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, 08:21 PM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5,016

ND Miata - '15 Mazda MX-5 Special Package
90 day: 40.51 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,869
Thanked 2,514 Times in 1,554 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Mechanic View Post
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
After some reading, I'm guessing the reason the Slant 6 was a... well, Slant 6, was so they could make it extremely undersquare to develop a lot of torque at low RPM, efficiently, but also have long enough rods that the rod:stroke ratio wasn't too poor (and thus causing excess friction, and bending rods all the time), yet still fit under the hood?

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-22-2012, 08:53 PM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Diesel_Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,194

White Whale - '07 Dodge Ram 2500 ST Quad Cab 2wd, short bed
Team Cummins
90 day: 37.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 112
Thanked 511 Times in 213 Posts
A longer rod also reduces the side forces of the piston so there's less friction between the rings and the cylinder walls.
__________________
Diesel Dave

My version of energy storage is called "momentum".
My version of regenerative braking is called "bump starting".

1 Year Avg (Every Mile Traveled) = 47.8 mpg

BEST TANK: 2,009.6 mi on 35 gal (57.42 mpg): http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...5-a-26259.html


  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 09:01 PM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 842
Thanks: 39
Thanked 89 Times in 69 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
After some reading, I'm guessing the reason the Slant 6 was a... well, Slant 6, was so they could make it extremely undersquare to develop a lot of torque at low RPM, efficiently, but also have long enough rods that the rod:stroke ratio wasn't too poor (and thus causing excess friction, and bending rods all the time), yet still fit under the hood?
yeah, there is kind of two conversations going on at once here.

there is bore to stroke ratio. perception has always been longer stroke means more power at lower rpm, bigger bore means you can fit bigger valves for higher RPM horsepower.

Also, there is stroke to rod length. after doing a bunch of reading, smokey yunich used to believe longer rods are "free" power, but more modern theory is there is a perfect ratio. too long of a rod can lead to issues also, but too short of a rod really sucks.

it seems to me retarding the exhaust timing leads to better bottom end power and better gas mileage.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 09:05 PM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Diesel_Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,194

White Whale - '07 Dodge Ram 2500 ST Quad Cab 2wd, short bed
Team Cummins
90 day: 37.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 112
Thanked 511 Times in 213 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmiller100 View Post
Diesels do not have pumping losses (no throttle plate restriction).
That's not entirely true. You are correct that diesels typically don't have throttling losses, however, there still are pumping losses. This includes all the losses associated with getting the air & exhaust through the manifolds & ports. In addition, in a turbodiesel, there are turbo inefficienies that are considered pumping losses as well. In some cases, however, if the turbo is being run in an efficient manner (in the sweet spot of the turbo maps), there are some speeds and loads where the tubo actually results in "positive" pumping work (negative pumping losses). The intake manifold pressure can actually be higher than the exhaust manifold pressure. I imagine this might also be possible on a gasoline turbocharged engine, but that's not really my area.
__________________
Diesel Dave

My version of energy storage is called "momentum".
My version of regenerative braking is called "bump starting".

1 Year Avg (Every Mile Traveled) = 47.8 mpg

BEST TANK: 2,009.6 mi on 35 gal (57.42 mpg): http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...5-a-26259.html


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Diesel_Dave For This Useful Post:
drmiller100 (01-22-2012)
Old 01-22-2012, 09:19 PM   #25 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 842
Thanks: 39
Thanked 89 Times in 69 Posts
interesting.
i did not know you could have higher intake pressures then exhaust pressures. thinking about it, theory says it sure is possible. though.

thank you.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 09:30 PM   #26 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
One of my favorites, no reciprocation, no masses changing direction, kind of like a piston in cylinder turbine.

Animated Engines - Gnome Rotary

A true rotary engine. Even a centrifugal supercharger.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 09:43 PM   #27 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ellington, ct
Posts: 829
Thanks: 44
Thanked 104 Times in 80 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmiller100 View Post
longer rod = more better. more efficient, more power, more everything, but slower maximum piston speed, which again, is better.
there is another reason a long rod helps. (insert obligatory tasteless joke here) it decreases the side load on the piston when the crank is at 3 and 9 o'clock. These side loads play hell on the piston meaning it has to be bigger with short stroke engines.

so, when power to weight ratio is concern number 1 as with a MC, sports car or aircraft, light compact short strokers are the way to go, but, they will be less efficient.

stationary engines should have very over square engines as weight is of no concern.

high efficiency vehicles will likely be something somewhere in the middle, probably a little oversquare, ideally.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 09:49 PM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 842
Thanks: 39
Thanked 89 Times in 69 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Mechanic View Post
One of my favorites, no reciprocation, no masses changing direction, kind of like a piston in cylinder turbine.

Animated Engines - Gnome Rotary

A true rotary engine. Even a centrifugal supercharger.

regards
Mech
looks kind of like a hydraulic motor / pump.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 09:57 PM   #29 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ellington, ct
Posts: 829
Thanks: 44
Thanked 104 Times in 80 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Mechanic View Post
One of my favorites, no reciprocation, no masses changing direction, kind of like a piston in cylinder turbine.

Animated Engines - Gnome Rotary

A true rotary engine. Even a centrifugal supercharger.

regards
Mech
there still is some reciprocatin' going on as best I can tell. it sure is a cool engine to watch run though. radial engines really are works of art.

how do they fall in the efficiency area? is there a reason they are no longer made other than prohibitive production costs?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 10:14 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 842
Thanks: 39
Thanked 89 Times in 69 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete c View Post
there is another reason a long rod helps. (insert obligatory tasteless joke here) it decreases the side load on the piston when the crank is at 3 and 9 o'clock. These side loads play hell on the piston meaning it has to be bigger with short stroke engines.

so, when power to weight ratio is concern number 1 as with a MC, sports car or aircraft, light compact short strokers are the way to go, but, they will be less efficient.

stationary engines should have very over square engines as weight is of no concern.

high efficiency vehicles will likely be something somewhere in the middle, probably a little oversquare, ideally.
you confusing rod length and stroke. different things.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






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