As anyone well knows, engine power is directly relative the coefficient of the amount of air that an engine can breath to each two revolutions, or 4-strokes, of crank travel at any given time of engine operation. Logic would dictate that an increase in engine rpms would allow for more overall power to be produced.
The problem arrises when the torsional limits of the connecting rods and bolts are exceeded by the inertia generated by the sudden halt of motion at TDC. The "Piston travel speed" is directly controlled by diameter of the stroke. A shorter stroke allows a slower the piston speed coefficient. This gives the engine a higher "safe" rpm limit to operate in.
A full, race-built, 1/4 mile drag car will run piston speeds as high as 5200-5500 in short burst. A 1000hp, 12,000rpm, "Indy-car" engine will run sustainably no higher than 4300-4500 ft/min. Your average street-driven hot-rod with good components will run piston-speeds of about 4000-4200.
(Using 4200 rpms) The formula for engine RPM as determined by stroke is as such
(Max ft/per min x 6)
engine stroke
= max rpmengine stroke
(4200 ft/min x 6)
3.31
= 7613 rpms max (absolute red-line)3.31
Another factor to think about is rod angularity. Rod angularity is the angle of the rod to the pistin pin. An engine with high rod angularity will produce more torque. This however, come with a price.
Because of the increased thrust against the walls of the cylinders, the engine will ultimately suffer a shorter lifespan from wear. It will also suffer a greater frictional losses as a result. Busch series race motors have extremely small because of this fact. Smaller stroke travel and increased rod-ratio will use combustion energy better and increase rod-bearing lifespan due to less physical movement of the crank-pin within the bearing.
Shorter stroke will also allow the use of longer rods without compromising piston compression-height as well. This will keep the piston at TDC dwell longer and promote better combustion efficiency and increase overall thermomechanical efficiency (conversion of heat energy to mechanical energy) . This will also help to fight detonation due to the fact that the end-gasses will cool longer in the quench while dwelling at TDC for more controlled combustion. (This translates to more sprak advance and better efficiency at crusing)
Ill use my 2 most recent engines as a good example. Both hava a similar 3.4l of displacement and both have the same piston compression hieght. (around 204-207 CU and 1.4600 CH). Well simplify VE variables and just say that they're both turbocharged. My first engine has a larger stroke of 3.31 with shorter rod (5.700). My second engine has a smaller stroke with a longer rod (5.850). The one Im building now.
3.31 stroke @ 7613rpm (4200ft/min)
3.192 stroke @ 7894rpm (4200ft/min)
My new motor with the shorter stroke will be able to produce more power, higher rpms and have a better rod ratio despite similar displacement to the greater stroked motor. As an added bonus, ill have greater mechanical efficiency, more detonation resitance and longer engine life.
Leave a comment: