0.5L of displacement per cylinder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: nleksan
One reason why I love my 328 so much is the fact that it is a perfectly square engin, with 84mm stroke and bore (alt hough when I built up the motor, I went to 86.5mm bore w 84mm stroke for more displacement and less stress to help with running a very high pressure SC @ 10.8:1 SCR).
In fact, the reason why the E46 and E9x M3's have had issues with main journal bearings is due to the significant stress they undergo from combustion on an over square motor.
Same reason I almost never recommend stroker kits, as they tend to wear out the cylinder walls and piston skirts quickly, especially in very high specific outputand/or high RPM aapplications.


And this underlines a number of the reasons for the success of the 302 (both Ford and GM versions) with its 4" bore and 3" stroke. Short stroke, big bore. And why the bores always look immaculate when the engines are torn down.

The S62 is 3.3" x 3.1" (84mm x 78.9mm). Not quite as under-square as the 302.

The new 5.0L Ford is almost square at 92.2mm x 92.7mm and has the same firing order as the S62 (and flathead) instead of the "HO" firing order of basically all former hi-po push-rod Ford's and the entire previous Modular family. Not sure as to why here but I find it interesting nonetheless.
 
My Jeep motor is a bit undersquare at 4" x 3.58". FWIW, at 136k when I last had the heads off, the cylinder walls still looked pristine (with cross hatching) and with a fresh top end, it compression tested right at factory spec.
 
Originally Posted By: nleksan
One reason why I love my 328 so much is the fact that it is a perfectly square engin, with 84mm stroke and bore (alt hough when I built up the motor, I went to 86.5mm bore w 84mm stroke for more displacement and less stress to help with running a very high pressure SC @ 10.8:1 SCR).
In fact, the reason why the E46 and E9x M3's have had issues with main journal bearings is due to the significant stress they undergo from combustion on an over square motor.
Same reason I almost never recommend stroker kits, as they tend to wear out the cylinder walls and piston skirts quickly, especially in very high specific outputand/or high RPM applications.


About 110K on the stroker in my Caddy...still <10% leak down in all 8. Stroke is 4.6" (~116mm), bore is 4.33". It's a low-RPM torquer--redline is 5200, runs <2000RPM on the highway.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: nleksan
One reason why I love my 328 so much is the fact that it is a perfectly square engin, with 84mm stroke and bore (alt hough when I built up the motor, I went to 86.5mm bore w 84mm stroke for more displacement and less stress to help with running a very high pressure SC @ 10.8:1 SCR).
In fact, the reason why the E46 and E9x M3's have had issues with main journal bearings is due to the significant stress they undergo from combustion on an over square motor.
Same reason I almost never recommend stroker kits, as they tend to wear out the cylinder walls and piston skirts quickly, especially in very high specific outputand/or high RPM aapplications.




And this underlines a number of the reasons for the success of the 302 (both Ford and GM versions) with its 4" bore and 3" stroke. Short stroke, big bore. And why the bores always look immaculate when the engines are torn down.

The S62 is 3.3" x 3.1" (84mm x 78.9mm). Not quite as under-square as the 302.

The new 5.0L Ford is almost square at 92.2mm x 92.7mm and has the same firing order as the S62 (and flathead) instead of the "HO" firing order of basically all former hi-po push-rod Ford's and the entire previous Modular family. Not sure as to why here but I find it interesting nonetheless.


Me, too. An interesting change...

Honda and many others have proven that a long stroke doesn't equate to speedy wear in a lot of their long stroke small bore engines.

That said I am seriously old school on this subject. Short stroke and BIG bore are the norm in my house and always have been.
 
The olds 403 was a short stroke, big bore. 4.351 piston( bigger than the caddy 500 piston) , 3.385 stroke.
 
Last edited:
They do that for us in the US because then we don't have to deal with fractions or decimals.
wink.gif
Maff is hrd.

Makes me think of a local radio commercial for their own station. It's an 80s and 90s rock station on 93.5 FM, but they call the station "93 Rock" because they had to round it down for your dumb arse friends.
 
It doesn't matter for most cars, but for engines like the F20C (S2K), S50B3x/S54B32/S65, that are run at extremely high speeds very frequently, there IS always an optimal rod ratio, and deviating from it too far will snap rods, release pistons into the atmosphere to take down satellites lol, and greatly increase cylinder wall wear. If you build an engine and during the inspection teardown see any scarring on the walls, you did your math wrong...
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: 95busa
Toyota was running the same pistons in many applications for a while werent they?


Possibly. This is what I was getting at -- if many motors use the same bore, you could use the same piston across multiple applications.

Not if same length rods were used, in that case piston pin height must change and that can result in the wrist pin intersecting ring lands...

That's the reason Ford increased the deck height of the small blocks(302 vs 351) so they could use a longer rod AND stroke... Pistons between 302 & 351 are same bore but pin height is different and are not interchangeable...

As stroke increases either rod length or placement of pin in piston must change...

Originally Posted By: CBR.worm
I have heard of other engines which share heads with different size bores, but bore center spacing the same. I can't think of them off the top of my head.



That's only the case with probably 98% of all the american engines built, SBC likely being the most common...
 
Yep^^^^

I can think of a ton of modern engines that are 'family', it saves tooling costs. Makes for great modding capabilities, too. It's a great example of American smarts, many of the car snobs here will chalk it up to cost savings alone.

Back in the early 70's I had a Datsun 510 wagon. It shared pistons, rods, oil pump and timing chain, etc. with the 240z motor. Great little car that even a psychotic beeatch of a wife could not kill!
 
Had a 2 stroke Kawasaki S1 Triple with a MASSIVE 83cc per...

Way back when you could tell what a Mercedes or BMW had under the hood by its designation: no way, today.

More's the pity.

p.s. At the same time there were very few 3-Series cars with enough extra "optional" crud loaded on them to eclipse the price of a 5-Series...
 
Originally Posted By: Norm Olt
Had a 2 stroke Kawasaki S1 Triple with a MASSIVE 83cc per...


Really? a 250cc 3 cylinder? Never knew they made them that small. Must've been quite the screamer. I don't know kind of HP a mid 80's CR80 dirt bike put out, but 3 of those cylinders would be quite fun on a light street bike. Once of my friend younger brothers had CR80 and it seemed like well over 20 hp. It was a bit of a game to see what we could do on that little bike before it got out from under you.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
Something that I've noticed about BMW: many of their motors have 0.5L of displacement per cylinder:

Probably saves tooling costs. The Honda Insight was 332 cc per cylinder, or 1.0L total. Two years later the Civic hybrid added a fourth 332cc cylinder, making it 1.3

There's also a marketing reason. People would rather buy 2.0 than buy 1.5. They like the bigger number
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Norm Olt
Had a 2 stroke Kawasaki S1 Triple with a MASSIVE 83cc per...


Really? a 250cc 3 cylinder? Never knew they made them that small. Must've been quite the screamer. I don't know kind of HP a mid 80's CR80 dirt bike put out, but 3 of those cylinders would be quite fun on a light street bike. Once of my friend younger brothers had CR80 and it seemed like well over 20 hp. It was a bit of a game to see what we could do on that little bike before it got out from under you.


Power in the CR80 was 15-16hp, the S1 had 32hp! It was fun to ride: I eventually traded it for an '82 GL1100 GoldWing that needed the carbs rebuilt + $300 cash to me. It had a very large clear plastic windshield/fairing and the luggage rack/sissy-bar that mounted two modified Samsonite suitcases as well... Locks included.

Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom