Best, or just sweetest 4 cylinder engines?
Discussion
Mention of the Lancia Fulvia and its narrow-angle V4 reminded me that I was once lucky enough to drive a 1950s Lancia Ardea, powered by a 903cc 20-degree angle ancestor of that engine. Only 30hp, but it was so smooth in its power delivery and so mechanically sweet that it really did deserve the 'sewing machine' analogy - basically just fan and exhaust noise when on the move, layered over a hushed symphony of precision metal parts. Almost like a wankel engine in how linear (and feeble...) the torque delivery was.
When Saab decided to stop faffing around with two-strokes and go upmarket with the 99 they needed a 'proper' engine. They recruited Ricardo to assist with the design work. At the same time Ricardo was also working with Triumph to develop a new familiar of modular slant/V-layout engines and realised that both customers were working in the same direction. Saab reached an agreement with Triumph whereby Saab would use Triumph's new engine in the 99. Apparently (unsubstantiated 'factoid' from some old Triumph bods, this) the infamous placement of the water pump on the Triumph engine (right at the top, where it was prone to air locks and any significant loss of coolant would lead to the pump running dry) was introduced at the behest of Saab since a traditional front-mounted pump would end up hard against the bulkhead when the engine was fitted 'backwards' onto the Saab transaxle.
The Saab used the slant-4 in 1709cc form - in fact because Triumph's product plan was running behind its engine development, Saab would release the 99 before Triumph's first use of the new engine family, which was the V8 in the Stag. So for several years Triumph built an engine that it didn't use to send to Sweden. Triumph would finally use the slant-4 in the Dolomite, five years after the Saab debut, with the 1854cc version which had appeared in the Saab 99 the year before.
After the original contract with Triumph ended in 1972 Saab took on production of the engine itself (it was actually Scania that built the engines) and converted it into the Saab B-Motor. They increased the capacity to 2.0-litres, but a slightly smaller 2.0-litres than the Triumph version that underpinned the Dolly Sprint and the TR7. The B-Motor had a substantially redesigned cylinder head compared to the Triumph engine and also had very different manifold designs. This was the engine that appeared in the 99 Turbo, and Saab also designed a 16-valve cylinder head for it for rallying (entirely different to the single-shaft 16-valve head on the Dolomite Sprint).
In the early 1980s Saab re-engineered the B-Motor into the H-Motor for the Saab 900. It removed the distinctive top-mounted waterpump and jackshaft drive for the ancillaries with more conventional arrangements (but 'backwards' from convention to suit the Saab drivetrain layout) and a new range of capacities, none of which were the same as anything Triumph did. By now there is essentially no commonality with the original Triumph slant-4 beyond the basic dimensions of the block and crankshaft and the fact that it's a slanted four-pot.
Nicks90 said:
Does anyone have any more info on this?
My dad was a massive triumph fan and we had a procession of triumph dolly sprints, stags and toledos in our household for him and t'wife to drive. Fond memories of forever breaking down going to Wales for our summer hols.
What info do you want?My dad was a massive triumph fan and we had a procession of triumph dolly sprints, stags and toledos in our household for him and t'wife to drive. Fond memories of forever breaking down going to Wales for our summer hols.
When Saab decided to stop faffing around with two-strokes and go upmarket with the 99 they needed a 'proper' engine. They recruited Ricardo to assist with the design work. At the same time Ricardo was also working with Triumph to develop a new familiar of modular slant/V-layout engines and realised that both customers were working in the same direction. Saab reached an agreement with Triumph whereby Saab would use Triumph's new engine in the 99. Apparently (unsubstantiated 'factoid' from some old Triumph bods, this) the infamous placement of the water pump on the Triumph engine (right at the top, where it was prone to air locks and any significant loss of coolant would lead to the pump running dry) was introduced at the behest of Saab since a traditional front-mounted pump would end up hard against the bulkhead when the engine was fitted 'backwards' onto the Saab transaxle.
The Saab used the slant-4 in 1709cc form - in fact because Triumph's product plan was running behind its engine development, Saab would release the 99 before Triumph's first use of the new engine family, which was the V8 in the Stag. So for several years Triumph built an engine that it didn't use to send to Sweden. Triumph would finally use the slant-4 in the Dolomite, five years after the Saab debut, with the 1854cc version which had appeared in the Saab 99 the year before.
After the original contract with Triumph ended in 1972 Saab took on production of the engine itself (it was actually Scania that built the engines) and converted it into the Saab B-Motor. They increased the capacity to 2.0-litres, but a slightly smaller 2.0-litres than the Triumph version that underpinned the Dolly Sprint and the TR7. The B-Motor had a substantially redesigned cylinder head compared to the Triumph engine and also had very different manifold designs. This was the engine that appeared in the 99 Turbo, and Saab also designed a 16-valve cylinder head for it for rallying (entirely different to the single-shaft 16-valve head on the Dolomite Sprint).
In the early 1980s Saab re-engineered the B-Motor into the H-Motor for the Saab 900. It removed the distinctive top-mounted waterpump and jackshaft drive for the ancillaries with more conventional arrangements (but 'backwards' from convention to suit the Saab drivetrain layout) and a new range of capacities, none of which were the same as anything Triumph did. By now there is essentially no commonality with the original Triumph slant-4 beyond the basic dimensions of the block and crankshaft and the fact that it's a slanted four-pot.
TameRacingDriver said:
^^^ I think this thread has now run it's course. 
In way they might have a point though.There are certainly some good 4 pot petrol engines. But I don't think any of them really meet what the op asked for. Peak power and revving high doesn't meant they'd be smooth too.
A diesel is gruff by its nature. But in someways can be a nicer with more character as a 4 pot than most of the petrols.
300bhp/ton said:
TameRacingDriver said:
^^^ I think this thread has now run it's course.
In way they might have a point though.There are certainly some good 4 pot petrol engines. But I don't think any of them really meet what the op asked for. Peak power and revving high doesn't meant they'd be smooth too.
A diesel is gruff by its nature. But in someways can be a nicer with more character as a 4 pot than most of the petrols.
Each to their own though
Carfield said:
The old SR20DET engine in the Nissan 200SX was a lovely engine for a 4 pot
Agree. I don't usually get all that excited about 4 cylinder engines, but I thought that is was lovely and smooth in the mid range with the VVT. I remember thinking how much smoother it was in comparison to the Subaru Impreza 4 cylinder engines at the time. cerb4.5lee said:
Carfield said:
The old SR20DET engine in the Nissan 200SX was a lovely engine for a 4 pot
Agree. I don't usually get all that excited about 4 cylinder engines, but I thought that is was lovely and smooth in the mid range with the VVT. I remember thinking how much smoother it was in comparison to the Subaru Impreza 4 cylinder engines at the time. TameRacingDriver said:
cerb4.5lee said:
Carfield said:
The old SR20DET engine in the Nissan 200SX was a lovely engine for a 4 pot
Agree. I don't usually get all that excited about 4 cylinder engines, but I thought that is was lovely and smooth in the mid range with the VVT. I remember thinking how much smoother it was in comparison to the Subaru Impreza 4 cylinder engines at the time. I do remember what a revelation the I4 16v 2.0 engine was in the 1992 RS2000 I had in comparison to the 2.0 8v version in the Sierra. In the Sierra it was weezy and it didn't like to rev, but in the RS2000 it felt so peppy and revvy in comparison. It also sounded pretty decent with the Magnex and K&N cone filter I had on it. It made a lovely induction noise I thought.
I don't think smoothness was ever it's problem Lee, it just couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, even when you revved it hard. The car was alright but you're not missing much, quite overrated I thought. The suspension was much too hard as well. Great on a billiard smooth road but on a typical British B road it was hopeless (though in fairness I don't know if mine was standard in that department).
Staggeringly underpowered though it was, the sweetest 4 pot I have driven was the 928cc engined Talbot Sunbeam that was my mothers/I learned to drive in. Lovely, smooth and free-revving, an enlarged version of the Coventry Climax engine carried over from the Imp. What's not to like:
I have a strange hankering for a Clan Crusader...
I have a strange hankering for a Clan Crusader...
Sulaco said:
Carfield said:
The old SR20DET engine in the Nissan 200SX was a lovely engine for a 4 pot
Tough engine, and bags of character once allowed to breathe properly. Lovely old school lag and booOOST. Sounded like spanners in a cement mixer though, that VVT rattle. The CA18 from the S13 probably the sweeter engine, but weaker bottom end.
I loved the Ford/Yamaha 1.7 in the Puma, really loved being revved and sounded great.
I had the EA888 in a 2015 Golf R. Didn’t like it really. As standard it was too linear, got the job done, but there was no character to it. Better with a map, but it never felt anything other than a appliance that got the job done (which actually somes up the whole car, but that’s for another thread….).
Edited by Sulaco on Friday 12th August 22:46
C70R said:
Sulaco said:
Carfield said:
The old SR20DET engine in the Nissan 200SX was a lovely engine for a 4 pot
Tough engine, and bags of character once allowed to breathe properly. Lovely old school lag and booOOST. Sounded like spanners in a cement mixer though, that VVT rattle. The CA18 from the S13 probably the sweeter engine, but weaker bottom end.
I loved the Ford/Yamaha 1.7 in the Puma, really loved being revved and sounded great.
I had the EA888 in a 2015 Golf R. Didn’t like it really. As standard it was too linear, got the job done, but there was no character to it. Better with a map, but it never felt anything other than a appliance that got the job done (which actually somes up the whole car, but that’s for another thread….).
Edited by Sulaco on Friday 12th August 22:46
I always used to warm up and cool the engine down religiously, but the owner after me didn't though...and he blew the turbo up after only 2 weeks of owning it!
300bhp/ton said:
In way they might have a point though.
There are certainly some good 4 pot petrol engines. But I don't think any of them really meet what the op asked for. Peak power and revving high doesn't meant they'd be smooth too.
A diesel is gruff by its nature. But in someways can be a nicer with more character as a 4 pot than most of the petrols.
I think revving high is one of the ways of adding some interest to a 4 cylinder engine, if they can do it without feeling like you’re going to kill them. And of course more cycles per second makes things sound smoother. There are certainly some good 4 pot petrol engines. But I don't think any of them really meet what the op asked for. Peak power and revving high doesn't meant they'd be smooth too.
A diesel is gruff by its nature. But in someways can be a nicer with more character as a 4 pot than most of the petrols.
Of course sound is very much a matter of taste. So while I won’t tell you that it’s wrong to like a four cylinder diesel, I’ll respectfully disagree. Lots of people like the Subaru warble, and I don’t, it’s just taste. I’ve got a little four cylinder diesel automatic hire car right now and it would be considerably improved were it electric and silent. In my opinion.
Electrics not for me said:
Rover 1.8, as fitted to Caterhams 20 years ago was decent. Admittedly reliability issues plagued them but i thought that 250 bhp from 1.8 with no charging was amazing.
As well as being very tunable the Rover K series is also incredibly light hence the reason why it was used in lightweight cars such as Lotus and Caterhams.
TameRacingDriver said:
I don't think smoothness was ever it's problem Lee, it just couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, even when you revved it hard. The car was alright but you're not missing much, quite overrated I thought. The suspension was much too hard as well. Great on a billiard smooth road but on a typical British B road it was hopeless (though in fairness I don't know if mine was standard in that department).
A friend of mine was working for TWR at the time and worked on the suspension for the GT (I think it would have been the P11). He is a fan of RWD and oversteer so wanted the car not to just have terminal understeer and also to have good compliance. I think the major problem was CVH with the size of the rims they wanted fitting just for visuals (he would have preferred smaller diameter wheels)The one I had as a hire car with work was an excellent A road thrash car and the suspension didn't feel too hard to me (but then again, I though my EVO V suspension was comfortable too).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff