Author | Topic |

Location: Newcastle
Registered: August 2003
|
More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 01:37
|
 |
More capacity = more torque (usually)....
Can someone give me an engineering/scientific reasoning to this idea. As how exacly does the capacity work in supplying higher level of torque than a smaller capacity engine.
I have kind of wanted to always know exactly why and be able to word it.
|
|
|

Location: Adelaide
Registered: June 2003
|
|
|

Location: Newcastle NSW
Registered: June 2002
|
|
|

Location: Adelaide
Registered: June 2003
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 02:56

|
 |
oops, damn memory, i new it was one way or the other
|
|
|

Location: Newcastle
Registered: August 2003
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 03:07

|
 |
Thanks, that does help.
|
|
|

Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 03:07

|
 |
ok...
hmmmmm.. 
as metallurgists always say "it depends" 
there are a couple of things to understand when it comes to this.
i am going to assume you know how piston and crank are connected and related?
startign with the crank. the length of the stroke does more than just increase capacity. when the piston is halfway up the bore, the big end is on the same horizontal plane as the crank centreline, and the distance between them is the maximum moment arm of the conrod onto the crank.
________|Rod_|
ie_______|____|_____crank
________|____|________________
________/____|________________\
________|_*__|______________*_|
________\____|________________/
__________|<----------------------->|
_______________moment arm
if you increase the moment arm of the rod acting on the crank, even with the same force pusing on the rod, you will increase torque, from torque = force x distance
TQ = F x d
so if you increase the stroke of a motor (but somehow keep the force pushing on the rod equal) you will have more torque.
now for the the piston (bore), and a set stroke (ie set crank radius/diameter). for a given setup, ie NA, or a set boost level, and assuming perfect tuning and timing etc, the combustion pressure can be assumed to be fixed.
this means that the force per unit area (ie N/cm^2, or lbs/in^2 (Psi)) will also be fixed, since it is a gas pressure working against a solid surface. F = pressure x area, F = P x A
if you increases the area of this surface, ie increase the bore size, then although the force per unit area stays the same, the area increases, so the actual force of the piston onto the rod increases.
now you put them together, TQ = P x A x d
where TQ = torque at crank,
P = combustion pressure
A = area of piston = Pi x (bore/2)^2
d = crank radius = (stroke/2)
SO.....
Torque = combustion pressure x Pi x (stroke/2) x (bore/2)^2
or
Torque = combustion pressure x (Pi/8) x stroke x bore^2 (A)
as you can see, increasing either bore or stroke will increase torque.
thats about as basic a scientific way to explain it. stroke inscreases carnk moment arm, bore increases force on rod..
it gets difficult when comparing same capacity but different dimensions, BUT from equation (A), you can see that increasing bore has a larger effect (since it is squared), compared to stroke, depends on the tradeoff between bore and stroke.
we can do another substitution,
where capacity = stroke x Pi x (bore/2)^2
ie stroke = capacity x 4 / (Pi x (bore^2))
and bore^2 = capacity x 4 / (Pi x stroke)
so (A) becomes (with either substitution)
Torque = (capacity x combustion pressure) / 2 (A)
and so you can easily see that, regardless of the bore and stroke combination, torque is directly proportional to capacity, so increasing capacity will increase torque.
you will also see that increasing combustion pressure (using boost, CR etc) will also increase torque in direct proportions.
you can use a very basic estimation when working out how much torque you can get from a motor.
if it is 'well developed' but not 'race developed' you can expect a maximum of 100Nm/L per atmosphere of manifold absolute pressure.
this means that for NA, manifold pressure is 1atm and so you get 100Nm/L
for a turbo motor with 1 bar boost over atmospheric, the manifold pressure is 2 bar, and so you should expect 200Nm/L
this gets a little complicated when you think about rod length and timing etc, since most work is done when the piston is near TDC, and maybe the first 60 degrees of crank movement?? by the time the crank has turned 90 degrees, the pressure in the cylinder is way down, and does little work.
increasing rod length, with a given capacity, will increase torque apparently, by increasing the time that the piston is near TDC (so the force on the rod is still high), but the crank is turning, so you get slightly more force at a given crank angle, increasing torque...
phew..
hope this helps... i'm going back to my thesis 
Cya, Stewart
[Updated on: Wed, 14 April 2004 03:18]
|
|
|

Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 03:27

|
 |
i realise the above analysis assumes maximum combustion chamber pressure when piston is halfway down bore, but to adjust for that you just need a fudge factor... oops.. "proportionality constant" 
the crank moment arm will be much smaller, and the combustion pressure will be a bit lower, but the equation still stands.
Torque = constant x (capacity x combustion pressure)

Cya, Stewart
|
|
|

Location: Northwestern Sydney
Registered: August 2002
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 06:06

|
 |
summerised
bigger bang - more torque
|
|
|

Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 06:31

|
 |
Lambolica wrote on Wed, 14 April 2004 16:06 | summerised
bigger bang - more torque
|
well... he asked for engineering/scientific reasoning
ppl say lots of things, but do not often back it up with actual numbers 
for a comparison, look at the 1ZZ and 2ZZ motors, if they had similar head design and similar level of tuning, they would make same torque, just in different rpm range.
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|

Location: Northwestern Sydney
Registered: August 2002
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 07:25

|
 |
Yeah sorry that was a question..
My way of thinking (possibly hugely flawed) as that more fuel, more oxygen = bigger bang = more torque
engine bore and stroke is more of a way of controlling the big bang as efficently as possible.
I mean i don't think you'll see a 1600cc pulling 800+ Nm
and by the same token you won't see a V8 pulling 100- Nm
That's flawed
I'm going back to my corner now------>
|
|
|

Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 07:56

|
 |
LOL
sorry, i thought you were just summarising my description 
you are right in thinking more fuel + more air = bigger bang.. in terms of there being more heat and more volume of gas, but it's how that is used...
fromt he eqns above, you assume 100% efficiency, and if you have same piston size with longer stroke (more capacity) you get more bang and more torque.
also if you increase bore size, but keep stroke the same, you get more capacity and more torque.
but the bang itself is the same, ie the combustion pressure will be the same.
1600cc pulling 800Nm = only 4 bar boost.... if you actually get 4 bar boost into the cylinders of a 1.6L, it WILL make around 800Nm.. scary huh...
a 5L V8 pulling 100Nm is only abotu 20% efficiency...you'd prolly need a daihatsu carb to restrict it to that 
Cya,S tewart
|
|
|

Location: Melbourne
Registered: May 2002
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 08:00

|
 |
I think you will find the answer to your question is such. If you think of an engine as a air pump, the more air you can pump, the more power you can make. Considering that torque is a measurement of engine power relative to rpm, you would make the following hypothisis. The larger the motor the more air you can push at a given rpm, hence the more power can be made than a smaller capacity motor working at the same rpm. If you then consider how torque is relative to power and rpm, you then soon find out the more power you can make at a given rpm the more torque there is present.
|
|
|

Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 08:10

|
 |
fattony,
yu are kinda right, but...
power is only limited by rpm.
torque is limited by the physical restrictions of the engine, and the eqns above. there is only so much torque that can be made.
power is measured by measuring torque, and then calculating power... power is not measured directly.
but you are also correct in that a small motr and large motor pushing same amount of air will have same power..
but the question was about torque.
now power...... don;t get me started 
what torque comes down to is the physical size of the components and the angles at which they work, and the combustion pressure. nothing more, nothing less...
as i derived, torque is directly proportional to capacity..
if you don't believe me, look up the specs of as many NEW motors as you can find... they will all approach 100Nm/L (excepting some high rpm bike and car motors, such as the latest yamaha and kwaka 1L, and ferrari/lambo, as these have higher VE's)
the BEAMS 3SGE (2L, 200Nm)
2ZZGE (1.8L, 180Nm)
honduh S2000 (2L, 200Nm)
Ford BOSS 290 (5.4L, 520Nm)
etc etc.
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|

Location: tas
Registered: June 2002
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 11:46

|
 |
That's interesting.
I checked out the 7mgte specs for my supra. As you may know it's a 3.0 litre engine (2954 cc's or there abouts)
and it's torque is 254ft-lbs.
Why isn't it more like 295ft-lbs? could it be becuase the engine is an older design and they weren't as effecient back then? (couldn't reach 100Nm/L)
|
|
|

Location: Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered: January 2003
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 12:01

|
 |
dingaling wrote on Wed, 14 April 2004 21:46 | That's interesting.
I checked out the 7mgte specs for my supra. As you may know it's a 3.0 litre engine (2954 cc's or there abouts)
and it's torque is 254ft-lbs.
Why isn't it more like 295ft-lbs? could it be becuase the engine is an older design and they weren't as effecient back then? (couldn't reach 100Nm/L)
|
the conversion from ft-lbs to Nm is
1ft-lb = 1.34Nm
254ft-lbs is 340Nm. what is stock boost?
guessing at around 80% efficiency, i'd be estimating that stock boost would be around 6-7psi?
how's that sit with the stock specs?
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|

Location: tas
Registered: June 2002
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 12:10

|
 |
I'm a stupid idiot.
It just hit me that i was quoting ft-lbs, and you were quoting Nm.
i was hoping i was quick enough to load up toymods and edit my reply
but it's too late. and your right about the boost.
(smart bastard )
|
|
|

I supported Toymods
Location: melbourne
Registered: June 2002
|
Re: More capacity = more torque.... Engineering/sci reasoning?
|
Wed, 14 April 2004 12:45
|
 |
as far as i have always understood,
a "square" engine has bore = stroke (clevland 351 for example)
an "undersquare" engine has stroke distance greater than bore diameter (engine in TX3 laser for example)
an "oversquare" engine has bore diameter greater than stroke distance (the mighty 4AGE for example)
|
|
|