are 3 cylinder engines alot easier to tune than a four stoke?

You mean 4 cylinder?

No, they're the same.

Doesn't matter so much how many cylinders an engine has as it will still work on the same principal of the internal combustion engine. The layout of the engine might be a determining factor (inline, vee, flat etc.) in terms of how easy it is to modify intake and exhaust manifolds/ increase gas flow through porting and such.

Why do you ask?

the beasto said:

are 3 cylinder engines alot easier to tune than a four stoke?

Click to expand...

Four stroke isn't to do with the number of cylinders, it is about the strokes each cylinder makes.

First stroke is induction, inlet valve opens, the piston moves down the bore and sucks in the fuel air mixture. Valve closes. Second stroke is compression, piston moves up and compresses the mixture. Third stroke is ignition, spark plug fires, piston is forced down by the exploding compressed fuel air mixture. Fourth stoke is exhaust, piston gets to the bottom of its stroke, the exhaust valve opens, piston moves up and expels the exhaust gasses. Exhaust valve closes, inlet opens, cycle starts again.

you can have a four stroke SINGLE cylinder engine

OR a
13 litre TWO STROKE v8 diesel engine (thats air cooled too ).

easier to tune, entirely upto th engine and parts avaibale, so doesn't matter how many cyls

sorry guys i typed it in a rush. i meant four cyclinder.

and i was just courious, as my dads mitszubushi colt ( or how ever you spell it) has 3 cyclinders and sounds great. and i no that 3 cyclinders for some reason make more power than 4, so i was just thinking they may be more easier to tune.

thanks kris

i don't think they do make more power than 4. although they may do in some cases. its all about how they are set up.
what size engine is the colt?

doesn't it go given everything being equal for any given capacity the lower the cylinder count the more torque but less power is produced?

Essentially yes mr Newt. I would assume that the extra friction created by another cylinder would decrease the potential for torque, fractionally. However you will have a far more complete power cycle in 4 cylinders, and also they are better balanced I believe.

Not as well balanced as a I6 of course, they are just lovelly.

Possibly there is a misconception that 3 cylinders are more powerful because a lot of cars using these engines are Japanese home market specials. Something to do with Japanese taxation laws being based on capacity, they've made some very high powered engines in the sub 1 litre class.

One that springs to mind is the Daihatsu GTti, a 999cc 3 cylinder turbocharged hatch back that was a real giant killer. I think it was pushing out something like 100bhp, and also was restricted in top speed (possibly power as well).

Don't forget that the Dodge Viper uses a V10, and the Bugatti Veyron uses rather a lot of cylinders too.

another reason for using 3cyl around the 1.0l capacity mark, maybe, is they are closer to the well researched 330cc 'ideal' cylinder displacement
I think suzuki or daihatsu came up with that one.


3cyl of 1.0l vs a 4cyl of 1.0l, using EXACTLY the same fueling set up, and ignition programming.
I would reckon the 3cyl would produce more torque (larger per cylinder), but less hp, and vice versa.
given that these engines are usually in small lightweight cars, there isn't much demand for torque, but its always nice

Another good thing about 3 cylinder engines is that they have good primary balance. The crankshaft often has 120 degree intervals (3 x 120 = 360) so the firing pulses are also equal.

I do seem to remember reading that a 3 cylinder crankshaft has the best balance, strength and stability out of the inline configuarations, though I've probably got one or two of my facts mixed up though!

For even better balance try a 'flat' or 'boxer' engine, such as old Alfasuds, Citroen 2CVs, Porsches, Subaru Imprezzas etc. For ultimate in engine balance a Wankel rotary engine is the way to go as there is no cranshaft as such. Just a triangulated piston that rotates in an eliptical bore.

1986Uno45S said:

For ultimate in engine balance a Wankel rotary engine is the way to go as there is no cranshaft as such. Just a triangulated piston that rotates in an eliptical bore.

Click to expand...

Shame they need a full rebuild every 50K though, it's not cheap either

rx8's don't they've sorted them, for at least 60k

if you want a balanced shaft fit a god damn turbo jet to your car, if they are any more than an ounce of a gram out of balance in any way it'll explode at 120,000rpm and take your face and most of your body out

It's the rotor seals that were always the weak point on a Wankel engine. This weakness famously put the German manufacturer NSU into receivership (they were bought out by Audi in the end I think) when they release the NSU Ro80. A damn good car, well built and well ahead of its time. But the engines kept failing, though when they were running the disadvantage of a Wankel engine is poor fuel economy so high teens were the norm for mpg

Mazda seem to have done a good job and deserve credit for sticking with the Wankel despite just about every other manufacturer dropping it.

And Faster4, I think I'll stick with my trusty FIRE engine as I don't think I want to find out what happens when a turbo jet engine lets go at 120,000 rpm