The Myth Of Engine Displacement
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- The entire car culture is obsessed with cubic inches (CC's Liters, etc) but in reality the way we measure engines has little to do with their capacity to generate work. Here's why...
*MERCHANDISE:
Get Your UTG T-Shirts Here: uncletonysgara...
Get Your UTG Stickers Here: uncletonysgara...
*SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook: / uncletonysgarage1
Instagram: / uncle_tonys_garage
*WEBSITE: uncletonysgara...
Man, how can one man be so knowledgeable about something and be so willing to share it at no cost? You definitely are an anomaly Uncle Tony and you're a blessing to the car community!
It used to belikethiseverywhere. Everyone sucks nowadays. Tony is a numbers matching classic. It's why im here.
This is how it used to be! This was everyone!
In the 90's, when the elite boomers decided to relive their youth and money was no object everything changed, they were ok with paying someone stupid amounts of money to do the work for them and that became the business model that drove old car prices into supercar territory and fueled the whole 15 thousand dollar engine stupidity we have now. It drove all of this out of economic range for the Gen X'ers and later and interest has waned off severely, to the point prices are finally coming down... but it also reignited this rat rod/do it yourself hot rod culture where people just give the finger to the snobs and their supposed 70k dollar old cars they bought as "investments" where the younger generations just ignore them and buy what they can afford and started their own car clubs without the snobs.
You think this is knowledge?
Tony gets paid doing this. Keep watching the commercials.
Turn off the sound and Uncle Tony is teaching sex ed
Even better if you only turn the sound on in the last 5 seconds or so.
RossRacing64 “Lay in bed and think about it all night” 🤣
Yeah that was a lot of fist pumping in that poor cylinder!!!😂😂😂
Angle is torque
“The Adult Toys from Dodge”
We always used to say: When it comes to horsepower, there's no substitute for cubic money. Great insight, as always. Thank you, Tony :)
😂😂 “no substitute for cubic money”.. 👍
This is why the short-stroke B-Block 383's are such great motors. The short stroke also does good things for RPM and longevity vs. the RBs.
"No replacement for displacement" does flow off the lips a lot smoother than "There's no replacement for displacement, traction, air/fuel mixture, power to weight ratio, head flow, cam profile, stall speed, tire compound, and reaction time." And go fast stripes. Got to have the go fast stripes.
If those little rc car engines could be extrapolated ...haha wow.
I'm no expert , but .21 or .25 cubic inches putting out like 1.5hp is pretty hot.
No turbo or power adder , other than a nitro blend.
I'll take 800 cubes of that🤣
@@MrTheHillfolk That would be sweet, I imagine the reason we don't have many full sized engines with a power to displacement ratio like that is material based, due to how the materials react with heat in bigger sizes not proportions.
Don't forget chrome.
Don't forget The "power loops" on the coil primary wires....good for AT LEAST 2 HP.
Hillfolk...The MATH is where ya get power...rc engines spin ALOT faster, because they are smaller....Those crazy RPMs is what produces the final total.
Power to weight will always be King.
Yep.
*Said Tesla
@@thecloneguyz Tesla cars are heavy
@@calholli their power to weight ratio blows away any combustion engine car that's ever been made in history
@@calholli it's no coincidence that a $30,000 USED Tesla can keep up with or beat a $250,000+ supercar
I always save up for good flowing heads and match cam accordingly
Super Duty 455 so many guy just buy the biggest intake and a giant mismatched cam and think they have a race car or I love the guys that buy the big intakes and carbs and stop there🤣🤣🤣
Dominator, 292 cam, 2.41 rear and cracked 882 heads.
@@superduty4556 LOL, broke off the exhaust
I had a stock 350 hp non high performance 440 in my 68 New Yorker,triple black 2 door hardtop(body guy so added that)The shop I worked at they added a purple cam and heads it needed a timing chain so I opted for cam/heads as a Mopar guru worked there and was drooling to do it up.. I was 16 and the machinist at the garage I worked at did the heads and I cant remember the specs but he said you should have 100 hp gain...Well,that car with 2.94 axle ratio blew away stout 454&396 Chevelle's with 3.73's,4.11's,ate 428 Ford's....My Buddies '87 Mustang 5.0 5 speed all the tricks in the day 4.10's,off road exhaust..I always wanted to take it to the track,but always busy(school,work,girlfriend,beer etc)The car would bury the 120 mph speedo and keep going! I had a buddy with a Kawasaki Ninja and paced me and my car went past 155 mph ,well I was young so why not I lived! I pulled out before it ever stopped pulling,car was unreal!
Most cars I had I always had good flowing heads and a cam(nothing radical either 1 step up usually from factory cam usually) and it usually beat the same type of car with more mods...I have a engine builder buddy I guess he would be better suited to comment here,but nonetheless...I run a few strokers in a couple of my cars now,as he builds them I test them out(I drive hard)then he sells them as a package(no not the one I used he builds a few and sells them to customers)..I had a 500 stroker and my 440 with good heads and cam beat it by .50 in the 1/4 mile,so he reworked his strokers..Also sells stock with better heads blah,blah...The specs I should get them I guess..
Ive heard from several racers and builders that its all in the head
my dad has a 71'ss Chevelle 454ci. factory 4spd. car!
Dyno; 589hp.-619tq.
love the feel and sound of that big block!🇺🇸..(🤝)
scar face
Those 454’s were great
Those numbers are massively bull shit! The only way you have more torque than go is if the engine peaks far before 5250 rpm. 619 ft lbs of torque should be more like 750 go. But with only 454 cubic inches you need to twist that motor to way higher rpm
@@TL-angzarr uh gasoline engines mostly always produce more torque. Its just peaks earlier in the rpm band and tapers off as hp increases
@@jeremydavis340. yeah you need to brush up on your engine science, a factory tuned smaller headed tiny valve under cammed motor will make more torque numbers than HP BUT he's talking about a 454 we know what the pump out stock to get one to 600 HP he MUST turn the motor faster IF he's making that much torque at peak he would be making WAY more HP.
589 and 619 don’t quite sound right to me either. I’d like to see the curve on that. They have to cross at 5252, so it would be a bizarre graph for sure.
Love this guy! Amazing what can be discussed and talked about when there’s no sponsorship, advertising or parts to be sold. Keep on keeping it real!!
It comes down to effective cylinder pressure. EFFECTIVE being the key word here....and please don't forget the part of cylinder pressure...there are many ways to achieve both...Tony's on it...
You make a valid point! Just an observation: 61 cubic inch motorcycles (1000cc) are making in the neighborhood of 200hp on pump gas. Not much torque down low, but serious speed up top. Imagine an X 16 cylinder engine of 244 cubic inches (around 800hp) mated to a continuously variable transmission!
Well said, but all things equal the larger displacement engine wins.
100% of the time. So really there still is no replacement for displacement
@@bluecollarfox916 but all things are never equal, ever. So really, as in the real world.... its not that simple.
F1 cars d o pretty well on small dispacement
I've always struggled to explain this to my friends! big engines don't always mean they're faster.. it all comes down to tons of variables like gearing, tire size and compound, curb weight, wheel horse power ect ect..
I would say that it has more to do with the cylinder head as to why an engine would make good power. Sure displacement would have some part in it but mostly head flow and design
Phenomenal. Never considered the variable of work load on piston stroke.
Got to Love it Tony!!! If people need any proof of this then watch Jay Leno with that Lancia Delta!!!! 600 Horses from 1.8 litre 4 pot....For all you Imperials...600 horses from 110 ci....Roll Up Your Windows!!!
Or check boba motoring on here.
2.0 VW putting out like 1200hp.
TROLLLLLL!! :)
How much air do those motors displace when they’re NA?
I appreciate that you are trying to teach us. You are a wealth of knowledge, and I appreciate that you are generous with sharing your wealth of knowledge.
Going to burn one and think about it deep
you know what me too
Hence is life. Digital fistbump
Very good explanation, the face of the top of the piston stays within the same area of the cylinder.
The bottom line is how many pounds of air can you move through an engine in a given amount of time. Then add fuel in the proper ratio. Great information on the working area of a cylinder. Gale banks with Banks Power also has some great videos on this topic if anybody wants to watch some follow up videos.
RPMs, this is why I rebuilt a 429ci for my 79' f150 and not the 460ci. most of Ford's fleet trucks used 429ci different rod and piston setup but same displacement. Chevy's 302ci and 327ci was also monsters to worry about😁.
For a guy who got kicked out of school at 16, you're smart af uncle tony. Is measuring displacements more accurate when it's done in liters or cc? As much as I love muscle cars, the truth of the matter is that stock powerful electric cars will almost always beat a stock muscle car in a drag race. Nothing beats the sound of a v8 though.
Measuring is equally accurate in either form - it just depends on how many decimal points you're willing to go to. I used to drive a 1608 cc (which is _exactly_ the same as 1.608 litres) car - usually referred to as a 1.6 litre for convenience. So if you're rounding your litres off and only using one decimal place, then you're being less accurate - but that's a rounding error and not a problem with using litres or cc.
PS: If you're into using only whole numbers, then using cc will be more accurate than using cubic inches, and c.i. more accurate than whole litres...because you're using a smaller base unit.
Thanks Aussiebloke609, that makes sense. Btw is love Australian muscle cars.
The displacement means more on the intake stroke drawing the intake charge with its increased swept volume
The working area on the power stroke as you said along with the dynamic compression
How cool are engines
I see, but in terms of practicality there is no way a smaller engine can SIMPLY and RELIABLY make more usable power than a larger engine. I’m not talking strokers or race engines. I’m talking every day drivers. I don’t like where most auto manufacturers are headed with small engines in trucks, vans etc. Small little v6’s even with turbos and vvt will not and cannot match a big v8. My Chevy 454 makes TWICE the hp and TWICE the torque as my Ford 3.7 v6 and at HALF the rpm’s. And gets better gas mileage than the v6 to boot. Both in a truck application. You have to add 2 more gears and a turbo and it STILL won’t out perform the big block. Reliability goes down the shitter as well.
this is exactly why I jumped at the chance to buy my mechanics 2002 8.1 Chev 2500. That thing will pull all day to 300k miles on that drivetrain and get the same mpg as that ecocrap V6 under load.
i think people underestimate how much transmissions have changed and improved in the last 15 years when they look at these things. I can't imagine the accelration the 8.1 would gain if it had 3 more gears in the box, and the mpg towing would even go up to as the ratios are closer.
Anyone who has driven A bodies with both the 170 and the 225 knows that little extra stroke doesn’t do much. Port, polish, mill, relieve, hotter spark, timing, and a larger carb, now you’ve got a runner. It doesn’t matter which block you build, it’s going to be hot. I know because I’ve done it. Thank you Uncle Tony.
Hot Rod stroked a 360 mopar to 410 ci on Engine Masters and while it made more tourque with the added displacement, torque/ci went down. Added less than 10HP too.
The tech sections of the car mags use to always dive deep into this stuff and you truly learned things. Now its stage 2 this, stage 4 that and the entire hobby has been dumbed down.
Those pages where the best!
The rich boomers that turned everything into an "investment" in the 90's didn't really care about the details, they just paid someone else to do it anyway. So the car mags turned into picture books that needed advertisement style slogans to get the concepts across to the people that didn't know anything about the details and din't care to know anyway.
That era is slowly coming to a close, but I do not know if there will be a resurgence in gear heads and interest faster then the electric car BS will be shoved down our throats.
it's true that "there's no replacement for displacement" is antiquated and no longer holds valid, but when it comes to "that sound", there really is no replacement.
I'd like to see an engine comparison test of extreme over and under square engines. The two I'd tested is the Olds 403 and the Olds 400G. The 403 is a smogger motor from the late 70s that has a big bore/short stroke, 400g is from the middle of the musclecar era, it has a long stroke/small bore. The 403 is a small block but can use the heads & cam from the big blocks.
I've seen enough motorcycle dynos to give a somewhat confident statement: Oversquare engines always make more power, and most of the time all over the powerband. The oversquare engine is much more efficient and has all benefits in terms of power potential (Valve size, piston speed, piston surface etc.). The shorter lever on the crank doesn't matter at all. You get roughly the same torque down low but the curve of the stroker drops sooner.
Thank you, for taking the time to go over that. Still running it through my head.
How does a 481ci engine, built on a block in which all factory parts will fit and work, make so much power? Just so happens I have a 467 Pontiac built by Butler that has heads with the same CNC program that Justin (Big Chief) runs. They are not wide ports or widened bore spacing, just hogged out Edelbrock castings. Mine makes over 700hp NA on pump gas with those heads. It makes that power at 6500rpm, and it is making over 550 ftlbs at the rear wheels as low as 3000rpm. If you are a chevy guy or into small blocks, that makes zero sense. A high velocity port under pressure is going to flow up to a certain RPM limit just like if it were NA. It will be higher with forced induction, but the torque it makes will be prodigious. Its about maximizing the benefits of a design rather than trying to make it do something it is not designed to do. Enhance the capabilities and it will move mass easier.
Yeah we are only getting use from the top part of the cylinder because the expanding gasses only push for a handful of degrees after the combustion event... Unless its nitromethane. Justin is shoving 30-50psi through those ports to make 2500-3000hp, and is under 7000rpm doing it. My engines fill the cylinders rather well low in the RPM range, with high velocity ports. A fast moving column of air fills the cylinder better at RPM under 6500, and it is entirely dependent upon the shape and length of the port. Pontiac engines have a sweet spot in runner length and cross section that makes ludicrous torque from idle to 6000rpm in an iron head engine.
Then they have 4.25" stroke cranks, Justin has a larger bore with his aftermarket block. He might have a 4" crank, can't remember exactly. We can go up to a 4.5" crank easily in any 400, 428, or 455 block. Grind one spot about 1/8" and it drops right in.
The effect of going from the stock 400's 3.75" crank to the 4.25" or 4.5" crank is moving the RPM where max torque is produced lower in the RPM range, all else being the same. It also increases how much torque the engine produces, this effect is well known in the Pontiac world, and we often opt for the 4.25" crank in our builds, that allows us to run 3.08-3.55 gears, a 2400-2800 stall, and run 11s to 9s relatively easily. Pontiac engines are optimized to move heavy vehicles with highway gears, which is why building them like you would a 350 sbc makes them run slower.. every damn time. Put a 4.10 gear behind an iron head 455 and you will go slower than you would with a 3.08-3.55, often a full second slower. A 4.56 might work good with a 350 chevy in the 1/8th, but a 455 will waste that thick band of torque its making from idle to 6000, and it will stop pulling at 6000. No need to spin it any tighter than that. A mild pump gas 455 with smog heads from 1975 will make enough grunt to push a 4000lb GTO into the 12s with a 2.93 gear using a 1900-2200 stall. Be advised, that tends to break transmissions, even Th400s. Ask how I know...
The difference in stroking small engines like the 302 ford or the sbc is not as effective as it is with the Pontiac. The Ford has too small ports, unless its a 351C where the 2V heads flow better than most aftermarket W heads and the 4V borders on the Hemi. The longer runner length of the C makes up for the huge 4V ports to some extent, and they can make crazy power with a larger camshaft than the stock tiny cams. The C only has a half inch of stroke over the Cleveland headed BOSS 302, but the power difference is huge, that is partly due to deck height and the resulting longer intake port, including the intake manifold. The tunnel port 427 FE engines were an extreme example of that, as are the Ram Air V heads for a Pontiac. Huge ports with long runners that increase velocity.
The sbc has a big short port, which makes them an rpm engine, getting 450ftlbs from one of them is an achievement, and if a Pontiac is only making 450ftlbs its a disappointment. However iron Pontiac heads run out of airflow around 6200rpm even after porting. The engine design matters more than just bore and stroke, but those still make a difference.
Great comment..thank you!
@@carlg500ci7 Depends on the heads and cam, if you have 7000rpm capability and 320cfm heads, a 3.73 works with a 28" or taller tire. If its an iron D port head 455 the 3.73 will run essentially the same as a 3.08-3.55 in the 1/4 and 1/8, but they usually lose a couple mph in trap speed. Why spin it tighter on the highway? It makes a larger difference in cruise rpm than it does in ET.
My '72 455 HO Formula has a 3.70 in it, and its slower than it was with a 3.08. Not able to get out of the 13s with the 3.70 and 12.50s with a 3.08, but a RA II, IV, or V head would probably like a little more gear, depending on cam timing.
@@carlg500ci7 .552 /.547 lift? What is the duration at .050? That will tell me more about it. One of my engines that can use a 3.73 and deeper gear is the 467, it has 330cfm Edelbrock heads, a 270/272@.050 solid roller on a 108. It makes 700hp at 6500 and can easily pull to 7500, but I don't run it that high. If you have less than 240@.050 duration, chances are the 3.73 is not helping you much unless you have a smaller engine than a 400/455 Pontiac.
The whole point of a long(er) stroke was torque.
At the Reno air show you see crazy boosted Merlins engines with 27L of displacement taking on Pratt & Whitney R-4360 with 71.489 L of displacement or Wright R-3350s with 54.862 L.
The displacement of an engine is bore and stroke and the only replacement for displacement is forced induction like turbo or supercharger but those such pieces of hardware cause exponentially more heat and and stress on internal engine parts like connecting rods piston rings valve seals and so on...naturally aspirated is the way to go
Tony you're the best. Keep on keepin' on.
I always thought that it was when everything else is equal, i.e flow, air/fuel, cam, so on and so forth. Which makes sense to me, it’s easier to get 400-500 hp out of a 350 V8 then a 2.0L 4 cylinder.
Great....great.....FREAKEN GREAT KNOWLEDGE......something one pretty much NEVER hears. Well done UTG.
Big Chief of no prep is a expert engine and chassie tuner big reason why he is so successful with that Buttler Performance Engine Its all in the set up
I've known this since I was a teenager...anyone who thinks for a few seconds will know a 4 stroke engine is only using less than half it's displacement on the power stroke - the details on the bottom half of the stroke are less known. And, we've all been in cars with huge engines that make crappy power for various reasons. We've all been in light little cars with little engines that scream. It's mostly about burning as much gas/air as possible and using that energy as efficiently as possible to move the car forward as fast as possible (yes, there is more to it than that). There IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT - assumes all other things are equal. You take a little turbo engine and properly add more displacement it will always make more power. You can say this with any engine (again, assuming you properly add more displacement - over stroking causes problems, for example) Since I was 15 I understood the assumptions of this saying.
It all depends on what the engine is for really. Are we pulling stumps or spending all day going as fast as possible?
The benefits of a stroker is mostly leverage against crank, going to give you a lot more bottom end torque over an engine that is closer to square or over square.
Smaller displacement engines can make more horsepower to cubes because being square or over square they have much lighter parts, so they can rev higher, but they give up bottom end torque in favor of top end power.
If displacement was everything there's no reason a small car with a 2L i4 wouldn't be making 396hp and 220ft lbs of torque. Twice what a Cbr 1000 makes stock.
What does the dyno say? Go big or go home. Overall efficiency may be lost by increasing cubes but there is a net gain. The results speak for themselves.
Mario Rossi and Richard Brooks proved what your saying back in 1971 at the Daytona 500 with the "lunchbox motor" in their '69 Daytona.
Not really, to compete it had to turn 11000 rpm where the bigger motors only had to turn 7500
T L Yes that's true but certainly got the job done.
@@paulcabezola3559 no not really they ran it one race and didn't finish, the motor didn't have the power to push a non aero car around the track. It was a valiant effort but sure doesn't prove the point trying to be made here
T L That motor was in a 69 Daytona and did finish. I may be mistaken but I believe they finished 7th. It may have finished better had Pete Hamilton not wrecked them. It only ran one race because Nascar banned all aero cars after this event. They were allowed to complete at the '71 Daytona 500 but were only allowed 5.0 liters of displacement.
Holy shit Alpha, I NEVER thought of it that way! You have a gift for explaining abstract concepts in an understandable manner. I do know that a longer stroke makes more torque, and like they used to say back in the 60s and early 70s, "HP sells cars, torque wins races".
I also know why Big Chief competes with bigger displacement engines....Butler Performance. I ran several versions of BP engines in my 69 goat 467, 505 and my 'little' N/A 535 that ran like a fucking SAVAGE and shocked more than one BBC bragging much bigger displacement. First I showed them the roof, then the tail lights. Truth be told, the ONLY thing factory Pontiac on that engine was the fucking water pump (before I went Meziere). Aftermarket IA blocks accept much bigger bores than an OEM Poncho ever could, and you can run 2.30 or larger intake valves and not worry about shrouding, the playing field is essentially leveled. Add exotic aluminum CNC heads that really breathe, forged rotating assemblies that you can wing to almost 8k without becoming shrapnel, and you get the picture. The only caveat is it costs a LOT more to go fast with a 'Pontiac' than a BBC...ask me how I know.
And you would know!
Was talking to bill khulman about rotaries making 1300-1600 hp out of 13b engines
Thank you for another great educational video. I really enjoy your direct and practical teaching style and I also dig listening to the stories you share with us from your past. just want you to know I appreciate it.
They useta call this "double talk" now it's called being an expert....
JAJAJA 😂😂😂
Aaaand Uncle Tony goes for the deeep dive! Love the theory lessons sir! Funny how the words coming out of your mouth mirror my thoughts as I watch!
Torque is capacity related. Horsepower is a calculation from measured torque. The larger the displacement, the higher the torque capacity. Torque x RPM / 5252 = horsepower. Capacity has everything to do with generating work. The problem for large engines is the capability on the induction side of things. Poor volumetric efficiency is the main culprit of insufficient power production in large displacement naturally-aspirated engines. It stems from inadequate cylinder filling due to small cross-sectional areas and cfm limitations of common induction offerings. It is easier to make smaller displacement engines achieve high horsepower per cubic inch output because proportionally better induction is readily available without going full custom on parts (particularly LS stuff nowadays). Food for thought.
TQ x rpm / 5252 = hp.
Thump Er *edited thanks 👍🏻
I'd like to see a more thorough explanation why more work is not being done as the piston continues to go down, I understand that the intake valve will close at some point but does it really close in the first couple inches of the piston travel, seens like a huge amount of pumping trying to pull a vacuum on a closed cylinder? How do racing engines hit peak V.E. over 100% I always said V.E. was the replacement for displacement.
While true... I still love my 461 stroker pontiac. The increase in compression over the smog 400, and the added induction aided by a bigger cam makes for double the HP that it had made at 400 cubic inches and I'm ok with that.
You get to a certain point where a large bore becomes inefficient because of the time it takes the flame front to travel from the spark plug and then expand throughout the entire combustion chamber. Dual spark plugs on each side of the chamber helps to solve this problem. All NHRA nitro engines have dual plugs for this reason and also because nitro has a slower moving flame front than gasoline. I would think the the combination of perfect bore to stroke ratio for a 500 CI engine (NHRA limit) to produce the most power would be within the design of these engines due to their only function to be to produce nothing but brute power. This is all good stuff to think about and it beats counting sheep when I'm laying there and can't get to sleep.
I never considered that aspect of the actual area in the cylinder do ing work. Big Bore combined with stroke. Better. Now for the math part. working on a boss 429 for speed week. Chasing a Dodge Daytona in Classic Production 238mph about
El Ka Bong! you just blew my friends head up ha ha ha he's a know it all type! THANK YOU!
It's not about the amount of work being done by the engine. It's all about the rate of work or the amount of work within a unit of time. In other words, it's all about (horse-)power. Displacement and torque sells cars, horsepower wins races!
Looks like you are holding the sleeve from a detroit diesel re build kit, 71 series. Very nice explanation of a combustion engines power
stroke. It is quite true what you say, describing the " work " a piston does and when. I got in really big trouble - like as in almost kicked out of the class when i said just about the same thing in auto shop class in high school. Phil saywal god how that man hated me. He was not a true
gear head, he could fix a small engine fine. But an inline six or V-8 not so much of a master. He was explaining firing order and valve opening.
Ten minutes later he said any questions ? I said so it's like hitting piano keys right, as the flame dies and the piston goes down the next in order fires and helps the others down the bore with the bang and momentum it's like playing a song - right? His face slowly turned red and started screaming at me PAY attention that's not what i meant get out go to detention now! Actually it was what he meant he just sucked at explaining it
so i went to detention. I got there and my physics teacher was there with the detention lady. She asked why i was there and who sent me.
I said what i said to Mr saywal in class and why i said it. All i got was an okay sit down. I heard my physics teacher say he's right why is he here?
Mrs smithies shrugged her shoulders and said i don't know. Even she knew. Nothing ever came of it. So four years of hell for an hour after 2nd break, i just made sure i showed up baked so i kept my mouth shut. It gets better. 3 months later he is in the lot cranking and cranking his beater chevy nova it's a no start smells flooded like a river in spring only gas. Gets out and yells at me hey john want make a few points, get this thing running for me. Challenge accepted. Throws the keys at me and goes inside. So i get to it. Key to the auto shop is on the key ring he threw, i go to the shop and open the door flick on the lights and find some tools - i don't have a tool box i walk around with so how else am i going to get them.
Get the tools i think i need from my box and the shitty radio shack volt ohm meter - the kit meter the cheapest one. The one with the blue body that was the same as the black one only 8 dollars more already made.My meter i paid for it. To the car. 12.5 volts enough but low. Reeks of gas
but i pull the pump feed crank it half a turn. gas all over - fuel. Power confirmed. Spark? I check the wires wiggle wiggle. Pull a plug soaked and coated in caked oil. I determine # 1 and two are almost shorted as they both read better than 10 meg ohms each. So i pull all of them and take them to the shop and clean them. Clean the coil feed as it looks like shit. Plugs go in and i start it. It starts rough but the gas clears and runs fine.
I stand next to the car, light a smoke and look at the car running. Less than 5 minutes later Mr saywal walks up and says how did you do that?
He asks after i tell him where did you get the tools, looks at my meter on the fender and says you went in the shop didn't you? He is pissed off again big time. So i say i needed tools i went to the shop i had the key so i used it. Got tools and fixed the car. After hearing i did not say go to the shop and get tools did i! Well how else was going to get them make snow tools! 2nd week of december almost 2 feet of snow on the ground.
He yells away so i grab my meter - i paid for it. And walk away. Where are you going!!! Home, you can put the tools away since i am not supposed
to be in the shop right? I'll see you in the principals office tomorrow morning!! I beat him there next day and talked to the principal first. He says it's no big deal i'll take care of it. I got every shitty or dirty or smelly job in the class for the rest of the year and for the next year as well.
He quit after that year. The new guy was great knew his shit and was cool and low key, i looked forward to the class every day. Too bad i only got 2 good years. Forgive me tony with the backdrop and you holding that sleeve, you looked just Mr saywal. And led me down memory lane.
Thought i'd share. Public school auto shop class in the middle 70's rural western Mass.
Great story, man...and that liner is from a KB Hemi
First time i saw a gm 2stroke bore i was confused by all the holes in the liner.
@@UncleTonysGarage It was a strong flashback, i could almost hear his voice.
Stuff on the walls the toolbox and him snapping the piston skirt against the rod of an old tecumseh lawn mower engine.
Man that guy was a dick, they stand out when you're young. A real good example of how not to be, that stuck i guess.
The sleeve/liner looked close, maybe just a bit smaller. Have a good
@@546dukedodgysgarage2 Me too i thought no way that's gonna seal, what the hell is that for.
This video deserves WAY more than one 👍. Very good explanation!!!!!!
Good description Tony 👍👍🏴
volumetric efficiency is literally a replacement for displacement
Nope, that effect is limited by detonation.
Where do I get one of those don’t fuck with me flags in the background?
Not trying to put words in Utg's mouth but I didn't here the standard why Mopar has an advantage because of it's longer rod motors having more dwell time on tdc where it absorbs more of the power stroke and also doesn't yank the Piston away at high rpms. Seems he values the leverage a short rod has more.
This wasn't about the details of any particular engine, but yes, I absolutely prefer shorter rod ratio engines. Stuck with the long ones on the mopars
I would love to hear your thoughts on 440 to 500cid mopar engines and what choice of cylinder heads specifically what size intake ports for several common hp goals. Give us a recipe for a 600hp, 700hp, 750hp combo at those displacement. The 210cc intake port Eddy heads look like they would be great on a truck motor. What about a 295 to 325cc port on a 440cid with high compression and a solid roller cam around 254 to 260 duration at .050. In a 3400lb car with a 4k converter and 4.10 rears ? 👍in comparison, BBC cylinder head intake ports seem huge vs b/RB stock 190cc ports.
We have both a 383 and a 440 scheduled for future builds, but it may be a while before we actually get to them. The 440 is more or less going to be a dyno mule, so we'll be playing around with heads, intake and cams
If all you do is increase the stroke then yes, you haven't increased the area necessary to produce more force in the bore. Increasing the bore however is an entirely different animal and does increase the amount of force available to produce work. Hence the bigger bore shorter stroke that pro stock racers use.
So, you want a larger bore if possible. A small stroke, large bore engine. Then you’ll have less torque, more working area in the cylinder, and so more horsepower.
You want a balance of bore/stroke and rod length. that's the key to those magic factory combinations like the 302 Ford and 340 Mopar
How about the rest of the cylinder being used to pull in the intake charge? It's being used for that correct?
If you call it quits after 90* then a 4 inch stroke is using 2 inch’s of stroke over the 1.5 of a 3 inch stroke.
And the energy created by combustion does not quit at 90 degrees. If it did the exhaust would be cool.
Yup, and the exhaust valve doesn't start to open until closer to 140* of rotation. But doesn't flow well for a bit longer, and still even at that point the exhaust leaves under a lot of pressure.
This is why I don’t do stroker engines. The engineers who designed those engines originally were pretty smart guys and their work is good enough for rebuilding an engine close to stock.
That's a very very bad way of viewing things.
superkillr lol
Some engines can take some stroke with no detriment. For instance, I have never seen or read anything about anyone having an issue stroking a 302 Ford to 331. it's never "good enough" though for these knobs that got paid ooga booga money in the 90's by know nothing boomers that wanted to relive their youth and had big bucks to throw away to do it and then stuff like "punching the block out to max" and stroking it enough you have to trim the block to allow for the rod travel, oil rings a hair away(or even inside now!) the wrist pin hole on the piston..... Somehow that became "easier" then doing a big block swap. So then we get 347 strokers and the like that end up making a short lived engine with no rebuild potential left in it.
but I guess, better then electric cars hahaha
So how does one increase the “work area” in the cylinder. I know certain folks don’t like short rods cuz it wears the piston and the rings out prematurely. The only other way I can think is moving the wrist pin further up the piston. Any ideas?
It all comes down to how efficiently you can move fuel and air...
Overly simplified given the variables (timing, compression ratio, etc.) but it seems to me like an engine with a larger static measure displacement needs more fuel/airflow just to match the output of a smaller one. Does that make any sense, or I am I nuts?
No, you're correct. You're increasing the pumping volume regardless of the work output
Add stroke and your adding work area. Center of crank not interested in length of rod.
Whooooooooooaaaa! My mind just exploded!!
So then how would you increase the working displacement of an engine?
More to come on this soon
How do you increase the working area? Or does that call for buying a bigger motor all together? What im looking for is bigblock hp and torque but the weight of a small block
This is not a myth. Big Chief can complete on the street with his 481 because the other guys with bigger engines are pulling power out to Big Chiefs level. You put him on a good track such as Lights Out and he is 4 tenths slower than the big cubic inches. When all things are equal, there is no replacement for displacement. Have to disagree with UT on this one.
That was really cool! Thanks!
Thanks Tony!😎👍🏼
Volumetric efficiency
Fat piston - short rod/low gear - tall tire & make it as light as safety will allow - all l know
I love this channel
He's right you know
Back in 1987 I had a 68 Camaro with a 400 SB. Got my ass handed to me one night by a 56 Chevy 210 with a 283.
Engineers call it volumetric efficiency
so how do you battle that? less combustible fuel so it burns further down the cylinder? higher compression?
It's not a battle, it's a challenge. Too many ways to skin that cat for a short answer here in the comments. We'll be doing more vids on this in the near future
So what happens if you keep the exact same bore, and exact same stroke but you lengthen the rod and raise the pin in the piston?
Less friction because the rod angle is decreased and a lighter piston because there's less structure needed. But also a hotter piston because there's less mass and surface area. And taken too far a weaker piston because the face and ring lands are thinner. As well as less capable rings because they're both thinner and overlap the pin.
So uncle Tony does that make over square engines better in your opinion for a naturally aspirated application? As to the under square engines used in top fuel?
Generally, yes
You should do a live stream to talk about it some more 👍
So you're saying a 454 chevy takes a 454 ci to combust?
I love this guy!
God I love this channel
Great point, Uncle Tony! 👍
UTG 4 LIFE!!!
Thanks, now my head hurts, haha.
Dammit
I am gonna lay in bed all night and think about it.
Sure you can get tons of HP out of a smaller displacement engine but that torque tho..........
This why the Aliens keep landing here for help UT And DV.
Dont fuk up with me super bee.
You bring up the legitimate (and interesting!) question of how a dragster with a 500ci motor can hang with a dragster with an 800ci motor. But then your explanation doesn't really address the original question. I think Harry Ricardo, analyzing aircraft engines around the beginning of WWII (maybe wrong person and/or time), observed that many people incorrectly believed the "myth of engine displacement", that it was the primary factor affecting engine power. He said that the power output of the aircraft engines of the day was determined by the compressor efficiency of the superchargers more than anything else. I think this might be the exact same situation with big-cube supercharged V8s. If the blower can efficiently cram about the same mass of air into the 500ci engine that the supercharger on the 800ci engine can push, you might end up with about the same power.
Peak power that is. Those engines in those world war 2 planes where huge. P51 had a 27 liter i believe. I think theres a reason they went that big when they probably could have went smaller and thats probably attributed to reliability. Less supercharger boost needed= less heat and stress and bigger engine doesnt need to turn as much rpm to make same horse. Theres drag racing engines that make as much horse as one of those giant motors but they would never stay together nearly long enough from all that boost and rpm they need from being MUCH smaller
I just run six cylinders, that way I never have to worry about going fast.
Interesting stuff. Hopefully this isn't a stupid question. Would a significantly oversquare engine, with direct fuel injection (so the piston gets help drawing sufficient mixture into the cylinder) be better for any given displacement?
Y'know, I'd have to think about that.
Not sure how D.I. would help. The engine still has to draw in the same amount, whether it's straight air or mixed air/fuel. The mass of the fuel doesn't seem like it would make a significant difference, and the fuel still has to be in proportion to the air that's drawn in, so you can't increase that without increasing the air.
Blew my mind! Thank you
Two strokes are cool.
That's some heavy shit.