realistically what are the differences?

the ones using 3 cylinders in MY currently are the axia n bezza 1.0, and geely P1 models (current gen) right?

Is it true that 3 cyl eventually will give out on the engine mounting ?


If 3 Cyl is really inferior to 4 cyl, P1 users really got shortchanged? with the rumors that the coming S70 will come as 4 cylinders and AA/AC as standard, original buyers will see this model got an engine change in just 2 years compared to the 5 years on the X50. ( in my mind, the Honda HRV introduced in 2015/2016 took at least 7 years for a new drivetrain (1.8 NA to 1.5 T) , even then its still keeping the 4cylinders.

the only redeeming point is if the 4 cyl versions starts at a higher price compared to the current one . but is it justified?

just discussion only, as I was the potential buyer of P1 last time

4 cylinders is generally better than 3 cylinders in terms of vibration and nvh. Modern 3 cylinders especially the one on the Almera is far superior and smooth compared to some potong models with 4 cylinders. It depends on the overall engineering but the general theory is 4 is smoother than 3 but doesn't necessarily like a blanket to all 4 cylinders as some 3 cylinders are really made well.

If u drive diesel or 3 cilinder, engine mounting replacement in my experience la once every 3 years ( depend how much u drive, quality and if u rempit or not)

The engine compression is high so those that manufacture and want to prevent vibration use hydronic mounts which is expensive and last maybe 2 to 3 years

Interesting...I was also checking on this few days ago...what I understand is 4 cylinder provides power rdue to the petrol combustion cycle. 3 cylinder with turbo is efficient.

tbh, for day-to-day, i dont think much difference especially normal users.

each have their pros and cons but im not a pro so what i learn is online so may be wrong.

3cyl allegedly is more efficient but will more wear and tear in each cylinders since fewer cylinders to boom boom. but i think most people are concerned about the nvh and the mounting.

modern 3cyl i only have experience with the ativa, people say that is horrible in nvh for me it's fine.

and imo its also a numbers thing; 3<4, so yes people will feel shortchanged. especially since until recently all of protons x&s cars are all 3cyl which seems like they double downed and are going all in on this.

havent test drive new x50, so idk la maybe it's alot better, maybe it's the same.

tldr; for everyday non-car users, meh. for car enjoyers yeah will feel shortchanged if recently bought x50 or s70 but unless there's a huge difference in reliability down the road, or in the nvh department, meh.

3 cylinder engine is supposedly better than 4; the only problem is idling or low RPM time, due to firing spacing to far apart - a 3c can be made cheaper and lighter, with similar output to a 4c, exception being high end applications.

most ppl will not believe this given their experience with Kelisa engine, but technically it is true - it's actually the idling that killed the engine mounting

we consciously assume that things that come in pairs are better than odd, like 3 cylinder engine. It's a 4 stroke engine, so how can a 3 cylinder be perfectly balanced compared to a 4 cylinder?

if u talk ab NVH, d more cylinder d more better. v6 v8 inline 4.

but becoz things r gettin more expensiv, manufacturer hav to think of a way. more resolve to 3 cylinder.

but actually quite amaze when u sit inside 3cylinder car, nvh r pretty good. jus d noise n vibration is pretty obvious when u open d engine hood.

d main downside is d durability n d price of d engine mounting which is still lack for data. if i compare kancil engine mount wit axia, axia hav pretty big bushes mounting.

Both 4-cyl & 3-cyl engines uses a 4-stroke combustion cycle 😸

Same combustion cycle as my 2-cyl bike.

Turbo can be applied to 3-cyl or 4-cyl also like the incoming X50

NVH in term of harmonic.
firing sequence for 3 silinder cannot be balance naturally vs 4 silinder engine which is balance by design.

due to this, good engine mounting is important.

There was a study, most efficient engine is around 0.5l per cylinder.

Yes, thus why a lot of manufacturer prefer 2.0L (4 cylinder), 3.0L (6 cylinder) engine previously (Rare case 2.5L 5 cylinder, Volvo/VW/Audi/Honda).
I believe the previous 1.5L 3 cylinder engine is a cost cutting method by removing off 1 cylinder from original 4.
Sadly in real world most did not last well with the consumer, BMW also got equivalent 1.5L 3 pot turbo found in BMW 1~3 or Mini series but also a lot of feedback engine mountings start to vibrate excessive after 3 years around 60k. Even they claim the engine got include with balancer shaft & better engine mountings, still end product also cannot win over a 4 cylinder engine in term of NVH.

They need to meet the emission standard.

If cut cost only, should have removed the Turbo as well.

3 bangers is all about cost savings and emissions for the manufacturers.

Just like small CC engines with turbo.

Unlikely traditional 2.0L with turbo which is not only reliable but long lasting, these small CC turbo engines were subjected to heavy stress and lots of wear and tear.

Yes, is also cost savings. Coz imagine need to invest new mold, piston, con-rods, new related internal engine parts if go for different cc. a lot of the parts can be shared from 2.0 engine and if got volume overall cost can help pull down.

They had started with 4 cylinders just like Geely Binyue, before changing to 3 cylinders to meet the EU emission standard.

x70 were also started with 4 cylinders in Malaysia before changing to 3, now change back to 4.

So, cost of mold, piston, etc are not the main factor.

Since Malaysia emission standard is not as strict, we can stay with 4.

ah, interesting .

so 3 cyl theoretically produce less emission?

Diesel engines with three cylinders are uncommon, primarily due to balancing issues and the increased complexity and cost of high-pressure fuel injection systems in smaller engines. While 3-cylinder engines are used in some applications, they are more common in gasoline engines where the balancing challenges are easier to address.

I would go for a 4-cyl engine anytime over a 3-potter.

Furthermore 3-cyl engines are mostly specified for low/kosong-specification and low cost variants, to make the price more accessible to the masses.

I don't understand why there is even a discussion over this 4 vs 3 cyl engine issue.

In term of?

NVH?
Fuel consumption?
Parts reliability?
Speed?

More efficient = lower emission