When you're talking the 2.25, the arguments for
square, which it is, to under or over square are
accademic. The shorter the stroke, in relation to the
bore, the less rotating mass. Great for turning lots
of RPM. A longer stroke in relation to bore is
supposed to give benefits for slow speed torque
situations though I don't understand why.
Since the only way to get more displacement, beyond a
modest bore increase, is to lengthen the stroke, a
larger 2 1/4 will have longer stroke than bore.
I'm sure the ACR engine is based on a 5 main block.
Don't know whether the 2.5 block is all that much
different than the 2 1/4. The increase in
displacement in the 2.5 came from a lengthened stroke.
Aloha
Peter O.
--- apsilon <apsilon@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I had a 2.25 with +40 pistons in it, and 100 thou.
> off a 7:1 head
> >
> > Automotive Components have taken a 2.25 to 2.8!
> > (new crank, new pistons, overbored, etc :)
>
> +40 is about 1mm right? I already have an 8:1 head
> so I'd be reluctant to
> take it much higher..
>
> I know about that 2.8. Anyone know what bore and
> stroke they use to achieve
> that?
>
> I seem to recall reading somewhere that a "square"
> configuration is optimal.
> ie one where bore and stroke are equal or as close
> as possible. Does that
> sound right? This isn't an area that I've played
> with much in the past.
>
> Thanks
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> LRO@land-rover.team.net
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
LRO mailing list
LRO@land-rover.team.net
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 14:41:02 EST