![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 29, 3:33 pm, Anthony W wrote:
I was assuming that this was hand work but I wasn't sure. Thanx for cleaning it up. In the mean time I will be looking for a good deal on a 78mm crank. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Tony, A 78mm stroke under a stock jug will give you a displacement of 1791cc. 76mm x 85.5 = 1745 74mm x 85.5 = 1699 You may wish to consider ANY crank having a throw greater than 69 but less than 82. But your primary qualification is the QUALITY of the crank. Unless the thing is offered at a give-away price (meaning you can always pass it along to the dune-buggy crowd) full blue-printing and NDT must be a condition of sale. (This is why it makes good sense to have someone like Tony make the crank to your specs.) For ANY increase in stroke you will see an increase in displacement AND an iincrease in torque. But what makes this configuration of value in FLYING VW conversions is that the altered ratio of bore-to- stroke causes the torque to peak BELOW the rpm. This phenomenon may be enhanced by careful selection of the cam. In fact, even the stock cam can provide a significant improvement by simply retarding its timing by a few degrees. This allows you to use a longer propeller with a more aggresive pitch, resulting in greater efficiency. If that sounds too good to be true, it is :-) The greater efficiency is the product of tailoring your valve-train geometry to take full advantage of the engine's configuration. This is an alien world to the typical dune-buggy guru for whom success is defined as maximum horsepower at high rpm. What you will end up with is an engine that produces high torque at a relatively LOW rpm, making it the perfect choice for slinging a prop. You won't find a lot of information on engines of this configuration... unless you study aircraft engines. Or industrial engines. Keep in mind that the changes are relative to the change in displacement and the ratio of bore to stroke. You will see anything very dramatic but you will see your usable power coming in at a lower rpm. That lower rpm will lend itself to the engine's durability. It may not be much but over the life of the engine, it is signifcant; more than enough to justify the configuration even if the output is the SAME as before. -R.S.Hoover |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Orphaned Engine | [email protected] | Home Built | 17 | July 22nd 08 11:41 PM |
Westland Wyvern Prototype - RR Eagle Engine - Rolls Royce Eagle 24cyl Liq Cooled Engine.jpg | Ramapo | Aviation Photos | 0 | April 17th 07 09:14 PM |
Was the Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp the best engine of WW II? | Dave Kearton | Aviation Photos | 18 | January 12th 07 07:20 PM |
Double Eagle (AEG - Albuquerque NM) Fly-in 8-9 Oct 2005 | Ron Lee | Piloting | 1 | October 1st 05 06:52 AM |
Double Eagle NM (AEG) Fly in 8-9 Oct 2005; Balloon Fiesta time | Ron Lee | Piloting | 4 | September 2nd 05 03:44 PM |