Inline 4 over 2L

>v8 over 400 cubic inches

>yfw 3l turbo inline 4 that makes 305hp and 500Nm/370lb-ft of torque

Litre o Cola.

>9.5 liter flat 6

Craiglist ads that are updated to say sold

>>Inline 4 over 2L
Some of the best 4 cylinders are over 2L. S14, M104 Cosworth, Porsche 3.0L, F22C.

>V6 under 2L

>High displacement V8 with crossplane crank

Such is the way God intended

hello HANZ PORSCHE
how you doing

A engine should have about 500 cm3 per cylinder.
This is the sweetspot for good combustion and rpm capabilities.

However larger cylinders may be a cheaper and more fuel efficient way to build a more powerfull engine, since it requires less parts and has a better combustion with less friction per displacement.
So a 3-4L i-3/i-4 or a even a 1-2L single cylinder may be a thing soon...

How it’s Made does a good video on this engine

>cm3
Just say cc you dumb nigger.

>not settling for a caddy 500 8.2L

not enough!

> V8 under 4L

>2.5l 5cyl

1.8L v6

A CUTE
CUUUUTE

>4 cylinder
>3,040 cu/in
>135,375 lb/ft

1.5 litre in-line 8
75 hp @ 5500 rpm

>tfw inline 6 2L

>transverse V6 or V8

Here is a 1910 Blitzes Benz. It has a 21.5L 4 cylinder engine.

>no replacement for displacement

>mfw straightpiped 750cc Vtwin

Those little drum brakes are just saying
>implying I would even slow down for you plebs

>15 liter I6

>you are now aware that in 1984 this 2.5L straight 4 made 160-170 horse
>in a time when emissions cucked V8's made the same

Is that an important point making your car worth having?
Or do you not find it noteworthy no enthusiast in 84 kept their v8s stock.
People were happy to skirt on laws and modify their vehicles to even complete illegality. Just to spite the laws.

I dont know any 84 v8 today that doesnt have a different carb or intake on it.
Even heads and cams are rare to see stock.

Your car is really nice though and lm glad they could make that power stock.

You are like a little baby, watch this
>2.5L
>235hp

muh torquesteer

>turbo 1.8l
>...
>112hp

> small, high-revving inline-6s and v8s

But glorious K20 exists

Is a double acting cylinder technically two cylinders?

A fellow gentleman of culture

>y-you can't just make an inline four bigger, muh veeayte, if it's over 2 litres each cylinder is too big
>Praises some Yankee dankee doodle 10 litre V8
Why not just make 5 litre DOHC inline 4 with a turbo. With modern technology™ surely it could be nicely balanced.

>tfw only 16 ever made

>2.3L inline 3

>16.5 liters
>8000rpm

That sounds fucking amazing.

The K8 rocks. It's a shame the MX-3 was an FF. Has anyone ever swapped one of these into a Miata or something?

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk

H/o/ly fuck this is the best gif ever my bf is mad at me for laughing too much

don't forget naturally aspirated

The K8 is awesome.

Most people don't swap it into anything though, mostly KL-ZE's. At least the MX-3 has a tendency to swing wide in corners with massive lift off oversteer.

t. someone who nearly died in the rain the first time they discovered that

>straightpiped Vtwin
Either boomer or apriliafag
V 4 A B E S T
4
A
B
E
S
T

youtube.com/watch?v=q3WdxhXlLpc

>not being an apriliafag

impressive.

>2.4L 700+ hp

>V6 below 2L

>4'' bore and 3'' stroke
PUSH RODS PUSH GODS

still a neon

Surprised nobody has posted this yet.
youtube.com/watch?v=PlPbhGeMu4U
>432cubic inches
>PER CYLINDER
If I ever get access to a big enough CNC mill, I'd love a V8 version.

Motorcycles here, 125-250cc are best. 499cc per cylinder is just for tax evasion purposes.

Modern tech can't really fix physics, sorry. Biggest we'll go is 4L.
elmerracing.com/raceshop/race-engines/thor-billet-engine-detail
>that thicc webbing

>Has anyone ever swapped one of these into a Miata or something?
crapengineering.weebly.com/

For 10 minutes

>1310 feet
FTFY

>4 cylinders ever

>Motorcycles here, 125-250cc are best.
Cylinders that small have a worse combustion and, friction you need more of them to make the same power, wich increases costs, emissions and fuel consumption.
>499cc per cylinder is just for tax evasion purposes.
In many countrys you are taxed on displacement, wich means larger cylinders are actualy taxed more.

THE BEEEAAAAAST

>Cylinders that small have a worse combustion
Then explain how a motorcycle gets 200hp/l naturally aspirated.

>Then explain how a motorcycle gets 200hp/l naturally aspirated.
Incredibly high rpm.

>RPM makes power
Look at this idiot.

power in kW is rpm*torque/9550

Long version:
P=M*n*pi/30000

>kW
Found the brainlet.

Anyways, P=E/t, or power equals energy per time (the latter being the same for all engines in this realm). Energy in this case being the chemical energy released in the engine, including it's burn efficiency minus the friction (Etotal=Echem - Efriction). Friction will of course increase as RPM increases, but let's ignore that since it only makes your claim less plausible. The most important part is chemical energy, and it's dictated by how much air and fuel you can squeeze into an engine. Since those two are bound by a (stoichiometric) ratio, they have a specific volume. Then we have the engine valves, which have a specific surface or skirt area through which intake air passes. What do you get when you take a volume per second (cubic meters of intake charge per second) and divide it by a surface (square meters)? You end up with meters per second worth of airflow. This is the limiting factor of the internal combustion engine. No matter how many RPM you make, if you exceed the maximum flow speed of an intake or exhaust port, an engine stops making more power. Even worse, the more RPM you make, the more friction starts taking it's toll, robbing you of further power.

The formula of torque and RPM is only used to calculate power, because you cannot measure mechanical power itself, you can only measure torque.

I might be going crazy but I think I remember reading somewhere about a racing prototype with a supercharged 1.5-1.6L V12-V16

Apparently made near 1000hp

>turbocharged diesel tractors

The only supercharged16 cylinder racing prototype I can think of is the BRM H16. Only made 450-ish hp though, not 1000. There never was a crazy F1 era where they were pushing 1000hp out of superchargers, only did that with superchargers, and mostly V6 engines.

>diesel
>tractors
That's redundant.

Hahahaha found the triggered Amerifat. Fuck mods, the fact is your shit box Maro in 84 made like 120hp. Dumbass burgers

>That's redundant.

not really

>>kW
>Found the brainlet.
It is the SI unit for power, so the logical choice of unit.
>intake port flow
The thing you are forgetting here is that motorcycle engines, especialy ones with a high specific output, have a short stroke and a larger bore, allowing them to use larger intake ports and valves relative to their displacement.
These engines can therefore keep their tor up at high rpm and only drop in power at even higher rpm.

Letś for example take the CBR 250RR, a 250cc bike that makes 33,6 kW, so almost 200 hp/L.
It hits maximum torque at 12000 rpm, wich is quite high, but it hits maximum power at 15000 rpm
Its specific toque is actualy pretty low with only 86 Nm/L.

As demonstrated the key to high specific output naturaly aspirated engines is high rpm.

>you cannot measure mechanical power itself, you can only measure torque
And since torque*rpm*unit factor is power, you can measure power.

Everything with a diesel is a tractor though.

>Energy in this case being the chemical energy released in the engine, including it's burn efficiency minus the friction
>What is thermodynamic efficiency?

>It is the SI unit for power, so the logical choice of unit.
No. Logical choice in the industry is horsepower, even in Europe.

>allowing them to use larger intake ports and valves relative to their displacement.
They still make excellent flow number for their bore (cfm per inch, or m3 per mm), much better than most car engines.

>Nm/L
Confirmed for not working in the industry, you'd use BMEP instead.

>And since torque*rpm*unit factor is power, you can measure power.
No, you can only measure torque and calculate power from there. This significantly decreases the accuracy of your power calculations, because it introduces the inaccuracy of both the RPM and torque measurements.

>prototype
The car raced, it wasn't a prototype

okay i'll give you that. those tiny little diesel engines they put in shitty ecoboxes actually run quite smooth. but slow

we can call them smooth tractors

checked.
more of a fan of a 2.3 i5 myself desu.

>Logical choice in the industry is horsepower
1. there are different deffinitions of horsepower
2. kW is used by pretty much all manufacturers
>They still make excellent flow number for their bore (cfm per inch, or m3 per mm), much better than most car engines
Wich allows them to keep the torque up at high rpm.
>hurr durr use the units I want
Not an argument.
>decreases the accuracy of your power calculations, because it introduces the inaccuracy of both the RPM and torque measurements
If you do a static load test with constant rpm and constant torque, the margin of error is neglectable for this discussion.

To get back to the original topic:
The only way to make a naturaly aspirated 4-stroke gas powered engine produce over 200 hp/L is a highgh rpm engine, that keeps its torque up at high rpm, just like the CBR 250 RR MC22.
If I am wrong, show me a naturaly aspirated gas engine that produces 200 hp/L at normal rpm, so below 7000 rpm.

>Makes more smoke than a steam engine

Buses have 8+ liter inline fours though and they're diesel. Surely its possible with balance shafts to make a smooth enough big four?

>not having 2.7L I4 with a whopping 150bhp

h-heh, bet u fags are jelly

Which buses man? In netherlandistan the mercedes benz Euro 6 citaro's use a 7.7-10.7L i6, sometimes in a hybrid configuration. Some companies use VDL citea buses use a 6.7L Cummins diesel which has volvo's CNG system which allows it to use 100% diesel under loas and 20% diesel + 80% cng during cruising

My car has a 2.4 i4, what's the problem?

The way Hitler intended

>k20 being worth shit

Ha, you make me laugh.
An old Honda A series did more for its own generation then the K-Fucky

>this is pod racing
What it the actual fuck

No, just tractor-pulling.
It has a little popularity in germany and the netherlands...

Sometimes they use helicopter turbines, sometimes turbodiesels, sometimes multiple V-8s and some even use aircraft engines.

Not him, but:
There are indeed different definitions of the horsepower. You use metric hp or PS in Europe, imperial hp in the US. Nm/L is an irrelevant, non-SI, and non-industry standard unit, we use BMEP (and BSFC) instead.

The high flow area of these motorcycle engines would allow them to make power at low RPM if you put the correct camshaft in for that. Static load test still has inaccuracies due to measurement error.

Hp/l is irrelevant. All that matters is efficiency, and you can easily beat a motorcycle's efficiency in terms of BSFC with a low speed diesel - those churn less than 1000RPM. You could similarly get a good BSFC from a low speed gasoline engine, because they make for less internal friction.

Sometimes they go all out.

Revs

>engine so fucking built they had to wrap the entire powerplant
>just so one of the 1 ton heads doesnt get catapulted by some 500psi detonation and take out some little farmer boy

>when the power stroke is a half speed practice bass beat

>With dual purpose steering wheel

youtube.com/watch?v=ML_L0B0Sv4o

They will also run at full speed in reverse if you run the engine backwards which it will being a 2 stroke.