Talk:V4 engine

Disadvantages, compared to the I4

I came here hoping to find out why inline-four engines are more popular than V4s. Please add some discussion about this to the article. 75.163.129.243 (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

For the I4:

• Cheaper to make. One block, one head, one alignment of cylinders to machine in one step with a multi-head machine. Simpler to cast too.
• Better balance than the V4. (OK, better balance unless extra-cost steps are taken)
• There's a lot about. Cheaper and keeps staying cheaper.

For the V4.

• Shorter overall. Look at the Ford Transit and how that used a short engine to make a compact van with a compact nose and still 3 seats.
• More compact overall as a narrow angle (single block with two rows of inclined cylinders). Narrow-angle Vs aren't common, but they've been relatively more popular for V4s.
• Balancing it really needs a balance shaft. If you chose to spend for one, then balance overall can be pretty good.

For the flat 4 (VW, Alfasud, Lancia, Subaru):

• All the advantages of the V4, lower eyeline over the top, lower CoG and better balance than either.

Really what killed the V4 is the transverse-mounted FWD I4 layout. Once you go transverse you then get the short overall length advantage of the V4, without the drawbacks of the V4. As the flat four is lower, better balanced and better performance (better balance allows a higher rev limit) that still has a niche in performance cars.

Note that this is for cars. For bikes, the narrower width of the V4 over the I4 and the impracticality of 6 cylinders when under 1 litre keeps them them a good idea. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph (albeit not yet with refs) on pros & cons. Arrivisto (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Team Cristofolini Racing v4

• 112bhp V4 Engine 350cc Scooter
• http://www.fasterandfaster.net/2007/01/team-cristofolini-racings-350cc-112bhp.html

This should have a 3rd party source -- not just press releases and publicity stills -- to take seriously. And even then, it's a prototype meant as a stunt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

V4s are pretty common on bikes. A bike V4 thus needs to be of particular interest to belong here. What's the significance of this one? I'm thus against its inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

See also Motorcycle engine - what's wrong with that?

I placed "See also:Motorcycle engine" on the "Motorcycle use" section of this article. It was reverted, with the following edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by SamBlob: RV - "main" article is not specific to this type of configuration, in fact the short section about V4s states to see Main article: V4 engine, providing no additional information to the reader. ([[WP:TW|T..."

I have two objections to this:

1. I made no supposition that the "main" article for that section was "Motorcycle engine". This was the "See also" template, not the "Main" template. Even if the section on "V4" in "Motorcycle engine" were completely identical to the "Motorcycle use" section in this article, is it wrong to suppose that someone wanting to know about the use of V4 engines in motorcycles might want to know about motorcycle engines in general?
2. The statement that "the short section about V4s states to see Main article: V4 engine, providing no additional information to the reader" is not correct. Were one to read both sections, one would note that the V4 subheading in "Motorcycle engine" mostly talks about two-stroke racing V4 engines, a topic not mentioned in V4 engine#Motorcycle use.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

SamBlob, my concern with adding additional article links (whether they be "see also" or "main article" templates) is they should enhance the amount of information for the reader. In other words, there is nothing to "object" about adding another link by itself. However, I would suggest a major expansion of the section about the V4 engines to include two-cycle versions that are used in motorcycle applications. This section already has a list of the makes and models using V4 engines. Why not explain the types that came in them within that section? In short, there is little benefit to have a link to find out in another article that motorcycle V4 engines are two cycle types. Additional referenced information in one article is better than shuffling and spreading out the information in separate articles and linking the sections. Just my thoughts, your individual conclusions and results may be different! Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The link is not necessarily for more information on V4 engines; it is for information on motorcycle engines in general, which a reader looking for information on the motorcycle applications of V4 engines might, just might, be interested in. Furthermore, if there is information in either section that could be useful in the other, a link would give an editor or potential editor the perfect means to find it and the perfect opportunity to copy it. As WP:BUILD says: "Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"" Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)