Rod Ratios and revving
#1
Rod Ratios and revving
Does any one know the rod ratios for the 2.0 and the 2.2 liter s2000 motors? What about the Toda 2.2L stroker kit? Same as the oem 2.2 or do they move the wrist pin higher and use a longer rod? Any info on this 2.5L kit i keep hearing about?
How high can these motosr rev with a built bottom end? Im curious as to which would have the greatest power generating potential.
How high can these motosr rev with a built bottom end? Im curious as to which would have the greatest power generating potential.
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: VA is for hustlaz
Posts: 7,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nelziq,Sep 25 2004, 04:04 AM
anyone? Is the f20c based on the same block as the K20 series? Maybe ill go ask in their forum.
#5
Moderator
Originally Posted by xviper,Sep 24 2004, 07:12 PM
I can't say for anyone else, but I have no idea what you mean by "rod ratio".
#6
Rod ratio is rod length : crank throw. Basically, as the ratio increases, the less side loading the piston places on the cylinder walls and the higher you can rev without breaking something (all other variables equal that is).
ROLLININMYS2000 - I don't know why you say 1.75 is perfect. The higher the number, the less load placed on engine components, so long as rotating weight isn't increased to the point where that benefit is nulled.
Also, the longer the ratio the longer the piston will spend near the ends of it's stroke thus making a slight increase in torque and power as the expanding burning gas has a chance to reach a higher pressure before the piston moves down the bore. Sort of the same advantage as raising the compression ratio.
-Brian
ROLLININMYS2000 - I don't know why you say 1.75 is perfect. The higher the number, the less load placed on engine components, so long as rotating weight isn't increased to the point where that benefit is nulled.
Also, the longer the ratio the longer the piston will spend near the ends of it's stroke thus making a slight increase in torque and power as the expanding burning gas has a chance to reach a higher pressure before the piston moves down the bore. Sort of the same advantage as raising the compression ratio.
-Brian
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: holbrook
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hukares,Sep 24 2004, 11:02 PM
Rod ratio is rod length : crank throw. Basically, as the ratio increases, the less side loading the piston places on the cylinder walls and the higher you can rev without breaking something (all other variables equal that is).
ROLLININMYS2000 - I don't know why you say 1.75 is perfect. The higher the number, the less load placed on engine components, so long as rotating weight isn't increased to the point where that benefit is nulled.
Also, the longer the ratio the longer the piston will spend near the ends of it's stroke thus making a slight increase in torque and power as the expanding burning gas has a chance to reach a higher pressure before the piston moves down the bore. Sort of the same advantage as raising the compression ratio.
-Brian
ROLLININMYS2000 - I don't know why you say 1.75 is perfect. The higher the number, the less load placed on engine components, so long as rotating weight isn't increased to the point where that benefit is nulled.
Also, the longer the ratio the longer the piston will spend near the ends of it's stroke thus making a slight increase in torque and power as the expanding burning gas has a chance to reach a higher pressure before the piston moves down the bore. Sort of the same advantage as raising the compression ratio.
-Brian
Ideally speaking the engine will be optimized to breath with that ratio. It will be able to perform both high RPM and low RPM. It will not lose a flame front at high rpms, nor will it impeede good cylinder filling at low to moderate engine speeds due to reduced air flow velocity.
Although you can still use a lighter piston rev higher and you'll see good intake and exhaust velocities at low to moderate engine speeds causing the engine to produce good low end torque.
1.75 is considered ideal for race engine builders.
Trending Topics
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: holbrook
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ROLLININMYS2000,Sep 24 2004, 09:52 PM
I believe he means rod to stroke ratio. Perfect is 1.75 and the B16 has a RS of 1.74. Those suckers can be build to rev to the moon.
#9
Originally Posted by 03spa,Sep 25 2004, 01:12 PM
Because it is the cut off for sort rods and long rods. With 1.75 you basically have your cake and eat it too.
Ideally speaking the engine will be optimized to breath with that ratio. It will be able to perform both high RPM and low RPM. It will not lose a flame front at high rpms, nor will it impeede good cylinder filling at low to moderate engine speeds due to reduced air flow velocity.
Although you can still use a lighter piston rev higher and you'll see good intake and exhaust velocities at low to moderate engine speeds causing the engine to produce good low end torque.
1.75 is considered ideal for race engine builders.
Ideally speaking the engine will be optimized to breath with that ratio. It will be able to perform both high RPM and low RPM. It will not lose a flame front at high rpms, nor will it impeede good cylinder filling at low to moderate engine speeds due to reduced air flow velocity.
Although you can still use a lighter piston rev higher and you'll see good intake and exhaust velocities at low to moderate engine speeds causing the engine to produce good low end torque.
1.75 is considered ideal for race engine builders.
There are many race engine builders that don't use 1.75:1. Maybe it works well in the height of a stock Honda block, but I have to admit, I'm new to 4-cylinders. I've been building v8's and working with top builders for a while though.
-Brian
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post