Is it true that half a liter is the most optimal cylinder size?

Hello Mr shit teir V8. What did you want to say to a good V8?

>alpina
>a good engine
seriously out of all the engines you could have picked you posted that.....

You have the absolute worst taste even a 1UZ shits over that

They all sluts now

It only needs to be better than his shit 6.2. So I picked the worst 4L I could think of, I think you rather missed the point.

100k bhp @ 100rpm
I dont even know what they'd have to do to get it to 7k rpm
youtu.be/1QWT2bXKo24

>is it true that half a liter is the most optimal cylinder size?

No.

It comes from the fact that most passenger vehicles for the last 25 years usually had a displacement between 400-700cc/cyl. People further simplified this as ~500cc/cyl because it's easier to do the math when determining displacement relative to cylinder count which was only noted by auto journos who wanted to express to readers that a given cars engine displacement is relatively small or large compared to the "average." Something like the Porsche 968 may "only" have a 4-banger, but it's very big for a 4cyl engine.

Ultimately, it doesn't really mean much. Optimal displacement per cylinder depends entirely on the application of the engine. Whether it's powering a moped or a back-up generator, the range is going to very wide.

>7k rpm
>ship can't go anywhere else that straight ahead due to humongous gyroscopic effect

holy shit is that a shrinker guy like antman?

not if it was mounted inline with the ship

they used to do that, but then more and more started wearing them, sometimes so transparent you can see their underwear, and after about a year or 2 of that it got to the point where they just don't bother with underwear.

>it's not even normally the hot ones that go commando, it's the chunky 5-6s who wouldn't be able to pull a guy if their lips weren't visible through their leggings

The only reason girls hate sluts is because they wish they could go around getting attention like that too, but they aren't hot enough.

This 16 liter V8 that revs to 8000rpm would like to have a word with you.

thats nice and all but its only 2 valves per cyl

It's a 16 litre 8000rpm V8, your argument is invalid.

It is not. Some manufacturers just like it because it results in demi-even displacements regardless of cylinder count/config.

Why not use several smaller diesel-electric turbines?
Then you can have the same power, but you can afford to loose an engine or two. Also less consuming I would guess when in you don't need all the power.

>8 engines combine the efficiency of the dual overhead cam/four valve-per-cylinder technology with an abnormally large 904 cubic inch displacement, creating torque and horsepower on pump gas. Deck height is 13.15-inches with a 4.9-inch bore and 6-inch stroke.

it is? please explain

lol what? no. A square 86mm x 86mm is the perfect 500cc cylinder dimension. Any 500cc undersqaure is only that way for thermal efficiency and packaging (narrow bore pitch). Anything oversquare from that is for engine series modularity. If low priority is given to those mentioned design points, then a square 86x86mm bore stroke is PERFECT.

>not enough cubes
Try going for 3400ci and then I'll be impressed. Until then, its nothing but a teeny tiny honda engine.

500cc/cyl

imo it's not exactly most optimal volume
because later flame propaget at fairly slow speed so having engine with larger bore becomes a handicap

no it's not you autismal twat, stop making things up.

That prop needs massive torque to move. That engines makes 5.5 million ft/lbs at 100rpm. You 'd need way too many smaller engines to make that feasible. Smaller engines also don't last as long because they're under more stress. Those engines can shut down banks of cylinders and keep going if they need to change a piston at sea.

>hurr durr youre wrong
>square bore/stroke is not an ideal cylinder dimension
lmao you didn't even counter

>Why not use several smaller diesel-electric turbines?
>Then you can have the same power, but you can afford to loose an engine or two. Also less consuming I would guess when in you don't need all the power.

pistons are more efficient for internal combustion engines, plus its an electric generator so they can already use as much or as little as they need, on top of that these engines are used on ships that will be operating at a constant speed, so there isn't as much of a demand for operating part time on one motor

I've been in a massive ship. It had 8 generators, producing 11,200kW each.

In a harbour you don't want to run everything.

You didn't make an argument to counter, and this is Veeky Forums, not Harvard.
All you did was pick an arbitrary point and say if you go one way it does more of this and if you go the other way it does more of that.
Then somehow decide from that small bit of information that the middle point is perfect, which is nonsense. It's nothing more than a reference point.

Only revs to 105 RPM sadly. Though 5,500,000 Lb Ft of torque is nice

Thermal Efficiency rises as the size increases. I've heard these large ship diesels can have efficiency over 50%

>if you base your design process on nothing but numbers autism then this is the perfect design
you should just leave

>You didn't make an argument to counter,
I already primed my case in a prior post. (Packaging, thermal efficiency, modularity)
But even if those terms didn't ring a bell, why did you just say "I dont get it, please tell me"?

>All you did was pick an arbitrary point
It's not an arbitrary point, dimensions have an effect on the characteristic of the cylinder.

With a square bore and stroke, all compromises are normalized. It allows the longest mechanical advantage (stroke) with the largest bore (see: valve size).

Going undersquare reduces bore (valve size), increases pistons acceleration rate and speed which burdens high-RPM operation. *Before tuning compensations*, these engines are known to generally be low-RPM biased.

Going oversquare reduces mechanical advantage (shorter stroke), increases maximum valve size (bore) and introduces the combustion pitfalls of big bores (less tolerant to ign advance, increased combustion-chamber surface to volume ratio resulting in increased thermal losses (lower thermal efficiency). *Before tuning compensations*, these engines are known to be high-RPM biased.

Square engines, both theoretically and in real life, offer the best balance of the compromises for the tuner, and it shows. Some of the best engines are square engines. If I could only give examples of 86x86 500cc cyl engines, how about 2JZ, K20A, 3S-GTE, Nissan SR20, Mazda FE3, Hyundai Theta even.

If only you waited one more minute, you wouldn't have looked stupid :(

forgot Honda J30 V6 and Ford 2.7L Ecoboost

Heres a 'square engine' list from Wiki

Square engine examples
1967 – FIAT 125, 124Sport engine 125A000-90 hp, 125B000-100 hp, 125BC000-110 hp, 1608 ccm, DOHC, 80.0 mm × 80.0 mm (3.15 in × 3.15 in) bore and stroke.

1970 - Ford 400M had a 101.6 mm × 101.6 mm (4.00 in × 4.00 in) bore and stroke.

1973 – Kawasaki Z1 and KZ(Z)900 had a 66.0 mm × 66.0 mm (2.60 in × 2.60 in) bore and stroke.[2]

1973 - British Leyland's Australian division created a 4.4-litre version of the Rover V8 engine, with bore and stroke both measuring 88.9 mm. This engine was exclusively used in the Leyland P76.

1982 - Honda Nighthawk 250 and Honda CMX250C Rebel have a 53.0 mm × 53.0 mm (2.09 in × 2.09 in) bore and stroke, making it a square engine.[3]

1983 - Mazda FE 2.0L inline 4-cylinder engine with a perfectly squared 86.0 mm × 86.0 mm (3.4 in × 3.4 in) bore and stroke. This engine also features the ideal 1.75:1 rod/stroke ratio.

1987 - The Opel/Vauxhaul 2.0 L GM Family II engines are square at 86.0 mm × 86.0 mm (3.39 in × 3.39 in) bore and stroke; example as C20XE C20NE C20LET X20A X20XEV X20XER Z20LET Z20LEH Z20LER A20NHT A20NFT.

1989 - Nissan's SR20DE is a square engine, with an 86.0 mm × 86.0 mm (3.39 in × 3.39 in) bore and stroke.

1991 - Ford's 4.6 V8 OHC engine has a 90.2 mm × 90.0 mm (3.552 in × 3.543 in) bore and stroke. It has been the backbone of Ford V8-powered cars and trucks in different power levels and head designs for two decades.

1995 - The BMW M52 engine with a displacement of 2793 cubic centimeters is an example of a perfect square engine with an 84.0 mm × 84.0 mm (3.31 in × 3.31 in) bore and stroke.

1996 - Jaguar's AJ-V8 engine in 4.0-litre form has an 86.0 mm bore and stroke.

2005 - The Volkswagen Group W16 engine as used in the Bugatti Veyron is an example of a square engine – with an 86.0 mm × 86.0 mm (3.39 in × 3.39 in) bore and stroke.

The Peugeot XU10 engine line – with a displacement of 1998 cubic centimeters – is an example of a perfect square engine with an 86.0 mm × 86.0 mm (3.39 in × 3.39 in) bore and stroke.

Toyota's 2JZ and 4U are square engines, with 86.0 mm × 86.0 mm (3.39 in × 3.39 in) bore and stroke.

Honda's J30A engine has an 86.0 mm × 86.0 mm (3.39 in × 3.39 in) bore and stroke.

Toyota 1G-GE

Honda B17A, like the Ford 4.6 is "virtually" square.

Review the list; most of the engines are legendary. What a coincidence.

that is way to sexual

i would never get any work done in class, would have asked to go to the washroom for a fap desu

its the estrogen in our water, people piss in our water supply and the water filtration cannot remove certain chemical bounds, tap water has a tiny percentage of pharmaceutical drugs in it

There's plenty of engines that aren't square that just as good if not better, it's such a bad way to make your argument, it proves nothing.

>le "back in my day" meme XD
go to bed grampa.
maybe she'd get insulted (behind her back) by the uggos on campus, but why would she give a fuck?

...

how is my post autistic? because it hurt your feelings?

He's right. People would be talking shit non stop.

An awful lot of words to say fuck all. You might as well say all the good engines have 32mm tappets or 34mm inlet valves or some other arbitrary (yes it's arbitrary) dimension.

Because you don't seem to understand the basics of social interaction, a hallmark of weapons grade autism.

>In a harbour you don't want to run everything.
cylinder deactivation

>weapons grade autism.

No, I'm sure it just became a standard size because some top seller used that size and there became a surplus of parts.