corner barstool sitter
There's more. An inline four cannot be completely balanced for both primary and secondary forces and moments - and this is exactly why flat-plane crank V8 engine designs really should be limited to somewhere in the 4.0 - 4.5 liter range . . . like two times the 2.0 to 2.3 liters for an inline four. IIRC, balance shafts started creeping into I-4 engines about the time mfrs started pushing their displacements out to 2.6 liters or so.The WRX 4-cylinder is a boxer, not an inline like the Ford motors. They will always sound different because of the different configuration.
The point I was trying to make is that an inline-4 can only get so big. This is due to balancing and smoothness issues. Smaller displacement motors will naturally burn less fuel and produce lower emissions. The turbocharging myth is the loophole automakers have jumped through. Yes, you can get good power from a low displacement 4-cyl turbo. You can also get good fuel economy. The dirty secret is, you can't have both at the same time. When that turbo motor is producing 3 or 4 hundred horsepower, it's using just as much fuel as it's larger NA counterparts. Conversely, when it is sipping gas on the highway running at sub-1000 rpms in a high overdrive gear, it isn't making any power. At that point, it's the transmission that's getting good fuel economy.
Thanks for the picture - and to think that people think the Coyote is a wide engine.
Turbocharging can be made to show better results during EPA testing, where the mpg data is collected. That's probably the main reason cylinder count has been headed toward fours and sixes, as the mfrs do have to satisfy the EPA (which, as an agency, doesn't give a rat's ass about car enthusiasts' preferences). It's not necessarily what the mfrs' preference would be in the absence of mpg requirements.