Popular Hot Rodding
Click here to find out more!

displacements replacements

  
Popular Hot Rodding
Item Posts    Sort Order

displacements replacements

 
ddemello ddemello
New User | Posts: 1 | Joined: 01/14
Posted: 01/14/14
08:02 AM

about 100 years ago... early internal combustion engineers could not get a handle on the combustion process, burning low octane gasoline [and refusing to burn high octane alcohol] while also using iron pistons. they were forced to rely on low compression ratios, with the pistons way down the hole!! the engines were NOT efficient, and did not make good power to displacement ratios.they wanted more power from the small engines they were using, and so the american way of life [more is better]was born, larger displacements came into existence. but that was a century or more ago, and this is now. high oxygen bearing fuels [nitromethane and ethyl normal propyl nitrate] make small engines EXTREMELY powerful. high flow cylinder heads [the 6-valve romanelli namely] superior combustion chambers, high net cylinder pressures , artificial atmosphere induction, aka blowers, turbos, nitrous oxide injection AND high crankshaft speeds in fact are true replacements for displacements large, especially when combined with multi speed transmissions. so while a cute phrase, , like the century old NEED for it , no replacement for displacement IS archaic obsolence.  

tuffnuff tuffnuff
Moderator | Posts: 22 | Joined: 12/10
Posted: 02/07/14
02:55 PM

Icon Quoteddemello:
about 100 years ago... early internal combustion engineers could not get a handle on the combustion process, burning low octane gasoline [and refusing to burn high octane alcohol] while also using iron pistons. they were forced to rely on low compression ratios, with the pistons way down the hole!! the engines were NOT efficient, and did not make good power to displacement ratios.they wanted more power from the small engines they were using, and so the american way of life [more is better]was born, larger displacements came into existence. but that was a century or more ago, and this is now. high oxygen bearing fuels [nitromethane and ethyl normal propyl nitrate] make small engines EXTREMELY powerful. high flow cylinder heads [the 6-valve romanelli namely] superior combustion chambers, high net cylinder pressures , artificial atmosphere induction, aka blowers, turbos, nitrous oxide injection AND high crankshaft speeds in fact are true replacements for displacements large, especially when combined with multi speed transmissions. so while a cute phrase, , like the century old NEED for it , no replacement for displacement IS archaic obsolence.

A normally aspirated engine at sea level ingests air/fuel at 14.7 pounds per square inch.,. "your artificial atmosphere induction" raises the air/fuel pressure, proportionate to boost.
For example if your turbo develops 14.7 pounds of pressure, you are doubling the engine's displacement.,. so a 5 litre engine becomes a 10 litre engine @ 14.7 pounds  of "artificial atmosphere" and that is a fact.
THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT,,,, if this were not true, then every aircraft carrier would sail on small engines.,. but the fact is that the massive engines devour one gallon of fuel, for every 6 inches of forward motion.

Smile  
When The Flag Drops.,.

tuffnuff

The Bull ***t Stops.,.
tuffnuff

P. Engineer, Engine Builder

jeff beezley jeff beezley
New User | Posts: 1 | Joined: 02/14
Posted: 02/10/14
06:45 PM

archaic obsolence? that's funny and definitely open to debate! Not that im against smaller motors because your theory and facts are correct however if you apply those facts toward a motor with cubic inches you begin to realize even 100 years ago they had it figured out. However,todays technology has surpassed any expectations of 100 year knowledge and technology but I can tell you from experiencing both that even 100 years ago the cubic inch rule still stands true today and the funny thing is its cubic inches with todays technology constantly setting new world records!!!