What are the differences between a 3-cylinder engine and a 4-cylinder engine?

[LeCharlie]

3-cylinder engines and 4-cylinder engines differ in the following dimensions: 1. Size and weight: The 3-cylinder engine is relatively small and light, saving space in the car and facilitating vehicle layout. The 4-cylinder engine is heavier and larger in size. 2. Fuel consumption: The 3-cylinder engine has a smaller displacement and is more fuel-efficient. The 4-cylinder engine has one more cylinder than the 3-cylinder engine, making it relatively more fuel-consuming. 3. Power: The torque platform of a turbocharged 3-cylinder engine is relatively narrow, making it prone to insufficient power. The 4-cylinder engine has relatively more sufficient power. 4. Cost: The structural design of the 3-cylinder engine is relatively simple, with lower production costs, and maintenance and repairs are also cheaper. The production cost of the 4-cylinder engine is higher.

[DelAndres]

I found that the biggest differences between 3-cylinder and 4-cylinder engines lie in their structure and operation. A 3-cylinder engine has three cylinders, which inherently causes imbalance and significant vibration, resulting in a slight shaking sensation when driving, especially noticeable during low-speed acceleration. In contrast, a 4-cylinder engine with four cylinders offers more even ignition and smoother operation. Nowadays, technologies like balance shafts or turbocharging have reduced the vibration in 3-cylinder engines. For example, Ford's 1.0-liter 3-cylinder turbo engine delivers good power while being fuel-efficient. Overall, 3-cylinder engines are lightweight and fuel-efficient, making them ideal for city commuting, whereas 4-cylinder engines provide higher power and more stability at high speeds. In terms of maintenance, the greater vibration in 3-cylinder engines may accelerate part wear, but modern improvements have enhanced their practicality. When choosing a car, it ultimately depends on personal preferences for comfort and fuel efficiency.

[JesseAnn]

After driving a 1.2-liter three-cylinder car, I compared it with my own 1.5-liter four-cylinder, and the difference in daily driving experience was quite noticeable. The three-cylinder car had a loud engine roar at startup, and the steering wheel would vibrate noticeably at low RPMs, which was particularly annoying when idling at a stop; the four-cylinder was much quieter and smoother, with silky acceleration. In terms of fuel consumption, the three-cylinder was slightly more economical at just over 5 liters per 100 kilometers, while the four-cylinder was around 6 liters, but the comfort gap made me prefer spending more on fuel. On the highway, the four-cylinder was more stable and didn't feel floaty, while the three-cylinder had more wind noise. Many three-cylinder cars now come with balance shafts for vibration reduction, but for older cars, I'd still recommend a four-cylinder.

[OZoey]

From the perspectives of cost-saving and environmental protection, three-cylinder engines are better. With smaller displacement and lower fuel consumption, they can save one liter of fuel per 100 kilometers compared to four-cylinder engines, and the longer you drive, the more you save. They emit less and are more environmentally friendly, while modern technologies like turbocharging enhance power while maintaining low fuel consumption. In terms of car prices, three-cylinder vehicles are often cheaper due to lower manufacturing costs. The downside is slightly more vibration, but it doesn't affect the cost-saving nature. It is recommended to choose a three-cylinder engine if you have a tight budget or for urban commuting. Although four-cylinder engines run smoother, they consume more fuel and have higher costs.