Afaik;

Why Proton's X50 SUV, a quite heavy car, has only a Turbo 1.5 liter 3-cylinder engine and not a non-Turbo/normal-aspirated 2.0l 4-cylinder engine.? = for Proton to save on manufacturing costs by putting a smaller 1.5l engine in the X50, at the expense of the customers having to spend more money on higher fuel consumption, especially with slower turbo-city-driving.

Turbo = an additional small motor to deliver compressed air into the smaller 1.5l engine = more power(= as powerful as a non-turbo 2.0l engine) but also uses more fuel.
.

In the old days(= pre-2010), you mostly only find turbo-chargers in luxury sports-cars like Porshe and Ferrari, used by rich daddy-kasi playboys as chick-magnets. The playboys did not mind paying more for fuel for the faster turbo-speed and/or bigger capacity engine for the small-sized sports-cars.
.

Wait... I think there's something the wrong way round here. Turbo chargers are designed to improve efficiency of the engine. Same power output can be achieved by a smaller displacement engine through the use of turbochargers. Smaller displacement = less fuel used to fire the cylinders. Turbochargers don't need fuel to be injected into it.

The whole higher fuel consumption perception is because of driving style. People with turbochargers tend to put their foot down more.

.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive...rticle29705614/ - The trouble with turbos: Why fuel economy can be worse, not better - 22 April 2016

https://carbuzz.com/features/this-is-why-tu...conomy-is-a-lie - This Is Why Turbocharged Fuel Economy Is A Lie
Jan 30, 2018 by Roger Biermann Opinion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aO2vC_iMTI - Why Small Turbo Engines Are Not Efficient - 1,191,446 views - Aug 1, 2018
.

Global Mail article:  "that efficiency can quickly disappear if you don't drive with discipline. A turbocharged engine turns into a fuel-hog under hard acceleration"

Carbuzz article: "Under medium-to-high loads, when a turbocharger is active, the engine responds by sending in extra fuel for maximum torque and power production. Extra fuel = worse fuel economy"

Youtube: Basically explaining why if you put your foot down, fuel economy worsens.

All links are saying that if you want to achieve the maximum power rate, your fuel economy worsens. Which all leads back to putting your foot down = worse fuel economy.

Geely-Volvo’s CEVT engine boss explains why the Proton X50’s 3-cylinder is better than a 4-cylinder

[attachmentid=10685433]

[attachmentid=10685435]

...Removing one cylinder is also a super effective in cutting down weight, which is directly related to fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. There’s also the added benefit of achieving better front:rear weight balance in front-wheel drive cars, which is the norm these days anyway.

The benefits of a 3-cylinder over a 4 is very clear. The challenge is to mitigate the vibration problems from a 3-cylinder’s uneven firing order. Solving it is complex, but not difficult if you know what you are doing. Technology for dampers and today’s understanding of engine harmonics is good enough to allow car companies to overcome the problem.

The Geely 1.5TD engine, which Malaysians know as the 1.5 TGDi (identical to 1.5 MPI except for fuel system), contains many of such countermeasures into its engine design.

Explaining them requires a Ph.D but Sandquist briefly said the use of counterweighted crankshafts, dual mass flywheel with centrifugal pendulum absorber damper, single balancing shaft, low noise timing belt, high stiffness oil pan, asymmetric oil pump impeller, engine compartment and vibration dampener – all hidden away from view, allows the 3-cylinder to run very smoothly.

Dr Sandquist adds that vibration (lack of) of the 1.5TD engine is not only controlled, but it’s actually better than some of their rivals’ 4-cylinder engines...

kenapa tak pergi terus ke dua selinder?
engin motor kan ada,
sumbat masuk turbo je,
dah settle,

Good god the sohai logic being peddled here.....

if 3 cylinder better why not 2 cylinder or 1 cylinder?
because 3-cylinder is the minimum? If manufacturers can make 2 cylinder engines without them vibrating out of the car, they will most definitely do so. In fact the new breed of Ford ecoboost 3-cylinder engine have cylinder deactivation technology, so the engine only runs on 2 cylinders when cruising.

3 cylinder less reliable
Malaysians have been driving 3-cylinder cars for donkey years and praise that brand to be super reliable. Why suddenly now 3-cylinder = unreliable.

Turbo is for expensive cars that owners don't care about fuel economy
Obviously, those small turbo made for economy cars are not the same as big turbos/twinturbos/biturbos/quadturbos you find on luxury cars.

All those additional engine parts to reduce vibration will be expensive to replace
Except for the timing belt, the other parts are not wear and tear parts and are designed to last the lifetime of the engine. Those old 3-cylinder that vibrate like washing machine, how often do you replace the flywheel?

skrg ni nk sembang kereta ke kasut?

My point is as long as it is fit for it's designated function then it doesn't matter the size nor number of cylinders. RM40k car have 4 wheels so do you expect a RM80k car has 8 wheels?

The way they put it, 1 cylinder is even better. Marketing jargons at its best

One cylinder is perfect for the Honda Cub which vibrates like crazy. But it sold over 100 million units.

So less cylinders may be better depending on application.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive...rticle29705614/ - The trouble with turbos: Why fuel economy can be worse, not better - 22 April 2016

https://carbuzz.com/features/this-is-why-tu...conomy-is-a-lie - This Is Why Turbocharged Fuel Economy Is A Lie
Jan 30, 2018 by Roger Biermann Opinion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aO2vC_iMTI - Why Small Turbo Engines Are Not Efficient - 1,191,446 views - Aug 1, 2018
.

https(colon)//www(dot)wapcar(dot)my/news/are-3cylinder-engines-as-good-as-4cylinder-engines-1832 - Are 3-cylinder engines as good as 4-cylinder engines? - Shaun · Apr 10, 2020
And if you’re able to recall, I’m sure there was a noticeable amount of vibration from the engine. That is one of the characteristics of a 3-cylinder engine – the vibration. It’s a rough feeling and because of that, most of us, myself included, have the perception that 3-cylinder engines are on the bottom-rung.

Yet, they seem to be on the rise with both the Proton X50 and Toyota GR Yaris featuring 3-cylinder engines. Even premium brands like BMW and Volvo are employing 3-cylinder engines in their cars. Why is that?

One of the reasons is cost. With one less cylinder than the conventional 4-cylinder engine, the raw materials required is lesser and when this is calculated at scale, the cost savings becomes significant. ...

The main problem with 3-cylinder engines is the vibration as mentioned earlier, particularly at low rpm. Without getting too much into detail, this is due to the imbalanced nature of 3-cylinder engines that causes them to rock about.

Manufacturers tackle this issue by adding a balancing shaft to counteract the force and a variety of solutions that I’m not able to presently comprehend so I’ll just call it witchcraft. BMW seem to have got it right, their 3-cylinder engine exhibits very little perceivable vibration, perhaps only during startup.

The engine in the Geely Binyue, or what is likely to be Proton X50, isn’t quite as accomplished. The 1.5-litre turbocharged 3-cylinder engine, which is co-developed with Volvo, feels even rougher at start up and has just a bit more vibration than the BMW unit. Though for me it is perfectly acceptable.

There is also the matter of sound. To some, 3-cylinder engines sound rough, especially when revved hard. But personally, I quite like it. One way manufacturers attempt to overcome this is to produce synthetic engine noise in the cabin through the speakers. ....

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/heres-the-...linder-engines/ - Here's The Problem With Three-Cylinder Engines - 3 years ago.
.

So, the main reason car-makers reduced from the normal 4-cylinder to 3-cylinder and from >2.0L to 1.5L Turbo is to save manufacturing costs = maximize profits, not to benefit the consumers with better fuel efficiency. In fact, true IRL fuel consumption for the Proton X50 is worse.
.

I am well aware of the shortcomings of a 3-cylinder. I myself not a fan of anything less than 4-pots or turbocharged.

But I am very annoyed with the misinformations being disseminated in this thread.

To me, the misinformation is being disseminated by the car-makers and car-trade news media.

ktards ain't doing any better here either.
.

The "vibration damper" mentioned in that article is a specific engine part usually built as part of the crank pulley. It is not related to the engine mount. steady bro, just FYI.

Like I asked, which 3 cylinder engine you know need this part replaced after 5 years? or any other engine internal parts referred to in that article?

You guys keep mentioning engine mount, I already addressed it in my post replying to steady bro.

As for vehicle lifetime, you're just taking that "lifetime fluid" as reference and running with it. If manufacturer deem the car's lifetime to be 5 years, why do some markets enjoy 7-10 yrs warranties on their cars? in fact in Malaysia some Ford cars get 7 years warranty on clutch parts and 10 years for the transmission controller. Why bother with such long warranties if they don't think the car can last that long?

https://www.aarp.org/auto/trends-lifestyle/...-cars-last.html

Dr. Håkan Sandquist is the Director of Powertrain Strategy at CEVT China Euro Vehicle Technology. He has spent over 20 years researching and developing powertrain technologies for Volvo, Geely, and other engineering firms. Dr. Sandquist received his Ph.D in Internal Combustion Engines at Chalmers University of Technology in 2001 and has been working with powertrain electrification for more than 10 years.

vs

k/tard armchair engineer

Dr. Håkan Sandquist is the Director of Powertrain Strategy at CEVT China Euro Vehicle Technology. He has spent over 20 years researching and developing powertrain technologies for Volvo, Geely, and other engineering firms. Dr. Sandquist received his Ph.D in Internal Combustion Engines at Chalmers University of Technology in 2001 and has been working with powertrain electrification for more than 10 years.

vs

k/tard armchair engineer

whistling.gif

Fyi, .......
.
https://www.thelocal.se/20200123/volvo-in-h...ssions-cheating - Volvo in hot water over claim of emissions cheating - 23 Jan 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/0...line/103184598/ - 2017/06/25/takata-air-bag-scandal-timeline/

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/toyota-pay-1...ory?id=22972214 - toyota-pay-1.2b-hiding-deadly-unintended-acceleration/ - 20 March 2014.
.

Nothing points to 3 is worse than 4?

Good god the sohai logic being peddled here.....

if 3 cylinder better why not 2 cylinder or 1 cylinder?
because 3-cylinder is the minimum? If manufacturers can make 2 cylinder engines without them vibrating out of the car, they will most definitely do so. In fact the new breed of Ford ecoboost 3-cylinder engine have cylinder deactivation technology, so the engine only runs on 2 cylinders when cruising.

3 cylinder less reliable
Malaysians have been driving 3-cylinder cars for donkey years and praise that brand to be super reliable. Why suddenly now 3-cylinder = unreliable.

Turbo is for expensive cars that owners don't care about fuel economy
Obviously, those small turbo made for economy cars are not the same as big turbos/twinturbos/biturbos/quadturbos you find on luxury cars.

All those additional engine parts to reduce vibration will be expensive to replace
Except for the timing belt, the other parts are not wear and tear parts and are designed to last the lifetime of the engine. Those old 3-cylinder that vibrate like washing machine, how often do you replace the flywheel?

To save on manufacturing costs = maximize profits, downsizing the Ford Fiesta hatchback engine from 1.4L 4-cylinder to 1.0L Turbo 3-cylinder  introduced a host of unnecessary engine noise and vibration problems that needed to be dampened, various under-powered conditions and higher fuel consumption IRL, which did not actually benefit the consumers one bit.

Lol manader. Ayam using one now mileage 110k km, still on stock mounting and everything

Meanwhile the other 4 cyl car at home (poton suprima and pijot 308) mileage baru 105k km already almost needing its 4th engine mounting change

Ayam pesta ekobus fuel consumption around 8-10l/100km, meanwhile the pijot and ploton same driving style and condition around 12-14l/100km

To save on manufacturing costs = maximize profits, downsizing the Ford Fiesta hatchback engine from 1.4L 4-cylinder to 1.0L Turbo 3-cylinder  introduced a host of unnecessary engine noise and vibration problems that needed to be dampened, various under-powered conditions and higher fuel consumption IRL, which did not actually benefit the consumers one bit.

Lol manader. Ayam using one now mileage 110k km, still on stock mounting and everything

Meanwhile the other 4 cyl car at home (poton suprima and pijot 308) mileage baru 105k km already almost needing its 4th engine mounting change

Ayam pesta ekobus fuel consumption around 8-10l/100km, meanwhile the pijot and ploton same driving style and condition around 12-14l/100km