrottle.com/post/the-mki-vw-golf-g...
I recall back in the day some "beef" between 8v and 16v owners with the 8v ers maintaining that the 16v was no quicker. Imho the 16v liked to rev so did seem quicker to me albeit near the top of the rev range.The VW 4 was bullet-proof; economical; faster at 100k miles than when new; torquey; responsive - and, best of all, sounded gloriously rorty, esp when you caned them.
Some prejudice against including them, of course, especially from people who've never owned one. Germans - they're just "efficient" aren't they? Only the Italians have soul, etc; the usual tired clichés based on ignorance.
This bloke, an experienced car journo, wasn't expecting much; but he got his eyes (and ears) opened:
"The big surprise, however, is the engine. I thought this car was going to be all about the chassis, but the 16-valve 1.8-litre N/A inline-four is a rev-hungry hero. It’ll keep going to 7000rpm, letting out a glorious induction bark during the final 1000rpm before the redline. It reminds me of the four-pot in the Mercedes 190E 2.3 16, which remains just about the best-sounding inline-four-powered road car I’ve ever heard."
See: https://www.carthrottle.com/post/the-mki-vw-golf-g...
TX.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff