You need to make these engines that rev high over square, you always have square bore and stroke regardless of your intended application, which is not the case in real life. Over square is better for high revs and high power due to the increased valve area, under square better for torque and lower rev applications
There's nothing like a specious argument ay? I could rattle off a dozen production car engines that defy what you just wrote. What you're talking about is the excise system of post war Europe that favored underaquare low performance engines. High revs and undersquare engines are common for the last 40 years or so.
@@ThePaulv12the point of my comment is that he never changes the ratio, he always puts in square ratios no matter what, huge low revving engines, small high revving engines, still a square ratio. He doesn’t even try under square like the E46 M3 engine, he doesn’t try hugely over square like a 600cc motorbike
It depends on the displacement and engine config though. For example, the LS/Q or the VQ40DE engines in trucks/suvs are over square and still have low down torque. Specific cam specs, lengthened / tighter intake, and a really large bore, can increase torque values low down in the rev range.
@@gn6969 for towing heavy stufff ? no …. except wear noise fuel consumption and couple other stufff they only need specified level of power 👌🏻beside loook on graph i3 produce more power at the same rpm = more torq almostveverywhere 🤷🏻♂️.
So the lesser the cylinders, the more the power? So a 1.6L Inline-4 F1 engine will be much powerful than the current 1.6L V6 using the same hybrid system? Also, the 500cc V8 is like 2 ZX-25R engines put together but the redline is halved.
As long as it doesn't shake itself apart from the revs, fewer cylinders means fewer losses, but at very high revs, the size of the combustion chamber plays a part too.
To an extent, the I3 is more efficient with its power than the V8 since the cylinders are closer to the optimal volume of around 500cc each. A 4.0L V8 or a 2.0L I4 or a 3.0L V6, or like Audi's 2.5L I5, those are the more optimal engine sizes. So a 1.5L I3 is good, or a 5.0L V10 or a 6.0L V12. Edit: Cosworth themselves said that 450cc to 550cc is optimal because any smaller and the flame front reaches the cylinder walls too fast, and any larger and its still moving with the piston too far in its stroke to make much extra power, losing efficiency, so a high torque engine is more undersquare than a high rpm engine that is more oversquare.
@@sav22rem22 wrong but if al other stats are unchanged in this video with flow and exhaust size valves and spring stiffness, then what you are seeing here is the loss of power due to the extra moving parts in the v8 and the friction of pistons against cylinder walls and stuff, as the volume is the same and the 3cyl dont have 5 more friction making pistons, 20 extra valve springs to fight and a second cam to turn it gets to operate more efficiently, long story short parasitic loss is in all engines, but fewer moving parts means less loss.
@@hugoku8755 where you seeen avg road fsmily car rev to 8 k rpm + 🤭 beside this you probably right but as long as we dont go for extreme power from specified displacement so for racing car for race its not the case 😉👌🏻though v8 assuming optimal parts setup ok optimal for each be not as much off power like in this simulation where everything is similar except cylinder quantity and valves and setup 👌🏻
