Peter Ogilvie wrote:
> 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.
Long-stroke doesn't mean low-speed torque, got nothing to do with it at all
actually.
The actual reason is that long-stroke engines tend to have smaller ports and
valves (do favour low speed torque) due to the smaller bore and reduced
room, whereas short-stroke engines tend to have bigger ports and valves
('cos they can fit 'em in the bigger bore space available). Put small ports
and valves on a large-bore, short-stroke engine and it'll be a low-revving
torque monster too, everything else being equal.
Some interesting stuff, "debunks" a lot of mis-information out there.
http://www.motionsoftware.com/minigide.htm
_______________________________________________
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 - 19:17:28 EST