Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-22-2012, 04:18 PM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 842
Thanks: 39
Thanked 89 Times in 69 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Don't be fooled about "engine speed" by only looking at crankshaft rpms:

Most powerful diesel in the world: 98" stroke at 102 rpm = 1,666 ft/mn piston speed

Honda 50cc Super Cub at max fuel efficiency speed: 1.63" stroke at 4300 rpm = 1,168 ft/mn piston speed.

Hmmmm.

Yes one is a supercharged two-stroke diesel and one is a four stroke gasser. Different engine types seem to have different piston speed ranges for max fuel efficiency.



You can easily drop off the bottom end of the engine's efficiency zone by doing that.
FWIW, that is AVERAGE piston speed. If you look at the PEAK piston speeds, you might find some interesting results.

But to do that, you must do a bit of math and know the Rod length and stroke.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-22-2012, 04:21 PM   #12 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
I think as concerning fuel efficiency, we want to look at average piston speeds.

If we are getting into the nuances of intake and exhaust tuning, then peak piston speeds get more relevant.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 04:26 PM   #13 (permalink)
Eco-ventor
 
jakobnev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,630

Princess - '92 Mazda MX-3 GS
House of Tudor
Team Mazda
90 day: 53.54 mpg (US)

Shirubāarō (*´ω`*) - '05 Toyota Prius Executive
Team Toyota
90 day: 54.88 mpg (US)

Blue Thunder - '20 Hyundai IONIQ Trend PHEV
Team Hyundai
Plug-in Hybrids
90 day: 587.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 74
Thanked 701 Times in 444 Posts
Send a message via MSN to jakobnev
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmiller100 View Post
Apparently in some places Expansion Ratio is used instead of Compression Ratio.
For an Otto-cycle engine they are interchangeable, for Atkinson, ER is often significantly higher than CR.

Edit: Damn you Frank!
__________________




2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 04:28 PM   #14 (permalink)
dcb
needs more cowbell
 
dcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ÿ
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 269 Times in 212 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
I think as concerning fuel efficiency, we want to look at average piston speeds.
Is there a more accurate predictor than piston speed? Assuming relatively constant VE/RPM. I don't quite understand why piston speed alone is a factor, but I could understand that there is an optimal rate of expansion for the combustion gasses, and that the combustion chamber should not overly retard, or outrun the expanding gasses, or mimize the discrepancy anyway. So that it would be a function of bore*stroke or something.
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 04:31 PM   #15 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
^Yeah.

I think it has to do with how much combustion heat energy pushes on the piston vs dissipating into the cooling system.

Too slow rpm = more time for heat to go into coolant
Too fast rpm = less push on piston; more internal engine friction
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
dcb (01-22-2012)
Old 01-22-2012, 04:45 PM   #16 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
The larger bore sizes have lower cylinder wall surface area as a percentage of displacement, so they will also have higher efficiency. Optimal piston speed is, as Frank already posted, the ideal point between the excess losses of the two extremes.

Other factors are the harmonics of induction and exhaust pulses and how they can reduce pressure waves which would affect in cylinder compression and exhaust scavenging. Also the amount of residual exhaust remaining in the combustion chamber which would tend to increase efficiency to a point, one reason why highly scavenged exhausts usually produce lower mileage.

Combining gas and diesel engines could yield best of both worlds

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 06:00 PM   #17 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5,005

ND Miata - '15 Mazda MX-5 Special Package
90 day: 42.54 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,866
Thanked 2,501 Times in 1,547 Posts
I've read that a long stroke relative to rod length increases stress on certain engine components. Does this mean that it increases friction?

Are we talking rod/stroke ratio, or absolute stroke length? Can you have a good rod/stroke ratio and still approach an "ideal" stroke length simply by building a bigger engine?

Also, why does increased stroke length increase efficiency anyway?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 06:54 PM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 842
Thanks: 39
Thanked 89 Times in 69 Posts
longer rod = more better. more efficient, more power, more everything, but slower maximum piston speed, which again, is better.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 06:59 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 842
Thanks: 39
Thanked 89 Times in 69 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Sigh.

Expansion ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if we want to get really picky, the Otto by definition has different compression then what you are calling expansion because of exhaust valve timing differences then intake.

So Frank. How does this affect efficiency for mileage? (hint: variable cam timing).
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 07:10 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
I've read that a long stroke relative to rod length increases stress on certain engine components. Does this mean that it increases friction?

Are we talking rod/stroke ratio, or absolute stroke length? Can you have a good rod/stroke ratio and still approach an "ideal" stroke length simply by building a bigger engine?

Also, why does increased stroke length increase efficiency anyway?
Always a trade off in reciprocating engines. Longer rods and longer stroke generally give you more torque at lower RPM, but also increase reciprocating mass which will reduce efficiency.

I think the 225 Chrysler slant 6 had a 3.5 inch bore and a 4.5 inch stroke.

regards
Mech

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com