I'm no engineer, but I have read an awful lot of automotive literature.
Some of the rationale behind small engines with large numbers of small
cylinders has to do with efficiency.  In the past several years both
Chrysler and Ford have both marketed V10 engines to replace their big block
V8s.  To a point, combustion is more predictable, controllable, and complete
in a smaller combustion chamber.  The flame front travels at a nearly
constant rate through the fuel/air mixture regardless of engine RPM.  The
flame front has less distance to travel and encounters fewer variations in
temperature and fuel/air ratio, resulting in more complete burning and
reduced emissions numbers.
  This is true for gasoline engines, but all bets are off on how effective
this would be with diesel.  If the number of tractor-trailers with huge
inline sixes on U.S. highways is any indicator, there are other factors that
are more important than cylinder size for diesel engines.  Otherwise, they
would all have V12s.  Imagine how much money you would save if a fleet of
several hundred trucks that drive 150k miles a year could get even 5% better
fuel economy.

Food for thought....

Mike Snow

> Go for fewer (larger) cylinders (more torque). A
> 4liter diesel six will
> have more grunt than a 4liter V8.

ahh... thanks for the info..

why is that? i though that's why they had all those
2.0liter v-12's back in the day. more torque.  maybe
i'm just mixin up hp and torque again.

oh well... gotta run eat lunch.. lates

=====
Sudhir Desai