Home | Register | Login | Contact Us

 
Auto Math
Classifieds
Forum
Gallery
Games
Garage
Tech Articles
Utilites
 
FAQFAQ    SearchSearch    RegisterRegister    Log inLog in    Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages    Forum Subscriptions1/4 Mile Table 

purely theoretical... Can you have too much stroke?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SMOKEmUP.com Forum Index -> Chevy - Big Block
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
journeyman
Member


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Moscow
4016.18 points



PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:31 pm    Post subject: purely theoretical... Can you have too much stroke? Reply with quote

My only interest is in low end torque and possible second: efficiency (combustion, heat, and of course, mpg's)

I have always been told and also have experienced with my foot that longer strokes will give you better low end torque and "tend" to give you better fuel economy (I interpret this as higher efficiency, but have no data)

QUESTION:
When is more stroke too much? What are the effects? take an unrealistic extreme example: a tall deck 366 with a 3.935 bore.
If you could fit a 5.6" stroke crank in there you would end up with 545 inches, and a bore/stroke ratio of 0.7

Obviously that example is unrealistic, but really, when is more of a good thing (stroke) too much?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
journeyman
Member


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Moscow
4016.18 points



PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also... I am assuming limits of rod angles/lengths, etc.
In other words, with proper geometry of the crank/rod/pin/piston.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squeeezer
Member


Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 2414
Location: new richmond WI
191175.26 points


1991 Chevrolet Camaro

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think its piston speed you are asking about????

efficiency i would look to a bore that takes advantage of the heads
as well as compression ratio and quench

i would NOT assume stroke will help mileage in anyway unless you are towing

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
journeyman
Member


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Moscow
4016.18 points



PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, mostly towing.

the engine will rarely if ever see 4500 RPM.
Most all running will be below 3500 RPM

One of the things I am puzzled by is the bore/stroke ratio.
What does that tell us?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
10sec.et
Member


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 3231
Location: Houston,Texas
338808.44 points


1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass

PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

after building a small block Olds with a big block Olds crank, im going to say that if you can fit it in the block, its not too much Wink
_________________
af2 wrote:
It seems we can look at our magical Balls and come up with a fix?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
journeyman
Member


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Moscow
4016.18 points



PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But what are the issues with having too long of a stroke? Is it just angles and clearances? Or are there combustion issues (combustion efficiency, etc.)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clay
Moderator


Joined: 24 Nov 2002
Posts: 3159
Location: South Carolina
316154.69 points


1972 Chevrolet Nova

PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would think that at some point, parasitic losses will start to factor in. Longer stroke of course equals faster piston speed which should change camshaft specs required but would also equal more friction. Also I would think the faster piston speed would put even more emphasis on better head flow. Look at the two Prostock classes, NHRA and IHRA - 500 ci. vs. something a little over 800 ci. Granted the larger engine is faster, but not faster by an amount that the displacement increase would lead you to believe. Clay
_________________
I have done so much with so little for so long, I can now do anything with nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big Dave
Moderator


Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 2549
Location: Tampa Florida
116203.76 points



PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clay wrote:
I would think that at some point, parasitic losses will start to factor in. Longer stroke of course equals faster piston speed which should change camshaft specs required but would also equal more friction. Also I would think the faster piston speed would put even more emphasis on better head flow. Look at the two Prostock classes, NHRA and IHRA - 500 ci. vs. something a little over 800 ci. Granted the larger engine is faster, but not faster by an amount that the displacement increase would lead you to believe. Clay


705 cid IHRA Mountain motors use 4.75" to 5.00" inch strokes with 4.60 to 4.70 inch bores; and the NHRA DRCE Olds 9.00' deck height block has 4.70 bores with a 3.60 " stroke for 497.7 cubes. One spends all day at 9,800 RPM and is designed to make it's power there while the other lumbers along a 6,400 RPM.

Both make about 2,500 horse power but the mountain motor makes much more torque which makes getting the power to the ground even harder than in NHRA where every race (except for maybe Mike Edwards ride) is on parity and has to have the correct set-up to win. I think it is the amount of torque made that slows down the IHRA cars over the NHRA as it is as tough to stop a train as to hook one up. (think about it: these cars are making the kind of power you find down at the rail yard under the hood of a GE 9-44CW Diesel-Electric Locomotive engine)

Big Dave
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
journeyman
Member


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Moscow
4016.18 points



PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
there while the other lumbers along a 6,400 RPM



Lumbers along? Wow. A different world.

I would think there has to be some sort of formula or some curve to describe the effects of stroke to bore. And I would expect it NOT to be linear.

As Clay mentioned, losses increase as you approach the extremes, but those 'extremes' are exactly what I want to understand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PROCV8
Newbie


Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 8
Location: New Zealand
394.20 points


1985 Ford Mustang

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A friend of mine used to spin their old 434BBC to 9200.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but, a 632BBC with 4.750" stroke & 10.200" deck height pulls the piston skirts out the bottoms of the bores; so reliability for a road scenario goes out the window.
This is why my new motor is only 615ci, to avoid the piston wear issues.

_________________
Anything unattempted remains impossible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big Dave
Moderator


Joined: 04 Dec 2005
Posts: 2549
Location: Tampa Florida
116203.76 points



PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PROCV8 wrote:
A friend of mine used to spin their old 434BBC to 9200.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but, a 632BBC with 4.750" stroke & 10.200" deck height pulls the piston skirts out the bottoms of the bores; so reliability for a road scenario goes out the window.
This is why my new motor is only 615ci, to avoid the piston wear issues.


Thats why they make an 11.625 inch tall deck block with cam tunnels raised nearly an inch to stuff in those 5.00 inch long strokes. Most of these IHRA guys are running 705 cubic inches.

Big Dave
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
journeyman
Member


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Moscow
4016.18 points



PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

11.625"? Holy cow that's big.

I looked at just HOW big that was:


That is just wild.

I still don't have adequate understanding of the effect of [increased] stroke on combustion efficiency, but am seeing that a standard "tall block" (10.2") looks like the most practical starting point if more than 4.25 stroke.

Also in reading I found that logically, shorter rods give faster motion to the piston at TDC and BDC and therefore, better filling on the intake stroke. Of course shorter rods mean higher side pressures on the pistons.[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jonny_b
Member


Joined: 28 May 2003
Posts: 175
Location: Rogers, MN
5693.36 points


1979 Chevrolet Camaro

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You want torque, you want efficiency. BUY A DIESEL!

But here is my thinking:
You can have as much stroke as you want. As you increase stroke you need to decrease speed. Look at the ol' steam ocean liners, HUGE steam eingines, with FEET of stroke, only turnned ~40 RPM, Made HUGE torque. So really you are only limited by the package your putting it into, and $$

_________________
1979 Camaro Z28
355 cu.in. 5-speed man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
af2
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 5399
Location: grassvalley, ca
66517.86 points


1933 Willys Coupe

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PROCV8 wrote:
A friend of mine used to spin their old 434BBC to 9200.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but, a 632BBC with 4.750" stroke & 10.200" deck height pulls the piston skirts out the bottoms of the bores; so reliability for a road scenario goes out the window.
This is why my new motor is only 615ci, to avoid the piston wear issues.


Is the piston still in the bore with 4.5" stoke??? Knowing the deck height?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
journeyman
Member


Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Moscow
4016.18 points



PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my quest for understanding in the question of stroke and its effect on efficiency (at low speed), I found myself in a quagmire of information, opinions, disinformation and what seemed to be superstition.
I am not much further along in understanding this today than I was a few weeks ago.

What I did find:
Many people agree that 1000 1200 FPM piston speed is the most efficient range. Why? Most by how much? How was this measured? All questions that I could not find an answer.

Also, it seems that the oil ring contributes significantly to the total friction of the engine. Some even claim that the oil ring is responsible for 10% of the total friction in the engine.

Rod length, crank angle, and piston acceleration is a whole science in itself.

I also found many, many megabytes of completely useless, baseless information.

In all this, I found my way back to Endyn. I had seen this years ago, but now it all seems pretty exciting and makes a lot of sense. His premise: complete combustion of a smaller amount of fuel/air is better (and far more efficient) than partial combustion of a large amount of fuel/air. Would be VERY cool to see this applied to the BBC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SMOKEmUP.com Forum Index -> Chevy - Big Block All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
Home | Contact Us | Automath | Cam Files | Dyno Search | Forum | Garage | Picture Gallery | Reaction Timer

Copyright 1997-2014 SMOKEmUP.com All rights reserved.
Advertising Info     Disclaimer     Privacy Policy