Team-BHP
(
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)
Exactly what i mean to say. With less cylinders you have to compromise on either the torque or the maximum output.
Ever heard why V Twins are more popular on bikes??
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawan
(Post 402992)
No. Configuration has nothing to do with power generation at all. The addition of cylinders can typically flatten out the powerband.
|
Hey pawan dude.. I think you are contradicting yourself here.
You say configuration has nothing to do with power generation and in below para you are telling the effects of configuration on power and torque.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawan
(Post 402992)
Think more in terms of displacement and less in terms of configuration. A 4.6 Liter 6 cylinder hypothetically can make easilly as much power as a 4.6 liter 8 cylinder, however the size of the cylinder bore on the 6 cylinder would more than likely make it cost prohibitive, and if you went the stroke route it would be a torquey engine, but not necessarilly be suitable for high power output due to excessive stroke length.
|
Engine configuration is the key to generate "usable power". If you choose more number of cylinders then the design becomes complex but you can generate more usable power from the engine. And complex doesn't always mean bad. If you can handle the complexity then you can deliver much more than those who follow the easy path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSA
(Post 402986)
More cylinders mean you can extract more power from the cylinders and yes more torque.
|
I agree. I have atleast one SAE paper which proves this fact. Will look up the number for anyone that's interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by himanshugoswami
(Post 400904)
1001 PS actually (approx 970 BHP):)
|
Remember reading it as 981 bhp sometime back in Autocar ...
my earlier post was taken of sportscarforums and slightly edited and ananth could you post that info you have with you sounds interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawan
(Post 403404)
my earlier post was taken of sportscarforums and slightly edited and ananth could you post that info you have with you sounds interesting.
|
Please write the links to the article
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawan Displacement is key. The larger the engine is, ...................
..................(if you truly want to retain an oversquare engine anyways).
|
These statements are controversial. If displacement is the key, then the number of cylinders are not of consequence here. If you compare a 6 litre V8 and a V12, it is but natural that the V12 would offer better throttle response, flatter torque curve and a higher rev-limit. Also, stroke length does not necessarily decide the compactness of an engine.
Heard of inertia? The ability of an object to retain its state of motion until acted upon by an external force? Well, inertia is bad for engines. Higher displacement + lesser cylinders = bigger pistons per cylinder. Therefore, higher inertia. Good for bottom end torque, but you'd have a diesel on your hands.
For any engine, you should ideally have a high rev limit, with the ability to spread the torque/powerband wide through the RPM. You can only do that with more cylinders through any given displacement.
P.S- pawan, in future, when you copy-paste any written article directly off the web, kindly mention the source at the end of your post. It's forum policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ananthkamath
(Post 403117)
I agree. I have atleast one SAE paper which proves this fact. Will look up the number for anyone that's interested.
|
Krautter, W.
"Multicylinder Motorcycle Engines Give More Power Than Single-Cylinder Units Produce", SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 690748.
This talks about 4-stroke motorcycle engines but obviously the data is applicable to any kind of engine. Download from
Multicylinder Motorcycle Engines Give More Power Than Single-Cylinder Units Produce
One more reason why you should learn not to post stuff off the net.
Multi-cylinders produce more power. Also, they have the capacity to rev quicker, and revs means power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ananthkamath
(Post 403568)
One more reason why you should learn not to post stuff off the net.
|
Pipey, we love you and value your input. But really, don't be so mean to the younger generation. We were all wrong (and I still am sometimes!). Chill out, na?
Wokay my man. lol: Its just that there's so much misinformation floating around it boils my blood sometimes.
One of the many reasons why Formula 1 cars come with a 2.4L V8. These days you don't find anything more than 4 cylinders for a 2.4L displacement in road cars.
Btw totally off topic, but I can't help it. On this weekend trip to Montreal, we had the pleasure of driving on the Circuit Gilles-Villeneuve, which is the venue for the Canadian Grand Prix. Not all the chicanes were marked, but the pitlane and the grandstands were intact. Even the famous Casino corner. Too bad it was only a 3.0L V6 rental Ford Taurus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ananthkamath
(Post 403581)
Wokay my man. Its just that there's so much misinformation floating around it boils my blood sometimes.
|
OFFtopic:lol: these blood boiling gets the best out of everybody to prove the points.
pawan and Ananthkamath.... kudos you guys are the best at it. Thank you everybody for sharing their peice of information on thread like these. it really helps we novice to learn.
@ananthkamath ...no offense but you sound very dangerous when posting.sorry:
@pawan again no offense you sound very humble.
NO offense on anybody neither i want to distinguish between the two but just that you guys have great knowledge. Thank you once again.
This will oust the SSC to become the world's ugliest supercar when it goes into production.
That said, can't wait to see what happens.
Soon, Bugatti will launch the updated Veyron which will trance them all :uncontrol
| All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 04:27. | |
