What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

How do you feel, psychologically, about the 4-cylinder in the Silverados?

urbex said:
These engines aren't using the traditional bendix style starter, rather something that is designed specifically for this type of application. Some vehicles don't use the starter at all for the stop/go operation, instead opting for combustion starting - injecting fuel into a cylinder and igniting it to get the engine spinning. There are also different types of bearings being used to handle the additional wear, and keep in mind - it's the COLD starts that are hard on a motor. These hot restarts already has hot oil circulated through the engine, and it's typically only down for a minute or two.
Click to expand...

i was thinking about this lately:

i think VW 12 cyls don't even have a starter and use the above injection starting system, but my question is: Do you need compression to get the engine spinning (vs. running?)

If the engine sits all night, and i would think it would be reasonable (?) to assume that the engine would lose some, maybe all compression in whatever cylinder(s) was in the compression stroke when the engine was shut off---and the engine sits for 8 hours or so, then how does this no-starter system work?
 
Last edited:
vandelay industries said:
i was thinking about this lately:

i think VW 12 cyls don't even have a starter and use the above injection starting system, but my question is: Do you need compression to get the engine spinning (vs. running?)

If the engine sits all night, and i would think it would be reasonable (?) to assume that the engine would lose some, maybe all compression in whatever cylinder(s) was in the compression stroke when the engine was shut off, then how does this no-starter system work?
Click to expand...
I'm sure VW has it figured out, they first introduced the start/stop system in 1983....
 
vandelay industries said:
i was thinking about this lately:

i think VW 12 cyls don't even have a starter and use the above injection starting system, but my question is: Do you need compression to get the engine spinning (vs. running?)

If the engine sits all night, and i would think it would be reasonable (?) to assume that the engine would lose some, maybe all compression in whatever cylinder(s) was in the compression stroke when the engine was shut off---and the engine sits for 8 hours or so, then how does this no-starter system work?
Click to expand...
They stop one cylinder towards the top of the compression stroke. Then they give that cylinder a squirt of fuel to get the engine going. They still have regular starters for cold starts.
 
beags86 said:
They stop one cylinder towards the top of the compression stroke. Then they give that cylinder a squirt of fuel to get the engine going. They still have regular starters for cold starts.
Click to expand...

Seems like a cool idea. Any idea how well that works once the engine is worn enough to leak past the rings & valves while it's sitting?
 
campfire said:
Seems like a cool idea. Any idea how well that works once the engine is worn enough to leak past the rings & valves while it's sitting?
Click to expand...
So in 350,000 miles? Takes a long time these days with modern alloys, direct injection and synthetic oils... This isn't your daddy's 6.2 anymore Ethan.
 
The engine size isn't a concern to me, hell I've got a 3.9L Isuzu 4bd1t diesel in my wrecker and it can reliably make more torque than the v8's of the time frame.

Fact is most fullsize trucks are never used to their capability, just a daily driver that picks up groceries. A low percentage will be used to carry/tow stuff for weekend projects, and even lower percentage will carry stuff on the regular (work). So for most of the market a smaller, more fuel efficient engine makes sense. The smaller engine is the wrong choice for the small percentage that are usually working the truck towards max capabilities but for the majority of the market it's the best option.
 
Keep in mind that "starting" and "running" are two different and distinct modes of operation. You don't need to spin the engine up to 1,000 RPM to get it started, and in fact, most engines are only turning around 200 RPM during starting before transitioning to running. Quite a few engines will fire down as low as 100 RPM. Much of this is due to modern technology, and computer monitoring of the engine. With precise crankshaft and camshaft position sensors, the ECU will know where each cylinder is in the stroke to within a few degrees to less than 1 degree. The ECU will know exactly which cylinder to inject and fire in order to get the engine running ASAP.

Yes, compression is needed for efficient combustion and power generation. But the new DI injection systems spray the fuel at such a high pressure and wide pattern that the fuel atomizes sufficiently that it will burn pretty well in any contained environment, such as the combustion chamber. No, it's not going to produce 300HP this way, but it will be plenty enough after a few ignition events to get a motor spinning over fast enough to get it started.
 
When I was working on reefers, we had some twin cylinder Onan engines that used a "starter generator" ... the flywheel had an armature built into it and then there was a 4 pole coil with brushes that mounted to the timing cover. When the unit called for a start the power from the battery lit up the coil assembly, and the flywheel would start spinning. Once the engine lit off, the whole assembly now acted as the generator and charged the battery.... it was totally silent until the engine lit off.

Early Samurai's that had 4 cylinder 2 stroke engines had the same arrangement,,, no starter gears... they were silent too when they cranked up. I don't see why the same tech couldn't be used in today's cars..
I bet that on some hybrids, this is how they start and stop the engine...


As far as big trucks for daily use,,,A few years back, I saw a lot of this new tech crap coming...and I decided to buy the last new truck I would ever purchase. And the thing that swayed my decision the most was control and safety of the braking and suspension. If you ever have had to make a panic stop while hauling a fully loaded trailer with a half ton truck you know what I mean...

Dodge was phasing out the 5.9 CTD and I didn't want to be a guinea pig for the 6.7...
I finally found a 5.9 CTD 4x4 Dually w/ 6 speed manual, manual transfer case lever.

It is definitely more truck than I need on a daily basis, but when I do tow, I have the peace of mind that I can safely control my rig....and that makes sense for my family and I and the people I share the road with...

I'm sure you all have seen your share of sketchy tow vehicles and overloaded rigs,,
One scary as hell panic stop changed my mind forever about towing safely...
 
The new 2019 T1XX Silverado's and Sierra's have hurt me psychologically since the first pictures appeared two years ago :haha:. I'll never forgive GM for what they have done. Their best days are so far behind them it isn't funny.

The company is being ran by a complete libitard CEO, Board of Directors with no clue of the automotive industry and a product guy that would approve only the most untasteful of designs (pretty sad when Kia has a more tasteful design language than GM). GM's complete lineup is just terrible today outside of the G-van, which has remained basically unchanged since 2003, and the new 4500-5500 trucks based on an International chassis and previous generation K2XX Silverado cab. We've purchased 9 brand new GM rides in 22 years and unlikely there will ever be a 10th.....but I am sure loving my new RAM!

I still predict GM will be dead or Chinese owned in under 10 years
 
A relative bought a new V6 Ram and a new camper identical to ours (Dutchmen 263RLS). I tried to back it up to put the trailer in place, I thought it had the parking brake set.

Usually Chrysler have touchy throttles... this one I had to have the pedal half way to the floor listening to the torque converter squirm trying to move 6500lbs into a campsite. So I had to do a lot of left foot braking because as soon as it would start moving it would lurch.

Our campsite was right next to theirs, I never used the skinny pedal on my 6.2L/8L90e.

Another relative has a newish (2018) Silverado with the 4.3L V6 and a Jayco Featherlite. Similar problems.

I can't imagine what it'd be like with an even smaller motor that makes even less sub-1500rpm torque. 99% sure my 6.2L makes more torque at idle than those motors make.
 
It just doesn’t seem right to me. A full-size should have at least a small v8 minimum or a larger v6 with good power. The 4 even with a turbo just doesn’t sound like it’ll get the job done. At least it’ll be easier to work on. Real world driving would be the only way to know if it’ll do what you need it to.
 
chulisohombre said:
It just doesn’t seem right to me. A full-size should have at least a small v8 minimum or a larger v6 with good power. The 4 even with a turbo just doesn’t sound like it’ll get the job done
Click to expand...

Agreed....

Just because they can, doesn't mean they should.... Maybe if it would be a heavy thumping big displacement turbo diesel that didn't need to be rev'd to the moon to get the truck rolling, I could see it.

But a hyper screaming banshee spooling up to pass a big rig on a two lane blacktop,,, that's for the V-tec boys...

Next thing you know we will have trucks running around with fart-can mufflers, tons of stickers, huge useless wings in the bed,doing the emergency flasher fly-by at every traffic light...
 
I drive around 40k Mile's a year for work, been driving a diesel 3/4t 4dr 8' bed, barge for the last 10~ years. Currently it's a dodge, it was at the dealer last week and they gave me a loaner, 2019 1500 short bed 4dr brand new. I drove it about 400 miles before I started thinking it wasnt a V8, popped the hood when I stopped, surprised to find a 3.6 V6. Drove it 1200 miles total it was actually a nice truck to drive, I dont think I'd want to tow or haul a lot with it. But I was always one who thought a full size gasser needed a decent sized V8. Oh and I averaged 23 mpg.
 
We got a little off topic with the no-starter engines, but just to clear things up:

Are you saying that simply spraying fuel into a cylinder and providing spark, with no compression in the cylinder, is good enough to move the piston----which moves the crank, which puts another cylinder in compression(keep in mind, you've got at least 1 other cylinder in a 12cyl engine you're working against compression when all of this is going on).....etc. etc. and then the engine eventually can start and run?

i guess what i'm trying to ask is-----if you spray some fuel against a piece of metal (forget it's even in a cylinder).......................

OK, nevermind----guns. Am i on the right track here? i don't know anything about guns, but don't have compression.....or do they?
 
Ever lit off a can of ether or carb spray with a lighter to kill bugs or screw with a co-worker? Same concept - no compression, lots of fire.

Yes, this is also how gun cartridges work. The force of the igniting gun powder is contained within the shell, and barrel. There is some compression within a gun cartridge as the bullet is pressed into the shell, but not nearly enough to matter here.

But the big key is modern direct injection and high pressure. The fuel needs to be highly atomized and evenly spread in the cylinder for this to work.
 
But back to the orig topic:

The 5.3 gets the same or better mpg than the 4cyl. AND it's got a higher tow capacity. So i don't see what the point of the 4cyl is?

The 4.3 also has a higher tow capacity than the 4 (although strangely enough it doesnt get as good mpg as the 5.3----and it's a chopped down version of the 5.3.......)

i feel that the 4cyl is perfectly fine for an s-10 or colorado, but doesn't feel right in a fullsize truck or van.
 
urbex said:
Ever lit off a can of ether or carb spray with a lighter to kill bugs or screw with a co-worker? Same concept - no compression, lots of fire.

Yes, this is also how gun cartridges work. The force of the igniting gun powder is contained within the shell, and barrel. There is some compression within a gun cartridge as the bullet is pressed into the shell, but not nearly enough to matter here.

But the big key is modern direct injection and high pressure. The fuel needs to be highly atomized and evenly spread in the cylinder for this to work.
Click to expand...

Ok, got it.
 
vandelay industries said:
But back to the orig topic:

The 5.3 gets the same or better mpg than the 4cyl. AND it's got a higher tow capacity. So i don't see what the point of the 4cyl is?

The 4.3 also has a higher tow capacity than the 4 (although strangely enough it doesnt get as good mpg as the 5.3----and it's a chopped down version of the 5.3.......)

i feel that the 4cyl is perfectly fine for an s-10 or colorado, but doesn't feel right in a fullsize truck or van.
Click to expand...
So what size is the 4 banger?
Diesel or gas?
Gm and isuzu had a 4 cyl td in their medium duty trucks and those were running 26k lbs .
They are 3.9 but still 4 cylinder.
My big rig is running a 6 cylinder diesel engine and it pulls 80k lbs easily and goes 85 mph.
Yeah it's 15 litres.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom