That's not really true. A greater stroke will limit max rpm and I think that fact has lead to your misconception.virus77 wrote:its seems like its bored out its ******* so torque wouldnt increase too much, stroking the motor increases torque.
Formula for torque produced by an engine P*L*A*Nvirus77 wrote:its seems like its bored out its ******* so torque wouldnt increase too much, stroking the motor increases torque.
I think you're wrong. I was talking about the greater piston speeds due to a greater stroke. The piston speed will not change by changing the rod length. Let's say I want a 120mm stroke. Just increase the length of the rod and I can still rev to 8k right? No, the piston is moving so fast the kinetic energy will overload compressive/tensional forces of the rods.PROJECTRB240SX wrote:A GREATER STROKE DOESN'T LIMIT RPM.... YOUR ROD TO STROKE RATIO LIMITS MAXIMUM RPM. IF YOU CAN INCREASE THE LENGTH OF YOUR ROD WHILE YOU ARE STROKING THE ENGINE YOU WILL RETAIN YOUR REV CAPABILITIES. ROTATIONAL MASS IS ALSO A MAJOR LIMITER OF RPM LIMIT.
that is why people sometimes in heavily stroked cars that still owuld like to have a decently high reving motor do what is called block plateing. you add hight to the deck of the block by using a plate. not easy to do since then you have to resleeve if its an uluminum block, you have to deal with problems associated with welding an aluminum plate onto an aluminum block that affects the combustion chamber. but when done right it works really wellRMiller wrote:I think you're wrong. I was talking about the greater piston speeds due to a greater stroke. The piston speed will not change by changing the rod length. Let's say I want a 120mm stroke. Just increase the length of the rod and I can still rev to 8k right? No, the piston is moving so fast the kinetic energy will overload compressive/tensional forces of the rods.
so, round 2286.78 and it become a 2.3 I think it would be good for high boost because, wouldn't it thinnin the sleeves? just wonderin. correct if wrong.PROJECTRB240SX wrote:BTW I WAS DOING THE MATH....A 92MM BORE WITH THE STOCK 86MM STROKE WILL NOT YEILD A 2.4L, ITS ONLY 2286.78CC.