Page: |
Home > Technical Chat > Reducing stroke, effect on torque. | |||||||
4304 Posts Member #: 1321 Post Whore Wiltshire |
14th Jul, 2014 at 07:38:57pm
Anyone got any insight into this, after an hours reading my head hurts.
On 7th Oct, 2010 5haneJ said:
yeah I gave it all a good prodding |
||||||
211 Posts Member #: 10890 Senior Member Twin Cam Turbo Build In Progress Rothwell, Northants |
14th Jul, 2014 at 09:17:20pm
IF you managed to get the engine to produce the 150bhp at exactly the same RPM as the engine was making the 160bhp then the expected torque figure for 150bhp would be approx 98.5 lb/ft |
||||||
3588 Posts Member #: 655 Post Whore Northern Ireland |
15th Jul, 2014 at 12:34:46pm
Peak numbers may change little.
9.85 @ 145mph
|
||||||
293 Posts Member #: 10010 Senior Member Northants |
15th Jul, 2014 at 02:52:13pm
Another thing to consider is the maximum piston speed, which is related to engine rpm and stroke length, the shorter the stroke the higher the rpm you can use before the piston speeds become too high. Hence things like bike engines and F1 cars have a very short stroke so they can rev higher, which allows them to make more power (the bigger bore also allows bigger valves, for a given displacement) |
||||||
109 Posts Member #: 10368 Advanced Member Australia |
16th Jul, 2014 at 07:21:02am
I have a short stroker. it makes its torque nearly 2thous higher in the rev range ( think redline of 9 vs 7), but it spins up very quickly. It is in a racer , as said , lower piston speed helps longevity in theory' Unless you were prepared to spend a lot of your time above 5000rpm, i wouldn't recommend it. Torque and power absolutes seem very similar at the top limits for the same displacement, just get there in different ways. ( ie the standard 1293 and the short stroked 1298 both can get to approx 140horsies and 110/115 footlbs (at the fly) |
||||||
Home > Technical Chat > Reducing stroke, effect on torque. | |||||||
|
Page: |