Most cars have 4-cylinder engines. If this is the best design solution, why do some cars have 3, 5, 6, 8 or 12 cylinder engines? If any of these are technically superior, why aren’t they more common?
None of these options – including the mainstream in-line four-cylinder or transverse engine – is the best answer. Designers still have to create a “perfect” solution that achieves the best results for all elements in terms of cost, weight, shape, area, rigidity, balance, capacity, strength, performance, economy, durability, etc.
Each car owner has individual preferences and priorities, and each design option has different advantages and disadvantages. Clearly, the four-cylinder option best meets most people’s combination of needs – balancing all the distinct technical, business and consumer factors.
In the quest to find the best balance, there have been (and continue to be) all sorts of efforts to preserve and enhance the positives of each option and to counteract the negatives, including rotary, parallel, transverse, horizontally opposed, V. and even W layouts.
What we can all celebrate is the scope of choice, while in the face of climate change we seem to be heading towards something called “NOTA” (none of the above).
I’m waiting for a cartoon of a guy’s head bobbing just above the waves, standing on the roof of an EV-branded car, with a speech balloon saying “Sorry, it’s too late.” Maybe next to a sketch of a man in a MAGA hat building a wall… in the desert.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.