NICE, fun, adult, family car

[DCIV]

I’m surprised there isn’t more diversity on this topic. Are just just not any fun family grown up cars? Or just 4/5 of them? Not enough money or just can’t be done in a car anymore? Do we have to have crossover and SUV’s when we get older and have family’s?


Coop

[alienviking]

Far more so than a Wrangler And that comes from a person who is considering a Jeep haha.

Around here Subarus are driven mostly by active outdoorsy people.. definitely not teenagers. Heck the CFO of my company drives an Outback. Although there is one lowered Forester XT cruising around..

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""DCIV""]I’m surprised there isn’t more diversity on this topic. Are just just not any fun family grown up cars? Or just 4/5 of them? Not enough money or just can’t be done in a car anymore? Do we have to have crossover and SUV’s when we get older and have family’s?


Coop[/quote]

$30-40k just doesn’t buy you that much of a fun car that is a family hauler. :d ontknow:

[aaronatstate]

See like a CTS-V Wagon would check the boxes, but hey are more than 40k

[alienviking]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]See like a CTS-V Wagon would check the boxes, but hey are more than 40k[/quote]

Also getting old and to the point where they will start becoming unreliable. Granted I can't complain about my CTS and reliability..

I would definitely consider something like a V60 or V90 wagon. Heck the sedan versions are really nice as well (S60 and S90) and Volvo has the most comfortable seats in the business for long distance driving.

A slightly used Lexus IS 350 F Sport would work but not sure how much space there is in the back seat. Infinity Q50 would probably work. Probably a bit more comfort than sport.

I'm partial to Audi over BMW and Merc personally, so let's throw an A6 into the mix. A4 might be a bit tight in the back seat. S6 if you can find one.

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""alienviking""]Also getting old and to the point where they will start becoming unreliable. Granted I can't complain about my CTS and reliability..

I would definitely consider something like a V60 or V90 wagon. Heck the sedan versions are really nice as well (S60 and S90) and Volvo has the most comfortable seats in the business for long distance driving.

A slightly used Lexus IS 350 F Sport would work but not sure how much space there is in the back seat. Infinity Q50 would probably work. Probably a bit more comfort than sport.

I'm partial to Audi over BMW and Merc personally, so let's throw an A6 into the mix. A4 might be a bit tight in the back seat. S6 if you can find one.[/quote]

Yeah not sure about reliability, but it's a GM so parts are fairly common, and I really haven't heard much reliability issues with the supercharged LS engines.

My point to Coop was more that there are fun cars out there, but less than $40k they are few and far between.

[DCIV]

Fair point.


Coop

[DCIV]

https://jalopnik.com/gr-corolla-could-h ... liJKJMrOXY

Looks like this could be a front runner.


Coop

[ChargerX3]

Nice power coming from a 3 cyl. Aren't those engines inherently difficult to balance in the first place?

[DCIV]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]Nice power coming from a 3 cyl. Aren't those engines inherently difficult to balance in the first place?[/quote]

Yeah. I wish it was a v6 non turbo or a 4 turbo. But love that sport button ratio flip.

Coop

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]Nice power coming from a 3 cyl. Aren't those engines inherently difficult to balance in the first place?[/quote]

3 cyl aren't anymore difficult to balance than 4 cyl or V6's. Straight 3's actually have perfect primary and secondary balance, but they rock, because the pistons are moving evenly around the middle piston. A balance shaft takes care of this.

[Chris GTO TT]

Now that the truck is paid for and trh outback is almost paid for I'm starting to look for a fun car myself

[DCIV]

[quote=""Chris GTO TT""]Now that the truck is paid for and trh outback is almost paid for I'm starting to look for a fun car myself[/quote]

Vr4.


Coop

[Chris GTO TT]

[quote=""DCIV""]Vr4.


Coop[/quote]

[ChargerX3]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]3 cyl aren't anymore difficult to balance than 4 cyl or V6's. Straight 3's actually have perfect primary and secondary balance, but they rock, because the pistons are moving evenly around the middle piston. A balance shaft takes care of this.[/quote]

Sort of...

An inline three-cylinder engine is essentially a straight six engine lopped in half. Normally in a straight six, the two outer cylinders reach top dead centre (TDC) in unison, with the other four cylinders reaching specific angles of rotation to balance the primary forces, secondary forces and rotational torque of the engine nicely.

In a three-pot, piston one (the front piston) reaches TDC while the other two are 120 degrees away from either TDC or bottom dead centre (BDC). This means that the primary and secondary forces are balanced vertically, but the torque over the reciprocating pistons is not matched in unison like in an I6. Instead, the engine is trying to naturally rotate and flip over on itself. So to avert this, a balancing shaft is needed to counteract the twisting force.


The engine cycle of an I3
The torque inbalance (shared with inline-five engines) makes for a rattling powertrain as the engine tries to rock from end-to-end, even when balanced as much as physically possible. This is due to the weight of the balancing shaft that the crankshaft has to work against, making these engines less free-revving than their more-balanced counterparts. Counterweights can also be machined into the crankshaft itself but they also add weight, decreasing its ability to rotate freely.

Also, due to the fact that ignition occurs every 240 degrees, the crankshaft journals are spaced 120 degrees apart. This means that there will be a significant proportion of crankshaft rotation (60 degrees) when no power stroke is occurring. That reciprocatory feature leads to the lack of smoothness in power delivery and large amounts of vibration that three-cylinder engines are notorious for. The rough-running engine behaviour will be emphasised at lower engine speeds especially, due to the lack of power strokes occurring.

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/heres- ... r-engines/

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]Sort of...

An inline three-cylinder engine is essentially a straight six engine lopped in half. Normally in a straight six, the two outer cylinders reach top dead centre (TDC) in unison, with the other four cylinders reaching specific angles of rotation to balance the primary forces, secondary forces and rotational torque of the engine nicely.

In a three-pot, piston one (the front piston) reaches TDC while the other two are 120 degrees away from either TDC or bottom dead centre (BDC). This means that the primary and secondary forces are balanced vertically, but the torque over the reciprocating pistons is not matched in unison like in an I6. Instead, the engine is trying to naturally rotate and flip over on itself. So to avert this, a balancing shaft is needed to counteract the twisting force.


The engine cycle of an I3
The torque inbalance (shared with inline-five engines) makes for a rattling powertrain as the engine tries to rock from end-to-end, even when balanced as much as physically possible. This is due to the weight of the balancing shaft that the crankshaft has to work against, making these engines less free-revving than their more-balanced counterparts. Counterweights can also be machined into the crankshaft itself but they also add weight, decreasing its ability to rotate freely.

Also, due to the fact that ignition occurs every 240 degrees, the crankshaft journals are spaced 120 degrees apart. This means that there will be a significant proportion of crankshaft rotation (60 degrees) when no power stroke is occurring. That reciprocatory feature leads to the lack of smoothness in power delivery and large amounts of vibration that three-cylinder engines are notorious for. The rough-running engine behaviour will be emphasised at lower engine speeds especially, due to the lack of power strokes occurring.

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/heres- ... r-engines/[/quote]

I see I had a typo in my first response. It should have said "but they rock, because the pistons aren't moving evenly around the middle piston". Which is what you said in the first 3 parts of your response. I didn't bother with the last portion, because motor mounts can take of the "rough-running" at idle.

[ChargerX3]

All good. I remember my sister having a I3 in her Geo. Its was noticeably more rough running than other engines at the time. Also as it aged the vibrations became worse as it fell further out of balance. Not sure if that is inherent to that engine, or just a case scenario.

[Chris GTO TT]

I'm sure being a Geo did not help anything...

[DCIV]

Was first getting into cars and my friend told me his geo had a 3cyl and I didn’t believe him because it didn’t make sense in balancing issues in my head.


Good times.


Coop

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""DCIV""]Was first getting into cars and my friend told me his geo had a 3cyl and I didn’t believe him because it didn’t make sense in balancing issues in my head.


Good times.


Coop[/quote]

Engine doesn't have to have an even number of cylinders to be balanced. Like was said previously, the 3 cylinder is actually perfectly balanced when it comes to primary and secondary forces. It is however unbalanced in that the pistons are not moving evenly around the center piston, so it wants to rock from front to back. A V6 can have this exact same thing, unless "fixes" are put in place, namely offset crankshafts, large counter weights, and making sure it is a 60° V6.