ok i'm out of this, but just one question

are you two the same person or do you just sleep with each other? if there is such a huge knowledge base among you why are you even here trying to debate nits and picks? lame.

come with this hostile attitude and even though there IS TRUTH, you just wanna exude your narrowminded dominance over this--now-- totally ridiculous conversation/debate/flamefest that i don't wanna be apart of because you're jackasses.

 

I'm confused. All I know is that he knows his stuff (not that others, including yourself, don't). I was merely trying to point out that he isn't some 16 year old kid pounding away on a keyboard somewhere.

He has gotten in very technical arguments on here before, only to have the other person capitulate in the end. That's all I'm trying to say

 

point 2 in my previous post mentions this

 

reading and identification owns you... just stop typing... you misrepresent everything you're trying to say and you don't even bother to go back and edit it or clarify... just stop.

 

Homemade and friend keep talking about adjusting compression height to accommodate longer rod, but that alone introduces changes in the piston (point 2 earlier post). In addition there are again tradeoffs to narrowing up ring packaging and/or moving the pin up. This is on top of changes to rod also listed earlier.

There is no way to hold all else constant to conduct a pure rod ratio to rod ratio test. It has never been done before.

There is little use discussing anything anymore now that namecalling has begun. Can't discuss anything rationally or objectively with emotional people who do not want to stick to the points.

 

if you cant take the heat stay out of the kitchen...

this was a thread to find knowledge if you hadnt challenged and approached my friend like you did he wouldnt have to run circles around you. believe me ill be the first to admit i dont know anything about this...im a novice looking for the knowledge and so i posted...he has the knowledge and helped me with this thread. if u feel so overwhelmed go away, i dont need this debauchery.

also another friend was posting on my name...so if anything intelligent was said on my account name it wasnt by me.

 

thank you very much. I really appreciate that.

 

true, that the rings will have to be narrowed up as the pin would have to be moved up...much like the 2.3L stroker though...so that would be a negated point correct in comparing pro's and con's of the stroker vs. long rod was the indended point of the thread or so I have taken it to be.
I don't want to keep ALL others as constants but to see the gains of the rod change in the 2.0 between stock and long rod. As obvisouly to see the changes you would have to change the tune as well (not keeping all things the same). Of course they can't all be kept the same as things as simple as port velocities (therefore pressure, think choke) would change. Not the inteneded point of the thread I percieve.
I don't know who is getting emotional and if I called a name I do appologize...I would like to continue the discussion as in college doing Formula SAE I became accustomed to proving a design point by being questioned by other engineers/designers much like in my job at NASA...makes one stretch their own thoughts and reasoning.

My whole reason for questoining/responding in the thread.

-Micah


p.s. Shaun you didn't answer about how the stroker kit and the manifold pressure ratio bits came along...I'm curious, please drop me a PM if you could.

 

FWIW, I'm presently assembling a long rod 2.0. I'm not expecting anything truly tangible in the way of impoved power, but given the rpm range where I'm looking to maximize efficiency, it seems like a viable route.


One change that would be challenging to neutralize is the difference in piston position with respect to cam lobe position. A change in cam timing (LC and LSA at least) would be required to minimize the difference.

Since the subject of rod/stroke ratio is being discussed here, here are a few examples that I've compiled:

2.6L Nissan Skyline – 1.41
Ford 2.5L SOHC truck - 1.49
2.3L (stroker) 4G63 - 1.5
Chevy 454 V8 - 1.53
2.4L 4G64 - 1.56
Chevy 427 V8 - 1.63
Chevy 350 V8 - 1.64
2.5L WRX STI - 1.65
3.0L Supra Turbo – 1.65
2.2L (late) Honda S2000 - 1.65
Ford 2.3L SOHC turbo - 1.66
2.0L 4G63 - 1.7
Ford 5.0L V8 – 1.7
2.0L JDM WRX STI - 1.74
2.1L 4G64 - 1.77
2.0L (early) Honda S2000 - 1.82
VW 2.8L VR6 – 1.82
Ford Taurus SHO V6 - 1.83
Chevy 302 (early Z28) - 1.9
Asiatech V10 3.0L F1 engine - 2.3

 

basically all I would be looking for...better efficiency, more capability for higher boost, more NA power (out of boost/light around town power), capability of higher RPM (potentially more power with given improved efficiency) and better gas mileage (see around town driving)

not making a monster...if that were the case I would use a a 4G64 as it has more room to play with

 

Great compilation! What stands out to me is the performance potential of both ends of the spectrum. The RB26DETT is known to be able to reliably handle a ton of power on the stock bottom end, as well as rev pretty high. On the other end is the 302, a la the 1969 Camaro Z-28. Basically a built road racing engine homologated to street use so that Chevy could use them in their race cars in the Trans Am series, I believe it was. Arguably one of the best engines of the era. Could rev higher than many of today's 4 and 6 cylinders . . .

Seems like generally as you work your way up the list you move from more 'torque monsters' to more 'high strung' engines.

 

It sounds like you're looking for better everything. FWIW, if better low rpm efficiency is desired, lengthening the rod would seem to be going in the wrong direction.


That's true in general. I don't know the actual design history of the Nissan engine, but I was surprised to see that it used such a short rod. Nevertheless, the list does provide some basis for perspective.

 

Wow, I was convinced you could just give it like 60 degrees of timing and get more horsepower. What a mind blow.

First of all I am well aware of the causes and effects of detonation and residual heat in the combustion chamber. Using coatings, polishing the piston and head, smoothing out valve reliefs, running the right spark plugs, you do it to fight hot spots, which can cause preignition.
Secondly, residual heat has to do with the physical design, not timing, so I dont know why you started blabbing about that. You were talking about having a longer dwell around tdc being good because you dont have to ignite the charge as early. If your piston isn't hanging around tdc as long you can get away with earlier timing.

 

please explain...as it has less rotational resistance and friction...and for mass well, haven't weighed out the slightly longer rod and the shorter pistons...so minimal weight gain there...


+1 for being shocked by how short the RB26's rod ratio is...

 

The shorter rod quickens piston acceleration from TDC. This gets the air column moving more quickly at low piston speeds, which improves filling of the cylinder and increases VE. Naturally, there are other factors that influence this, but that is the crux of it.