the_dawggie <the_dawggie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 8 cylinder engines don' t really
> make sense.
They do, actually.
> Four is enough,
Four or less is seriously compromised. The end of one cylinder's
effective power output (where there's not enough pressure to keep
pu****ng the crank around) occurs before BDC. The next cylinder's
power starts around TDC. With a 4-cyl, that means that the engine
coasts between power from one cylinder ending and the next starting,
*every time*. Achieving overlap between power output from one
cylinder to the next to make more effective and efficient maximum
power is achieved by having enough cylinders to avoid the coasting
in between.
4-cyl engines are, by definition, inherently poorly balanced and
rough *economy* engines.
> make them large, and turbo
> the engine. And use a diesel
> engine, or did I say that.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it will never be true.
> Straight 6 turbo diesels kick arse too.
Tell that to the owner of a Bedford 500ci factory turbo engine. :-)
--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
|
