sms2022
Well-Known Member
This is absolutely not true.Nope. Cubic inches are cubic inches. As long as you're not shrouding the valves it won't matter.
https://www.hpacademy.com/technical-articles/rod-to-stroke-ratio-explained/
Sponsored
This is absolutely not true.Nope. Cubic inches are cubic inches. As long as you're not shrouding the valves it won't matter.
HPAcademy articles might as well be google blogspamThis is absolutely not true.
https://www.hpacademy.com/technical-articles/rod-to-stroke-ratio-explained/
Since neither one of us is an expert and apparently this is something the experts disagree on, we’ll have to agree to disagree.HPAcademy articles might as well be google blogspam
Go find me a dyno test between two engines that are within a percent or two total cubic inches, but have the same heads/intake/camshaft. And show me how the one with longer stroke or bigger bore (or whatever you think makes more power) making more power.
I'll wait.
Which one are you trying to say is better, btw?Since neither one of us is an expert and apparently this is something the experts disagree on, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
This is probably the most fair article I’ve seen on the subject
https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2016/08/understanding-rod-ratios/
Neither. I have no real opinion on rod ratio. I will admit I’ve used that term incorrectly throughout this discussion when I really meant bore/stroke ratio. I think a longer stroke allows an engine to produce more torque at a lower rpm than an otherwise equal engine of the same size with a larger bore and shorter stroke.Which one are you trying to say is better, btw?
And you are wrong.I think a longer stroke allows an engine to produce more torque at a lower rpm than an otherwise equal engine of the same size with a larger bore and shorter stroke.
I have no real opinion on rod ratio.
A higher rod ratio, around 1.6:1 to 2.0:1, is often preferred in high-horsepower engines, as it can reduce side loading on the pistons and cylinder walls, improve piston dwell time near top dead center, and help the engine rev more freely.I have a strong opinion on rod ratio, it reduces side loading allowing longer piston and bore life.
reduce torque? Show me a dyno graph please, I’d like to see that.Pick your poison:
Advantages:
Improved Acceleration: Lightweight flywheels reduce rotational mass, allowing the engine to rev up faster and accelerate more quickly.
Improved Throttle Response: The reduced rotational inertia of a lightweight flywheel can also improve throttle response, making the car feel more responsive to driver inputs.
Reduced Load on Engine Components: A lighter flywheel places less stress on engine components like the crankshaft and bearings, potentially increasing their lifespan.
Disadvantages:
Reduced Low-End Torque: Lightweight flywheels can reduce low-end torque, making it more difficult to accelerate from a stop or low speeds.
Rough Idle: The reduced rotational inertia of a lightweight flywheel can also cause the engine to idle less smoothly, potentially resulting in roughness or vibration.
Increased Wear on Transmission Components: Lightweight flywheels can place more stress on transmission components like the clutch and synchronizers, potentially reducing their lifespan.
Right. It's all about physics.reduce torque?
Pop a wheelie over a soda bottle. So much tq, popped the back window out. Hondo on the dash...Yep. Torque is largely dependent on how heavy the reciprocating mass is on an N/A engine. That’s part of the reason why old big blocks would make 500tq but 150hp. They also had a flywheel that weighed 40lbs.
There’s an old wives tale about this that a guy swapped one of these flywheels onto his 396 Chevy and used to shut the engine down and let the clutch out and the car would still go 20mph down the street.
Yeah I hear you. my point was not to confuse engine output with the energy stored in the flywheel which only affects shifting and transient states. Saying 'low end torque' implies its an engine output thing.Right. It's all about physics.
When you reduce the weight of the flywheel, you reduce the amount of energy required to accelerate the engine. This means that less torque is required to spin the engine up to a given RPM.
But there might be some confusion here.
The engine itself doesn't make less torque when using a lighter flywheel. Instead, the reduced rotational inertia of the engine assembly makes it more difficult for the engine to maintain torque at low RPMs.