Roadside failure

[KeithR56]

Far from being poor engineering, I think the three cylinder engines are a huge advance in ICE technology. If petrol engines weren’t being phased out, we might have all been driving ultra efficient and powerful 3 cylinder cars in the future (IMO).

A few years ago I was provided with a Ford Fiesta 1.0 eco boost hire car for a few weeks and was extremely impressed from the little 3 cylinder engine. It was smooth, refined and very fast. Covering just over 200 miles a day (M62 and A1), I certainly didn’t experience any engine thrum, or high revs.

A few months later I got to test drive a 200hp, 3 cylinder Fiesta ST which was a real pocket rocket. The 96hp XR2 I owned in the 1980s was like a farm tractor in comparison.

As for 3 cylinder engines in larger vehicles, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the T3 XC40 a 3 cylinder engine? BMW i8? Range Rover Evoque?

[Deleted User 3629]

Don't think anyone has suggested 3-cylinder engines are poor engineering , quite the opposite, to work as they do in my opinion they are, and need to be, a marvel of engineering.
It's all down to preference, 3-cylinder engines arrived for fuel efficiency and cost savings, whereas 4 cylinder engines are better suited for refinement and punchy power delivery. Often you don't have a choice these days, but if you did, in my opinion I doubt many folk who knowingly choose a 3-cylinder over a 4

[Greggspies]

Having experience of both, 3 and 4 cylinder BMW and three and four cylinder Volvo, I don't agree with you there, Oldie. There is no difference. Refinement and punchy power delivery has little to do with the number of cylinders but the overall package. Our XC40 three cylinder engine has both.

[KeithR56]

Don't think anyone has suggested 3-cylinder engines are poor engineering

I’m fairly sure someone wrote this:

that poor poor piece of engineering, just 3-cylinders each only 332cc

As I said, I believe modern engines are brilliant bits of engineering (whether they have 3 cylinders, or 12). However, most of the faults and breakdowns people are reporting seem to be linked to the electronics / electrics rather than anything mechanical, so roadside fixes may soon become a thing of the past. They’re certainly not a DIY repair for most.

I too remember the automotive engineering from 50 years ago, but I also remember the regular breakdowns and the mornings when my car just didn’t want to start. I remember carrying a boot full of spares and a pair of overalls for when they broke down (get out and get under!) A Ford I bought new in the 1980s spent more time in the garage than it did on the road. Another Ford I bought in 1992 needed a new engine after 30,000 miles. Then I bought my first Volvo, a 740 SE, and have had Volvos as my main car ever since. So far had around 27 years of trouble free motoring from Volvo, so it’s not good to read about the problems some are experiencing with their XC40s. I hope these are all isolated incidents that are sorted quickly.

[Deleted User 3629]

@KeithR56 - "that poor poor piece of engineering" comment was written in the context to explain - oh that poor thing, feeling sorry etc - not poor as in poor quality
@Greggspies - maybe they are punchy and maybe they are refined (for 3-cylinders) but like-for-like a 3-pot would struggle to deliver the low down torque of a 4-pot and the reasons why 3-cylinder engines are in abundance today is in my opinion nothing to do with 3-pots being a better configuration than 4-pots?? - their are scientific reasons why 4-pots in a rotating 4-stroke cycle works best - Didn't Volvo stop putting 3-pots in XC40, if so, wonder why?

[Greggspies]

No they didn't, at least not in the plug in hybrid! I imagine as it's a shorter engine there's more room for the motor/generator.

[KeithR56]

that poor poor piece of engineering" comment was written in the context to explain - oh that poor thing, feeling sorry etc - not poor as in poor quality

My apologies Oldie. I thought when you wrote “poor piece of engineering”, you meant poor piece of engineering, not poor piece of engineering. Glad to have cleared that up. Not sure why you’re rolling your eyes at me though - is that rolling your eyes as in “OMG, this bloke is stupid”, or “OMG, this bloke is stupid”?

Not really wanting to continue the 3 cylinder debate (but obviously going to), I would agree that 3 pot engines in the 80s and 90s were crude and underpowered. However, the technology has advanced dramatically in the 21st century. There are some very powerful cars being produced with state of the art 3 cylinder engines. Cars such as the 600hp Koenigsegg Gemera have more than adequate grunt. Don’t just take my word; if you google “3 cylinder engines” you will find plenty of articles on the subject. Whether, or nor you believe what has been written is another matter.

[Deleted User 3629]

@ KeithR56 - I would not call anyone stupid, love to banter, but would never be personal like that - rolling the eyes was in recognition of a single word like 'poor' having such different meanings and how often they can be seen as such - just to finish on my reasoning I don't like 3-pot engines (hopefully), only my opinion of course, the simplest configuration for a 4-stroke engine is 4-cylinders, this gives a power stroke every 90-degrees, which gives low down torque power, smoothness and less weight at the flywheel - and if you were designing a 4-stroke engine for the first time I doubt very much you would start with 3-cylinders. 3-cylinders, and again only my opinion, were developed not because they are the better configuration but because they cost less to produce and in theory a little better on fuel - which is also debatable when they generally need to be worked harder - who would really choose a 3-cylinder over a 4-cylinder if they had an equal choice of the two??

[Moss]

@ KeithR56 - I would not call anyone stupid, love to banter, but would never be personal like that - rolling the eyes was in recognition of a single word like 'poor' having such different meanings and how often they can be seen as such - just to finish on my reasoning I don't like 3-pot engines (hopefully), only my opinion of course, the simplest configuration for a 4-stroke engine is 4-cylinders, this gives a power stroke every 90-degrees, which gives low down torque power, smoothness and less weight at the flywheel - and if you were designing a 4-stroke engine for the first time I doubt very much you would start with 3-cylinders. 3-cylinders, and again only my opinion, were developed not because they are the better configuration but because they cost less to produce and in theory a little better on fuel - which is also debatable when they generally need to be worked harder - who would really choose a 3-cylinder over a 4-cylinder if they had an equal choice of the two??

It’s a good thing that you wouldn’t call anyone stupid, because if you did, I would no doubt be the proud number one on your list : my first car was a two cylinder.

I was an university student at the time, and I simply couldn’t afford more than a second hand 2CV. However, the car served me extremely well, and there was never a problem. Clearly, no executive Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, etc... since then could make me forget my very first car.

Very sincerely : at the time I didn’t even know it was only a two cylinder, and I didn’t care one bit, just as I have never cared about the number of cylinders the engines of my many cars since then had and have. I don’t drive engines, I drive cars.

[Deleted User 3629]

The 2CV was an amazing car - and much much more than the two cylinder engine it was fitted with, one of it's design objectives was to be able to cross a plough field with a basket of eggs without braking them, oh and believe it was fitted with such a basic 2-cylinder engine so it could be dismantled and rebuild in that same field . Please do remember, have suggested that most do not know or perhaps care what engine is in a car so long as it works and meets their needs, then there are some who may like to know, and may also have a preference, what type of engine is working hard under the bonnet for them