Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

User avatar
AdioSS
Member
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:38 am
Location: Kilgore, TX
Contact:

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by AdioSS » Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:01 pm

the answer is 42
Cheston Phillips
96 Impala SS
05 Silverado

twinturbo496
Pro
Pro
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:53 am
Location: Work: Houston, Home:Cypress

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by twinturbo496 » Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:52 pm

Look at an F1 engine.
The VOLT should have had a diesel engine...

User avatar
SWR
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2791
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re:

Post by SWR » Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:15 am

stevek wrote:Big bore = more valve curtain area / higher breathing capacity
Small bore = sonic choke occurs at lower rpms than for big bore
...but only if you are valve area restricted... a 4-or 5-valve head most often are not, and they're a completely different ball game.
-Bjørn

"Impossible? Nah...just needs more development time"

ibmorjamn
Pro
Pro
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:47 am
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by ibmorjamn » Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:06 am

SWR wrote:
stevek wrote:Big bore = more valve curtain area / higher breathing capacity
Small bore = sonic choke occurs at lower rpms than for big bore
...but only if you are valve area restricted... a 4-or 5-valve head most often are not, and they're a completely different ball game.
Interesting and familiar topic. In the case of my single , 4 valve at 500 cc it started out with a 3.905" bore (99.2mm) and a 2.543" (64.6mm) stroke 30 ci
B/S ratio 1.535:1
R/S ratio 1.769:1
in stock form it makes about 34 hp to the rear wheels (atv)

450cc 4 valve bore 3.779 x 2.440 similar B/S , R/S and hp slightly higher
however the deck height is shorter.these engines accelerate quite fast .
I have a short distance to go and even shorter time to get there !

My single is 108mm x 70.6mm 114.47mm rod or 4.251" x 2.77" rod 4.5" also makes 45 ft. lbs @ 6800 rpm
37mm int. 32 mm exh.

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7415
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by 1989TransAm » Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:24 pm

Just thinking about this thread and the EMC. If one had a particular block in mind to use for the EMC would it not be beneficial to bore it out to the safe maximum and then adjust the stroke to get the desired displacement? Is was thinking of something like the Dart SHP block.

User avatar
Stan Weiss
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3623
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by Stan Weiss » Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:07 pm

1989TransAm wrote:Just thinking about this thread and the EMC. If one had a particular block in mind to use for the EMC would it not be beneficial to bore it out to the safe maximum and then adjust the stroke to get the desired displacement? Is was thinking of something like the Dart SHP block.
This might be the case if there was no RPM limit. :D

Stan
Stan Weiss / World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
Do you use engine simulation software that uses cylinder head flow files?
We have a package of more than 3000 DFW or FLW Files

ibmorjamn
Pro
Pro
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:47 am
Contact:

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by ibmorjamn » Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:56 pm

with 2 valve big bore drag V8's it seems most answers are written in stone (generally) however with single cylinder 4 valve engines I think the rules are still being written. slightly larger than 500cc, say 511cc bored and stroked engine making 70 hp/ 40 torque. 2.2 hp per cu. in. Bore size is limited to about 102 maybe 103 due to block/ bolt/cylinder spacing.

I don't know if it is over looked or what but a single with a real light piston can accelerate very fast more so than say a larger bore but a single piston kind of magnifies all details.of course when you bring F1 out as a trump card the rules are very different. still big bore small stroke long rod engine the pistons are small and very light. short crank throw very fast acceleration .
the drag of the piston rings and other parts become very critical when you have a single piston to depend on. IMHO.friction and reciprocating weight have got to be key factors.
I have a short distance to go and even shorter time to get there !

My single is 108mm x 70.6mm 114.47mm rod or 4.251" x 2.77" rod 4.5" also makes 45 ft. lbs @ 6800 rpm
37mm int. 32 mm exh.

vincenelson
Pro
Pro
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 11:56 pm

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by vincenelson » Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:35 pm

I have been told that in two single cylindar engines having the same displcement as example a 1" bore by a 120'' stroke, vers a 10.96" bore with a 1" stroke, and each engine being able to achieve the same amount of cylindar fill, both engines would make the same power but the short stroke engine would produce more useable energy output because of less friction in the ring pack and internal drag of the parts. I have also been told that the only subsute for cubic inches is cubic dollars.

agawam
New Member
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:07 am
Location: massachusetts

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by agawam » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:27 pm

in the mid to late 60s for built the 428, long stroke smaller piston,they specifcally built it to compete with thier own 427 bigger piston shorter stroke, but this was for basic street racing, on the track the 427 beats the 428,.gear ratio type of fuel compression, carburation,all factor in, to make the engines equal they would have to be built very differently and the cars would have to be built different also(gearing tire size)
old man old school hotrodder

mustangcobra438
Member
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:35 am

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by mustangcobra438 » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:58 am

How much would the rpm need to increase going from a 4.100 stroke to a 4" stroke with same head and bore?
Would it be benificial to shorten the stroke with bore and valve size same between both?
58lb crank in both apps.

User avatar
900HP
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1986
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:56 pm
Location: Fargo, North Dakota

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by 900HP » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:42 pm

mustangcobra438 wrote:How much would the rpm need to increase going from a 4.100 stroke to a 4" stroke with same head and bore?
Would it be benificial to shorten the stroke with bore and valve size same between both?
58lb crank in both apps.
unless your rules favor small inches or restrict you in some way go with the cubic inches. Cubic inches wins every time, I would never intentionally make an engine smaller unless there was a weight/cubic inch rule or a cubic inch maximum.

Big cubic inches is much harder to make the hp/cubic inch target with which is why you see a lot of small engines at Engine Master's Challenge but the larger motors will make more overall power/torque and do it with less rpm which means reliability/longevity.
Throttle's Performance
(701)893-5010
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Throttle ... 1996281602

quickd100
Pro
Pro
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Nielsville, Mn.

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by quickd100 » Sat Aug 30, 2014 1:23 pm

900HP wrote:
mustangcobra438 wrote:How much would the rpm need to increase going from a 4.100 stroke to a 4" stroke with same head and bore?
Would it be benificial to shorten the stroke with bore and valve size same between both?
58lb crank in both apps.
unless your rules favor small inches or restrict you in some way go with the cubic inches. Cubic inches wins every time, I would never intentionally make an engine smaller unless there was a weight/cubic inch rule or a cubic inch maximum.

Big cubic inches is much harder to make the hp/cubic inch target with which is why you see a lot of small engines at Engine Master's Challenge but the larger motors will make more overall power/torque and do it with less rpm which means reliability/longevity.
I agree,
I'm just a dumb Millwright with a dyno, but for a street/strip motor I'll take a mild large displacement engine any day. You can't argue with torque and big motors make big torque. My mild 605 truck motor makes 765ftlbs.@3500rpm (start of the dyno pull) and peaks at 818@4800rpm and holds 800+ till after 5500rpm.Dave
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v514/quickd100/9ff3c690.jpg[/img]

mustangcobra438
Member
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:35 am

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by mustangcobra438 » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:43 am

900HP wrote:
mustangcobra438 wrote:How much would the rpm need to increase going from a 4.100 stroke to a 4" stroke with same head and bore?
Would it be benificial to shorten the stroke with bore and valve size same between both?
58lb crank in both apps.
unless your rules favor small inches or restrict you in some way go with the cubic inches. Cubic inches wins every time, I would never intentionally make an engine smaller unless there was a weight/cubic inch rule or a cubic inch maximum.

Big cubic inches is much harder to make the hp/cubic inch target with which is why you see a lot of small engines at Engine Master's Challenge but the larger motors will make more overall power/torque and do it with less rpm which means reliability/longevity.
What about parasitic loses form longer stroke and windage as well as longer stroke being harder in engine from weight rotating farther out?
Would longer stroke still prevail in same scenario as mentioned before?
I should mention this is a nmca na10.5 type motor but current block won't allow more than 4.125 bore without rpm causing cylinders to move around.

Truckedup
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by Truckedup » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:58 am

Honda uses a longer stroke than most the competition especially in Acura 4 cylinder engines. Some of 2-2.2 liters fours have strokes near 3.5 inches with a redline of over 8000 rpm. Now there might be emission or packaging considerations... But Honda is known for high RPM engines so they might know something...
Motorcycle land speed racing... wearing animal hides and clinging to vibrating oily machines propelled by fire

User avatar
900HP
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1986
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:56 pm
Location: Fargo, North Dakota

Re: Big bore short stroke vs. small bore long stroke

Post by 900HP » Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:31 am

mustangcobra438 wrote:
900HP wrote:
mustangcobra438 wrote:How much would the rpm need to increase going from a 4.100 stroke to a 4" stroke with same head and bore?
Would it be benificial to shorten the stroke with bore and valve size same between both?
58lb crank in both apps.
unless your rules favor small inches or restrict you in some way go with the cubic inches. Cubic inches wins every time, I would never intentionally make an engine smaller unless there was a weight/cubic inch rule or a cubic inch maximum.

Big cubic inches is much harder to make the hp/cubic inch target with which is why you see a lot of small engines at Engine Master's Challenge but the larger motors will make more overall power/torque and do it with less rpm which means reliability/longevity.
What about parasitic loses form longer stroke and windage as well as longer stroke being harder in engine from weight rotating farther out?
Would longer stroke still prevail in same scenario as mentioned before?
I should mention this is a nmca na10.5 type motor but current block won't allow more than 4.125 bore without rpm causing cylinders to move around.
I'm not saying a long stroke "prevails" I'm saying cubic inches prevail. If you are limited to a 4.125" bore, you WILL make more power/torque with a 4.100" stroke than with a 4.00" stroke because you have more cubic inches. You will not make the horsepower per cubic inch with the larger motor but you will make more power overall.
Throttle's Performance
(701)893-5010
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Throttle ... 1996281602

Post Reply