How does cid make power?

-
The length of the stroke, size of the bore, the speed in which air enters in, and the speed in which the air leaves, the air/fuel ratio, and the heat of the spark, and the number of cylinders, determines how much power an engine makes.
 
I'm waiting for someone to prove you right, still waiting :)

Make a direct question without rewording, mis wording or twisting the words, purposefully or not.

While no one has posted a disagreement, it may exist.
But you’ll get your answer.

Does theory get you 100% of the way no but it's always s good starting point.
Agreed with that. Gotta start thinking somewhere.
It’s just bad to assume and answer as fact with only that behind the answer. If you do, it should be stated as something like, “It’s theoretically —-“ or I’m thinking theoretically —— I normally say “*I Think*” and I’ll say my close friend did this, and bet you bottom dollar it’s a fact. But not use or answer something with “Some guy at the track….” Or other non reliable source.
 
The length of the stroke, size of the bore, the speed in which air enters in, and the speed in which the air leaves, the air/fuel ratio, and the heat of the spark, and the number of cylinders, determines how much power an engine makes.
Hmm, I was gonna be a Smart-*** and ask some questions, like " what about rod ratio, ect, BUT you kinda Simply covered That in the "Speed in, Speed Out" deal... pretty cool, extremely simple explanation. Now the Fork?
 
On that level, yes, but when you watch the episode and how they word it…. There question is basically IIRC, “500hp, how do you want it?”
And that’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
That’s a bad example. How do you compare two engines which have a huge difference in bore spacing? You can’t.

As I posted earlier, you have to compare engines with similar architecture. Otherwise you’ve wasted your time and didn’t learn a thing.
 
11103034_877564342309225_3681940487520857639_n.jpg
 
On that level, yes, but when you watch the episode and how they word it…. There question is basically IIRC, “500hp, how do you want it?”
And that’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.


I get it. I watched that episode. Me, because I’m wired that way, I take the 500 hp with the RPM all day long.

With what we have today, 8k RPM is literally 6k 35 or even 30 years ago.
 
Fuel, gasoline for these motors, has a BTU/lb rating of 11,500-13,000 typically. BTU/hr is a unit of power, readily converted to horsepower: 1 hp = 2,544.4 BTU/hr.

The more fuel you can get in the motor, the more power you can get out (to the limit of efficiency for the particular motor). You need air to burn the fuel, which is where air to fuel ratio comes in. You’ve probably heard numbers like 12.8, which simply means 12.8 parts air to one part fuel.

The more cubic inches displacement, the more fuel and air can be burned. Some of the examples being thrown around comparing 440 ratings are simply a difference in volumetric efficiency of the motor. A well built small block will out power a crappy big block all day, because the small block is extracting the energy from the fuel better than the big block. If the same design parameters were applied to the build of the big block it would win, simply because it has more fuel going through it.

In this regard, it is easier to burn more fuel with less build effort from a big block.

Let’s do 500hp
That takes 1,272,217 BTU/hr of fuel. If we use good gas with 13,000 BTU/lb energy, we need 97.9 lb/hr…but that’s at 100% thermal efficiency. A gasoline engine is closer to the low 30s percentage wise for thermal efficiency. So at 35% thermal efficiency we need 279.6 lb/hr fuel flow. At 12.8:1 AFR we then need 3,579 lb of air which ends up at 739 CFM. That is a 340 at 7,512 rpm, or a 440 at 5,805 rpm…or for the earlier example, 100 cid at 25,541 rpm. And those are at 100% volumetric efficiency…I’m done doing math and don’t feel the need to give examples of higher or lower values there.

Which one sounds easier to build?

Good summary.

I'd simplify it thusly:
Engines run on expanded air. Burning fuel expands the air. Not all the heat from the burnt fuel turns to power that's why exhausts are hot.

Torque is based on how much expansion you can get and is a function of rod throw and piston area (diameter) and total expansion (roughly related to compression and time).

Horsepower is how fast you can get through the power cycles.

If the head flows ****, you'll still make torque (maybe more because the air expands for longer since it can't get out) but you can't exchange the air and so can't rpm and thus **** hp.

Flow is dictated by engine architecture as RB says. Some architectures can't support enough valve, or port, or compression, etc due various constraints. Take two engines of the same displacement, and both will make similar PEAK torque numbers, but the one which flows more at the RIGHT time will keep making torque as the revs increase and thus make POWER.

When it comes to flow, there's a practical limit to what can be done with poppet valves. Airplane engine mfgs knew this decades ago. Go look up sleeve valve engines from the 40s and prepare to have your minds blown.
 
Good summary.

I'd simplify it thusly:
Engines run on expanded air. Burning fuel expands the air. Not all the heat from the burnt fuel turns to power that's why exhausts are hot.

Torque is based on how much expansion you can get and is a function of rod throw and piston area (diameter) and total expansion (roughly related to compression and time).

Horsepower is how fast you can get through the power cycles.

If the head flows ****, you'll still make torque (maybe more because the air expands for longer since it can't get out) but you can't exchange the air and so can't rpm and thus **** hp.

Flow is dictated by engine architecture as RB says. Some architectures can't support enough valve, or port, or compression, etc due various constraints. Take two engines of the same displacement, and both will make similar PEAK torque numbers, but the one which flows more at the RIGHT time will keep making torque as the revs increase and thus make POWER.

When it comes to flow, there's a practical limit to what can be done with poppet valves. Airplane engine mfgs knew this decades ago. Go look up sleeve valve engines from the 40s and prepare to have your minds blown.


/thread
 
In some case your limiting the two engines by the same top end. If you increase the displacement then be an equal percentage you should increase everything else to match.

On a twin bore size engine, the stroke makes different displacements. What are we talking about here?
A .040 inch over 360 vs a 040 hour ver 360 w/ 4 inch stroke?

Engine masters did this test. The stroker made huge torque over the 360 and at the max power output, only a few hundred rpm’s down, just a couple of hp.

I think the episode was “Stock vs stroked.”

And if you line up the power curves both from the peak like you would with proper gearing this the actual hp ish difference from what i can see.


410 3000=250 3500=310 4000=365 4500=399 5000=420 5500=431hp
360 3300=252 3800=315 4300=360 4800=399 5300=418 5800=423hp

Cid, lbs-ft, 1st rear , torque to tires
410 480 2.45 x 3.73 = 4386 lbs-ft
360 444 2.44 x 3.91 = 4253 lbs-ft

To me shows No real gain, this is what i've been basically saying with increased displacement it just works out even or it should. Obviously this is just one build not overall proof.
 
Last edited:
Make a direct question without rewording, mis wording or twisting the words, purposefully or not.
You say this, I've been pretty consistent over the years with this train of thought, if I'm coming off this way not trying on purpose,
 
You say this, I've been pretty consistent over the years with this train of thought, if I'm coming off this way not trying on purpose,
I don’t mean to have this come off as rude or assuming but just saying deliver the question and if it’s what I said, keep it straight.
 
Why is that a bad example? Why do you have to use similar architecture? The example shows why a bigger stroke gives more torque,and therefore more horsepower at a given rpm.
Would a comparably built 302 versus a 383 be a better example for you? I guarantee the 383 wins.....


383 what? A 302 will make as power as a 383, it will just do it at a higher RPM. No magic there.

Comparing a small block 383 to a big block 383 is a bad comparison. Only people who have to say CID and/or torque does it all make that argument.


Bore spacing is HUGE deal.
 
383 what? A 302 will make as power as a 383, it will just do it at a higher RPM. No magic there.

Comparing a small block 383 to a big block 383 is a bad comparison. Only people who have to say CID and/or torque does it all make that argument.


Bore spacing is HUGE deal.
But the 383 will make more torque, be much more tractable on the street, won't need as much rear gear, and just be a more pleasant engine, OR, it can be built with proportionately bigger parts and make more power than the 302 can, without having to use stratospheric rpm. (Speaking of small block chevies as example)
The 383 will beat the 302 for all the same reasons the 454 beat the 383 for engine masters.
 
Remember when you were 10 riding motorcycles?Bigger engine = more power.

“how exactly does a positrack rear end on a Plymouth work? It just does”

whys a tree good?
why are boobs good?
 
Remember when you were 10 riding motorcycles?Bigger engine = more power.

“how exactly does a positrack rear end on a Plymouth work? It just does”

whys a tree good?
why are boobs good?
I remember..,,,

6FD0E826-5C32-4396-BF6E-441EFE6532FD.jpeg
 
Why is that ? Cause it dictates bore size and that dictates valve size etc...

It also constrains what's possible with regard to port size, location, shape...
All of those control flow, which in turns controls hp potential.
 
...... if cylinder head flow and camshaft is compatible. (and boost and rpm are a perfectly adequate replacement! )Displacement ain't dick without a cam and cylinder heads to go with it.
Check out mid war years airplane engines. Land speed record holder- two 22 1/2 liter engines, that's almost 2800cu inches, 900hp total.
Or the Liberty aircraft engine. 1650 cubes, 400hp.
Land speed record holder with THREE of them ran only 207, and managed to kill the replacement driver.
How Bout the Rolls Royce Merlin?
 
I know a guy like the OP. He busies himself pondering things like this.
He once wanted to discuss the subject of sprinklers and how a model with a finer spray pattern may be detrimental due to the water droplets being so small, they might be lost to evaporation rather than watering the lawn.
Bring a subject like this up to a woman and you'll get a look like this:

1 wife face.png


In short, an engine is like an air pump. The more air that goes in, the more power that it can potentially make.
A 426 Hemi makes about 423 more HP than a Briggs and Stratton lawnmower because it moves a tremendous amount of air by comparison.
 
I know a guy like the OP. He busies himself pondering things like this.
He once wanted to discuss the subject of sprinklers and how a model with a finer spray pattern may be detrimental due to the water droplets being so small, they might be lost to evaporation rather than watering the lawn.
Bring a subject like this up to a woman and you'll get a look like this:

View attachment 1715975902

In short, an engine is like an air pump. The more air that goes in, the more power that it can potentially make.
A 426 Hemi makes about 423 more HP than a Briggs and Stratton lawnmower because it moves a tremendous amount of air by comparison.
Nice Look! Lol, well, in retrospect, just fer fun, down here, it's Hot Enough, to evap said drops, problem is, it's so damn Humid, the drops Will Collect more water, possibly injuring passersby
 
Not the First Several editions! How did we end up getting this thread so sideways already? The 885 hp was the first. Don't get me wrong, I dig it! Dino Eating Fire Breathing Monsters!

Also look at the rpm where the hp was made! Way down low.
 
Yeah Man, Beasts! Some , in the 50s were turning over 2,000 Hp!. But I think I've gotten us way off topic! Lol. Darn Covid Fog/ Bronchitis crap. Sorry, Y'all.
More like 4000hp in an unlimited hydroplane. And we did go a bit sideways.
(Check out Beast of Turin, on you tube. Fiat land speed car. 1,730 cu. In. Four banger)
 
-
Back
Top