The Cal-look Lounge
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 25, 2024, 05:58:30 am

Login with username, password and session length
Thank you for your support!
Search:     Advanced search
351216 Posts in 28657 Topics by 6854 Members
Latest Member: 74meanmachine
* Home This Year's European Top 20 lists All Time European Top 20 lists Search Login Register
+  The Cal-look Lounge
|-+  Cal-look/High Performance
| |-+  Pure racing
| | |-+  Bore vs. Stroke (the scientific debate)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Bore vs. Stroke (the scientific debate)  (Read 17192 times)
Steve D.
Full Member
***
Posts: 204


« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2007, 01:59:15 am »

Rod lenght does have more affect on the motor than just friction- I just don't know how much of it actually transfers to HP.  The big 3 reasons for rod length I see are:

1-long rod = more piston dwell at TDC (whatever that does...)
2-long rod = lower piston accelleration (lessens chance of ripping the pin boss out)
2-short rod = higher piston accelleration (could help draw intake charge in at lower rpm)
3-short rod = narrower motor/shorter deck block (really only an issue in vw streetcars)
Logged

Über Alles

5 tracks, 5 days, 1000+ miles.
10.77 avg. on pump fuel.
238I
Jon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3214


12,3@174km/t at Gardermoen 2008


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2007, 14:35:10 pm »

Rod lenght does have more affect on the motor than just friction- I just don't know how much of it actually transfers to HP.  The big 3 reasons for rod length I see are:

1-long rod = more piston dwell at TDC (whatever that does...)
2-long rod = lower piston accelleration (lessens chance of ripping the pin boss out)
2-short rod = higher piston accelleration (could help draw intake charge in at lower rpm)
3-short rod = narrower motor/shorter deck block (really only an issue in vw streetcars)

You are right, but it may be a give and take deal, you may gain something but its lost in something else. Not considering the wear and lifespan of the engine.
Logged

Grumpy old men have signatures like this.
SOB/RFH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 329


Have fun!!


« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2007, 15:58:39 pm »

I do not agree on the wear and lifespan thing about short rod/long stroke. I have run my engine with a 1.68:1 ratio for 15 years with no problems at all. I have built a few 1.66:1 motors too and they live like happy puppets. So what about the Chevy small blocks, preatty common but with a sturdy engine case, but a low ratio would affect lifespan of the pistons art least and all I know is that they work like champs with a 1.63 ratio. The Porsche rod and 84 Okrassa crank was a good combo way back "when sex was safe and racing dangerous2......so what has happend over the years (yeah I know racing is safe now and sex is unsafe). We can now cram more HP at lower rpms due to better heads and camprofiles but does that meen the longivty of a common short rod motor does not live up to that or what! Give your motor a chance to live with a big bottomend due to as mouch bore and stroke you dare, short rods and short duration cams with a lift like there is no tomorrow but keep the revvs down. Dont rev that motor to the moon but keep compression up to the absolute limit. Let's get down to earth with combos that make low rpm power and live and spend our money and time on the best springs that money can buy. The problem of today is the springs, not the rod ratio!!!   
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!