PDA

View Full Version : boring vs. strokeing


wherezmytofu
03-13-2002, 08:07 PM
let get it right pplz! <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':cool:'>

now here's a few givens:

1. displacement (cc's) is the volume in the cylinders that means only the volume in the block!

2. compression ratio is truely measured by the cc's in the combustion chamber,that means if i got 8.5 compression ratio pistons (calibrated for my engine of course) and i milled the cylinder head then the compression will be much higher then 8.5 since the height of the combustion chamber is shortend, thats why geting a thinner/thicker head gasket is a cheap and effective way to gain/lose compression.

3. rod ratio is based on connections rod lenght divided by crankshaft stroke.

4. rod length is measured from the center of the wrist pin to the rod journal.

5. crankshaft stroke is the measurement from teh center of the main journal of a crankshaft to the center of the rod journal on the crankshaft.

now back on topic.....

boring: is the term used meaning honeing out the cylinder walls increassing the diamater of each cylinder. volume is gained by the increase of the radius, v = (squ(R)Pi)h.

stroking: is the term meaning changing the crank and connection rods to a higher lenght (for front is obviously measured from the center) the longer crank and connection rods push/pull the piston higher and lower then stock hieghts/depts. volume is gained by the increase of the hight, v = (squ( R )Pi)h . wilder stroker kits will require the block to be reworked, because the connection rod get wider as it connect to the crank, the high lenght is not normal and this "fat" part may hit the block, that is why the holes must to widen....the normal clearance issue. this is the differance between a "drop-in" stroker kit and a "race/pro" stroker kit.....there r other names....but drop in always mean non clearance issue with stock block.

now here's a quote of an mr. x:

"Just because the piston goes further down into the bore doesn't mean it goes higher up too. The goal of stroking is to bring the piston down further on the 1st and 3rd stroke without making it go any higher on the 2nd and 4th. Piston to valve clearances are already tight as it is. If stroking actually brought the piston closer to the valves, they would hit."

when i read this i get the impression mr. x has never seen a crank in real life, here is a picture of a stroker kit.

http://www.crower.com/cat/import/honda/images/kit.jpg

*the connection rod and crank are solid objects, with a fixed connection, they do not change lenght, thats why going up and going down are the same lenght, so if it went 2mm down extra it will go 2mm up extra!

*notice that the crank is perfectly symetrical, so even tho 1st and 4rth are active when 2nd and 3rd are down, they are all the same lenght, if this wasnt true then at ideal the engine would be as smooth as falling down mount everest...if the forces werent balanced you would have a push, weaker push effect, making the car ever ever jaggy.

*this was an error or mine the valves have very little to do
with it

main problems:

boring: thinner cylinder walls, this is a big issue with allumium blocks, cast iron blocks really dont have this problem, seein that right after the iron sleeves...it iron again.

*that is why when you bore your sleeves, on alluminum blocks, it is a smart choose 2 get aftermarker sleeves. godzilla, dart and other companies make high quality sleeves with and with out cooling holes(a whole differnt issue) they have gareenties like 85mm max 40psi, this will insure you that you havent bored the walls to thin.

strokeing: stroking adds a great deal of stress to the block, this is from the rod ratio and the compression ratio increase. the when the crank is inlarged the angle that the connections rods come in at out are greatly changed picture a wheel with a stick going thru a whole, when the rod is longer it comes in at a more tilted angle, this extra pressure is why f1 engines destrock the block, and the main reason why bore > stroke = high reving enigne, for a safe high reving engine you want everthing working smoothly, but with a londer stroke the connection rods come at a very large angle, the smaller the better, this makes the rotation transfer force in a harmful way. normaly stroker kits will at 3-9 degrees safely on a stock block. now the second problem is the compression ratio gain, because the rod goes higher into the combusion chamber, the compression is increase, heres a real life example of the compression gain.

850csi engine
source = http://membres.lycos.fr/clube31/850csi.php
5576 cc v12
9.8 compression ratio
80mm X 86mm (stroke X bore)
from the dealer that car needs 91 octane (premium)

HARTGE makes a stroker kit for the car it makes a 5.6 liter => 6 liter... this is a v-12 so the cc gain is spread out between 12 cylinders, dont get the idea u can get .4 litter safly out our i-4s...

source = http://membres.lycos.fr/clube31/hartge.php
5992 cc v12
10.5 compression ratio
86mm X 86mm (stroke X bore)
Super Plus unleaded (98 octane)

why the hell does a 10.5 compression ratio engine need 98 octane?...wtf?....

well you see the 10.5 is the pistons that the stroker kits comes with, they didnt add the compression increase of the 6mm lose in the combusion chamber. with would make the compression in teh 13-14 range...one needs 2 know the original demenions to find out the lose, which i dont have.

*only one company RS sports have actually found an effective way to fix both the rod ratio degree increase problem and the bump in compression ratio problem to bad they are only mass making it for the b-series honda block <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/dozingoff.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':zzz:'>, anyway it is called a deck plate, the idea behind a deck plate is it is a plate that is welded onto your block that is the exact lenght of the increaced in mm upword, lets so the crank moved an extra 5mm upword, then the deck plate will be exactly 5mm thick, this changes the rod ratio and combusion chamber volume back to stock!

ok if you have read this far you should either have a really really bad headache or in a comma....can i have your car?...if u have one? just node your head <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'>

William
03-13-2002, 08:47 PM
this "mr.X" sounds like a really cool guy...

"*the connection rod and crank are solid objects, with a fixed connection, they do not change lenght, thats why going up and going down are the same lenght, so if it went 2mm down extra it will go 2mm up extra!"

This is where you are wrong. &nbsp;I'm going to use a a lot of abstarct numbers here that would never be applied in real life to illustrate a point. &nbsp;say our stroke is 5 and our rod length is 5. &nbsp;We want to stroke this engine. &nbsp;We would make the stroke 6 and the rod length 4, assuming we're using the same pistons (for arguments sake). &nbsp;this means that at TDC they both still add up to 10, so valve clearances aren't an issue. &nbsp;However, at BDC, our longer stroke is bringing our shorter rod further down the bore. &nbsp;

"stroking adds a great deal of stress to the block, this is from the rod ratio and the compression ratio increase"

Stroking does nothing to the compression ratio, as I illusrated in the first paragraph, and it DECREASES the rod ratio. &nbsp;In my example, the rod ratio went from 5/5, or 1/1, or 1, to 4/6, or 2/3. &nbsp;This "stresses" the engine because the rod angle has just become more severe. &nbsp;

Now I didn't read your entire post, as these were the main points I was interested in arguing.

wherezmytofu
03-13-2002, 09:34 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (William @ Mar. 11 2002,10:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> say our stroke is 5 and our rod length is 5. We want to stroke this engine. We would make the stroke 6 and the rod length 4, assuming we're using the same pistons (for arguments sake). this means that at TDC they both still add up to 10, so valve clearances aren't an issue. However, at BDC, our longer stroke is bringing our shorter rod further down the bore. </td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
you sir are absolutly right!...well with your explain at least.
lets take a closer look!

stroke = 5mm
rod length = 5mm
total at full hight = 10mm
total at lowest hight = 0mm ( lets make this simple)

stroke = 6mm
rod length = 4mm
total at full hight = 10mm
total at lowest hight = -1mm

look at that, gained displacement, the problem with that th many stroker kits, like the one that is sold for the 850, crower honda stroker kit, jun, all do your + stroke - rod lenght, but the - rod lenght isnt exactly 6+4 = 10....all of them are more like 6 + 4.05 = 10.05 that .05 may seem small but it does take away from the combusion chamber....u have have had the idea that i was talking full mm adds..but im not...but slight increase = added compression and more cc's

the reason i put mr. x is beacause i didnt want to make it seem that i was flaming or trying to god look at this fool, <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

....and for the other one, strokeing does add more compression and stress, if you dont believe me call crower, check out their site crower.com or maybe you want to ask jun, or any other company that makes stroker kits...sorry kid...it's well know that stroking adds crazy stress to the block....."but dont take my word for it" <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'>

Cheater240SX
03-13-2002, 09:37 PM
Finally this forum is starting to get some knowledge!

I agree with tofu-- now to relate that to the KA24DE

Boring--the cylinder wall thickness is already too thin

Stroking--do you really want to increase the stroke for 96mm--already a large stroke to be revving very fast...

--Robert

William
03-13-2002, 09:51 PM
so in theory I'm right, but in practice I'm wrong... I suppose I can deal with that. &nbsp;As for adding compression? &nbsp;I don't think so, but again that's in theory. &nbsp;As for calling crower or JUN, I don't care to find out that much. &nbsp;If I ever thought about getting one, I probably would. &nbsp;Maybe they increase the compression ratio for performance reasons. &nbsp;By that I mean it's not an inherent result of stroking, but they figure while they're in there they would increase the compression ratio for fun. &nbsp;As for adding stresses to the engine, I admitted that and how in my previous post.

crazycuban
03-13-2002, 10:03 PM
Just a little addition, not for argument's sake, but stroker kits don't always decrease the rod length, and for the SR at least, I don't think I've seen one that does. &nbsp;Even the 2.2 liter stroker kits keep the same rods, which means higher compression. &nbsp;You will notice, however, that stroker kits come with pistons, which lowers the compression. &nbsp;Just thought I'd add that in after the 5+5, stroked 6+4 comment.

wherezmytofu
03-13-2002, 10:10 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (crazycuban @ Mar. 12 2002,12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just a little addition, not for argument's sake, but stroker kits don't always decrease the rod length, and for the SR at least, I don't think I've seen one that does. Even the 2.2 liter stroker kits keep the same rods, which means higher compression. You will notice, however, that stroker kits come with pistons, which lowers the compression. Just thought I'd add that in after the 5+5, stroked 6+4 comment.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
ding ding ding ding ding...thats what i was saying in my reply to william...in practice the dont shorten the rod length <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

William
03-13-2002, 10:14 PM
I understand better now, thank you.

wherezmytofu
03-13-2002, 10:17 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cheater240SX @ Mar. 11 2002,11:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Finally this forum is starting to get some knowledge!

I agree with tofu-- now to relate that to the KA24DE

Boring--the cylinder wall thickness is already too thin

Stroking--do you really want to increase the stroke for 96mm--already a large stroke to be revving very fast...

--Robert</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
i like the idea of u agreeing with me <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'> .....but there r and has been alot of knowledgeable people on this foume *hints at all the buetiful and intelligent mods (yay kiss ass!<img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'>, and a few other super smart members that use physics (what all automotive is based on) to prove their point...not just what they read on super street.... <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':cool:'>

03-13-2002, 10:41 PM
Well with the stroker for the the SR20 motors they come with new pistons cuz they move the location of the wrist pin. thus doing the same thing as if you would shourten the rod. To stoke a motor with only a different crank you might be lucky to obtain .1 litter. You would get more out of boreing 30 over.

Someone mentioned earlyer about the cylender sleeves being thin as is. I was wandering if anyone on here knows the factory thickness???

crazycuban
03-13-2002, 10:56 PM
I'm saying they don't move the wrist pin. &nbsp;Jun's custom kit, 2.2 liters, is sold as a crank and pistons, and says that you *CAN* use Jun "super connecting rods". &nbsp;Those connecting rods are the same rods you would use to beef up a 2.0 liter, so the wrist pin would be in the same place as stock.

AceInHole
03-13-2002, 11:22 PM
here's what I posted on the other thread:
***********************************
When you just change the rod length of an engine... you're not increasing or decreasing displacement. &nbsp;It's the crank that will make changes. &nbsp;Really, if you keep the same piston slugs, you'll need a shorter rod. &nbsp;Ideally, you want as long a rod possible to keep the rod angle as small as possible, which will translate into more torque in a literal sense. &nbsp;(The rod being closer to perpendicular to the crank at 90 deg equates to a more direct force on the crank). &nbsp;
Stroking will increase piston speed, which is why it could possibly detract from revability. &nbsp;Boring an engine out will need larger piston slugs, which weigh more. &nbsp;In both scenarios, it will take more force to actually move the piston, as F = m*a, and increasing m or the a(cceleration necessary to reach piston speeds) will require more force, and will thus "add to wear on the engine". &nbsp;
Piston speed isn't necessarily a bad thing, however. &nbsp;Work is a product of force* distance. &nbsp;The piston on a stroked engine has more speed to travel a greater distance (hence it's stroked) in the same amount of time. &nbsp;The same amount of work applied to both engines... the stroked engine yeilds more force.

Boring is obviously the easier way to get more displacement. &nbsp;Less parts are required to be changed in order to bore an engine out. &nbsp;However, not only are the block walls thinned (which is the worst thing you'd want as far as strength and reliability goes) but the crank and pistons fight a tougher load, in addition to requiring a larger ring surface which may affect compression.
Stroking is harder to do (that sounds funny) since it requires more parts and more involvment with digging into the engine. &nbsp;It won't necessarily change the combustion chamber, but ithen you'll get higher compression (the difference in chamber size from TDB vs. TDC is definitely affected). &nbsp;That said... wouldn't you say similar compression would require a LARGER combustion chamber?? Remember, the piston travels further down now... it's travel being relatively larger will then call for a proportionately larger combustion chamber, so an argument on wear in this sense is unfounded. &nbsp;IMO, the longer stroke is more reliable and is more efficient.
Yes... the KA has an advantage over the SR in this manner, not a disadvantage (this is opinionated however... &nbsp;and in this same opinion, the KA's lesser rev limit is not due to it's longer stroke, but it's half counterweighted crank).
Having a square borex stroke isn't too bad or too good, from the way I see it. &nbsp;It's simply the best mathematical compromise.

Anyways, if I got anything wrong (running off the top of my head) let me know.
***********************************

Hope that has relevance

03-15-2002, 07:05 PM
it sounds like most people agree that stroking a engine does not change comp. ratio. &nbsp;I'm not sure if I am reading it all how you intended but that's what I came up with. &nbsp;Anyway, if you do not change the valve clearance then the compressed volume of air at TDC is the same before and after the installation of a stroker crank. &nbsp;However, the volume of the air above the piston at BDC is larger so therefore the comp. ratio is larger. &nbsp;If you change things liek pistons and head gasket thicknesses or machine the head of course then this all changes, but I was just assuming rods and crank so the stroke is longer, but the valve clearance is stock.

Also, the main thing that limits the redline of an engine is stroke. &nbsp;This is because the highest loads that your engine sees are the recipricating inertia from the piston and con rod. &nbsp;they have to go real fast up then stop and go real fast down that's a much higher load then the explosion from the power stroke. &nbsp;Valve stuff limits things too, but also because it is recripricating too, anything that is recipricating is bad, that's why pushrods suck. &nbsp;That's also why rotary engines can spin real fast, they dont' have recipricating pistons. &nbsp;The rod ratio comes into play, but isn't as big of a deal as how fast the engine turns. &nbsp;If you want a race engine you probably want it to rev higher so you want a shorter stroke so the pistons don't have to move as far and therefore the loads are lower. &nbsp;F1 engine have about 2:1 bore:stroke ratio. They rev to 19,000rpms and make 900hp with a 3 liter V10. &nbsp;

hope something there helps
Adam

AceInHole
03-15-2002, 07:27 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Guest @ Mar. 13 2002,9:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it sounds like most people agree that stroking a engine does not change comp. ratio. I'm not sure if I am reading it all how you intended but that's what I came up with. Anyway, if you do not change the valve clearance then the compressed volume of air at TDC is the same before and after the installation of a stroker crank. However, the volume of the air above the piston at BDC is larger so therefore the comp. ratio is larger. If you change things liek pistons and head gasket thicknesses or machine the head of course then this all changes, but I was just assuming rods and crank so the stroke is longer, but the valve clearance is stock.

Also, the main thing that limits the redline of an engine is stroke. This is because the highest loads that your engine sees are the recipricating inertia from the piston and con rod. they have to go real fast up then stop and go real fast down that's a much higher load then the explosion from the power stroke. Valve stuff limits things too, but also because it is recripricating too, anything that is recipricating is bad, that's why pushrods suck. That's also why rotary engines can spin real fast, they dont' have recipricating pistons. The rod ratio comes into play, but isn't as big of a deal as how fast the engine turns. If you want a race engine you probably want it to rev higher so you want a shorter stroke so the pistons don't have to move as far and therefore the loads are lower. F1 engine have about 2:1 bore:stroke ratio. They rev to 19,000rpms and make 900hp with a 3 liter V10.

hope something there helps
Adam</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Uhh... actually I already mentioned the raising of compression, which happens slightly in both boring AND stroking (more so from stroking) since the relative size of the combustion chamber stays the same while the piston at BDC yeilds a larger chamber. &nbsp; I also mentioned piston speeds...

Anyways, the thing about stroking an engine is that you can get more power at less RPMs (more torque in essence) which makes the engine more streetable... etc etc.

240racer
03-15-2002, 07:33 PM
oh yeah of course a longer stroke will give more torque. &nbsp;That's one of the reasons the KA has as much torque at lower rpms as it does. &nbsp;I was just looking at it from a racing perspective, I don't think that I would want a longer stroke even if I always drove on the street in a high gear (the only reason for low end torque)
that's why I sounded biased. &nbsp;Also I didn't see where you wrote that stuff the first time I read through the posts there was just so much info to sort through, sorry
Adam

AceInHole
03-15-2002, 07:59 PM
LoL, it's no prob. &nbsp;Just don't want people going around thinking a 2:1 bore/ stroke ratio was the best thing since the undersquare bore/ stroke of the KA (which is probably the best thing since pancakes) [note the slight joke please]. &nbsp;It's also a tad odd when someone posts the same thing you posted earlier... <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/hehe.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':hehe:'>