The Myth Of Engine Displacement
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- The entire car culture is obsessed with cubic inches (CC's Liters, etc) but in reality the way we measure engines has little to do with their capacity to generate work. Here's why...
*MERCHANDISE:
Get Your UTG T-Shirts Here: uncletonysgara...
Get Your UTG Stickers Here: uncletonysgara...
*SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook: / uncletonysgarage1
Instagram: / uncle_tonys_garage
*WEBSITE: uncletonysgara...
"No replacement for displacement" does flow off the lips a lot smoother than "There's no replacement for displacement, traction, air/fuel mixture, power to weight ratio, head flow, cam profile, stall speed, tire compound, and reaction time." And go fast stripes. Got to have the go fast stripes.
If those little rc car engines could be extrapolated ...haha wow.
I'm no expert , but .21 or .25 cubic inches putting out like 1.5hp is pretty hot.
No turbo or power adder , other than a nitro blend.
I'll take 800 cubes of that🤣
@@MrTheHillfolk That would be sweet, I imagine the reason we don't have many full sized engines with a power to displacement ratio like that is material based, due to how the materials react with heat in bigger sizes not proportions.
Don't forget chrome.
Don't forget The "power loops" on the coil primary wires....good for AT LEAST 2 HP.
Hillfolk...The MATH is where ya get power...rc engines spin ALOT faster, because they are smaller....Those crazy RPMs is what produces the final total.
Turn off the sound and Uncle Tony is teaching sex ed
Even better if you only turn the sound on in the last 5 seconds or so.
RossRacing64 “Lay in bed and think about it all night” 🤣
Yeah that was a lot of fist pumping in that poor cylinder!!!😂😂😂
Angle is torque
“The Adult Toys from Dodge”
Man, how can one man be so knowledgeable about something and be so willing to share it at no cost? You definitely are an anomaly Uncle Tony and you're a blessing to the car community!
It used to belikethiseverywhere. Everyone sucks nowadays. Tony is a numbers matching classic. It's why im here.
This is how it used to be! This was everyone!
In the 90's, when the elite boomers decided to relive their youth and money was no object everything changed, they were ok with paying someone stupid amounts of money to do the work for them and that became the business model that drove old car prices into supercar territory and fueled the whole 15 thousand dollar engine stupidity we have now. It drove all of this out of economic range for the Gen X'ers and later and interest has waned off severely, to the point prices are finally coming down... but it also reignited this rat rod/do it yourself hot rod culture where people just give the finger to the snobs and their supposed 70k dollar old cars they bought as "investments" where the younger generations just ignore them and buy what they can afford and started their own car clubs without the snobs.
You think this is knowledge?
Tony gets paid doing this. Keep watching the commercials.
"No replacement for displacement" just refers to the fact that, all other things being equal, a bigger engine will make more power.
Not always.
@@residentevil2928 Yes, always. Basic physics. Whatever you do to a 350 you can do to a 454 and make more power. Bigger engines make more power is the basic sentiment in "no replacement for displacment".
@@177SCmaro but everything MUST be equal, and physics unfortunately do not work that way.
Why you see engines like the 6cylinder 2jz outperforming small blocks at time. So much goes into the right power plant, and making it efficient. Think that's what he was getting at.
@@phoenixrising4573 No idea what you're trying to say. In order to outperform an engine with greater displacement the 2JZ relies on boost and usually a lot of it. If you take away you're looking at 3-400ish hp engine. Maybe 500 if you built a screamer with huge cams, compression, ect. 500hp is fairly easy for a larger displacement small block and 700 and 800hp isn't unheard of again, with a lot of rpm, cam, compression.
Do you know why that is?
@@177SCmaro because theres no replacement for displacement 😉
Damn Unc. I need more than a few minutes to wrap this around my head
Got to thinking about him talking about the difference in the pin on the piston. When the piston is top dead there is very little room to deck height, so when you increase stroke length that would make the piston higher in the bore so by moving the pin higher on the piston keeping it under the deck it has put that increased cubic inches in the less effective part of the combustion cycle.
So if you had a block with increased deck height and keeping the pin in the original spot, you would make more power out of the increase cubic inches in upper part of it's travel, complimenting that extra pull of fuel mixture and torque from the leverage!
Right off the bat he's wrong, it's 90 degrees down when the piston is moving fastest and pulling in more air and fuel, and when it's exerting the most torque on the crank on ignition stroke. A longer rod increases piston speed at this point but slows it down at TDC and BDC when the actual pumping effect is minimum. I'm not sure but I believe that monster motor cars were required to be heavier which explained why smaller engine cars would win especially when getting mass moving as quickly as possible wins drag races. If larger engines weren't superior why does every type of racing have engine size limits?
Mind blown.
@@JohnSmith-ry8qj You and UT are making it more complicated then it needs to be. This displacement and power stuff has NOTHING to do with pin location, only the travel of the face of the piston. Yes pin height matters, but that's more about durability then power and too complicated for YT.
@@gruberstein Interesting being so right and wrong at the same time. You're absolutely correct about 90 degrees, but wrong about rod length effects on piston speed.
Retired Mechanic and I learn or affirm something in every video. By far, Tony is the best automotive instructor I have ever seen. Thanks for the memories UTG!
What i like about his videos is how he sticks to his points. He could have went off on turbos and other things but focused on engine displacement.
Thanks for the education. I always understood the "no replacement for displacement" thing to mean all things being equal. In other words, if the volumetric efficiency of both engines are equal, the larger engine will produce more power.
Volume is not the only thing to consider.....a point he is trying to make...SO many variable to play with...think about the few spec's(ALL variables) he mentioned, and then multiply by at least 10. And B4 you go building this bundle of question marks, we need to ask what is it going in? If your already boiling the tires, why don't you work on the chassis?...and if you can't turn, why do you need more power? Big cubes is just a dick measuring game, until MONEY becomes involved...and if you don't have cubic DOLLARS...cubic inches isn't necessarily gonna help...THINKING...and developing a set up through the Scientific process( experiment & observe), I think is the point he's trying to make...UTG is a piece of gold in a field of shit...and becore you go opening your wallet, just watch and think about some of his stuff.
@@LeftyLucyRightyTyty You missed Flynns point. Eliminating all other variables, increasing displacement WILL produce more power. A bigger explosion produces a bigger, well, explosion, lol. Think of it this way, if you Decrease the engine size to 35 cubic inches, all other design features stay the same, will it be as strong as a 350?
@@ZacLowing not necessarily, if your 300 inch motor is making 300 hp and that's at the limit of something in the top end like heads or intake all you'll likely get from adding another 50 inches is a motor that peaks lower and makes more torque below peak.
You wont get much more than 300hp out of a set of heads that can only support 300 hp no matter how many inches you stick down stream, you just end up with a bottom end that reaches the limits of those heads significantly earlier.
That's why Chevy 350s during the smog era only made a bit more power than the little 305s, and even they benefited from marginally better valves. But the heads and cams were the limiting factor and my TPI 350 for example enjoyed a whole 10 HP over the same year 305.
WCTA We are talking dollars and physics here....this IS NOT a video game plug in or an APP....how you gonna increase displacement? Bore? Stroke?...Ok...once you decied that...whatcha gonna do about that cam that is now out to lunch?...oh...and now you need a bigger carb...or bigger injectors....k...now its running....freaking HEADER primary tubes are TOO SHORT...or not fat enough.....ok....now it's running....Idling good....smoking the meats....but now ya can't drive a block without it overheating....If your making soup...do you just PUT MORE SALT IN?.....
Clinton .. It comes across as "start with the biggest motor u can find because theres no replacement for displacement" .. instead of starting with a fundementally better designed one first ..
Its a saying that appeals to the masses of morons out there
Power to weight will always be King.
Yep.
*Said Tesla
@@thecloneguyz Tesla cars are heavy
@@calholli their power to weight ratio blows away any combustion engine car that's ever been made in history
@@calholli it's no coincidence that a $30,000 USED Tesla can keep up with or beat a $250,000+ supercar
We always used to say: When it comes to horsepower, there's no substitute for cubic money. Great insight, as always. Thank you, Tony :)
😂😂 “no substitute for cubic money”.. 👍
Way back when, I was always wanting to modify this or that. I'll never forget when my "mentor" Mr. Porter, turned around one day, looked me straight in the eye, and said: "Son what makes you think you know more than the factory?" LOL!
I remember my instructor mentioning to me, "with custom work, comes custom problems."
@@matthewmonaghan1064 you said it!
My dad tried that on me. Sometimes, we DO know more than the factory.
I always save up for good flowing heads and match cam accordingly
Super Duty 455 so many guy just buy the biggest intake and a giant mismatched cam and think they have a race car or I love the guys that buy the big intakes and carbs and stop there🤣🤣🤣
Dominator, 292 cam, 2.41 rear and cracked 882 heads.
@@superduty4556 LOL, broke off the exhaust
I had a stock 350 hp non high performance 440 in my 68 New Yorker,triple black 2 door hardtop(body guy so added that)The shop I worked at they added a purple cam and heads it needed a timing chain so I opted for cam/heads as a Mopar guru worked there and was drooling to do it up.. I was 16 and the machinist at the garage I worked at did the heads and I cant remember the specs but he said you should have 100 hp gain...Well,that car with 2.94 axle ratio blew away stout 454&396 Chevelle's with 3.73's,4.11's,ate 428 Ford's....My Buddies '87 Mustang 5.0 5 speed all the tricks in the day 4.10's,off road exhaust..I always wanted to take it to the track,but always busy(school,work,girlfriend,beer etc)The car would bury the 120 mph speedo and keep going! I had a buddy with a Kawasaki Ninja and paced me and my car went past 155 mph ,well I was young so why not I lived! I pulled out before it ever stopped pulling,car was unreal!
Most cars I had I always had good flowing heads and a cam(nothing radical either 1 step up usually from factory cam usually) and it usually beat the same type of car with more mods...I have a engine builder buddy I guess he would be better suited to comment here,but nonetheless...I run a few strokers in a couple of my cars now,as he builds them I test them out(I drive hard)then he sells them as a package(no not the one I used he builds a few and sells them to customers)..I had a 500 stroker and my 440 with good heads and cam beat it by .50 in the 1/4 mile,so he reworked his strokers..Also sells stock with better heads blah,blah...The specs I should get them I guess..
Ive heard from several racers and builders that its all in the head
Love this guy! Amazing what can be discussed and talked about when there’s no sponsorship, advertising or parts to be sold. Keep on keeping it real!!
You sir just blew my mind,I have never considered that as a possibility.I will have to take that into account the next time I do any mod on a motor.keep up the good work ,love your videos.
This is why the short-stroke B-Block 383's are such great motors. The short stroke also does good things for RPM and longevity vs. the RBs.
my dad has a 71'ss Chevelle 454ci. factory 4spd. car!
Dyno; 589hp.-619tq.
love the feel and sound of that big block!🇺🇸..(🤝)
scar face
Those 454’s were great
Those numbers are massively bull shit! The only way you have more torque than go is if the engine peaks far before 5250 rpm. 619 ft lbs of torque should be more like 750 go. But with only 454 cubic inches you need to twist that motor to way higher rpm
@@TL-angzarr uh gasoline engines mostly always produce more torque. Its just peaks earlier in the rpm band and tapers off as hp increases
@@jeremydavis340. yeah you need to brush up on your engine science, a factory tuned smaller headed tiny valve under cammed motor will make more torque numbers than HP BUT he's talking about a 454 we know what the pump out stock to get one to 600 HP he MUST turn the motor faster IF he's making that much torque at peak he would be making WAY more HP.
589 and 619 don’t quite sound right to me either. I’d like to see the curve on that. They have to cross at 5252, so it would be a bizarre graph for sure.
Uncle Tony, As a mechanical engineer I fully understand your explanation. I've been playing around with engines for years and I know that you have forgotten more about this stuff in one year than I have ever known. Back in High School we thought that changing the intake manifold on installing a bigger carb would give us more power without thinking about the exhaust, cam, etc. You could have saved me a lot of money in my youth. Thank you for all you insights and expertise!
I loved this video...I think this leads straight in to a rod ratio discussion...please make a video on rod ratio. Cheers!
They did a rod/ratio shoot out on Engine Masters. All three tests were indistinguishable on the dyno. Maybe with crap heads they would have seen a problem with piston speed but IDK
Had never really thought about these things I'm not rich or well educated, just a man with a few tools just running what I have when I have it and trying to pull every last bit of power from what I am running.
What UT is doing is making people think about what's going on inside there's to many variables to the final outcome but it's nice to see those thinking caps at work so don't think my comments are gold I was just thinking. Right or wrong it all comes down to exercise for the brain it all comes out in the wash and what doesn't is just chalked up to live and learn.
When thinking about increasing stroke, I've always pondered the problems of rod length/pin position, side loading the piston, and piston speed, but gave little thought to how quickly the second ninety degrees of the power stroke might plummet in cylinder pressure and leverage. I can see how it could become of little use at higher RPM's.
A shorter rod-to-stroke ratio lets the same bang do more work on the crank than a longer rod-to-stroke ratio, due to distance traveled in the critical first microseconds after combustion being greater with the shorter rod-to-stroke ratio.
Great topic! 👍 BTW It’s bulk trash week in my neighborhood and I scored a vintage rusty 50gal Mystik Oil drum that someone set out by the curb. So excited...Rolled it up to my outdoor work area and for some reason my wife was not impressed!
I never like that saying that “there’s no replacement for displacement” because really it should be there’s no replacement for CFM. But it doesn’t have the same ring to it.
I'm so glad to hear someone finally say this. I had this rolling around in my head not too long ago. The saying is "there is no replacement for (physical) displacement)" when in all actuality it truly "there is no replacement for displacement (of air)" that's why I have a 1990 4 cylinder 1.6l 16 valve pent roof chamber engine that was rated at 108 from the factory. But I have a 1987 3.7l 12 valve open wedge chamber rated at 95 from the factory. The slant six wasn't moving any air. And the thermodynamic efficiency was stuck in 1959.
This is why big bore short stroke engines run good, also frictional losses really start to add up when you increase cubic inch, Or go big block because of the increased amount of bearing and ring contact
Always been pretty much a GM guy. Owned 60's Chevelle's, Camaros, and such. However, I'm thrilled I ran across and subscribed to your channel. You're a very knowledgeable man and make engine components and practical information understandable. Thanks for the videos.
The only replacement for displacement is a turbo. In turn though, usually the power is easier to make and usually at lesser boost levels, with bigger engines. So, it still rings true! No replacement for displacement!
Although I much rather have my displacement from bore size increase, over square and turning the R's baby! Do the same to a big inch engine and it's better!
Cylinder filling and building as much heat as possible without melting, is the name of the game.
Horsepower is King!!! RPM is addictive!
well,the nice thing about a big bore, short stroke big displacement engine is that it still makes great tq. i wish someone would build up a hot stock stroke mopar 400. insanity would insue.
By far the most information I earned about a combustion engine in the past few years. I’m not an engine builder but a car guy 100%. Thanks and keep the great content coming! As always like share and subscribe 👍🏼👍🏼
Well said, but all things equal the larger displacement engine wins.
100% of the time. So really there still is no replacement for displacement
@@bluecollarfox916 but all things are never equal, ever. So really, as in the real world.... its not that simple.
F1 cars d o pretty well on small dispacement
I love Uncle Tony's understanding of engines, I was thinking about a motor being "square, over square or under square" in relation to this topic. Maybe you could talk on this and how it relates to making power, I would like to understand more
Phenomenal. Never considered the variable of work load on piston stroke.
Glad that you went over this, it's definitely been around long enough that it should be reassessed as a general saying.
That being said, I love your videos. They definitely have flared up my interest in building my dream car again. On that note, would you do a video on how you go about building a car from the ground up Uncle Tony? As in, building up a car from scratch what system(s) would you focus on first, and what order would you continue from there on out? Basically, just a general guideline on building our dream machines for those of us that are working on more than just the motor.
That's right, there's no replacement for CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE, that's why a Japanese motorcycle engine that's got 1/3 LESS displacement than a Harley engine can make 1 1/2 times MORE POWER, because it flows 1 1/2 times the CFM of a Harley engine despite its smaller displacement.
Jerry Branch (most experienced engine flow master in the world) always said "Think of each CFM as a stick of dynamite, the more sticks you have the bigger the bang".
Yes but less peak torque at a higher less user friendly RPM, there's always some trade offs.
Thank you, for taking the time to go over that. Still running it through my head.
Turbo, intercooler, and Nos fix it all... 🤣
And revs
@@MrTheHillfolk ROTARY ENGINE FOR THE WIN!!
@@jaypeeztabernac851
Haha yes those are kinda cool.
Some of those Aussie Dyno pulls are awesome!
and that Rob dahm guy I've seen a few vids of,and that mazzei dude who's popped up in my feed recently ....
that 4 rotor sounds so brappy ❤️
Wish I found your channel a long time ago. You really know your stuff. I've learned more in the past few months from you than the last few years.
I would say that it has more to do with the cylinder head as to why an engine would make good power. Sure displacement would have some part in it but mostly head flow and design
Great listening to you. My boss at his speed shop ( back in the eighties)always said There's no substitution for cubic inches. I always thought of that, as I was recurving distributors. In 1980- all we had was pocket flathead screwdriver, timing light and our ears. Good ole day's. Thanks for the video.
Back in 77, remember how we used to check displacement by seeing how many tater tots fit in the cylinder bore
@Addicus Taylor we all ate
Just don't leave them in there, or the engine will spudder
@@dreadpenguinlord340 I see what you did there.... spudder
I've always struggled to explain this to my friends! big engines don't always mean they're faster.. it all comes down to tons of variables like gearing, tire size and compound, curb weight, wheel horse power ect ect..
Got to Love it Tony!!! If people need any proof of this then watch Jay Leno with that Lancia Delta!!!! 600 Horses from 1.8 litre 4 pot....For all you Imperials...600 horses from 110 ci....Roll Up Your Windows!!!
Or check boba motoring on here.
2.0 VW putting out like 1200hp.
TROLLLLLL!! :)
How much air do those motors displace when they’re NA?
Ive been thinking this way for years! Awesome to find someone who can explain it simply! Just started watching..Im in!
Were gonna need a more in depth video on this one uncle t
Tony you're the best. Keep on keepin' on.
"Lay in bed and think about it all night" love that comment
🤘
I dunno about you guys but its pretty normal,for me to lay in bed thinking about uncle tony all night.
@@toddmccarter45 🤺🕴🖲
Todd McCarter scary
Just as I was going to get my iPad and listen to it in bed.
Had to watch this a couple of times, going to bed now. Thanks Tony struggling to sleep now.
I was told that "All else being equal ; there is no replacement for displacement".
For the most part that is right. Someone would argue that taking a 1.2L 4cyl and boosting to 14lbs (relatively speaking) and make roughly say 200HP is pretty good, but just for the sake of argument, it's not unreasonable for a 2.4L NA version of that motor to roughly make that same power. It would be better to say that stroking a motor would have diminishing returns the bigger you make it simply because the rest of the engine is not designed or changed to match over sizing of the original displacement dimensions. Power adders in a sense is increasing available I guess "intake charge" to make more power with.
I guess I could say that the mentality of someone spouting; I hear often 1200HP capable VW 2.0L is amazing, but what if we had a 4.0L VW Turbo?. Would that make almost 2400HP. Probably not because we are getting into the extreme realm of heat and pressure. But it would make much more than the 2.0L and less likely to blow up.
But all else isn’t equal.
You can’t just shove a larger engine in and expect the same weight, the same weight distribution, the same revs, the same response, the same powerband, etc etc.
And smaller engines are usually set up different. Adding a turbo and DOHC to a four cylinder is a lot easier and cheaper and lighter and less bulky and worth it than doing it to a cross plane V8.
@@Bartonovich52 a 283 and a 383 use the same block and if using the same camshaft, heads, intake, carburetor, etc. The 383 will make more power. Nobody said anything about engine weight being a factor in producing more power. It goes without saying that Larger stroke cranks, rods, and pistons will weigh more than others and negate some performance gains. That 100 cubic inch would make up for it though. Now, obviously even a 283 with high compression, large valve, free flowing heads, stiff springs, and long duration, high lift, closer LSA along with a carburetor that's jetted optimally will make much more power than a stock equipped 350 even .030" over and stroked an additional 0.75" to 383 CID. I was referencing an engine, on a stand Small Displacement vs Large Displacement variant of same engine family with all else being equal then the larger engine WILL make more power. There are also variables such as, bearing diameter surface drag, piston dwell time, piston fps, rod angularity, compression height, drag from High Pressure oil pumps, headers vs manifolds etc. That would fall into the "not equal" category. (spelling / grammar edited)
Yet another great freaking video, Uncle Tony! A tremendously good analysis of a really complicated and counterintuitive bit of engineering reality! In just a couple of minutes....
Like they say, if you want more inches you have to stroke it 😀,great info uncle Tony
As an Oldsmobile guy I agree. We have bad air flow and geometry issues and some others lol but I'm not LS swapping ever
What?? Noo ...I must have more....I love this techno mumbo jumbo
This is the realest car channel on RUclips
Going to burn one and think about it deep
you know what me too
Hence is life. Digital fistbump
Don’t F&@k with me ! ;) lol that sign on wall.....
It's all about piston speed,,,( parasitic loss),,,bore size ( airflow into chamber) and cylinder pressure (efficiency) thanks uncle tony excellent video brother
The function of horsepower is, the amount of air moving passing through the mass air flow meter. The more cfm, the more horsepower.
Great info AGAIN!.
I had a buddy totally into Mopar. Sadly he died a few years ago from lung cancer.
He was only 58, smoked incessantly his whole life.
Anyway, his final legacy was a ridiculous amazing 69 GTX that he'd spent $275,000 building.
He always said "there's no substitute for cubic inches". Hid?
You're on to something, but piston speed is also important. Long stroke means the piston have to travel further, and then completely stop and then go the other way. This is why my new favourite build is the destroked LS7, especially for light cars. 4.15 bore and 3.2 stroke I think. Revs to 8500!
So how much does that reduce the "Cubic inches" or CCs of an LS7?Which of course starts to at 427CI or approximately 7000cc.
@@Aseutester it's 388 which is around 6.3 I think
@@jstdrv So you end up with a bigger engine than a Quad Cam Ford engine that'll RPM just as high, sounds like fun albeit with lower torque at low RPM.
@@Aseutester still a 6.3 is going to be way torquier than a 5.0.... would be a fun engine in a light car
@@jstdrv Agreed.
I learn something new everytime. Not kissing ass, actually a little pissed I have to make charts and diagrams to wrap my mind around it before bed! Love your channel, Uncle. Keep it up!
i always heard the oversimplification as..."no substitute for cubic-inches"....for me, big-cubes were the easiest path that a novice newcomer may take to achieve an end goal and probably to a degree still are today....but cubes dont matter to the real gearhead that will squeeze and extract every last HP....both BOSS and DZ 302s were near 400 horses even tho they were rated at 290....compare that to the RB 440s 375....smokey got 600 out of a buick V6...countless examples literally everywhere....and isnt a foot-pound a measurement of work even tho thats a torque figure-term....a pump huh...detroit engineers always refered to and thought of their babies as their piston-engines that were really just a self-propelled hot-air pump lol...i always focused on the big-arm crank gave extra-leverage at the crank centerline.... just like using a longer cheater-bar will...there are many additional factors that figure in, but for basic understanding of the engineering, you must have a starting point to build from and on...and uncle tony just fired the starter pistol nolol....you can ponder these principals for ions.....just shows what i already knew, that T can fly frisbee and cut up with the boys in the parking-lot drinking a dark-beer...or he can sit down with smokey and some detroit engineers with slide-rule and protactor and hold his own any day of the week.......kutgw professor tony, i love it.....p.s....i think the only bomb/term you didnt drop was 2 of the most beautiful words in the auto-engineering language...."volumetric efficiency".....oh, and lets see a 302 out-torque a 440, thats an entirely different bird.
Comparing a stock 440 vs a modified Buick V6....My buddy has a mild 440 with just under 900 hp,not a stroker either!
When you remove power adders from the equation, that's when the experience and skill will begin to show. Anyone can follow instructions and add nitrous on any engine and make more power. Will it last? Not likely. Is it relatively easy? Yes. Will that same person be able to make the same amount of power without the nitrous? 99% of the time.. no. The majority of people are completely clueless when it comes to engineering and building engines. Thus, they're called parts swappers.
The advantages of a big-displacement engine are that it can otherwise be simple, relatively inexpensive, far more DRIVEABLE (i.e., idle smoothly at a low rpm and have good off-throttle performance), and TORQUEY. Disadvantages? Well, assuming that you can fit the damn thing in the engine compartment, a bigger displacement engine also guzzles more fuel when IDLING, so a "daily driver" with a big engine can really suck up the gas while waiting at the stop light.
I'm going to have to watch this video a few more times before I go to bed. I think I understand what you said but I'm not a 100% I know sure(Physics-Wise). Thanks UT!
This is why I LOVE your channel. I learn (or make me think) something every time.
Thank you too UK!
This is why guys destroke the 400 small block. It creates an engine that is over square-makes more HP. Like the 403 olds.
400 mopar is good to go out of the box.
My daily driver, is supercharged. If I am (normal) driving in 3rd gear @ 30 mph, but need to change lanes. If I mat the accelerator pedal. The trans. will downshift & boost climbs to 12+ pounds. The tires are fighting for traction, as I fly up the entrance ramp to the highway.
Explained to me how a 400 low deck mopar with the same trick flow 240 heads with same intake and cam and carb and basically same parts as a 512 stroked 400 block makes more power with the same parts than the 400 motor? More Cubic inches defiantly makes it easier to make more power. More Cubic inch means more space to put more air and more fuel which means more bang and more power. Sure there are 260ci motors with twin turbos making 1200hp but that's a full on race motor. Talking everyman's street strip car is where that saying comes from. Easier to build more power with more ci
I never said that big engines were bad!
No John, the saying "There's no replacement for displacement" came about for 2 reasons, first off it was a long time ago that it was coined, before your average person knew any better, and secondly because it rhymes, that's why the saying caught on. But the fact is there's no replacement for CFM, this is why a Japanese motorcycle engine that's got 1/3 less displacement than a Harley engine can make 1 1/2 times the power, because despite it's smaller displacement it moves 1 1/2 times more flow.
That bigger motor may not be able to rev out as high as the smaller one
@JohnPino
It’s nothing to put DOHC and a turbocharger on a small single head engine. These “race car” features are in sedate family sedans that will eat old muscle for breakfast off the line stock for stock... and are only a basic tune away from doing even more.
Your big cross plane V8 can’t rev. It can’t breathe anyways so it only needs Two valves per cylinder. It weighs a ton. It takes weight and traction away from the rear tires.
@@Bartonovich52 stop fucking comparing 2019 cars to 1969 cars. im so sick of hearing that shit. show me a 1969 japanese production car that can beat a 1969 american production car. crossplane v8 cant rev? cant breathe? nascar v8s want to have a word with you. btw, the intake valves in an old american v8 are around 2" or more in diameter. your 2 puny ohc intake valves add up to about one single intake valve on a ohv engine. shut your mouth. weighs a ton? a 2jz weighs 590 lbs. my all iron everything 6.6L big block mopar? 620lbs. thats before adding aluminum stuff.
i thought i knew a lot about engines but this guy knows even more !
100%
replacement for displacement is rpm and increased air density via turbo/blower
Boost of 14.7 psi gives the effect of 2 atmospheres, thus doubling displacement. My 3800 becomes a 462.
Ummm no ricers always say that dumb stuff. If you feed the same amount of psi in a larger engine it will make more power. A 2 liter running 20 psi is not going to make as much power as a 427 on 20 psi but i get what you are saying
@@jamesavery6671 "say that dumb stuff" not sure you realise what you're saying.. forced induction IS 'replacement for displacement' sure, adding more displacement again is a thing, but the term is kinda seen as basic one dimentional thinking eg big engine big power, small engine small power.. there's more to it than that, and I'm sure you know that - an engine half the size at twice the RPM is the same as an engine twice the size at half the RPM, flow wise (potentially.)
Check out whats happening in the import world. Turbocharged mazda 1.3 rotaries with 1,000 hp, turbocharged 2.2 mitsubishi engines with 800 hp, turbocharged toyota 6 cylinders 1400 hp. Real street driven cars.
@@jamesavery6671
Actually a 2.0 could in theory make more than a 427 at same boost as boost is just measure or restriction. If that 427 has shitty restrictive heads and low rpm limit and 2.0 is built for something ridiculous like 10-15k.
Obviously power curves would be drastically different and torque would be pathetic on the 4 banger in comparison.
Guess the whole point is there's a lot more to a motor than displacement, but that's why we all love them!
Disclaimer I'm not a ricer and personally own a 6.2 Tahoe and a K5 with 350, but one cannot deny the level of crazy numbers achievable with modern tech on small engines
Glad he made a mention of a Pontiac V8. They had a long rod that kept the piston up at the top of the bore for a much longer time than a lot of other engines and extracted a lot of work out of the available combustion. They were great engines and I still miss them!
Also .. that's not true. If you increased your sweep by 1".. then at 90 degrees, you will have added 1/2" to your working power stroke....... But I agree that this is not the real addition of power. The true power advancement is in the higher compression and higher volume of air.. which also comes with higher heat... so you are trading longevity for higher peak performance. There's always a trade off
Right on you can make a little motor keep up with the big boys but she is either gonna have more compression, more boost or more rpm
Love your style of detailed clear explanations. Well done every time
When we were kids we were told European Motors get their horsepower through RPMs.
American Motors made their horsepower through displacement
Steam engines can achieve maximum horsepower at 1 RPM because their horsepower is a function of pressure. With an internal combustion engine ideally you would like a combination of displacement and revolutions per minute. So we need an 8-cylinder the tachs like a Kawasaki H2.
The bike produces 326 horsepower with 998cc.
That is 60.902 cubic inches.
Hold on and don't fall off.
I know it's like 62 cubes for a liter, but quick math in the head I use 60
You can't make mximum HP on 1RPM (unless you only manage 1RPM). HorsePower is a function of force over distance / time. 1000NM of torque at 1RPM is 0,14HP or 0.1KW. If you manage 2RPM it's 0.28HP and at 7024RPM its 1000HP. More RPM=More Power. The ICE and the SE both work in the same way. Torque measures the force applied to the crankshaft by the piston that is driven by pressure. In both engines Torque is a function of Stroke, piston surface and pressure. Steam engines Produce a shitload of torque from the first RPM, but they make peak power where Torque X RPM is the highest. This true for the Reciprocating Piston engine, The Wankel (Rotary) and even the Electric Motor.
@@thetruth5232 I thought horsepower was work. Work as defined as movement against gravity. Force is defined as mass times acceleration. A steam locomotive can get a train moving at 1 RPM because it produces maximum torque. 1 horsepower equals 550 foot pounds per second equivalent to 745 Watts. Force equals mass x acceleration= kilograms per meter per second squared. I get this stuff confused. So what is the maximum horsepower a steam locomotive could produce at 1 RPM?
@@ericheine2414 torque is work rpm is how fast you can do that work. Horsepower is the combination of the two which is rpm × torque\5252 = horsepower
@@jamesavery6671 engine speed X torque / 5252 = horsepower.
Torque is a measurement of angular momentum=. The twisting force that causes rotation
There is no replacement for displacement... BUT it all depends on how you make that displacement and you use that displacement. You explained it very well Uncle Tony!
It's why those TransAm cars were so much fun. A real light weight 302 Camero was a blast in the twisties - would bounce off the rev limiter and scream like a banshee.
Hey, that’s exactly what I was thinking and even mentioned in my comment!
There aren’t many RUclips videos I want to watch several times, but yours are! Cool stuff! 👍
That's cruel, I will be awake thinking about it
40 years ago I spent many nights lying in bed rolling engine technology in my head til one day I got a girlfriend and never looked back. ;-)
@@superrodder2002 ya 40 years ago
One of my favorite examples is measuring the changes rod length itself makes in relation to piston speed. Engines with shorter rods can pull more air at the beginning of a stroke but engines with longer rods the combustion process has more leverage over the rotating assembly at the beginning of a stroke.
I always thought the 400 dodge.engine. would be the perfect compromise. Short stroke large bore. Room for big valves. Hi rpm. With descent swept area..great video
I’ve always wanted to turbo a 400 Chrysler engine...
Yet everyone who builds them builds them into 451's or 496's I've very rarely seen someone build a stock stroke 400. Why do they do that?
T L, I know hardcore dodge guys that hate 400’s, they won’t touch them other than using the block...
@@shitbox7413 there's a reason for that, for any given power level a bigger motor will make it at lower rpm. I have a 400 block that now measures 511, makes just over 900 hp, I want to see someone do that on 400 cubic inches, it can be done but would take 9500 rpm or more
T L, Not everyone’s goal is 900 hp
You make a valid point! Just an observation: 61 cubic inch motorcycles (1000cc) are making in the neighborhood of 200hp on pump gas. Not much torque down low, but serious speed up top. Imagine an X 16 cylinder engine of 244 cubic inches (around 800hp) mated to a continuously variable transmission!
Effective power stroke is one reason why diesel engines produce more torque than a same sized gasoline engine. Increased cylinder pressure due to high pressure injection continuing to inject diesel fuel into the cylinder after the piston is going down on the power stroke. Even without the assistance of a turbocharger.
The torque is sick from a diesel.
I'm looking into a pump duse 2.0 vw diesel, and getting 450ft pounds of torque from it sounds like fun.
Then throw it in a rabbit and weigh less than a ton.
Wrong wheel drive though , sorry bout that
Tony needs to do a video on the idiots quoting their torque figures .. u can have all the torque in the world but if u aint got power your 1/4 time is nothing .. why u think all 1/4 mile calculators ask for power and weight not torqur and weight .. just another thing the sheep have latched on to like "no replacement for displacement"
Tony needs to do a video on the idiots quoting their torque figures .. u can have all the torque in the world but if u aint got power your 1/4 time is nothing .. why u think all 1/4 mile calculators ask for power and weight not torqur and weight .. just another thing the sheep have latched on to like "no replacement for displacement"
@@slimshady2777 see it all the time with fwd cars.
Alot of power , mediocre times compared to rwd.
Obviously because of traction.
I'd be lucky if that setup broke in the 12s I'd be happy,I'm not willing to run slicks and break shit.
That's still 300hp or so in a car that weighs a ton or under.
Nice that explains displacement , as valuable as the compression vs timing clip . Thanks I'm on the bench as far as stock engines go , but I have really improved my modified engine understanding a lot from your video's .
I got a headache now.
Now that will make your head swim. Think about it. What Tony said is true! Makes total sense. Good point Tony!
I could see this on a graph, where a certain engine size gain has a dramatic advantage but at some point you see a diminishing return.
This is exactly it, and also can vary from one engine to another based on the bore vs stroke and block design(deck height) because of how it affects the rod ratio. Adding more stroke only helps if the engine can breath well enough to get all the additional air into the bore, basically. You could add stroke to a long stroke engine, but if it can't get more air in.......
I love the in depth explanations. Keep them up uncle Tony
Tony! You're one of the smartest guys I've never met.
I appreciate you brother!
You know some dumb people.
@@snek9353 If you are so dumb that you don't think Tony is a smart man, then idk what to tell you.
@@kylelove927 Uhm, that's what I'm saying.
Awesome fantastic simple straightforward explanation. The way you make it work better as you make it breathe better
This is why I love this channel
For a guy who got kicked out of school at 16, you're smart af uncle tony. Is measuring displacements more accurate when it's done in liters or cc? As much as I love muscle cars, the truth of the matter is that stock powerful electric cars will almost always beat a stock muscle car in a drag race. Nothing beats the sound of a v8 though.
Measuring is equally accurate in either form - it just depends on how many decimal points you're willing to go to. I used to drive a 1608 cc (which is _exactly_ the same as 1.608 litres) car - usually referred to as a 1.6 litre for convenience. So if you're rounding your litres off and only using one decimal place, then you're being less accurate - but that's a rounding error and not a problem with using litres or cc.
PS: If you're into using only whole numbers, then using cc will be more accurate than using cubic inches, and c.i. more accurate than whole litres...because you're using a smaller base unit.
Thanks Aussiebloke609, that makes sense. Btw is love Australian muscle cars.
I appreciate that you are trying to teach us. You are a wealth of knowledge, and I appreciate that you are generous with sharing your wealth of knowledge.
I think engine efficiency plays a greater role... Example... Fords old tiny port bread and butter head vs the E7, then on to the GT40 head. Power thru efficiency... Also purpose matching of components is also critical... Many parameters to consider! Good work Tony! Great food for thought! Cheers!
Tony, you should see the displacement shenanigans surrounding 2 stroke motorcycles. You can imagine how funny things get when an engine uses its crankcase as an intake and fires its plug every rotation. The shenanigans have gotten so shenanoriffic that they've got 2x displacement handicaps in effect and everyone's convinced that it's normal.
I love cars. I really do. But i know nothing about them and the more i try to learn about them the dumber i feel. But Uncle Tony has a way of explaining things that help me to understand. Thank you Uncle Tony. Keep up the good work 👍
It comes down to effective cylinder pressure. EFFECTIVE being the key word here....and please don't forget the part of cylinder pressure...there are many ways to achieve both...Tony's on it...
All kinda true, depending on the working RPM range... Truck engines (gas & diesel) make more usable "power" the bigger they get because they almost all slow down as they get bigger and they process more fuel. Your equation about working area also has to take into account the ability of the engine to use fuel (heat) effectively. Big slow turning engines "dwell" longer in the upper swept area and extract more mechanical power from fuel burn. It's why hot rodders stuffed Caddy's in all sorts of cars back in the day w/o fancy cams or anything. They'd eat your lunch street racing even turning relatively slowly - torque monsters.
The tech sections of the car mags use to always dive deep into this stuff and you truly learned things. Now its stage 2 this, stage 4 that and the entire hobby has been dumbed down.
Those pages where the best!
The rich boomers that turned everything into an "investment" in the 90's didn't really care about the details, they just paid someone else to do it anyway. So the car mags turned into picture books that needed advertisement style slogans to get the concepts across to the people that didn't know anything about the details and din't care to know anyway.
That era is slowly coming to a close, but I do not know if there will be a resurgence in gear heads and interest faster then the electric car BS will be shoved down our throats.
I agree 100 we had a fuel car that had a fuel pooling problem because it wasnt drawing what was figured it would because this very thing it was stroked and we figured it up to needing x amout more fuel and when we added it it was way to much it only needed a 4th of what was figured
Longer rod ratio is a pretty cool topic to discuss. A tall deck sassy 526 hemi is the same cubic inch as a standard deck 526 hemi... but the tall deck makes a hell of a bunch more torque
@UTG you're talking about the 30% rule. Not alot of people under and comprehend it. Nice!!!
I hope this guy has his own successful business. He deserves it.
I agree, bore to stroke ratio is important.
Truck engines usually have longer stroke for more torque.
My son had a 440 with ported indy heads. It ran good. When he upped it to 511 cubes with the same heads, man what an animal! I believe in more cubes you just got to up the heads and cam to go with it.
This destroyed all my long-established parameters in regard to C.I. and made me cry like I was listening to a sad old country song. Thanks, Tony (I needed a good cry).
Don't believe a word of it
@@superkillr I'm a very sensitive person. As fragile as a little ol' bunny. I even have a safe space replete with coloring books and pacifiers. It's a scary world out there.
Thank u for this video !! I appreciate the way you have the ability to simplify this information for those of us that take a real life explanation to start to wrap our brains around this kind of stuff.