What makes more torque................
11-11-2008, 10:55 PM
#61
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and i'll be the first to say the statement made by Mr ried are misleading. He is correct, increasing the stroke of an engine does increase its torque. And YES the mechanical advantage is working. BUT what he did not mention is that he is also increasing displacement by increasing the stroke.
"Stroking an engine does more than
just increase displacement. It increases
torque by giving the engine more of an
internal mechanical advantage.
11-12-2008, 01:32 AM
#63
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-12-2008, 03:10 AM
#64
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it that someone who is obviously wasting their time in this section was able to get so much more information replied than many I've seen who can actually comprehend at least some of what has been typed? 
I'm glad some of you wasted your time, because it's always good to read, but it's an exercise in futility.
Old SStroker- I'll take the 20 hp please
I'm glad some of you wasted your time, because it's always good to read, but it's an exercise in futility.
Old SStroker- I'll take the 20 hp please
11-12-2008, 07:13 AM
#66
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really should not dignify this with a response.. but i will.
What i should have said is that he leads you to believe that the displacment increase is not as important as the "mechanical leverage" This statement gives all the readers the wrong impression as to why the torque is increasing. Thus leading to the argument in this entire thread.
His statement (based on how i read it) leads me to belive that Displacment increases torque.. but Stroke increases torque EVEN MORE! like some sort of torque multiplier (which is wrong). So the average joe reading it.. says, "hey i understand, if i have a wrench that is 1 ft long.. i have more leverage with a 2 ft long wrench.. by golly.. i get it!!"
When people try to simplify the world to the mental capacity that they have.. A LOT of things get assumed... and many of those things are WRONG!!
Last edited by DanO; 11-12-2008 at 07:32 AM.
11-12-2008, 07:50 AM
#67
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Miami, near the U.S.A.
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HP = torque x RPM/5250
So to make 20 more HP at 2600 RPM requires an RCH over 40 ft-lb of torque.
Getting 20 ft-lb more torque at 2600 RPM yields only an RCH (
) under 10 HP.
Hence: I will take 20 HP at 2600 RPM, please.
Extra extra credit: Identify the unit "RCH"
So to make 20 more HP at 2600 RPM requires an RCH over 40 ft-lb of torque.
Getting 20 ft-lb more torque at 2600 RPM yields only an RCH (
) under 10 HP.Hence: I will take 20 HP at 2600 RPM, please.
Extra extra credit: Identify the unit "RCH"
11-12-2008, 08:07 AM
#68
TECH Fanatic
In measurement lab in college, we did a scientific study of the actual size of a RCH. .0014 +/- .0001 in. dia, if I recall. Obtaining samples to measure was the fun challenge. Real redheads were few and far between in Flint Michigan.
11-12-2008, 10:52 AM
#69
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Miami, near the U.S.A.
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The youngsters here STILL don't know what the RCH unit is. When one of my college profs at Case Tech in Cleveland told us that the modulus of elasticity of steel was just an RCH under 30,000,000 psi, we cracked up that he would use it in a lecture.
OK, in 1965 this was a big deal
.
OK, in 1965 this was a big deal
.
11-12-2008, 11:26 AM
#70
TECH Fanatic
11-12-2008, 01:42 PM
#72
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am assuming this RCH "Measurement" is something similar to the "Pube" measurement? lol
11-15-2008, 02:20 AM
#74
ok so.. different engine parts.. different rear ends.. but everything is the same and only the stroke is different..gotcha..
so it's GOT to be the stroke says the guy who can't even tell when there's an increase in frictional loss in a bigger gearset (typically)..
maybe the "top end" that both share is more advantageous to the smaller bore/longer stoke.. maybe the head starts to stall out a bit on the bigger bore..
so many variables.. there is no way to take this one example and say it applies in every case.
so it's GOT to be the stroke says the guy who can't even tell when there's an increase in frictional loss in a bigger gearset (typically)..
maybe the "top end" that both share is more advantageous to the smaller bore/longer stoke.. maybe the head starts to stall out a bit on the bigger bore..
so many variables.. there is no way to take this one example and say it applies in every case.
11-17-2008, 05:28 PM
#75
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok so.. different engine parts.. different rear ends.. but everything is the same and only the stroke is different..gotcha..
so it's GOT to be the stroke says the guy who can't even tell when there's an increase in frictional loss in a bigger gearset (typically)..
maybe the "top end" that both share is more advantageous to the smaller bore/longer stoke.. maybe the head starts to stall out a bit on the bigger bore..
so many variables.. there is no way to take this one example and say it applies in every case.
so it's GOT to be the stroke says the guy who can't even tell when there's an increase in frictional loss in a bigger gearset (typically)..
maybe the "top end" that both share is more advantageous to the smaller bore/longer stoke.. maybe the head starts to stall out a bit on the bigger bore..
so many variables.. there is no way to take this one example and say it applies in every case.
11-17-2008, 08:34 PM
#76
TECH Fanatic
I wrote a bunch of it.
11-19-2008, 11:06 PM
#78
TECH Fanatic