As you may have heard a version of the BMW 3 cylinder engine will be used in "some " 2014's. I see the griping has started.

First let me say almost every modern engine development used today came from motorcycles. Yes, turbo's were used first in aircraft, Supercharging etc. from car racing.

Hemi combustion chambers, 4 valve/ cylinder, OHV, twin cams and on and on, Motorcycles.

Some of the smoothest, most flexible, powerful engines, with the narrowest, lightest, broad band power curves have been threes. They are simple, and due to harmonics are easier to balance with lighter cranks etc.

MV Augusta won world championships one after the other on three's, Kawasaki made wonderful engined 3's (with the worst handling so they won little), King Kenny Roberts racing effort started with Three's. Triumph produce Three's of all sorts that are admired and renown.

Fours are hard to balance and offer little to to make them preferable.

Let the comments begin!

 

The replacement of four-cyl engines with three-cyl engines is a technical trend associated with further downsizing of engine displacement and increased use of turbocharging, not because either three- or four-cyl engine are technically inferior/superior. Once displacement goes below 1.4 liters or so, a 3-cyl starts to be a better compromise between the lower production costs and fuel efficiency of having fewer large displacement pistons vs. the smoothness and higher rev limits of having more small displacement pistons. Complex tradeoffs.

The key trend here is to smaller/turbocharged engines. The reduction in cylinders is just a by-product of the trend.

- Mark

 

I disagree, 3 cylinders do not per se have to be smaller displacement. Triumph make a 2.39 LITRE motorcycle engine. I have seen turbo versions w/ claimed 250 hp.

 

Lets add who 1st used Nitous oxide on an engine
Injection of nitrous oxide into the combustion chambers of an internal combustion engine as a way to increase power output was discovered by the German aircraft industry early in the Second World War. Thousands of German fighter and reconnaissance aircraft were equipped with the so-called GM-1 system that added nitrous oxide to the intake charge to compensate for reduced air density and less oxygen high altitude. The British Royal Air Force also used aircraft engines with performance enhanced by nitrous oxide. There was no use of nitrous oxide injection by the American military air forces other than very limited experimental use.

 

I owned a Kawasaki Two Stroke Triple and I can absolutely agree that it handled like a bag of rocks! The power, wow, it would pull my arms out of their sockets!

 

I get a sense the lobbiest and geen folk behind CAFE standards will not be happy until we are all either walking erect or puttin around in 15hp moped motors to work latched with some sort of mandates preventing one from traveling more than 20 miles a day without some special tax or license.

Who wants some crappy 3 cylinder engine for which no modding will ever exist to improve performance or audible pleasure....IMO they can stick the 3 in their left ear. Ya give a mouse a cookie, the'll want a glass of milk and this is how it begins....

 

Heck, I've seen a fifteen-liter four-cylinder motor. (Circa 1912 era, I think; made something like 30 HP.) There's nothing preventing someone from making an engine with as much displacement and as few cylinders as they want.

However--when you get to larger displacements, you can typically achieve higher RPMs by using more of pistons that are smaller. They have less weight total, which means less mass to move up and down which means less force to fight. And RPMs are an easy way to make power.

Nothing wrong with a three-cylinder engine itself. They can be horrible, but they can also work reasonably well. A little three-pot turbo could make a nice Cooper motor. I think we'll have to see what the motor is like before we can really judge it...

 

How about this 3 cylinder that makes 349hp by BMW.

http://www.nitrobahn.com/news/bmw-ma...-for-i8-in-uk/

 

Want to hear what the BMW 3cylinder sounds like
http://www.technologicvehicles.com/e...ree-cylinder-e

 

i have a 1987 bmw k75s 3 cylinder motorcycle with over 120,000, i bought it new

stock it was 750 cc and 75 hp at the crank, 55 at the rear wheel and the usable powerband was from 3,500 to 8.900 rpm (electronic redline), top speed was 122 mph, 1/4 mile was 13.1 with a good launch but usually 14.1 (bmws are very hard to launch)

it has a weighted counter rotating balance shaft and is very smooth, smoother than the k100 4 cylinder sister bikes

my has been bored to 852 cc, new cams, high compression piston, carillo long rods, ported head, oversize intake valves, mikuni smoothbore downdraft carbs, 3 into 1 header, etc etc etc and the final drive has been changed from the stock 3.20:1 to a taller 3.09:1

it now makes 125 hp at the rear wheel and is just as smooth as ever, the usable powerband is now from 4,000 to 10,500 rpm (electronic redline is 12,000 rpm but there is no reason to go there), top speed 154 mph (at 10,800 rpm), best 1/4 mile was 11.1, most are 11.9-12.1

before mods i got 50-55 mpg highway and 33-35 during a track day, since mods 55-58 on the highway but only 14 to 18 mpg at a track day (damn those accelerator pumps)

i like triples

other triples i have known and loved:

my uncles saab 3 cylinder 2-stroke right hand drive ... he was a rural postman in northern wisconsin, put over 1 millon miles on it

laverda 750 triple motorcycle

laverda 1200 triple motorcycle (wish i still had that one)

scott

 

My thoughts exactly!!
When we are all driving windpowered people movers, eating soyburgers, and getting government controlled healthcare, they will be happy.....
it begins slowly....a rule here, a regulation here....then more, more...soon, within a generation, it will be like George Orwell's book 1984......as the current adminstrations say, you use tax credits to encourge behaviour you want, and taxes to encourge ones you do not want.....that explains lots about things likefuel mpg standards, etc...

 

Ok, but unless Torque numbers are comensurate with HP gains what's the point ?

In this particular case, only 220ft lbs or torque to 350 HP

When I peformed my own search for the BMW 3cyl engine numbers THIS is what I found about this "power plant." Numbers are no where near those in that inflated article...

BMW plans to release the 3-cylinder models in both gasoline and diesel power and the lineup will begin with the 1.5-liter unit that we expect to see in the Concept Active Tourer. These engines will all boast BMW’s now-famed Twin-Power technology, which introduces the power of twin turbochargers with only one twin-scroll blower.

Per the report, these 3-cylinder engines will boast between 120 horsepower and 220 horsepower, the latter we expect to see in the upcoming i8, and between 133 and 177 pound-feet of torque when being fed gasoline.

Those torque numbers impressive ?

 

This particular video the engine sounds like there are marbles rolling around in it....

 

This sounds just like my friend Kyles 2012 Countryman with JCW exhaust and a tune done in FL !

 

"However--when you get to larger displacements, you can typically achieve higher RPMs by using more of pistons that are smaller. They have less weight total, which means less mass to move up and down which means less force to fight. And RPMs are an easy way to make power."

If i remember correctly, Honda built the 250 cc five and six cylinder racers whilst competing against the 2 stroke Yamaha's. The reasoning was more cylinders gave them better air flow through the motor, thus more power which was achieved at horrendous RPM's. Horsepower is a rate of work and torque is entirely another thing. I have ridden bikes with power bands as narrow as 1200 rpm and so gutless if you stalled in the lower staging area you had to push the bike up the hill. You got three or four starts to a clutch set. BTW Lighter reciprocating weight is not the reason because the weight advantage usually lies with the simpler engine. Also screaming high revs meant a new crank every 15 hours.

With forced induction, variable cam timing, and modern injection there is no reason a three cannot perform as well or better than a four, and do it while keeping production costs lower, and thus more affordable.

 

http://www.bmw-i.com/en_ww/bmw-i8/ There is no mention of liter size.
Then there are the specs from another site
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/bmw/201...8-ar99499.html
http://www.automobilemag.com/green/n...pt_first_look/
At the rear axle, a turbocharged 1.5-liter three-cylinder engine produces 220 hp and 221 lb-ft of torque.

Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/green/n...#ixzz2Hrn7t7WO

Take a look at BMW m3 or Ferrari 458 and many other European cars, the HP is high and the Torque is low. These cars are still extrememly fast. Not arguing as I am sure you can find the oposite in Big American Iron like the famous LS6 454 that made an underated 450hp and 500ftlbs of torque.

 

@ BMWr606

I too had a k75s What a wonderful bike. ABS back in the '70's! I ride a ZX14, set up for sport touring and a 1968 Honda 350 twin for about town, these days.

 

I want this in my MINI
http://www.wartsila.com/en/press-rel...enters-service

 

"Take a look at BMW m3 or Ferrari 458 and many other European cars, the HP is high and the Torque is low. These cars are still extrememly fast. Not arguing as I am sure you can find the oposite in Big American Iron like the famous LS6 454 that made an underated 450hp and 500ftlbs of torque.[/QUOTE]

I think they're a bit more costly and expensive to maintain. As for the muscle engines, I have had two modern 'Vettes and those engines have wonderful charms, at the penalty of weight and fuel consumption. Oh and not cheap, In 60K miles i went through three ignition coil sets @$1800 each.

My guess is you could buy a new MCS for the cost of a 20,000 mile service on the Ferrari.

 

This was not why I stated these. It was because of his comment

 

What year? Sounds like you went for the ride as a top quality replacement like this http://www.corvettegarage.com/produc...-corvette.html was all that was needed. I hope yours was covered under warranty.

 

Before we all start jumping to conclusions and government ideas. I have my own hatred of standards with the EPA etc. I'm not sure how MINI would work, but just as we have 3 stages of motor in the US now, why not a 4th. Look at over in Europe, they offer diesels too.
MINI could offer a tiered ownership just like now but with a new low grade.
~1st. 1.3L (or whatever displacement) 3 cylinder, offer it as a WT edition or a RS, bare bones, congrats, you got yourself a car, black non power mirrors, crank windows, but give them 4 wheel disk brakes.
~2nd. Justa (1.6L i4)
~3rd. S (Turbo 1.6)
~4th. JCW (tuned to 200hp)

By offering an option, those that want to protect the air/ozone/fuel supplies for the overcrowded masses can do so, and if nobody bites, let BMW pull it off the market. No harm done.

On this note of an odd cylinder system, remember chevy/gmc killing the S10/Sonoma/Blazer in 03(2wd)/04(4wd) and bringing out the Colorado/Canyon and its i5 motor? I lived in a redneck town and the "fury" that I heard from so many people about how it was a mistake.

On a positive note, look at the Hyundai Genesis Coupe, i4Turbo vs a v6, both are great but the tuning market is eating up the turbo tuner, the v6 has intakes/exhausts and a few poorly made superchargers, but the i4 is the motor to go to for tuning. The Japanese/Koreans marketare using that motor most.

Back to the 3 cylinder, 2 words, Kei Car and most notably the Suzuki Cappuccino. Weak, 66hp (govt limit on Kei cars) but watching the people tune them when I was in Japan was nice, 85/100ish hp and nimble, they could handle. They were not Supra killers at the strip, but with a very large powerband and supurb handling, they could handle on the hills and tracks.

 

From what I read they are planning to do something like this.

 

Yeah one under warrantee, two I paid for. '93 and no aftermarket parts yet for the LS1.

 

I will assume you meant LT1 as the LS1 did not come out until 1997