Jump to content

# cylinders vs displacement


Forrest Gump 9

Recommended Posts

So many other factors go into an engine like capacity to move air efficiently that I feel comparing # of cylinders to displacement is not really fair. Other factors aside I'd want a good balance, thats why small block V8s are so popular, good useable power, decent rev range, and they just sound good.

 

Maybe you should consider the strength of the engine with as little mass as possible, then get it to operate over 100% volumetric efficency, then you can see how much displacement you can get into that formula. Thats whats the best. Hows that for a lame attempt at sounding smart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about a big bore with a short stroke? In theory wouldn't you be able to make low end power and be able to rev it? Example: a 4g64 with a 4g63 crank (proper rods pistons and valvetrain) is able to rev to 11k rpms (so I've heard) where the stock redline is somewhere around 8k.

 

With that said, I know you could put in a better valvetrain and balance the motor to be able to squeeze out a few more revs, but could you make that much of a difference that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Less moving part is better right? Am I on the right track?

 

If less moving parts was very important rotaries would be all the rage, but it's nothing more then a torqueless 6 cylinder (9 cylinder with triple rotor). This why I brought up the fact that there are too many factors in engine design to say something like number of cylinders or displacement has a simple direct effect on power production. If it was that simple you could be an engineer with basic high school math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has mentioned head flow yet. Total intake and exhaust port flow may be better on an engine with more cylinders, since you're adding more valves. I know this was the case with a Viper that I saw in comparison to a V8 engine of similar displacement. The V8 engines heads flowed better, but with 25% MORE valves, total flow was better on the V10, and it made better power.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has mentioned head flow yet. Total intake and exhaust port flow may be better on an engine with more cylinders, since you're adding more valves. I know this was the case with a Viper that I saw in comparison to a V8 engine of similar displacement. The V8 engines heads flowed better, but with 25% MORE valves, total flow was better on the V10, and it made better power.

 

I took it as all parts given being equal with the excepition to number of cylinders. Intake design, head design and so on. A larger cylinder bore will breathe better due to when the valve open the air/fuel won't "crash" into the cylinder wall and also the combustion chamber won't shroud the valve. Of course the chamber can still shround the intake chare on a larger bore; however with the larger bore you have more room to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took it as all parts given being equal with the excepition to number of cylinders. Intake design, head design and so on. A larger cylinder bore will breathe better due to when the valve open the air/fuel won't "crash" into the cylinder wall and also the combustion chamber won't shroud the valve. Of course the chamber can still shround the intake chare on a larger bore; however with the larger bore you have more room to work with.

 

The only way to get the flow number as high on a similar displacement engine with less cylinders is to significantly increase bore/valve size, which can severely hinder port velocity. Do you understand the importance intake air velocity has on making power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to get the flow number as high on a similar displacement engine with less cylinders is to significantly increase bore/valve size, which can severely hinder port velocity. Do you understand the importance intake air velocity has on making power?

 

Damn Eli you sound like an ad for Air Flow Research. This argument has been made over and over again in the LSx engine world, basically the cathedral style heads (especially the ones made by AFR) are claimed to have higher port velocity while the newer style rectangular ports are slower with more volume. Honestly I could care less to have this argument, but I just don't by into port velocity as being as big of a factor as companies like AFR (who have a big stake in the arguement) claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn Eli you sound like an ad for Air Flow Research. This argument has been made over and over again in the LSx engine world, basically the cathedral style heads (especially the ones made by AFR) are claimed to have higher port velocity while the newer style rectangular ports are slower with more volume. Honestly I could care less to have this argument, but I just don't by into port velocity as being as big of a factor as companies like AFR (who have a big stake in the arguement) claim.

 

The argument was also made by Smokey Yunick, which to me, means it's gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol. Port velocity is extremely important. But must be coupled with pressure wave theory (and associated phenomena like reversion), port shape and length (friction), surface finish, port angle and any bends, as some of the major design considerations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to get the flow number as high on a similar displacement engine with less cylinders is to significantly increase bore/valve size, which can severely hinder port velocity. Do you understand the importance intake air velocity has on making power?

 

Yes sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I would assume that you understand that an increase in port size relative to bore size could, and most likely would, create a situation similar to the 351C heads, where the bore size was so large significant amounts of power were lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...