Inmate Central

Inmate Central, where civil and family-friendly discourse about off-audio topics (other than religion and politics) is welcome.

Return to Inmate Central

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Engine Math...a little

68.6.131.58
Posted on April 19, 2021 at 16:20:41
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 The IC Engine in newer cars has reached a very high degree of development. Lots of things being done today are a direct result of racing development and material science guys.

But engines are just, at base, a pump producing power based on pressure. What makes it go is pressure on the piston. Measured, ususally in PSI, though a more advanced measure, BMEP, which is Brake Mean Effective Pressure.....and is a calculated value.

But here's where I want to go today. Number of Cylinders. Someone here remarked that the 500cc X 4 of 2 liters is 'the perfect size'..
But Here's where it gets weird. I'll deal ONLY with 'square' engines....same bore as stroke. Short stroke / larger bore changes things a little, but not the conclusion.

Let's take 2 examples at oppostite ends of the spectrum.
A single cylinder of 1 liter and an 8 cylinder of the same 1 liter displacement.

For the SINGLE cylinder? About 4.3" bore and a 4.3" stroke. Very close to 1 liter.
This is about 15 square inches of piston area.

For the 8 cylinder version? You'll end up with about a 2.14" bore and stroke. For about 7 3/4 cubic inches per cylinder. And a surface area of about 3.6 square inches or around 28.8 square inches for ALL 8 cylinders together.

Given equal pressures, the multi-cylinder engine will put out more power than the single.

Of course? That isn't it. It's more difficult to fully develop multi cylinder engines. BRM never DID get the H18 of 180 cubic inches to run properly....or reliably. Bore / Stroke ratios can be adjusted, too.
Chevy had great succes with the 283 crankshaft (3" stroke) put into the 327 block of 4" bore. Plenty of room for valves and huge RPM potential.....Over 7000rpm by some tests of the day.

Too much is never enough

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 19, 2021 at 19:50:37
grantv
Manufacturer

Posts: 7724
Location: B.C.
Joined: January 15, 2002
 Never owned a 283, was never a fan as I was wanting power in a more usable RPM range. I do agree, well set up for higher revving.
For GM V8 motors, I've had a 262, 2 305's (dogs), a cammed 350 LT1 and a 346 LS6.
The main point about a V8 of the same displacement, yes, and would sound cool too.

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 19, 2021 at 20:33:43
JDK
Audiophile

Posts: 19655
Location: Sydney
Joined: June 26, 2000
 In Mopar small block V8s, they had similar -
318 and 340 had the same stroke, 340 obviously with a larger bore.
The 360 had the 340 bore with longer stroke.
But the 340 was the one that responded beautifully to some porting work, headers and a cam.



Trying to hide from entropy
John K

 

Yep, posted on April 19, 2021 at 21:12:58
grantv
Manufacturer

Posts: 7724
Location: B.C.
Joined: January 15, 2002
 I've never owned a Dodge except for 3 minivans. But I had a buddy who had a Duster with a nicely built 340, that motor was nice. It was definitely the Mopar small block motor to be had to my recollection.

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 19, 2021 at 21:45:35
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 We had the 283 2bbl in about a '62 or '63 Impala. Nothing special, but a competent people movier.
The one prior to that was a 6 and emitted an 'arf arf' noise at the filling station.....

The later wagon my dad bough was a 327 4bbl and THAT got down the road jut fine.....and had one of the 3 speed automatics....Turbo something?

265 not 252? And the 305 was I think the 327 crank in a 283 block.....a Stroker.... My brother had a 350 in his late'50s Corvette. Lots of Thrust. 346? Never heard of it....but that doesn't mean much
Neighbor JUST SOLD a Bicayne WAGON with a 409 w/2x4bbl. REALLY terrific noises and a great cruier. Guy he sold it to? Already on the path to ruin with 20" wheels and who knows WHAT else?


Too much is never enough

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 19, 2021 at 21:50:05
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 had a ride in a 340 and it was a MONSTER in disguise. I have no idea what the owner had done, but it was a real 'pin you in the seat' kind of ride.

My point in all this is that PISTON AREA tends to govern. More cylinders adding to the same displacement as fewer / larger cylinders has MORE HP POTENTIAL at any given state of development.

My S-2000 of 2hp per cubic inch? AND a stroker? Did so at 9000rpm.....
Too much is never enough

 

Kept one of them Dusters for a friend while he went home to help, posted on April 20, 2021 at 05:30:40
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
 out on the SD family farm: lots of torque, decent acceleration, dependable starter in MN winter.

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 20, 2021 at 06:42:40
JURB
Audiophile

Posts: 2056
Location: North Ohio
Joined: May 29, 2016
 There is much to that which is beyond me, however...

"The IC Engine in newer cars has reached a very high degree of development. Lots of things being done today are a direct result of racing development and material science guys."

Just that was plenty for a wile. One of the main things has to do with the cam. Newer engines can have a higher theoretical compression ration which is countered by more cam overlap. What this means is the compression is not so high you need a diesel starter motor. The overlap does away with most of it so it cranks easy. Then you need a super high energy ignition to get the things to start, whivh they now have, since the 1980s.

However an effect of this cam overlap is a higher volumetric efficiency, sometimes over 100 at certain RPMs. Then the higher theoretical compression means something. It is like having 6:1 to start and up to 12:1 when you use passing gear.

The ECM since the 1980s in the good cars usually had fuel injection, even if throttle body it is better than a carb. Precise control over the mixture as well as ignition timing made a six run like an eight.

With the higher RPMs now roller cams are not the rare thing they used to be in the past.

"What makes it go is pressure on the piston. Measured, ususally in PSI, though a more advanced measure, BMEP, which is Brake Mean Effective Pressure.....and is a calculated value"

And the BMEP will be higher if the fuel burns more slowly. Premium generally does and if not the EGR makes it burn slower, thought without the added thrust. However an engineer told me that there is a way to tune an engine so that it will actually run better (faster) on lower octane gas because of it burning more quickly. And "tune" to a guy like this means "Well, let's just make that exhaust lobe a little bit more...". More than likely they ping their ass off.

"I'll deal ONLY with 'square' engines"

That takes all the fun out of it.

"Given equal pressures, the multi-cylinder engine will put out more power than the single."

That is because the peak PSI on the cylinders is in the sweet spot more. You take a huge cylinder, it is damn hard to get enough fuel in there to keep pushing the piston, and why bother as it gets to the bottom ? And actually that bottom there is usually a vacuum for a split second which can scavenge exhaust from other cylinders. There is an exhaust system called an "evacuator' system which uses two long pipes but connected at the end which uses this principle and also applies the inertia of the exhaust gases. The only production car (not that much production) to come with one was the Olds Toronado. Later, when you put in a dual exhaust, they got a kit with a bunch of temperature indicator tapes and you run the car, rad them and when the tapes are a different color meaning a little less heat is where you put the crossover in. Sure you lose the stereo sound of the exhaust but you gain power.

"Over 7000rpm by some tests of the day"

The olman had one that did 9,000. Had a Racer Brown roller cam, and back then it was not easy to put one in, the block had to be trued and squared or you would get cam walk, not desirable. He was a machinist and could do his own line boring etc. He also had the crank machined undersize maybe a thou or so, then had it hard chromed back up to size so it took the regular bearings.

If you exceeded 9,000, I mean like 9,0001RPM it would wipe out #1 main very time. The hard chrome protected the crank quite well but it was still a pain to get down there and change it. They tried everything. Chevies are fed oil form the back, so they also fed it from the front. No good. Nothing worked. He might be thinking about why in his grave, err urn.

If you notice the oil pumps these days, many are on the crank. For one that means they run at twice the RPM as the old ones that ran off the distributor. Bigger gears and all that. That is why you can start the car in zero degrees and just drive, no warming up needed.

You don't ant to deal with now if you don't even want to deal with oversquare or undersquare engines. They have g=had variable cam timing for a while now, and now they got dual, intake and exhaust controlled independently. And direct cylinder injection.

Talk about NASCAR contributing to the art ? Well it looks like the price caught on, take one of those high end engines and blow it to bits and see what it costs for a replacement. You wil see why they have no trouble seling those extended warranties, like Car Shield and Protect My Car etc.

A little shitcan engine can be like $7,000, the high end ones ? Twice, thrice that.

I think I want a Model T. Need an engine ? Well make one in the basement and carry it up the stairs and put it in. Or walk.

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 20, 2021 at 07:00:22
grantv
Manufacturer

Posts: 7724
Location: B.C.
Joined: January 15, 2002
 Turbo Hydramatic 3 speed auto. A heavier duty unit was the Turbo 400, usually only in big block cars IIRC.
It was a 262 V8, in a V8 Monza (and I think only came in the Monza, maybe in other small GM vehicles however).
All the blocks are essentially the same; the small block Chev, AKA the SBC (262 to 400).
The 305 had a smaller bore than the 350, same stroke. I had one in a 70's Camaro (bought from my bro, bleh) then later another V8 Monza. This one came with a 305 manual tranny, but I dropped in a cammed 350LT1 motor.
The 346 is the LS motor size. Smaller bore longer stroke than the old 350. The LS6 variant (405HP) came in my 04 Z06.

 

Piston speed is as much of a limit as BMEP, posted on April 20, 2021 at 10:09:30
Dave_K
 BTW, I got a little different numbers.

Displacement = pi * bore * stroke * number of cylinders
1 liter = 61.0237cc

If we assume "square" dimensions (bore = stroke), then a single cylinder of 1 liter displacement will have bore and stroke = sqrt(61.0237/pi) = 4.407 inches. For the 8 cylinder engine, it will be sqrt(61.0237/pi/8) = 1.558 inches.

So at the same RPM, the piston speed will be 2.83 times faster in the single cylinder engine (4.407/1.558). Or to put it another way, given the same piston speed, the eight cylinder engine can spin 2.83 times faster. So it can theoretically pump 2.83 times more air.

Piston speeds are mainly limited by metallurgy and the loads on the wrist pin, big end, and main bearings. The higher the piston speed, the faster the pistons have to accelerate, the greater the accelerating force.

The upper limit for a production sports car is a mean piston speed of about 25 m/s (984 in/s), achieved by the original Honda S2000 at 8900 RPM. Only race engines can move their pistons faster, and only by 5-10% if the engine has to run for hours. Top fuel dragster engines can go 20% higher.

Mean piston speed = 2 * stroke * RPM / 60

So if we assume a piston speed at redline of 984 in/s, our hypothetical single cylinder 1 liter race engine will have a redline of 6700 RPM. And our hypothetical eight cylinder 1 liter race engine will have a redline just shy of 19000 RPM.

Using a greater number of cylinders is one way to allow a higher redline for the same displacement. The other way is to make the cylinders over-square (bore larger than stroke).

But the valve train is a limiting factor. Coil springs might allow some valve float in our 1 liter 8 cylinder engine as it approaches it's high redline, so you probably couldn't make it oversquare and rev higher without pneumatic valves. Also, as you make the combustion chamber wider and flatter, the fuel/air mixture takes longer to burn. So the oversquare cylinders will require more ignition advance, and BMEP at high RPM will be lower.

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 20, 2021 at 10:39:02
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 Ya' gotta compare like to like.....A 'squre' engine is a good starting point.
You can get lost in the sauce and just get confused.

the rule maintains.....For any given level of development, MORE cylinders should produce more power. Greater surface area of pistons for any fixed displacement is why.
It's all PSI......More pistons per given volume of engine means more work can be done.....even though I'd suspect friction goes UP as a function of cylinder to piston surface area.....But only 'bearing' on the rings....

HardChromes is neat, but Chrysler Hemi engine cranks were NITRIDED. That's gonna be harder than a whore's heart. But CAN'T be ground....so it's one and done....

By definition, highest volumetric efficiency is at an engines TORQUE PEAK. This should also be where the engine gets the BEST fuel economy. Of course? If the car is going very fast at this peak, than wind resistance, (DRAG) cuts into such fuel usage.

My 7000 reference was for the Factory / Stock engine.
Too much is never enough

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 20, 2021 at 10:43:13
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 I just looked up the small-block WIKI.
7 differnt bore sizes
5 different stroke sizes
10 displacements made.

Some of 'em were AFTER I dropped out.....so were new to me.

Chevy did a LOT of mix / match to get 10 'different' sizes from available Bore /Stroke.....
Too much is never enough

 

RE: Piston speed is as much of a limit as BMEP, posted on April 20, 2021 at 11:21:23
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 Next time I'll take ALL calculations to 8 decimal places.

This was meant as 'proof of principle' post. Bottom line and FIRST PASS is that piston surface area at any given PSI will rule. Better development of the fewer cylinder engine makes up for a LOT.
But at peak development? More cylinders rule.

One amazing example is the OFFENHAUSER which won races into the 70s.......The last of 'em? 1000hp from <170 cubic inches and a VERY short stroke. This enigne was massaged for maybe 50 years or more.....

the original Ford Flathead was maybe 60hp or 70hp and in going with the times....a massive stroker.
I had a ride in one of the last of 'em....in a 51 Merc and it was fine......

Yes....you are getting off into new territory here. My S-2000 engine, the 2.0 version, had about the HIGHEST piston speed EVER in a productino car. 60mph was over 3000rpm. I'd have to do the math to see actual piston speed...which I suspect is huge.

AS for valve float? An unrelated to this topic solution would perhaps be Desmodromic Valves. I think the mid-50s Mercedes STRAIGHT 8 GP engine has this feature as do modern Ducati motorcycle.

In General? For any given level of development, more cylinders for any given displacement should result in higher powre.....
But not linearly, since at some point friction turns into a factor....


OOOPS! I see you DID mention what maybe the recording holding Honda S-2000 engine.
I can attest to nearly NO torque below maybe 3000 rpm and not all that much acceleration. UNTIL, at least you got over about 6500 to 7000 RPM when it was like lighting an afterburner.....
Too much is never enough

 

Smart I say, posted on April 20, 2021 at 12:30:22
grantv
Manufacturer

Posts: 7724
Location: B.C.
Joined: January 15, 2002
 It was a very simple equation and motor. Same block, so many options to go with. To me the 350 made the most sense. The 400 had thin walls, liners IIRC. Any 4" bore motor made the most sense to my taste, as it in theory would also be lightest (apart from the 400)... more cubes, less weight, good numbers. :)
The 383 stroker was/is a great option for those interested in squeezing good cubes out of that block.

 

RE: Smart I say, posted on April 20, 2021 at 13:48:57
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 Neighbor has 3 or 4 different sets of HEADS for the smallblock.....
An additional complication....
Too much is never enough

 

That doesn't complicate it for me, but I can see how it would., posted on April 20, 2021 at 14:20:12
grantv
Manufacturer

Posts: 7724
Location: B.C.
Joined: January 15, 2002
 I would think all of the big 3 were similar in that regard. I owned a few Ford V8 vehicles, but never did any internal work. Different heads for different needs. Smaller cubes do best with certain heads, modified motors, etc. It all works, or at least did back then. So easy if you were "into it".

 

RE: That doesn't complicate it for me, but I can see how it would., posted on April 20, 2021 at 14:26:25
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 And gave room for experiment and improvisation.......

I wonder how well the dodge 340 heads worked on the 318, with a big cam? That sort of thing...
Too much is never enough

 

Dodge..., posted on April 20, 2021 at 14:32:05
grantv
Manufacturer

Posts: 7724
Location: B.C.
Joined: January 15, 2002
 Only owned minivans from Dodge. I really know nothing of their motors (other than the very basics).

 

RE: Dodge..., posted on April 20, 2021 at 16:12:30
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 My '56 Windsor had a 331 'wedge' motor. But it was actually closer in look to the BB Chevy of 396 / 427 / 454 with the 'scalloped' valve covers. I think 2 plus were 'forward' facing and 2 'rear'....on each side. This meant a siamesed pair of exhaust valves in the middle of the head.....It was a SINGLE rocker shaft design but valves NOT in a single row......
Carb was an EARLY and very pre AFB Carter called a WCFB which was a pair of 2bbl back-to-back in one casting.
They called it 'polysperic' and looks to have been revived by CHEVY a few years later.....

check out the link.....
Too much is never enough

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 20, 2021 at 18:34:47
mondial
Audiophile

Posts: 891
Location: S.E. ASIA
Joined: January 14, 2007
 We had a 2 door hardtop Chevy Chevelle Malibu back in the day it had a 307 engine ,was it different from the 305 ?

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 20, 2021 at 18:40:44
rivervalley817
 '2 door hardtop Chevy Chevelle Malibu 2 door hardtop'

that's a two roof four door ... probably rare & worth a lot

; )

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 20, 2021 at 20:56:25
grantv
Manufacturer

Posts: 7724
Location: B.C.
Joined: January 15, 2002
 The 307 had a smaller bore than the 305 or 350. Unsure why Chevy offered both, perhaps trying for more torque (longer stroke...)

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 20, 2021 at 22:55:37
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 Chevy did a LOT of mix nd match with I don't offhand know how many bore sizes and available cranks.
The 302, for example? 327 bore of 4" and a 283 crank of 3"......Lots of rev potential and a real screamer and teh drag strip....

The 307 was the OPPOSITE. A 283 bore and 327 crank, making a low-perf stroker.

than it gets really weird, on up the the 400 and the '383 'crate' motor.....
Too much is never enough

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 21, 2021 at 00:25:40
mondial
Audiophile

Posts: 891
Location: S.E. ASIA
Joined: January 14, 2007
 Thanks Grant !

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 21, 2021 at 14:45:42
JURB
Audiophile

Posts: 2056
Location: North Ohio
Joined: May 29, 2016
 "Turbo Hydramatic 3 speed auto. A heavier duty unit was the Turbo 400, usually only in big block cars IIRC"

I think you mean the Hydramatic. They were a heavy ass bitch. When they got to the THM400 they had much more going for them. Lighter for one, and the bigger gearset made possible a lower low gear.

With the new torque convertor they had some minor control over stall speed, so these things would take off at 5:1. If not for that convertor you would need a truck transmission to do it and that definitely means bucket seats, small ones. The actual gear ratio is like 2.6:1.

I had one apart a few times, the valve body is a veritable analog computer. The book showed where convertor pressure went, governor pressure, vacuum modulator pressure. These all go to valves with multiple pistons that calculate when to shift - better than you can because it had engine parameters at the time than you do. These multiple pistons act like gates in a computer. Get to a certain point it is time to shift.

they also had electric passing gear, good to 70MPH they said, but in my Toronado the THM425 which is the same thing but folded for front wheel drive had a passing gear at 105MPH. I didn't take it much farther, I needed a tire and it took LR78s, the highest rating I could find on town was a JR78. not to mention it was on the front. But the one I worked on was a later one, my road ripper was a 1970, this was IIRC a 1976.

But remember I had the book on it. This book, damn, had a diagram of the valve body just like a schematic and had actual overlays, printed on clear plastic that you put on the main drawing to see what just happen when...whatever. I wonder if they even print books like that anymore.

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 21, 2021 at 15:08:09
JURB
Audiophile

Posts: 2056
Location: North Ohio
Joined: May 29, 2016
 "the rule maintains.....For any given level of development, MORE cylinders should produce more power. Greater surface area of pistons for any fixed displacement is why"

Only to a point. A circle twice the diameter has four times the area.

Like a 12" pizza, pi*R^2, about 113 sq. in.
A 16" pizza about 201 sq. in.
The lowly 8" pizza only about 50 sq. in.

What a difference the lowly 4" makes.

So the only main difference is that the peak PSI hits more in the sweet spot of the various cylinders. If it was only the surface area of the piston, a huge one cylinder would be best.

For a real world example, start with an old train, steam. They only had two huge pistons BUT they had steam on tap to keep feeding it until it is really done, extracting the last bit of power out of it. You would have to go on an antique train to see i t, the modern ones are not like that. Newer trains are actually electric. They have a huge diesel connected to a generator and a motor moves the train. They found this to be the best transmission. Really, you want to design an automatic tranny for those ? Eeesh, no way Jose. A thousand clutch plates and sprags ? At least, and I still doubt it would be as reliable.

Anyway, if you were quoting a real rule there, it is only valid in a certain range.

 

RE: Smart I say, posted on April 21, 2021 at 15:22:31
JURB
Audiophile

Posts: 2056
Location: North Ohio
Joined: May 29, 2016
 "The 400 had thin walls, liners IIRC"

Nope, no liners. that was the problem, when they blew they blew. That 400 small block by Chevy was a mess. Colloquially called the 402, they did move, but well...

We had one that needed a flywheel. The starter gear ring was toast on it. Not available but they had a 350 one and we put that in. Come to find out, to change the flywheel in those for some reason (the stroke of course) to balance the crank you had to send it with the flywheel because the weights were on that, not the crank. We just drove it with the vibration, is was a rag.

When they blew, many times you would find a rod up through a cylinder wall. Piston broken to pieces like it was hit by a truck.

They moved, but you had to respect certain limits, main thing was the tach. I would not ever even consider taking one beyond 6,000RPM. People did though and then they needed a new block, set of pistons and maybe a valve or two.

"The 383 stroker was/is a great option for those interested in squeezing good cubes out of that block"

Those were high block, not low block. They used those terms instead of small and big. They are hard to find, they are out there but nobody wants to sell.

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 21, 2021 at 15:25:00
JURB
Audiophile

Posts: 2056
Location: North Ohio
Joined: May 29, 2016
 "The 307 had a smaller bore than the 305 or 350. Unsure why Chevy offered both, perhaps trying for more torque (longer stroke...)"

The 307 was an Olds engine.

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 21, 2021 at 15:43:03
JURB
Audiophile

Posts: 2056
Location: North Ohio
Joined: May 29, 2016
 "Chevy did a LOT of mix nd match with I don't offhand know how many bore sizes and available cranks."

Chevy did a few things we liked. First of all hiring Duntoff, the cam genius. And all Chevy trannies fit everything. You could go from a three on the tree to a THM400 as long as it fit the body. It would bolt up but you might have to see the driveshaft guys.

And now that I think of it a 3307 may have been installed in some Chevies. they had Cadillacs with Olds engines, and I had an Olds Cutlass that had a Vette engine in it, still 350 but it really felt different. Actually that car may have been hot, I should have pulled the engine for something else. But it ran damn good. When you kicked in passing gear it had a bit of a strange sound like Whoooooooop increasing in pitch as the car accelerated. I had plenty with Olds engines and while they were better out of the hole, this thing, well I didn't have a handy one to race with it. I think my sister had one but it was not running right, actually needed a head gasket I think, but it did well at higher RPMs. But that is not what I wanted to race. I wanted it how it ran right, like when new or close.

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 21, 2021 at 16:54:29
grantv
Manufacturer

Posts: 7724
Location: B.C.
Joined: January 15, 2002
 307 an Olds motor? Not that I'm aware of. It was offered in many GM vehicles, definitely not Olds specific.

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 21, 2021 at 17:24:52
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 We are controlling for a cylinders VOLUME.....not surface area of a circle.

We were up against your 'double area + 4X surface area' rule in semiconductor processing.

It is nearly as much work to process a 3" or 4" silicon wafer as a 6" or 8" slice. Of course, you

LOSE the edges but the output still grows Nearly 4X the double diameter calculation.....

In an engine? The big ADDITIONAL loss of that of Friction. Forget main bearings, for now, but

Each additional cylinder has rings and while the surface area is increased, adding diameters also

factors in.

And NO, a single cylinder would NOT be best. Given that engines are basically run by PSI, the

increase in surface area for a given volume makes multi-cylinder solutions best. AT ANY given

pressure, the more cylinders produce more power. The DEVELOPMENT proviso certainly applies.

Original Ford Flat Heads were certainly UNDER 100hp....Early versions were 221 cubes. Todays 6cyl

in a Nissan GTR crank out north of 500hp and are insignificantly larger than the Ford.....

With STEAM? You'll find that in MARINE

applicaitons a Triple Expanding engine.....feeding steam from one cylinder to the next, would extract

the most power possible.

I have NO idea what Pizza has to do with anything, except that as YOU, my eyes may be bigger than

my stomach....!

What IS the 'Sweet Spot' of a piston or cylinder?
Too much is never enough

 

RE: Engine Math...a little, posted on April 21, 2021 at 17:32:25
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
 Buddy with a '67 or '68 SS396 Malibu of 325hp.....factory.....
Raced another buddy with a 10 year OLDER Olds with some Big V8......

In 3 races the Chevy won 'em all but by no more than 1 1/2 car lenghts PER race. Hardly a dominating win.

Later models of what came to be known as the 442 were nice and I'm guessing certain versions are even collectible....

I don't know enough about it, but an Engineer at work.....VERY buttoned down (tie every day) had a son who raced a BUICK with small V6 / Turbo...... Guy was Chinese and a real RACER. But from the look of him? STraight guy with worst habit being unshined shoes.....

And now that I htink about it? How about the SOHC 6 from Pointiac? VERY quick and some models came with a 4bbl.. I wonder if THEY have a following?
Too much is never enough

 

Page processed in 0.035 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]