What are you saying here, that 4-cylinder engines are more likely to be replaced than 6-cylinder engines when put into the same chassis? I don't think it has anything to do with cylinder count at all... The overworked engine is likely the to fail first.You are absolutely correct, resale value depends on many, (many) factors not just engine failures. However, with tools today such as CarFax, it's pretty easy to detect when a repair or replacement of anything within the powertrain occurred. I know I personally would have second thoughts about buying a used car due a broken engine or transmission component.
You do realize that all engines go through their own separate development cycles and if a 4-cylinder happens to have a weak part or different stresses it would have been addressed at design... The GME 2.0 was designed from day 1 to be turbocharged. Crankshaft too weak? Make it stronger. Cylinder pressure too high? More head studs. Nothing about 2 vs. 3 pulses per rotation makes any problem that is impossible to overcome and be reliable, even if those pulses are stronger (to a point, but the GME is nowhere near that limit).With the introduction of the Turbo Charger on the four bangers, which was undoubtedly implemented just to add enough horsepower to make it viable, adds even more powertrain stresses. Which additionally increases the probability of failure due to the higher number of complex things that can further go bad.
Not even the odd-fire V6 that I pointed out earlier or really even just ANY 90 degree V6 for that matter? Why does the spacing of the pulses and how they interact with the crankshaft only matter in a 4-cylinder? Flat-plane vs. cross-plane V8s? Stroke length? Rod-Stroke ratio? How about the fact that both the 392 & 3.6 rev higher than the 2.0? Doesn't the higher piston speed make for extra stress also (I'm assuming, don't actually know the rod length of all motors). What about the fact that you can fit 5 main crankshaft bearings on an inline-4, but a V6 could only have 4? Shouldn't the higher load per bearing cause issues? Or that two banks of cylinders have twice as many camshafts to drive (for OHC motors), resulting in more engine drivetrain loss and higher stress on the accessory side of the crankshaft. Both the 3.6 & 392 have twice as many pistons connected to each rod bearing journal as the 2.0 and they get abused from two different planes and not always at even intervals. I'm not saying this is a weakness in a multi-banked engine, but with all else being equal an inline crankshaft will always have more material per cylinder, and an inline-4 crankshaft will look very similar to a V8... so shouldn't crankshaft in the engine with only one piston per rod journal actually be under less stress?The normally aspirated V6 and V8s have none of this additional potential for dysfunction. Can they still fail? Of course, but not due to the same stress factors.
Yeah, I'm going to need some statistics on that. And I'm not talking about some YouTube video.My point is that owning a four cylinder engine introduces a higher probability of powertrain related breakage.