Displacement vs. Numer of Cylinders
04-13-2008, 01:57 PM
#21
Registered User
Originally Posted by RED MX5,Apr 12 2008, 11:01 PM
If you're really intereted in learning a little (or a lot) more about engine design, I highly recommend this book.
Which one do I want to purchase?
04-13-2008, 02:18 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dry Branch
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CoralDoc,Apr 13 2008, 04:57 PM
OK, you piqued my interest too. However, the 6th edition is not yet available, and Amazon lists "old" editions from 1977, 1967, 1957, and 1954 as used books without mentioning the edition.
Which one do I want to purchase?
Which one do I want to purchase?
Library of Contress Catalog Card No. 77-78834.
ISBN 0-8376-140-1.
04-13-2008, 06:02 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LlamaS2K,Apr 12 2008, 09:58 AM
Let me just start by apologizing if this is in the wrong section seeing as it isnt S2000 specific. Anyways I was thinking and, if you had two engines each with equal displacement but one was a four cylinder and the other was a six, would one engine configuration have an advantage over the other? Try to keep in mind that these hypothetical engines would have the same bore and stroke given their proportions. So lets say both are 2 liters. Also to keep it simple lets make the engines square. So the 2 liter 4 cylinder engine has about an 86mm bore and stroke and the 6 cylinder engine would have about a 75mm bore and stroke. (please correct me if im wrong)
Ok, so back to my question. Given equal displacement, does an engine with more cylinders have an advantage?
Thanks!
Ok, so back to my question. Given equal displacement, does an engine with more cylinders have an advantage?
Thanks!
For the same displacement (your condition), the shorter-stroke six will have more total piston area, giving more room for valve area and therefore better breathing. The shorter stroke will also allow it to rev higher, pumping more air/fuel mixture through the engine (again, for the same displacement). More air/fuel burned, more power.
When did you last see a four-cylinder F1 engine?
04-13-2008, 06:12 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rancho Santa Margarita
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dhayner,Apr 13 2008, 06:02 PM
When did you last see a four-cylinder F1 engine?
i miss my AW11.
04-13-2008, 07:04 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dry Branch
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the cylinder count, a long stroke has advantages when it comes to producing torque, while a short stroke has advantages when it comes to producing power.
Before F1 was limited to 10 cylinders, four bangers were about as common as six bangers. Eights, 10's, and 12's dominated, and some designers had a strong preference for one over the other two, simply because the choice involves so many tradeoffs. Sixteen cylinder F1 engines were never very successful, so there is obviously a point of diminishing returns.
Personally, I really like the characteristics of I-6 engines. With a short stroke they make great power and make sounds that give me goose bumps. With a long stroke they make great engines for luxury cars like the XJ-40 and and taxi's like the MB E320. In a brash little roadster though, a buzzy four banger just makes sense, as it's a big part of what gave the early British and Italian roadsters so much of their character. It's hard to put a long I-6 in a tiny sports car with a short wheelbase, especially if you want to keep the engine entirely behind the front axle line.
LOL, and dang it, I said before that I wasn't going to write any long posts in this thread.
Before F1 was limited to 10 cylinders, four bangers were about as common as six bangers. Eights, 10's, and 12's dominated, and some designers had a strong preference for one over the other two, simply because the choice involves so many tradeoffs. Sixteen cylinder F1 engines were never very successful, so there is obviously a point of diminishing returns.
Personally, I really like the characteristics of I-6 engines. With a short stroke they make great power and make sounds that give me goose bumps. With a long stroke they make great engines for luxury cars like the XJ-40 and and taxi's like the MB E320. In a brash little roadster though, a buzzy four banger just makes sense, as it's a big part of what gave the early British and Italian roadsters so much of their character. It's hard to put a long I-6 in a tiny sports car with a short wheelbase, especially if you want to keep the engine entirely behind the front axle line.
LOL, and dang it, I said before that I wasn't going to write any long posts in this thread.
04-13-2008, 07:15 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dry Branch
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While searching for some relevant links, I ran across something pretty interesting, though it has zip to do with cylinder count. Still interesting enough to post here though. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18304/?a=f
With a slow connection the page may take a while to load, so be patient.
With a slow connection the page may take a while to load, so be patient.