(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

V or Inline for diesels which is superior, why?

O

Oliver662011

Member
Hey guys, lets talk some diesel. I am not asking to compare brand to brand, I am asking overall for diesels in general which block design is best for use in a diesel engine for any possible application from pickups to tractors. For power, reliability, and efficiency, and why are they superior.
Mike
 
Just my opinion. A straight six inline diesel is
better than a V8 . first off SIMPLE. secondly
more room for add ons like air cond pump, power
steering, after coolers, air compressors,and
turbos. you name it.
There is less moving parts than a v8. weighs less
for economy and strength.
easier to work on when under the hood or around
front wheels
Im sure theres lots more, would like to here more
from someone else. Good topic.
 
I remember back some years when I was in the trucking business how well the old reliable in line 6 Cummins 855 diesel performed versus when they came out with that 903 V8 YUKKKKKKKK

And in the farming days the IHC in line 6 diesels (as in 1066 etc) versus that V8 diesel in the 1468 if I recall

I dont have a physics and mechanical engineer and strength of materials and forces background to say why or why not an in line diesel is best, only my past experiences. Not sure if there are any mechanical engineers and engine design "experts" that visit here, but I'm sure same as me there are plenty of lay opinions that will cast a vote one way or the other.

John T
 
If an engine is built strong enough to stay
together, rebuild after rebuild, it makes little
difference. That being said - a straight in-line
engine has a "ladder-frame" block design which
offers the strongest block in the world when it
comes to the weight-to-strength ratio.

V-engines can take up less room in length but had
the disadvantage of not being able to use in-line
injection pump (back in the mechanical injection
days). It was the invention of the rotary-
distributor injection pump that allowed V-shaped
diesels to first exist. Now - with common rail,
it's a moot point.

There are many V-shaped diesels that last just as
long as in-lines.
 
Some specs of comparing engine life with "apples to apples." That is comparing engines in the same duty class. B10 engine-life rating means 10% fail and 90% do fine. B50 means 50% fail before the first rebuild under heavy use.

The 5.9 Cummins "straight-six" diesel has a B10 rating of 210-250,000 miles and a B50 of 350,000 miles.

The Ford and IH diesel 7.3 (or T444E) V8. B10 rating of 210-250,000 miles and a B50 of 350,000 miles.


Chevy Duramax V8. Has B10 of 220,000 miles

I.e., they all have the same projected engine life.
 
Diesels make power at lower RPM from torque. This makes them better suited to the longer stroke offered by an inline block.
All the big engine makers tried V designs some held up better then others,but they all were not as good as the in lines the same companies offered.

I am really impressed with the long life many have had with the 7.3 l in the Ford pickups.
Many have had good luck with the Duramax also.
 
Gas engines make the same torque as diesels at the same low RPM IF they have equal bore and stroke and equal aspiration. It's the long-stroke that makes the torque, not the compression-ignition. Just happens to be that there aren't all that many long-stroke gas engines around anymore. Many more in tractors and few in autos and trucks. The Ford 300 six was one attempt of offering low-end torque in a gas pickup. Same with a GM 292 and the 305 V8, to a lesser degree.

Very easy to look at Nebraska tests to compare equal bore and stroke gas and diesels. Torque is the same and horsepower higher with gas engines.
 
The 7.3 was a very good engine, kind of amazing considering it's base design was for a gas engine that IH converted to diesel rather than design a new engine. I believe it was the 404/446 gas engine first designed back in the 1960s.
 
Stroke length and related torque is why inline's are superior. It's just not as easy to swing a big crank in a v block.
The other big factor is that the inline 6 vs v8 will have a bunch fewer moving parts. Fewer moving parts is generally better...

I don't think there's a soul in their right mind that would argue that the IH DT444 (7.3) was even half the engine compared to the DT466, even at similar power specs. Likewise you won't find too many to stump for the Cummins V903 vs any variant of the inline N855 engine. The 466 and 855 were just plain simply better engines.
Not too many who are serious would elevate the 7.3 over the B5.9 Cummins either, for the same reasons. Despite the poor crate that Dodge wrapped around those trucks, there's a lot more of them left on the road around here than the 7.3's that died an early death. They might have had similar life expectancies... but my observation is that a lot more of them died very early in life compared to the Cummins... Wether that was a problem with lack of maintenance or whatever... I don't know... I just know there's a lot more of those old Dodge's on the go than there is Ford's with the 7.3...

Rod
 
It's my thoughs only, but V type diesels seem ok in
situations where rpms remain largely constant,
generators, compressors and the like, combines too i
suppose, whereas anything that requires fluctuating
rpms seem to be better with an inline... which is
best depends an the design of the engine not
necessarily the manufacturer, as Rod said below,
Cummins 855 is nearly bulletproof, where the v905 is
in my opinion junk... and they came from the same
company.
 
The 7.3s and 5.9s were both officially duty tested and scored the same longevity points.

When it comes to what you see on the road? Here in central NY I see more 80s-early 90s Ford diesels then Dodges. But I also see more 3.9 and 5.9 Cummins being used in other things after the trucks were scrapped.

There is no doubt that the Cummins is more fuel efficient and most have better injection systems.

Comparing a T444E (7.3) to a DT466 is an apples-to-oranges comparison. They are in separate duty classes. One is a space-saving "lightweight" and the other a replaceable sleeve "heavyweight."

International T444E has a B10 of 200,000 miles. B50 of 350,000 miles.

International DT466E has a B10 of 300,000 miles, and B50 of 450,000 miles.

I still have a 1994 F250 with the IDI 7.3 turbo and also have a 1992 Dodge with the 5.9 turbo-intercooled. Both have over 350K miles and both run perfect. The Dodge outpulls the Ford and gets 2-3 MPGs better while doing it. So the Dodge with a smaller engine and 3.50 axle ratios outpulls the Ford with a bigger engine and 4.10 axle ratios.
 
Inline 6 is a dynamically balanced design, so it runs much smoother.

The problem with the inline 6 is that it's 50% LONGER than a V8 with the same cylinder bore size. You can fit 33% more V8 under a 50% shorter hood.
 
There's a reason almost virtually all HD over the road trucks have an inline 6 diesel. One other thing about the V's is they they take more to build since they have two of some things ie heads manifolds.
 
Unofficially it seems like during the 90s most of the 3/4 and 1 ton Dodges were diesel in my neck of the woods and Fords not as big a percentage were diesels. Most of the Dodges still on the road are diesel.
 
It's a packaging issue.

Inline engines are usually somewhat less costly to manufacture, which accounts for their predominance in markets where space considerations allow.

V engines package better in some applications.

All else equal, there are no fundamental power, reliabiity, efficiency issues.

Dean
 
a v8 engine has no lugging power. the rpm has to be kept up under load. an in line engine will lug right down and then recover its rpm , unlike the v8 which will stall.
proved this many times in the 5542 cockshutt combine. one had 6 cyl. 265 cid. the other one had v8. 318 cid. the 6cyl. was far superior to the v8.
this was gas engines but still same principle.
 
The B10 and B50 depend on the fueling. A low hp 5.9 will on average last longer than a high hp one. These current 400+ hp pickup diesels if worked to the max will not live like the old 165 hp cummins that had very low peak temps and pressures.
 
A V type block can be more rigid than an In-line when it comes to twisting force. Their biggest disadvantage is if you were to design them with a stroke equal to an In-line they become very wide. A 90° block can be balanced quite easily. If you go to 60° to make it narrower you run into more design problems keeping the firing order even. If you go to one main bearing between each rod bearing you end up having to make the engine longer.
 
Agreed.

"All else equal," e.g., bore and stroke, there is no significant difference in "lugging power" between a V design and an inline design.

Dean
 
Agreed. The long stroke makes the V8 very large.

Everyone brags on the old Ford 300 I6 but the Ford 400 V8 had the exact same bore and stroke and if you ever drove a properly tuned one they had all the grunt in the world.
 
(quoted from post at 10:17:06 09/25/13) Agreed. The long stroke makes the V8 very large.

Everyone brags on the old Ford 300 I6 but the Ford 400 V8 had the exact same bore and stroke and if you ever drove a properly tuned one they had all the grunt in the world.
Click to expand...
yes, i am a 300 hundred guy but the 400 wins, it had more torque a smidge more hp, but if we are making things equal either cut 100 cubes from the v8 or add 100 to the i6 while still retaining the closeness of the bore and stroke (0.02 inches)
 
I always get a laugh out of this subject. Well lets see, newer train engines run V's Big mining trucks run V's. Guess that puts the Torque issue to rest. Stroke is what makes torque. That's why the early V8 diesels in tractors failed. To keep the overall size if the engine down they used engines whit too short a stroke. Heck in the early 90's the Ford 460 gasser produced more torque that the same year model GM 6.5s and the Cummins 5.9 while the turbo 7.2 just beat it out.

LOL back in the late 90's Dodge lied about HP and torque a little. Yea they achieved what they claimed but the peak HP and torque was achieved at OVER governed max RPM.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 13:57:36 09/25/13) I always get a laugh out of this subject. Well lets see, newer train engines run V's Big mining trucks run V's.
Rick
Click to expand...

If you go back and read Oliver662011 original question it stated pickup & tractors not locomotives & mining trucks.
 
(quoted from post at 19:53:01 09/25/13)
(quoted from post at 13:57:36 09/25/13) I always get a laugh out of this subject. Well lets see, newer train engines run V's Big mining trucks run V's.
Rick
Click to expand...

If you go back and read Oliver662011 original question it stated pickup & tractors not locomotives & mining trucks.
Click to expand...

Okay, I figured this subject would come up. It just so happens as well as tractors I am a huge railfan and model railroader, and I am pursuing a career for Norfolk Southern. I am aware that EMD and GE all use V designs and have since the 40's, such as the EMD 567, or EMD 710. But as mentioned, locomotive engines run generators and are not lugged, worked within range but never lugged pulling that hard would burn up traction motors.
But I did say across all deisels, including (but not limited to) tractors, trucks.

Additionally, my vote for most practical applications is for the in-line. Mike
 
(quoted from post at 17:00:39 09/25/13) A lot of the decision comes down to making it fit in the chassis.
Click to expand...
robably well above many other considerations is cost. Cost is always a big factor in any commercial enterprise. Fewer parts, ease of assembly, common/existing tooling, re-use of existing designs & sub-assemblies, etc. Decisions are seldom made on the basis of "best".
 
(quoted from post at 12:51:49 09/25/13)
(quoted from post at 19:53:01 09/25/13)
(quoted from post at 13:57:36 09/25/13) I always get a laugh out of this subject. Well lets see, newer train engines run V's Big mining trucks run V's.
Rick
Click to expand...

If you go back and read Oliver662011 original question it stated pickup & tractors not locomotives & mining trucks.
Click to expand...

Okay, I figured this subject would come up. It just so happens as well as tractors I am a huge railfan and model railroader, and I am pursuing a career for Norfolk Southern. I am aware that EMD and GE all use V designs and have since the 40's, such as the EMD 567, or EMD 710. But as mentioned, locomotive engines run generators and are not lugged, worked within range but never lugged pulling that hard would burn up traction motors.
But I did say across all deisels, including (but not limited to) tractors, trucks.

Additionally, my vote for most practical applications is for the in-line. Mike
Click to expand...

It really depends on what you are putting it in. That's the deciding factor. Me, personally, if I were buying a diesel pickup, it would be a V8. Nothing against the I6 Cummins, great engine. I don't care for the shipping container, but that's my opinion. Farm tractor, for the size I need, I6, every time. Cat mining dumper, well no choice there, only comes with a V.

But personally, today, with diesel being higher than gas, plus the price of the diesel option, I'd by gas. You gotta drive a lot of miles just to pay for the diesel option. Plus the added cost per gallon extend the amount of time you gotta drive that thing. I don't do enough heavy hauling nor do I drive enough to justify a diesel.

Rick
 
I like them both just fine. I’m not prejudiced. I could be wrong, but understand that pound for pound, inlines offer more torque. Perhaps I’m wrong.

I have a question though since you brought it up, although this is not tractor related. A few years ago, Dodge marketed a full sized van called a "Sprinter" that I had heard came with the option of an inline 5 cylinder manufactured by Mercedes Benz. True? I don't know. Something else I've noticed recently that maybe someone knows about. I'm seeing new "Sprinter" vans running around, but none of the ones that I'm seeing say Dodge on them. They all say Mercedes Benz on them. Maybe the "Sprinter" was always Mercedes Benz and branded "Sprinter" for Dodge? And maybe now that Chrysler is owned by Fiat, "Sprinters" don't exist any longer and now Mercedes Benz in marketing its van under its own flag? Not tractor related per say, but may be related to this topic.

Mark
 
The problem we had with the 400 Ford engines was that they all seemed to ping very badly. And with only a 2 barrel carb, they sure didn"t want to rev very far. They also got terrible gas mileage. I read much later that the 351M and 400 had poorly designed heads, and that later designed Australian heads worked much better. Lots of emissions experimentation in those times.

My agency had 400 Torino patrol cars most years, but one year we got 460"s. The 460 powered Torino was WAY faster and quicker than a similar 400 car, and in normal service, the 460 car would get a couple mpg better gas mileage--very significant when the 400"s would not get ANY over 10mpg, ever. But we only got the 460"s that one year. I guess too many wrecks with the larger engines was one of the reasons they didn"t continue ordering 460"s.

As far as the diesel question goes, I don"t know which is better. Whatever fits, I guess!
 
I wasn't bragging up the Ford 300. Just making note that it was an effort to produce a longer-stroke engine with good low-end torque as compared to its shorter-stroke brother, the 240 cube six. The old flathead 239 V8 even more with a 3 3/16" bore X 3 3/4" stroke. Also the Ford L-head V8 with 221 cubic inches with 3 1/16" X 3 3/4" stroke. The model A was also a long stroke engine with 3 7/8" bore by 4 1/4" stroke. Many of the older truck engines were built for low-end torque instead of horsepower. The 1935 GMC six had 3 5/16" bore by 4 5/8" stroke which is a huge ratio- even more then a Cummins 5.9.
 
I honestly didn't know. Tailend width and tail lights reminded me of my Dodge pickups, so I always thought that they were Dodges built on a pickup frame. I didn't know that they just had Dodge logos on Benzs. Hmm. Now though, I'm seeing new ones running around all over the place, Benz logos only. I wonder if it has something to do with the Fiat buyout. Not to get into politics, but when GM was...was...was whatever it is, that midsized pickup called a Canyon and something else had the kabosh put on it. I never owned one but thought that it seemed to be a popular truck. I understand that it had an inline 5 cylinder in it. Sprinter, diesel. Canyon and whatever, gasoline.

Thanks for the info Rod. I thought that Sprinter was a Dodge on a 3/4 or 1 ton frame. Live and learn. I had no idea.

Mark
 
For V versus inline design, as far as efficiency and performance goes, block design will not have an effect except maybe for the slight differences in heat rejection properties (if bore, stroke, CR, intake runner length, piston profile ect. are all comparable). Reliability will be dependent upon many factors but simply inline vs. V configuration doesn"t make much difference (all engines will have certain resonant frequencies which should be taken into consideration in the design). Inline or V configuration decisions are usually based on package size for a chosen displacement along with cost. When you get into the 12, 16, and 20 cylinder engines, inline designs become impractical (a C175-20 is long enough as it is....)
 
(quoted from post at 04:10:02 09/25/13) Hey guys, lets talk some diesel. I am not asking to compare brand to brand, I am asking overall for diesels in general which block design is best for use in a diesel engine for any possible application from pickups to tractors. For power, reliability, and efficiency, and why are they superior.
Mike
Click to expand...

Typically, early in the design phase a "trade study" would be done. Companys have different names for it, but it is simply a comparison of the features for each type of engine relative to the application being considered. For example, a V type engine will be shorter than an inline engine with an equal number of cylinders. Therefore, the size of the engine compartment may favor one type over another. If a company has a factory tooled to produce V engines and no tooling for inline engine then the V type would be cheaper for them.

To your question: which is best for power, reliability and efficiency? These factors are not determined by engine configuration (V type or Inline) but by engine design; material selection, combustion chamber design, cam timing, port sizing, tubo, etc. In other words, given the same engine design the power, reliability and efficiency would be the same whether packaged in a V configuration or as an inline.

Note: The stroke does not determine engine torque! Torque is a function of cylinder pressure. Cylinder pressure is a function of the engine design: cam timing, port sizing, turbo sizing, etc.
 
Ever driven an 8850 DEERE or a Massey combine powered by the big Perkins V-8? if you ever had, and felt the vibration and listened to the odd exhaust drone you wouldn't be asking this.

Also, the $$$$ folks have paid when the dual mass flywheels installed to smooth out the harshness from the engine crap out on the Ford or Chevy V-8 diesels.
 
I find that an inline is easier to work on. Everything important is up top, easy to get to, less to remove to get at things.

My mother and I both have Mercedes sedans, mine with an inline 5 Diesel, and hers with a V8 gas. I changed out injectors and glow plugs on my car faster than I can change 4 spark plugs in hers.

I think these days, the capacity to do work is about the same in light trucks, no matter if a straight 6 or a V8. I have heard not so nice stories about changing injectors in the V8's.

Josh
 
Inlines tend to develop max HP at lower RPMs, so they're better at lugging, v8s are better at higher speeds.

Anyone who has had say Ford PU's with the 300 ci inline 300 and with the 302 v-8 knows this very well. All other things being equal, the 300 will pull out if a hole that will kill the 302, the 302 will outrun the 300 on the highway - until you hit a good grade.

The big diesels are the same, inlines preferred. Although the inlines do seem to develop power over a narrower band so good gearing is your friend.
 
It is all bore stroke and combustion chamber design, the rest if cosmetic and maintenance issues.
 
Note: The stroke does not determine engine torque! Torque is a function of cylinder pressure. Cylinder pressure is a function of the engine design: cam timing, port sizing, turbo sizing, etc.
Click to expand...

Stroke plays a large portion of the torque equation. The longer the stroke the longer the "lever" used to turn the flywheel. Torque is measured in ft/lbs. The amount of pressure multiplied by the length of the lever determines the torque. A short stroke engine with large pistons can produce the same torque as a long stroke engine with a small piston even when cylinder pressures are the same.
 
as Rod said. Sprinter is a Mercedes. I think the parts were shipped over and they were assembled in the US. Since Mercedes (Daimler) owned Chrysler and Frieghtliner (and Sterling) they badged them as all three. Mercedes, Dodge and Frieghtliner. Thats why you might also see a Dodge Ram 3500/4500 with a Sterling grill. With Fiat (& the goooberment) buying Chrysler the sprinter deal fell thru. Fiat has been talking about shipping their version over as a Dodge.

The old Ford Econoline will be a thing of the past too when Ford starts to build its version of the sprinter here (called Transit). I think it too will have alot of euro parts (and US) and will be build in Kansas city. Not sure what they will have for engines. The RV guys here have been buying up E350/450s like crazy so they don't have to switch right away. I mean Acres and acres of E-series chasis's sitting around northern Indiana.
 
(quoted from post at 07:07:29 09/26/13)
Note: The stroke does not determine engine torque! Torque is a function of cylinder pressure. Cylinder pressure is a function of the engine design: cam timing, port sizing, turbo sizing, etc.
Click to expand...

Stroke plays a large portion of the torque equation. The longer the stroke the longer the "lever" used to turn the flywheel. Torque is measured in ft/lbs. The amount of pressure multiplied by the length of the lever determines the torque. A short stroke engine with large pistons can produce the same torque as a long stroke engine with a small piston even when cylinder pressures are the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, certainly if you increase the stroke, the torque will increase as a result of the longer lever arm. However, increasing the stroke also increases the engine displacement which will result in a torque increase. To determine the effect of stroke we must keep all other engine parameters constant.

For example, Case 1) if we consider an engine with a 4.0 in bore and a 4.0 in stroke the displacement is 50.27 cu in per cylinder. The cross sectional area of the piston is 12.57 in sq. Lets assume a cylinder pressure of 100 psi and that the force acts at a right angle to the crankshaft throw. The resulting torque is 209.5 ft-lb, (100 psi x 12.57 in sq x 4 in / 2 x 1 ft / 12 in). Case 2) if we consider an engine with a 5 in stroke the bore must be reduced to 3.578 in to equal 50.27 cu in per cylinder. The cross sectional area of the piston is now 10.05 in sq. Again, assume a cylinder pressure of 100 psi and that the force acts at a right angle to the crankshaft throw. The resulting torque is again 209.5 ft-lb, (100 psi x 10.05 in sq x 5 in / 2 x 1 ft / 12 in).

Yes, I do agree a short stroke engine with a larger piston can produce the same torque as a longer stroke engine with its smaller piston, as per the above example.

This is why I maintain stroke does not determine engine torque.

Respectfully,

Ken
 
At the same time, of two similarly sized engines (say Frod 300 vs 302), the inline 6 will make more torque, as it has about the same displacement, working on fewer, so therefore larger, pistons. But it will not have the horsepower potential due to the longer stroke and heavier pistons not allowing it to (reliably) rev as freely.

Generally, as far as longevity, a long-stroke, small-bore engine is going to be better for making a ton of torque down low in the RPM range, while a short-stroke, large-bore engine can make more horsepower at higher RPM, due to piston speed.

Regardless of configuration (V vs I).

Power is made in the top end, all the bottom end does is convert it from a linear direction (piston moving down) to rotational (crankshaft spinning).
 
(quoted from post at 23:49:16 09/28/13) At the same time, of two similarly sized engines (say Frod 300 vs 302), the inline 6 will make more torque, as it has about the same displacement, working on fewer, so therefore larger, pistons. But it will not have the horsepower potential due to the longer stroke and heavier pistons not allowing it to (reliably) rev as freely.

Generally, as far as longevity, a long-stroke, small-bore engine is going to be better for making a ton of torque down low in the RPM range, while a short-stroke, large-bore engine can make more horsepower at higher RPM, due to piston speed.

Regardless of configuration (V vs I).

Power is made in the top end, all the bottom end does is convert it from a linear direction (piston moving down) to rotational (crankshaft spinning).
Click to expand...

If the six cylinder produced more torque at a given RPM than a similar size V-8 it would be a result of a higher cylinder pressure. In other words the 6 cylinder had a higher volumetric efficiency (better filled the cylinder with fuel/air mixture) at that RPM than did the V-8.

Respectfully,

Ken
 
(quoted from post at 17:11:44 09/29/13)
(quoted from post at 23:49:16 09/28/13) At the same time, of two similarly sized engines (say Frod 300 vs 302), the inline 6 will make more torque, as it has about the same displacement, working on fewer, so therefore larger, pistons. But it will not have the horsepower potential due to the longer stroke and heavier pistons not allowing it to (reliably) rev as freely.

Generally, as far as longevity, a long-stroke, small-bore engine is going to be better for making a ton of torque down low in the RPM range, while a short-stroke, large-bore engine can make more horsepower at higher RPM, due to piston speed.

Regardless of configuration (V vs I).

Power is made in the top end, all the bottom end does is convert it from a linear direction (piston moving down) to rotational (crankshaft spinning).
Click to expand...

If the six cylinder produced more torque at a given RPM than a similar size V-8 it would be a result of a higher cylinder pressure. In other words the 6 cylinder had a higher volumetric efficiency (better filled the cylinder with fuel/air mixture) at that RPM than did the V-8.

Respectfully,

Ken
Click to expand...
if you knew the 300 and the 302 you would know that isnt the case at all. the 300 has very poor flowing heads compared to the 302
 

The longer the stroke the longer the piston is being pushed by the cylinder pressure even though that pressure is dropping quickly the further toward the bottom of the stroke it gets.
 
Higher torque is due to MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE, not higher cylinder pressures.

Longer stroke means longer crank journals. Longer crank journals means a longer lever for the piston to push against.

Same force against a longer lever = more torque.
 

Yes, I am familiar with the two engines and would agree the 302 heads flow better than the 6 cylinder. Typically what are called "poor flowing heads" will fill the cylinders better in the low RPM range resulting in higher torque values. The better flowing heads on the V-8 work better at higher RPMs. As the V-8 is lugged down the better flowing heads work against you and do not provide good cylinder filling, therefore torque drops off.
 
Per lb and per dollar. It's easier to build a short stiff sturdy
inline six which is also vibrates less and has six power strokes
. The minimum for smooth power delivery .
 
(quoted from post at 05:52:12 09/30/13) Higher torque is due to MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE, not higher cylinder pressures.

Longer stroke means longer crank journals. Longer crank journals means a longer lever for the piston to push against.

Same force against a longer lever = more torque.
Click to expand...

Yes, the same force against a longer lever will equal more torque. However, if we expand the expression we have:

1) Cylinder Pressure x Piston Cross Sectional Area x Stroke / 2 = Torque.

From 1) we see that increasing the stroke or increasing the piston cross sectional area has the same effect on torque. Since we are dealing with a heat engine simply increasing a dimension, by itself, cannot result in increased engine output. That would be akin to getting something for nothing which, cannot be. Engine output must be proportional to heat input.

In fact, increasing the bore size and/or the stroke increases engine displacement. The increased displacement results in a greater volume of air/fuel mixture inducted into the cylinder during each intake stroke. The greater volume of air/fuel mixture provides the increase in heat input to maintain the cylinder pressure.

If we compare engines of equal displacement, increasing the stroke requires a off setting reduction in piston cross area. For any given cylinder pressure, torque is not increased due the decrease in force output from the smaller piston. I provided an example of this in my 9/26 post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Which is better JD 2020 or Oliver 1650
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Leroy
L
L
New Tractor Saga is OVER, thanks for the advice!
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
T in NE
T in NE
L
Whats Your Opinion ? Non-Detergent oil Lead Substitute
2
Replies
30
Views
11K
Hobo,NC
Hobo,NC
M
diesel gas
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Spook
S
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top