Bernd Felsche wrote:
> 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.
BMW, DKW, SAAB and a others. 50% more power strokes per revlution than
a 4 cyl.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
