Athol <athol_SPIT_SPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.
I think you've justified 3-cylinder, 2-stroke engines. There used to
be a lot of them about.
Hang on; that's less the four cylinders.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Great minds discuss ideas;
X against HTML mail | Average minds discuss events;
/ \ and postings | Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor
Roosevelt
|
