Displacement VS # of Cylinders (Vader, Crossfire!)
10-30-2005, 11:01 AM
#52
Sorry, but I just have to ask.
Has ANYONE EVER produced 4,000+ HP at any RPM with an inline four cylinder? Even the big GM, Fairbanks, and Yanmar diesels don't quite do that.
Just checking...
Has ANYONE EVER produced 4,000+ HP at any RPM with an inline four cylinder? Even the big GM, Fairbanks, and Yanmar diesels don't quite do that.
Just checking...
10-30-2005, 11:42 AM
#53
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Vader
Sorry, but I just have to ask.
Has ANYONE EVER produced 4,000+ HP at any RPM with an inline four cylinder? Even the big GM, Fairbanks, and Yanmar diesels don't quite do that.
Just checking...
Sorry, but I just have to ask.
Has ANYONE EVER produced 4,000+ HP at any RPM with an inline four cylinder? Even the big GM, Fairbanks, and Yanmar diesels don't quite do that.
Just checking...
Vader, I love how you post your answers in the form of questions and riddles. You've been doing that since I signed up on this board over 3 years ago. Do you FEEL like clarifying your statement?
10-30-2005, 12:58 PM
#54
The point is that there are practical limitations to everything.
As one example, no one makes cylinder cases that contain head bolts large enough to retain a seal with the kind of pressure required to make higher levels of power on a smaller diameter piston, regardless of the number of pistons. I suppoes we could get ridiculous and design a 60 cylinder engine, them spread the load out across all the bores, but there would them be other hindrances to power in rotating mass, length, block integrity along its size, the imbalance of wenie little pisont on a necessarily large crankshaft, etcetera. And if any such design were made, and the bolts were to hold, the materials from which the cylinders, heads, valves, pistons, rods, and crankshaft would have to sustain enormous levels of pressure per square inch. Cast iron wouldn't cut it. Aluminum pistons wouldn't survive more than a few cycles. Cylinders would have to be deisgned to expand under the pressure before they fractured. Rods would have to be made of a compressible or malleable material to prevent granular shearing. Crankshafts would have to be made of metallic Jell-O or be twisted off on the first power pulse.
Conversely, a relatively few but larger bores would have to be ultra light to sustain the RPM necessary to make horespower. Remember that by its very definition, horespower = work. Work = force (torque) at a given rate (RPM). An engine can produce terrestrial-gouging levels of torque, but if it doesn't do it at any kind of RPM, the actual work (horsepower) is calculated to be lower. An example of that would be in the larger diesel stationary engines which make massive amounts of torque, and would suck most F1 engines in the intake, crush them, then toss them out the exhaust valve in pieces with maybe a noticable hiccup. They are often limited to 1,200-1,600 RPM, however. Throwing an 18" diameter piston back an forth at any higher speed simply exceeds the material limitations of steel wrist pins, forged connecting rods, and cast iron alloy pistons. Much above their redline, and something either goes through the head or out the bottom of the crankcase.
Beyond the theory, materials are a consideration. Further consideration needs to be lent to the chemical and physical proceeses of converting vaporized fuel and air into post-combustion gasses and heat. That can only occur within a relatively narrow window of time, and the distances that such a conversion must travel across a combustion chamber also create some limitations. It would require a lot more time for a flame front to cross a 10" diameter piston than a 70mm diameter piston. That would limit the BMEP imparted on a piston at any mappable point of travel within its stroke length. If that doesn't mean "power" to you, you need to research a bit more.
It seems that it is very common to run a nearly 5" bore engine along a roughly 4" stroke, have a light yet strong enough crankshaft, and cylinder pressure to allow a large V-8 produce almost 6,000HP at 8,000 RPM for short bursts, and survive to run again. We just don't see a lot of 16-cylinder little bore engines and 4-cylinder big bore engines making power at those levels. For that matter, we don't see much more than two valves per cylinder, and one camshaft per engine, and almost no OHC engines ever getting anywhere close to that.
The underlying point is that there is a practical balance between displacement via numbers or sizes, and power production via torque or RPM (or the calculation that binds them together), and the available materials used to hold it all within a viable assembly. There are certainly absolute values of the basic design that any mechanical engineer could define. If those engineers were to work in concert with physicists, chemists, and metallurgists experienced in chemical reactions, combustion, and metallurgy, they could devise the most practical scheme to produce the greatest power from a given displacement limitation. Where I come from, those are called "race teams". The artificial limitations placed upon them by the governors of their respective racing classes in a thinly-veilled attempt to limit their output (done in the name of "fair compettition") is what is keeping all these weenie little engines afloat.
The guys without rules run larger displacement V-8s, and outperform everything else in sheer power output. Europe and Asia are just now catching on to that reality. We've known it since at least 1914.
As one example, no one makes cylinder cases that contain head bolts large enough to retain a seal with the kind of pressure required to make higher levels of power on a smaller diameter piston, regardless of the number of pistons. I suppoes we could get ridiculous and design a 60 cylinder engine, them spread the load out across all the bores, but there would them be other hindrances to power in rotating mass, length, block integrity along its size, the imbalance of wenie little pisont on a necessarily large crankshaft, etcetera. And if any such design were made, and the bolts were to hold, the materials from which the cylinders, heads, valves, pistons, rods, and crankshaft would have to sustain enormous levels of pressure per square inch. Cast iron wouldn't cut it. Aluminum pistons wouldn't survive more than a few cycles. Cylinders would have to be deisgned to expand under the pressure before they fractured. Rods would have to be made of a compressible or malleable material to prevent granular shearing. Crankshafts would have to be made of metallic Jell-O or be twisted off on the first power pulse.
Conversely, a relatively few but larger bores would have to be ultra light to sustain the RPM necessary to make horespower. Remember that by its very definition, horespower = work. Work = force (torque) at a given rate (RPM). An engine can produce terrestrial-gouging levels of torque, but if it doesn't do it at any kind of RPM, the actual work (horsepower) is calculated to be lower. An example of that would be in the larger diesel stationary engines which make massive amounts of torque, and would suck most F1 engines in the intake, crush them, then toss them out the exhaust valve in pieces with maybe a noticable hiccup. They are often limited to 1,200-1,600 RPM, however. Throwing an 18" diameter piston back an forth at any higher speed simply exceeds the material limitations of steel wrist pins, forged connecting rods, and cast iron alloy pistons. Much above their redline, and something either goes through the head or out the bottom of the crankcase.
Beyond the theory, materials are a consideration. Further consideration needs to be lent to the chemical and physical proceeses of converting vaporized fuel and air into post-combustion gasses and heat. That can only occur within a relatively narrow window of time, and the distances that such a conversion must travel across a combustion chamber also create some limitations. It would require a lot more time for a flame front to cross a 10" diameter piston than a 70mm diameter piston. That would limit the BMEP imparted on a piston at any mappable point of travel within its stroke length. If that doesn't mean "power" to you, you need to research a bit more.
It seems that it is very common to run a nearly 5" bore engine along a roughly 4" stroke, have a light yet strong enough crankshaft, and cylinder pressure to allow a large V-8 produce almost 6,000HP at 8,000 RPM for short bursts, and survive to run again. We just don't see a lot of 16-cylinder little bore engines and 4-cylinder big bore engines making power at those levels. For that matter, we don't see much more than two valves per cylinder, and one camshaft per engine, and almost no OHC engines ever getting anywhere close to that.
The underlying point is that there is a practical balance between displacement via numbers or sizes, and power production via torque or RPM (or the calculation that binds them together), and the available materials used to hold it all within a viable assembly. There are certainly absolute values of the basic design that any mechanical engineer could define. If those engineers were to work in concert with physicists, chemists, and metallurgists experienced in chemical reactions, combustion, and metallurgy, they could devise the most practical scheme to produce the greatest power from a given displacement limitation. Where I come from, those are called "race teams". The artificial limitations placed upon them by the governors of their respective racing classes in a thinly-veilled attempt to limit their output (done in the name of "fair compettition") is what is keeping all these weenie little engines afloat.
The guys without rules run larger displacement V-8s, and outperform everything else in sheer power output. Europe and Asia are just now catching on to that reality. We've known it since at least 1914.
10-30-2005, 01:13 PM
#55
My apologies for any spelling and grammatical errors or omissions. Remember, the advice is free - So are the opinions. Besides, I'm too lazy to edit it.
And my sincere apology to the majority of the population and fairer sex among our members for the statement "The guys without rules run larger displacement V-8s, and outperform everything else in sheer power output." Given chivalrous, population-weighted, and alphabetical rules, that should have been "The girls and guys without rules run larger displacement V-8s, and outperform everything else in sheer power output." A lot of the girls in that class are routinely outperforming 99.9% of the guys at the track. Possibly even away from the track.
You'll get no such apologies for the last two sentances, however. Even though my family started as Europeans, we turned into North Americans as soon as the boat landed, and haven't looked back since. Perhaps that explains the spelling and grammatical errors? It also means that we have worked with everyone else that started everywhere else in the world, and joined together with the original residents here to become what we are. That kind of plurality, and everything that comes of it, are just now catching on in many other areas of the world. I can't be sorry for that, either. We're not demenaing anyone simply because we have the best technological experiences, even though we seem to be forgertting that.
And my sincere apology to the majority of the population and fairer sex among our members for the statement "The guys without rules run larger displacement V-8s, and outperform everything else in sheer power output." Given chivalrous, population-weighted, and alphabetical rules, that should have been "The girls and guys without rules run larger displacement V-8s, and outperform everything else in sheer power output." A lot of the girls in that class are routinely outperforming 99.9% of the guys at the track. Possibly even away from the track.
You'll get no such apologies for the last two sentances, however. Even though my family started as Europeans, we turned into North Americans as soon as the boat landed, and haven't looked back since. Perhaps that explains the spelling and grammatical errors? It also means that we have worked with everyone else that started everywhere else in the world, and joined together with the original residents here to become what we are. That kind of plurality, and everything that comes of it, are just now catching on in many other areas of the world. I can't be sorry for that, either. We're not demenaing anyone simply because we have the best technological experiences, even though we seem to be forgertting that.
10-30-2005, 07:45 PM
#56
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Caldwell,ID
Posts: 5,389
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 BMW 545i
Engine: 4.4L N62B44
Transmission: 6spd auto
Axle/Gears: Rotating
Originally posted by Vader
Sorry, but I just have to ask.
Has ANYONE EVER produced 4,000+ HP at any RPM with an inline four cylinder? Even the big GM, Fairbanks, and Yanmar diesels don't quite do that.
Just checking...
Sorry, but I just have to ask.
Has ANYONE EVER produced 4,000+ HP at any RPM with an inline four cylinder? Even the big GM, Fairbanks, and Yanmar diesels don't quite do that.
Just checking...
it was a honda car of some sort though how valid the story is I don't know how much I trust
I think this might be the car but again I'm not sure
http://www.bobnorwood.com/Max-4%20Home.htm
10-30-2005, 10:48 PM
#57
Looks like yor basic 300CID four-cylinder. Seems they made about 2,000 HP with that. It's pretty impressive, but a far cry from the 5-6,000 from top fuel 500 inch V-8s. Novel that they chose a Honda plastic body.
10-31-2005, 09:13 AM
#58
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Caldwell,ID
Posts: 5,389
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 BMW 545i
Engine: 4.4L N62B44
Transmission: 6spd auto
Axle/Gears: Rotating
ok so I might be wrong. but I swear they made around 4000hp with one of them.
and I didn't read it that much so my details are prolly way off from what I posted on the first page thing
and I didn't read it that much so my details are prolly way off from what I posted on the first page thing
10-31-2005, 11:11 AM
#59
Supreme Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 1,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 Camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 2.73 Posi w/Disc
Originally posted by Vader
...larger diesel stationary engines which make massive amounts of torque, and would suck most F1 engines in the intake, crush them, then toss them out the exhaust valve in pieces with maybe a noticable hiccup....
...larger diesel stationary engines which make massive amounts of torque, and would suck most F1 engines in the intake, crush them, then toss them out the exhaust valve in pieces with maybe a noticable hiccup....
10-31-2005, 12:30 PM
#60
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earf
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 83 firebucket
Engine: less then a geo
Transmission: 5speed crap box
the only way to really know is to find five motors,of the same displacement ,and the same kind of valve train,and made from the same materials,and see which one makes the most power.
good luck.
personaly,im sticking with big four bangers.
good luck.
personaly,im sticking with big four bangers.
10-31-2005, 04:36 PM
#61
Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 13,243
Likes: 0
Received 391 Likes
on
298 Posts
Car: '90 RS
Engine: 377 LSX
Transmission: Magnum T56
Originally posted by wellington
the only way to really know is to find five motors,of the same displacement ,and the same kind of valve train,and made from the same materials,and see which one makes the most power.
the only way to really know is to find five motors,of the same displacement ,and the same kind of valve train,and made from the same materials,and see which one makes the most power.
10-31-2005, 06:38 PM
#63
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: LO3
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.42 LS1
Big four cylinders don't work ... if they did we would see 3.8L inline fours everywhere ... instead we see 3.8L V6's
Sometimes it can be due to size and layout of the engine compartment.. but still ... nope
If one wants to compare ... I repeat... one has to compare good engines for each family ... you can't grab a domestic four cylinder .. or .. one of our old 12 cylinders ... some things we rock at.. other things the European car builders have always excelled at
Sometimes it can be due to size and layout of the engine compartment.. but still ... nope
If one wants to compare ... I repeat... one has to compare good engines for each family ... you can't grab a domestic four cylinder .. or .. one of our old 12 cylinders ... some things we rock at.. other things the European car builders have always excelled at
11-01-2005, 12:18 PM
#64
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earf
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 83 firebucket
Engine: less then a geo
Transmission: 5speed crap box
big four cylinders dont work? maybe not for 500hp,but for up to 200hp they work great.its about how much hp you need vs how much your willing to spend.
for $1500you can have a 200hp duke,or for $1500 you can have a 300hp sbc v8.
its all about cost vs performance.thats why there are more 200hpv6s instead of 200hp 4s.
the highest output NA production motor that i know of is on some motorcycle[i forget which] but its a 750cc inline 4 banger and it produces 150hp allday long.
if my car produced the same amount of hp it would have 500hp and thats just for a 2.5 four,imagine that kind of power out put on a 350.
my point is,fourbangers kick ***.
for $1500you can have a 200hp duke,or for $1500 you can have a 300hp sbc v8.
its all about cost vs performance.thats why there are more 200hpv6s instead of 200hp 4s.
the highest output NA production motor that i know of is on some motorcycle[i forget which] but its a 750cc inline 4 banger and it produces 150hp allday long.
if my car produced the same amount of hp it would have 500hp and thats just for a 2.5 four,imagine that kind of power out put on a 350.
my point is,fourbangers kick ***.
11-01-2005, 01:40 PM
#65
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1991 Camaro RS
Engine: LO3
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.42 LS1
Read my prevoius post regarding the 600 bhp inline four.
Four bangers work, yes, however that's a 2L four, anything above 3L for a four is not as efficient as a V6 or similar.
Four bangers work, yes, however that's a 2L four, anything above 3L for a four is not as efficient as a V6 or similar.
11-01-2005, 03:58 PM
#66
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earf
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 83 firebucket
Engine: less then a geo
Transmission: 5speed crap box
i think a 3.0 four banger is just about right.
when im done i should have 3 times the hp and about the same milage.
but yeah,any four over 3 liters doesnt work very well.
just look at the 3.7 mercruiser,its a piece of crap compared to the 3.0 mercruiser.
when it comes to a motor,its all about personal prefrence and driving habits.
im sticking with fours until i find something better and cheaper.
when im done i should have 3 times the hp and about the same milage.
but yeah,any four over 3 liters doesnt work very well.
just look at the 3.7 mercruiser,its a piece of crap compared to the 3.0 mercruiser.
when it comes to a motor,its all about personal prefrence and driving habits.
im sticking with fours until i find something better and cheaper.
11-03-2005, 04:08 PM
#67
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 IROC-Z
Engine: 350 TPI
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 2.77
If anyone's interested I came up with the bore and stroke for each of the motors. For simplicity I used equal B&S.
4 Cyl. 3.0L Bore & Stroke = 3.8758"
6 Cyl. 3.0L Bore & Stroke = 3.3858"
8 Cyl. 3.0L Bore & Stroke = 3.0762"
Just a start, but maybe if I knew that a/the crank angle was and could get hypothetical rod lengths for the #s above I could try out Apeiron's formula - If you all are still interested.
4 Cyl. 3.0L Bore & Stroke = 3.8758"
6 Cyl. 3.0L Bore & Stroke = 3.3858"
8 Cyl. 3.0L Bore & Stroke = 3.0762"
Just a start, but maybe if I knew that a/the crank angle was and could get hypothetical rod lengths for the #s above I could try out Apeiron's formula - If you all are still interested.
Originally Posted by Apeiron:
Piston speed:
d/dè p( è ) = s cosè + ( r2 - s2 cos2è )-0.5 s2 cosè sinè
è = crank angle
s = stroke
r = rod length
Piston speed:
d/dè p( è ) = s cosè + ( r2 - s2 cos2è )-0.5 s2 cosè sinè
è = crank angle
s = stroke
r = rod length
11-03-2005, 06:13 PM
#69
Senior Member
Hold on, who says anything over 3L for a 4 banger doesn't work well? Check out the 360 cubic inch 4 banger aircraft engines! They work just fine! And the 6-banger aircraft engines displace 540 cu in.
11-03-2005, 06:47 PM
#70
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Caldwell,ID
Posts: 5,389
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 BMW 545i
Engine: 4.4L N62B44
Transmission: 6spd auto
Axle/Gears: Rotating
Originally posted by Tremo
Hold on, who says anything over 3L for a 4 banger doesn't work well? Check out the 360 cubic inch 4 banger aircraft engines! They work just fine! And the 6-banger aircraft engines displace 540 cu in.
Hold on, who says anything over 3L for a 4 banger doesn't work well? Check out the 360 cubic inch 4 banger aircraft engines! They work just fine! And the 6-banger aircraft engines displace 540 cu in.
they use big motors with few pistons sometimes
which by the way seem to work ok and are able to handle pleanty of torque
11-03-2005, 10:16 PM
#71
Supreme Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Spicer, MN
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '83 Berli, '84 Berli, '84 Z28 HO
Engine: L69, LG4, L69
Transmission: TH700-R4, TH700-R4, T-5
Axle/Gears: 3.08, 3.08, 3.73 Posi
Most semi's use a 6 to 8 cyl engine.. standard is around 350 to 400 CI... most of the power comes from the giant turbo on them... blow a turbo and the engine will hardly even pull the tractor... let alone the trailer...
11-04-2005, 02:35 PM
#72
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earf
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 83 firebucket
Engine: less then a geo
Transmission: 5speed crap box
for cars the biggest funtional four banger is going to be 3.0 liters,maybe 3.2-3.5,but anything more is too much.
anything more then that and you may as well get a bigv6 or a small v8.
more then likely, motors ,built to even specs[except for number of cylinders] will produce about the same hp and torque,but they will have diffrent powerbands.
they will all probably get similar gas milage,but the more cylinders will probably use more gas,but not too much more then the other engines.
for the same displacment,its all about personal prefrence.
for a 3.0 ill take a four banger.
anything more then that and you may as well get a bigv6 or a small v8.
more then likely, motors ,built to even specs[except for number of cylinders] will produce about the same hp and torque,but they will have diffrent powerbands.
they will all probably get similar gas milage,but the more cylinders will probably use more gas,but not too much more then the other engines.
for the same displacment,its all about personal prefrence.
for a 3.0 ill take a four banger.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
