Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberMotor
I think I am understanding you. I'll provide an example which I think exemplifies what you are saying...
I grew up in the late 60s during the times of the American 'Muscle Cars'. There was an explosion of cylinder dimensions. I mainly followed Chevy back then and we had 283, 327, 396, 409 and then 454 cubic inches. Bigger seemed to be better and the way of the future. Then one night, this little plain looking Camaro Z-28 with a 302 cubic inch engine came loping through our hangout. We laughed but for those that thought bigger was better, this little short stroke engine proved them wrong.
Is this similar to what you are saying with the mass and piston distance?
|
Likely. The 1999 Mustang GT made 260hp from 4.6L. The same year the Honda S2000 was making 250hp from 2.0L. The Ford's square engine redlines at something like 5800. The S2000's over square engine redlines at 9000.
Extreme examples but I think the point is there.
When you rev high the limiting component is typically your connecting rod because the piston wants to rip it apart as it changes direction near the top of the cylinder. The shorter the stroke, the less intense the acceleration of the piston is near the top (and bottom) of the cylinder.
With that you can do two things if you were to use the same connecting rod. Rev it higher, or beef up the piston for a forced induction application