LOL It's not a test......and it's sorta a question:
Theoretically, fewer bigger cylinders may be more efficient than small cylinders, because 4 (say) small cylinders have more piston, cylinder head and cylinder wall area than a single large piston. This larger area allows more heat to leak out of the cylinder instead of doing useful work.
On the other hand, a big piston and rod is heavier, and might create more friction. Which wins, reduced friction, or reduced heat loss?
Going back to an earlier thread, my Chevette 4 cylinder was rated at 63 HP and got 40 mpg. Early Volkswagens made 37 HP from a 4 cylinder engine. Chevy makes a 2.8 liter 4 that makes 175 HP. A 1 cylinder version of this Chevy engine would make 44 HP, more than enough to power either car.
But would a 1 cylinder engine use significantly less fuel that their original four cylinder engines?
Capitalism: The cream rises. Socialism: The scum rises.
there is a reason single cylinder motorcycles are called "thumpers" the Yamaha xt500 I had was hard to start, and had very little low end power, if you try to ask the engine to do work on a non power stroke, it's going to suck that energy out of the fly wheel, and slow the engine down, we have a single cylinder back up generator that I think runs around 1000rpm I'm not sure on the displacement, but it must have a 60-80 pound fly wheel, if it was a twin cylinder engine I'm sure that fly wheel could be cut at least in half.