Mazda is interesting as they bucked the trend for extreme downsizing with their Skyactive units. I read that manufacturers are now adding cc rather than continually reducing, in order to achieve better real world emissions figures, something that downsized turbos have not been wholly successful with, the small units relying heavily on boost to produce the required torque, which in turn can lead to overheating and the need for over-fuelling I guess the Ford 1.0 Ecoboost is a good example of this, being not particularly economical and possibly a bit fragile in the real world. Note also VAG increasing their Tsi capacity to 1.5 cc and developing these 48v battery systems to lend a helping hand to the ICE. I expect we'll see all the manufacturers coming out with similar systems over the next few years. I wonder if this will mark the end of the manual box too?

Easy lazy torque from low revs goes with large swept volume per cylinder, petrol or Diesel, and makes for lazy easy driving.

Different kettle of fish i know, but the 1910 fiat S76 "beast of turin", had a 28,353cc 4 cylinder aero engine. It produced 290HP at 1900RPM. But think about that, just under 7.1 litres per cylinder!. Well worth a youtube search for video footage of this incredible machine in action, in the meantinme, here is a pic;

assets.hemmings.com/blog/wp-content/uploads//2014/...g

Edited by badbusdriver on 12/02/2018 at 20:55

Compare two identically sized engines one a 4cyl and one a 6 and you’ll notice the lack of low speed pull on the 6. Larger cylinders provide more low speed pull but will never be as smooth as a 6. Best examples I can think of were the Mitsubishi Galant 2.0 V6 which was silky smooth but slower on the road than the much cheaper 4cyk 2.0, in fact it felt no quicker than the base 1.8 16v and the 1.8 V6 Mazda used in the MX-3 was a slug compared to an MX-5 1.8. Fuel economy suffers too as you’ve more moving parts and less low speed pull thus gearing needs altered to suit.

All very true. Mates wife had a Lexus with a 2litre 6. Very quiet and smooth but no low down power at all and dreaful economy.

Another mate swapped his 1.8 Golf (4 cylinder of course) for a 6 cylinder 2 litre BMW. Quiet, smooth, lovely to ride in and absolutely dreadful to drive.

Compare two identically sized engines one a 4cyl and one a 6 and you’ll notice the lack of low speed pull on the 6. Larger cylinders provide more low speed pull but will never be as smooth as a 6. Best examples I can think of..........

.....were the Jaguar XK in line six engines, up to 700cc per pot; and the large in line sixes of Rolls Royce/Bentley. It was decades before the rougher V8 was thought to be necessary.