You know something that’s happened fairly recently in the automotive world that has been largely overlooked? Three cylinder engines have gotten more mainstream than ever before – well, at least in America, in some times and places, like Eastern Europe between the 1950s and 1990s they were the most common type of engine – and they’re now in bigger cars than ever before. In fact, I think when it comes to mass-produced three-cylinder passenger cars, we now have the biggest one on the market ever. Do you know what car that is? I think I do!
Three-cylinder engines have never been as popular as four-bangers, even at small displacements, because they’re inherently unbalanced in the “rocking couple” way– that is the cylinders on either side of the middle one don’t have symmetrical velocities. There may be other reasons, but the need for balance shafts and that sort of engineering definitely is a factor.
Still, the three did find use, especially in two-stroke form, as pioneered by Germany’s DKW, with variations of their three-cylinder two-stroke ending up in countless Wartburgs, Saabs, Barkas vans and trucks, and some motorcycles, and more. For small cars, threes have always had the advantage of economy, something perhaps best known in America thanks to the Geo Metro (which is actually a Suzuki Cultus), the hypermiler’s dream car.
But now we’re in a sort of three-cylinder renaissance, with lots of major automakers having some kind of new, advanced three, and with these engines ending up in cars far different than the usual Eastern Bloc socialism-wagon or some little Japanese econobox. Now they’re appearing in SUVs and even supercars.
So, what’s the biggest three-banger out there? To help figure that out, I made this chart:
This, of course, does not cover all the three-bangers out there, but tries to give a decent representative sampling. Small ones are plentiful, and vary pretty dramatically, from little sports cars like the Saab Sonett to Japanese Kei cars to the ubiquitous-in-India Maruti-Suzuki, to the little Smarts, to modern BMW-made Minis.
The middle section has all those wonderful DKWs that live on through Audi, at least in the logo, along with the Eastern Bloc’s most Volvo-ish car, the Wartburg, and then those Saabs before the company switched to the four-stroke V4 from the Ford Taunus.
The Big Boys are the most recent ones; there’s the hybrid BMW i8 which was one of the first near-supercars to give a triple-piston engine a go, when paired with some electric motors, a formula that was taken and absolutely run with by Koenigsegg for their Gemera. That three-cylinder engine, called the Tiny Friendly Giant, displaces two liters, has twin turbos, cam-less valves, and somehow makes 600 horsepower!
Here, let’s geek out about that for a moment:
Damn!
Okay, back to sizes of three-cylinder cars, though. Both the BMW i8 and Gemera are long and wide and low, and if you multiply their lengths, widths, and heights to get the volume of space they take up, they both come to a volume of around 700,000 cubic inches. That’s a big block of space, but there are bigger three-bangers.
Take the Buick Envista, which our own Matt Hardigree reviewed back in March; that’s an SUV with a 1.2-liter three, and is 183 inches long, 72 inches wide, and 61 inches tall. That gives us an overall volume of 803,736 cubic inches! That’s a lot!
But there’s one more Big Three out there: the Ford Bronco Sport. This is the car that got me thinking about all of this from the beginning because it is a car that I suspect most of its buyers do not even realize is a three-cylinder. It just doesn’t feel like one. So how big is it?
Well, the Bronco Sport is 173 inches long, 74 inches wide, and 71 inches tall (with the roof rack); that gives us a total volume of 908,942 cubic inches, which I believe makes it the biggest three-cylinder car available now, and, I think, likely ever!
I know there are big diesel trucks that have some massive displacement three-cylinder engines, and of course those are larger, but we’re talking mass-market passenger cars here.
So, if you were wondering, my conclusion is that the Ford Bronco Sport is the biggest three-cylinder-powered mass-marker passenger car ever made!
No go forth with this newfound knowledge and win some bar bets or something!
No bigger than the Ford, but I think the most unexpected is the Alfa Romeo 33 1.8 TD.
Three cylinders of raw diesel power thanks to VM Motori – actually, this is a shorter stroke version of the same engine as fitted to David’s Chrysler Voyager (minus one cylinder). When I first saw this listed in the 1987 Auto Katalog I simply assumed it was a typographical error; it wasn’t until I got my first graphing calculator that I verified the number of cylinders from the reported bore and stroke.
No bigger than the Ford, but I think the most unexpected is the Alfa Romeo 33 1.8 TD.
Three cylinders of raw diesel power thanks to VM Motori – actually, this is a shorter stroke version of the same engine as fitted to David’s Chrysler Voyager (minus one cylinder). When I first saw this listed in the 1987 Auto Katalog I simply assumed it was a typographical error; it wasn’t until I got my first graphing calculator that I verified the number of cylinders from the reported bore and stroke.
You also mustn’t forget that time, when BMW thought it’d be funny to stuff a 3-cylinder into a 3 Series. The F30/31 318i. Boy howdy, did we laugh here in jolly old Europe.
You also mustn’t forget that time, when BMW thought it’d be funny to stuff a 3-cylinder into a 3 Series. The F30/31 318i. Boy howdy, did we laugh here in jolly old Europe.
My 3-cylinder, 1st gen Honda Insight, would graciously like to point out that its feelings were hurt at not being included in this article.
My understanding is that to make the 3-banger more palatable, Honda’s ECU bumps the electric motor in just the right spot in the engine’s rotation to smooth out the vibrations and make the whole car feel much more sophisticated. There have been many ecomodders – or just folks whose hybrid systems pooped out – that discovered that, while their Insights work perfectly well as strictly-ICE cars, they are far coarser without the motor providing that little anti-vibe jolt.
My 3-cylinder, 1st gen Honda Insight, would graciously like to point out that its feelings were hurt at not being included in this article.
My understanding is that to make the 3-banger more palatable, Honda’s ECU bumps the electric motor in just the right spot in the engine’s rotation to smooth out the vibrations and make the whole car feel much more sophisticated. There have been many ecomodders – or just folks whose hybrid systems pooped out – that discovered that, while their Insights work perfectly well as strictly-ICE cars, they are far coarser without the motor providing that little anti-vibe jolt.
Ford made a bigger 3 cylinder car than the Bronco Sport. In Europe you could buy the Mondeo (US 3rd Gen Fusion) with the 1.0L EcoBoost at 125hp. I just googled and it’s 191″ long. Not as tall as the Bronco but 811,943.433 cubic inches…
Apparently not terrible, but 12 seconds 0-60mph.
https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/ford/mondeo/10-ecoboost-titanium-5dr/first-drive
I was looking for this one. It’s possible the Bronco Sport weighs more so it may be bigger in that way, but not the largest based on size and certainly more disparate in size vs. engine displacement. And even the donor Escape with the same 1.5T I3 is 8″ longer than the Bronco Sport.
Ford made a bigger 3 cylinder car than the Bronco Sport. In Europe you could buy the Mondeo (US 3rd Gen Fusion) with the 1.0L EcoBoost at 125hp. I just googled and it’s 191″ long. Not as tall as the Bronco but 811,943.433 cubic inches…
Apparently not terrible, but 12 seconds 0-60mph.
https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/ford/mondeo/10-ecoboost-titanium-5dr/first-drive
I was looking for this one. It’s possible the Bronco Sport weighs more so it may be bigger in that way, but not the largest based on size and certainly more disparate in size vs. engine displacement. And even the donor Escape with the same 1.5T I3 is 8″ longer than the Bronco Sport.
Far from the biggest, but does the inline-3 in a GR Yaris count as the most fun use of a three cylinder?
Far from the biggest, but does the inline-3 in a GR Yaris count as the most fun use of a three cylinder?
Alright so answer another related question. What is the biggest displacement three cylinder engine installed in a car ever?
The Triumph Rocket 3 has a 2458cc Inline-3.
So if someone’s converted one into a car, then it’ll be that car.
In the late-60s/early-70s Ford was building a tractor with a 2.6 liter 3-pot, but the engine is also structural; you’ll never spot someone swapping in that 600-lb lump to have all of 36 horsepower. Lots of torque though.
Alright so answer another related question. What is the biggest displacement three cylinder engine installed in a car ever?
The Triumph Rocket 3 has a 2458cc Inline-3.
So if someone’s converted one into a car, then it’ll be that car.
In the late-60s/early-70s Ford was building a tractor with a 2.6 liter 3-pot, but the engine is also structural; you’ll never spot someone swapping in that 600-lb lump to have all of 36 horsepower. Lots of torque though.
On this side of the Pond there are at least two bigger using your volume.
The Land Rover Discover Sport P300e is 181″ long x 75″ wide x 68″ tall which gives a cubic volume of 922428.
Then there is the Dacia Jogger. At 179″ long, 79″ wide, and 66.5″ tall it comes in at a whopping 940647 cubic inches. Even better, mine is manual and brown according the to the registration document (more of a dark metallic orange in real life).
There probably are bigger still but those were two that immediately sprang to mind.
On this side of the Pond there are at least two bigger using your volume.
The Land Rover Discover Sport P300e is 181″ long x 75″ wide x 68″ tall which gives a cubic volume of 922428.
Then there is the Dacia Jogger. At 179″ long, 79″ wide, and 66.5″ tall it comes in at a whopping 940647 cubic inches. Even better, mine is manual and brown according the to the registration document (more of a dark metallic orange in real life).
There probably are bigger still but those were two that immediately sprang to mind.
I must insist that all vehicles mentioned have their true volume measured via the water displacement method.
You don’t need to do the water displacement method to arrive at the exact displacement. You can do it mathematically. This is how the engine displacement is taxed in some countries regardless of how much volume inside the cylinder head, recessed part of cylinder, and/or top end shape of the cylinder (flat, dome, etc).
Volume = 3.14 x (bore diameter/2) x ( bore diameter/2) x stroke
or
Cylinder Volume = bore x bore x 0.7854 x stroke
then
Engine Displacement = Cylinder Volume x Number of Cylinders
For the mathematically-inept person, here’s the online calculator.
I meant the actual irregular volume of the vehicles themselves. All the calculations are normalized to a rectangular prism, I was suggesting tongue in cheek that they all be submerged and the volume of water displaced used as the volume measurement, rather than l * w * h of the largest listed exterior measurements.
windows up or down?
Ha! I actually thought about this. It’d be quicker with the windows down but given the the glass will still occupy the same volume inside the door as out of it, it doesn’t matter too much 😉
I must insist that all vehicles mentioned have their true volume measured via the water displacement method.
You don’t need to do the water displacement method to arrive at the exact displacement. You can do it mathematically. This is how the engine displacement is taxed in some countries regardless of how much volume inside the cylinder head, recessed part of cylinder, and/or top end shape of the cylinder (flat, dome, etc).
Volume = 3.14 x (bore diameter/2) x ( bore diameter/2) x stroke
or
Cylinder Volume = bore x bore x 0.7854 x stroke
then
Engine Displacement = Cylinder Volume x Number of Cylinders
For the mathematically-inept person, here’s the online calculator.
I meant the actual irregular volume of the vehicles themselves. All the calculations are normalized to a rectangular prism, I was suggesting tongue in cheek that they all be submerged and the volume of water displaced used as the volume measurement, rather than l * w * h of the largest listed exterior measurements.
windows up or down?
Ha! I actually thought about this. It’d be quicker with the windows down but given the the glass will still occupy the same volume inside the door as out of it, it doesn’t matter too much 😉
Here’s a question about ethics. Say you’re a sales rep at the Ford Farm Equipment store and Mr. and Mrs. Emptynester take a Bronco Sport for a test ride and they’re all smiles. Do you casually mention the three banger engine, or do you keep your mouth shut and take their money? For the record, I test drove an Envista and was pleasantly surprised by its performance. I knew what it was going in but the rep wanted to make sure I knew about the engine. That was decent of him.
I mean. If someone is making a big deal out of caring about the number of cylinders, sure. But it doesn’t strike me as a sleight-of-hand at all not to mention it if it doesn’t come up. If they’re happy, it’s not very different at all from mentioning or not mentioning the aspect ratio of the tires or the final drive ratio. If they know or care to know, great! If not, it’s not unethical to let the Vehicular Appliancemobile be an appliance to the appliance-buyer.
That said, if they’re unhappy with the acceleration, NVH, some other engine-related aspect, by all means mention it.
How many Camry owners know how many cylinders their engine has?
Here’s a question about ethics. Say you’re a sales rep at the Ford Farm Equipment store and Mr. and Mrs. Emptynester take a Bronco Sport for a test ride and they’re all smiles. Do you casually mention the three banger engine, or do you keep your mouth shut and take their money? For the record, I test drove an Envista and was pleasantly surprised by its performance. I knew what it was going in but the rep wanted to make sure I knew about the engine. That was decent of him.
I mean. If someone is making a big deal out of caring about the number of cylinders, sure. But it doesn’t strike me as a sleight-of-hand at all not to mention it if it doesn’t come up. If they’re happy, it’s not very different at all from mentioning or not mentioning the aspect ratio of the tires or the final drive ratio. If they know or care to know, great! If not, it’s not unethical to let the Vehicular Appliancemobile be an appliance to the appliance-buyer.
That said, if they’re unhappy with the acceleration, NVH, some other engine-related aspect, by all means mention it.
How many Camry owners know how many cylinders their engine has?
I am just now realizing the Bronco II has a 3 cylinder in it.
I am just now realizing the Bronco II has a 3 cylinder in it.
I once test-drove a Focus with the 1 liter triple and a six-speed. Sixth gear was only useful going down a hill – it could not even maintain speed on level ground. Pass.
I had one as a rental. It started showing me optimistic fuel economy when I started the week, but by the end it was abysmal due to the effort I put into abusing that engine to get it to go.
Contrasted with a VW1.0, where the vw was brilliant.
I once test-drove a Focus with the 1 liter triple and a six-speed. Sixth gear was only useful going down a hill – it could not even maintain speed on level ground. Pass.
I had one as a rental. It started showing me optimistic fuel economy when I started the week, but by the end it was abysmal due to the effort I put into abusing that engine to get it to go.
Contrasted with a VW1.0, where the vw was brilliant.
I was going to say Jeep M677. But I’ll wager a guess military production runs of 300 units probably don’t count towards the theoretical goal.
I was going to say Jeep M677. But I’ll wager a guess military production runs of 300 units probably don’t count towards the theoretical goal.
It would seem to me that the weaknesses such as balance and low power could be overcome by combining two three cylinder engines with a shared crankshaft. Say, one behind the other or maybe next to each other in something like a V shape.
Just spit-balling here.
The V layout reduces the balance problem but can’t be balanced. Not unless you do it with four I3s instead of two.
Two I3s in a row are perfectly balanced. [note to DT: this is not a justification for owning two i3s]