Superchargers increase engine displacement by forcing air in...

You could suck out burning gas causing your car to light on fire too fag

File: 13659208_571600793045937_5596876121969208839_n.jpg (10KB, 261x170px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 261x170px

>superchargers increase engine displacement

>>15674121
>Could you decrease engine displacement by running a vacuum instead?
No, your point is that you want to reduce the amount of air going in. Using a vacuum wouldn't be very effective. Instead you could just make sure the throttle doesn't open as much so it allows less air in. Most manufacturers already do this with their drive-by-wire systems.

>>15674153
This.

Many racing engines run restrictor plates for the same effect.

>>15674153
>>15674160

I thought you could do this with the throttle body, but I bet with the crankcase under vacuum it would be very effective.

I figured motors would do something like this already because its so simple.

>>15674137

Effectively, yes, turbos and superchargers do this. So I was wondering about manipulating pressure to decrease displacement. Kinda like how Chevy came up with the idea to shut off cylinders to save fuel in V8s, except a much simpler solution.

>>15674131

You know engines run on explosions and fire, right?

you're making so many assumptions that this post is hard to read.

no, you can't decrease engine displacement by running a vacuum. you can run a restrictor plate to limit the amount of air allowed through the throttle body but that would be it.

and the crankcase is typically under a vacuum anyways.

http://nutterracingengines.com/racing_oil_pumps/crankcase_vacuum_facts.html

but yeah, all you can do is run a restrictor plate, and even if you had a 'restrictor on demand' system to limit the amount of air, you would have to be specific on when you could use it because people would just push down the gas pedal farther and use more fuel anyways

>>15674121
>Could you decrease engine displacement by running a vacuum instead?
Yes, it's called closing the throttle. Are you retarded?

>>15674121
>>15674240
Turbos and superchargers don't increase engine displacement. Every cycle of the engine displaces the same amount of volume with boost or not. Forced induction increases the volumetric efficiency of that displacement.

>>15674256

I'm not necessarily making assumptions as much as vague statements.

Yes, if you run a crankcase vacuum system and keep it under a strong vacuum and you restrict the airflow the engine will run on a vacuum(running on less than standard atmospheric pressure) meaning that it will basically decrease displacement.

What I'm asking is how far can you take this idea? Can you in simple terms turn a V8 into something that runs more like a V6 or V4? Like having to run at 2k-3k rpm on the highway instead of less than 2k for cruising speed? Trade off RPMs for fuel under certain circumstances.

>>15674262

I think what I'm saying is more complicated than manipulation of the throttle.

>>15674279

Engine displacement is measured in volume. Turbos and superchargers manipulate that volume for power. Technically you're right.

I'm talking about manipulating the volume to achieve fuel efficiency.

>>15674332
>Engine displacement is measured in volume. Turbos and superchargers manipulate that volume for power. Technically you're right.

Forced induction increases air density, not volume

>>15674339

I use volume and displacement as analogies.

I don't know what education level every poster is at so I'm trying to be vague and give everyone a chance to contribute.

Minor technicalities. Surely educated anons understand exactly what I'm saying and less mechanically gifted anons can decipher what I'm saying easily enough.

>>15674332
>I think what I'm saying is more complicated than manipulation of the throttle.
No, it's exactly what you're talking about. Close the throttle, engine draws vacuum, less air goes in, engine makes less power. Intake restrictors are just an easy way (compared to dynoing every car or mandating a spec throttle body) for regulators to functionally cap horsepower.

>>15674121
Hell yeah nigger this would work perfect combined with Direct Exhaust Injection. You can decreased displacement by creating vaccuum and also injecting exhaust gas directly. The more you turn up the SC the less gas used and turn up thr SC to max and you actually staret creating new gasoline and refilling your tank. Soon as automotive niggers can get their heads out of their asses they can evolve from hybrid savagery up to in situ vacuum SC gasoline DEI

>>15674351
The problem is you are using displacement (volume) interchangeably with pressure or air density. You can't do that. It's very important to be specific in these matters.

>>15674368
Pleb you're so stupid, if theres less air then it's less displacement, doesnt matter if the cylinder is smaller or you use a SC to suck the air out it's still equal to less air and less fuel = better fuel economy retard

>>15674357

That is only part of it though. I'm also talking about tuning the fuel mixture, keeping the crankcase under a vacuum level normally associated with racing, etc.

So its slightly more complicated.

I've also considered using electric water pumps and electric fans to give the motor a little more horsepower so it can operate better under those conditions.

>>15674351
Don't expect it.

If I say "it's at top of the engine" their brains melt because they can't read it unless it says "it's on top of the engine".

Him not realizing volume and density are similar is just that he's dense.

1 liter of air / volume=1 liter

>Example of forced induction managing to push in twice the amount of air into the same cylinder

2 liters of air / volume=1 liter
= you now have 2 liter per cylinder efficiently

>>15674368

Yes but you understand exactly what I'm saying regardless of terminology.

You're right. I haven't had to talk shop in a very long time so I'm out of practice anyways.

displacement = more air
superchargers = more air

obviously the same
(^:

>>15674372
Holy shit, I really hope you are trolling. Were you educated in the inner city?

>>15674387
I'm afraid it wouldn't work. You need a certain amount of power to maintain speed. If you have a vacuum to draw air out it will cut power slowing you down and wouldn't increase fuel efficiency. The throttle controls the engine speed by metering air. A vacuum is unnecessary for doing that since it almost cut off all the air to an engine.

>>15674379
>I'm also talking about tuning the fuel mixture, keeping the crankcase under a vacuum level normally associated with racing, etc.
Tuning the fuel system how? Carburetors and FI both operate by controlling air/fuel ratio. Less air means less fuel. Adding more fuel will increase fuel usage and using less fuel will increase combustion temperature and potentially cause detonation.

Go open your hood and take a look at your engine. See the hose that goes from the valve cover to the intake manifold? That's the Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) system. As you draw vacuum from the intake by closing the throttle, a pressure differential is created and high pressure blow-by from the crankcase is drawn into the intake and ran through the engine.

You're talking about a bunch of technologies that have been used literally as long as the ICE has existed.

>>15674399

Keeping the crankcase under a hard vacuum would make it cycle easier because the cylinders are breathing a vacuum, though.

Basically, say your feeding a 400ci motor only 300ci of air each cycle and the crankcase is kept under a hard vacuum to assist cycling.

The only thing I'm not sure about is the exhaust, because atmospheric pressure will fight the exhaust system.

Its just for certain circumstances, like to make idling and cruising more fuel efficient.

And yes you need power to maintain speed so an engine like this will have to run at higher RPMs.

I'm asking if you can trade RPMs for fuel efficiency.

Remember, Chevy had a system that shut off cylinders to save fuel. This is idea is meant to achieve those results with much simpler and cheaper modifications.

>>15674419

Yes, these are old technologies. I'm surprised I can't find any info on this, though.

>>15674419

Oh I forgot to remind you I'm talking about keeping the crankcase under racing levels of vacuum, like 8hg or more.

That would make the engine cycle and exhaust easier.

>>15674462
>I'm surprised I can't find any info on this, though.
You can. Google throttle body, PCV, and AFR.

>>15674470
When you snap the throttle shut, you should have 20-30" Hg of vacuum drawing on the crankcase.

>>15674472

I can't find any info about manipulating and modifying these systems to turn a 400ci motor into basically a 300ci motor, though.

>>15674497
Google "3/4 throttle" then?

>>15674491

And you kill the engines power, too. I'm not trying to suffocate the motor that much.

>>15674500

Then how come people don't drive like that?

Nobody wants to drive like an old grandma, I guess?

Keeping a light foot on the pedal is just so simple nobody talks about it much?

>>15674507
I don't understand what you're even trying to do. Running a 6L engine with the throttle shut is like running a 50cc engine with the throttle open. If you want something in between, use something in between. Your throttle isn't an on/off switch.

>>15674528

I don't understand either, that's why I'm here.

>>15674517
>Then how come people don't drive like that?
They do. I blast past Corvettes and Camaros all day long in my 1.3L shitbox because I have places to be. Any time you don't have the gas pedal on the floor, you're reducing the amount of air your engine can draw.

>>15674537

Then why did Chevy bother creating that cylinder shut off system?

I'm going to work. Back in 9 hours.

>>15674552
Because that limits the engine's potential air draw even further, which means even less fuel consumption.

>>15674121
You do know all non-fi cars run with negative pressure correct? Aka a vacuum. How else would air magically rush into the motor unless there was less pressure inside than out.

>>15674121
>Could you decrease engine displacement by running a vacuum instead?
you mean like running the engine with some kind of throttling device?
Like a butterfly valve in the inlet tract that could be opened and closed as a variable restriction?

>>15674552
I don't think you understand what cylinder deactivation does. It locks the valves closed so that cylinder doesn't draw any air. The idea is to *not* draw a vacuum, because then you're doing the work of moving air that you don't have to.

>>15674576
Like a valve body to throttle the air going into the engine

A...throttle...body

>>15674121
No. They add pressuried intake air, not displacement. Displacement is physically defined by bore and stroke.

Even if you could reduce the volume of air going in (which you can, using the throttle), you'll still have the same ring drag, same internal friction, same windage, same accessory drive (alternator etc.), and most importantly, you're still combusting it in a suboptimal combustion chamber, not designed for that load.

If you were to put a negative supercahrger on there, it wouldn't get any gains. The supercharger would completely offset any theoretical gains - and there aren't any.

AFR can be easily adjusted for in modern closed loop systems.

>>15674160
Restrictor plates have nothing to do with efficiency though, it's just to keep everyone at the same HP level.

>>15674529
yeah no fucking shit.

>>15674617
Yeah, the reason is different but the effect is the same.

>>15674332
OP, please go learn how in ICE works.

>it will basically decrease displacement.
No. Stop being dense, displacement is measured by bore and stroke. Using a throttle does not change these measurements.

>Can you in simple terms turn a V8 into something that runs more like a V6 or V4?
Yes, it's called cilinder deactivation. Look it up.

>Like having to run at 2k-3k rpm on the highway instead of less than 2k for cruising speed?
You really are dense, aren't you? A gearbox at x MPH in x gear will always make x RPM. Even if you'd swap the engine out, it'd still make the same RPM in x gear at x MPH.

>Trade off RPMs for fuel under certain circumstances.
No. Nonononononono. This is stupid. All you'd be getting is increased pumping losses.

>I think what I'm saying is more complicated than manipulation of the throttle.
No. It's exactly like manipulating the throttle.

>>15674351
>I use volume and displacement as analogies.
They're utterly wrong analogies.

>I don't know what education level every poster is at so I'm trying to be vague and give everyone a chance to contribute.
So you should use proper terms, and not confuse everybody. This is how every scientific discussion works, dumbing down creates confusion.

>>15674497
>400ci motor into basically a 300ci motor
THEY

PHYSICALLY

CANNOT

Jesus OP, are ya really this dense? Displacement = bore * stroke * cilinder count. There is no dynamic changing that. By closing the throttle partway, you reduce airflow and therefore fuel consumptiopn. That's it.

>>15674529
>I don't understand either, that's why I'm here.
/o/ in a nutshell

>>15674279
>Forced induction increases the volumetric efficiency of that displacement.
You mean the manifold pressure?

>>15674121
Hakuna miata is that u?

>>15674691
Yes, a higher manifold pressure would increase volumetric efficiency. With an N/A engine you rarely exceed 90% VE unless it's a race engine. With forced induction you are forcing air in at higher than atmospheric pressure which means 100%++ VE.

>>15674462
Any benefit of having a strong vacuum in the crankcase for the power and intake stroke, which would most likely be negligible and not worth the added cost and complexity, would be mostly negated by the effect on the compression and exhaust stroke.

The throttle already can limit a 400ci motor to 300ci of air of atmospheric air, which will expand to 400 ci but be lower than atmospheric pressure. Strong vacuum from the crankcase wouldn't help draw more air in and would only help draw fuel/air mixture and combustion gases into the crankcase.

Trading RPM for fuel efficiency is a gearing consideration. That's why some manufacturers really like CVTs, they can run a low RPM for any cruising speed you choose.

>>15674798
>The throttle already can limit a 400ci motor to 300ci of air of atmospheric air
Stop saying this stupidity.

File: 1471260749783.jpg (116KB, 1024x749px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1024x749px

>>15674121
MILLER CYCLE

>>15674240
>>15674332
>>15674462
Holy shit you're fucking super stupid

>>15674121
Creating a vacuum a.k.a. closing the throttle.

File: 1427833144867.jpg (45KB, 486x409px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 486x409px

>>15674803
Christ, you are stupid.

It's PV=nRT, BASIC BITCH PHYSICS.

I bet flipping burgers is beyond a mental acuity.

>>15674738
>++
what did he mean by this?

>>15674798
>Strong vacuum from the crankcase wouldn't help draw more air in and would only help draw fuel/air mixture and combustion gases into the crankcase.

I'm going to disagree you you there.
You're effectively increasing the pressure differential between the outside of the engine (atmosphere) and the inside (crankcase). The result will be more airflow.

There are other benefits too, such as reduced crank windage (cleaver crank scrapers will also reduce windage losses), better ring sealing (which allows the use of lighter ring packs reducing friction), and reduced pumping losses in the crankcase.

>>15674803
U R Retard

>>15674903
Too bad manifold pressure doesn't stay constant in a properly designed n/a engine. Do you even have a mechanical engineering degree?

>>15674950
>Too bad manifold pressure doesn't stay constant in a properly designed n/a engine
by properly designed you mean one fitted with a throttle body?

>>15674963
No, by utilising resonance and port flow to create a low pressure zone inside the chamber, even before the intake stroke begins.

>>15674950
I'm sure he, just like everyone else in thread (except OP) knows this.
What's your point.

>>15674967
wow man, you seem like a real expert. why don't you share more of your wisdom with us plebs?

>>15674906
I meant well beyond 100% VE. More air, the higher % VE

>>15674910
I'd be interested to see any what would happen with a negative pressure crankcase in regards to crank windage and pumping losses. I don't think it would make much of a difference. While the pressure differential would help draw the piston down on intake, that same difference would resist on the compression stroke which would make it internal energy on the crank.

>>15674950
>Too bad manifold pressure doesn't stay constant in a properly designed n/a engine

No shit, dullard. We're not arguing flow, were talking about static scenarios to argue efficiency. Do you have a high school diploma? It sounds like you read a few articles on thermodynamics or fluid dynamics and think you're hot shit. Stop while you are ahead.

>>15675001
>that same difference would resist on the compression stroke which would make it internal energy on the crank.
Unless you compartmentalised the crankcase so the air is compressed by the piston descending, then expands as it rises. There are going to be losses of course, you can't escape that.

And you're right. The benefit will be in the region of a few %, and mostly at 100% throttle.
Great for full race engines, not really great for road cars that spend 99% of their time at part throttle.

File: 1441316892041.jpg (54KB, 566x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 566x480px

>>15674121

If you're thinking about a supercharger running in reverse creating a vacuum in the intake manifold instead of pressurizing it, that won't work. If the intake is at a lower pressure than the cylinder, then the air won't flow into the cylinder and the car won't run.

If there's strong enough negative pressure above the piston it would draw oil up from the sump and into the combustion chamber increasing emissions, getting gunk all over the valves, and causing excessive amounts of oil consumption.

A motor simply can't run with a vacuum in the intake. You could limit the amount of air going into the engine to increase efficiency though. Which is what a throttle body does...

>>15675160
Shows what you know retard, I'm talking about creating a vacuum on the exhaust side like a reverse supercharger

>>15675175
2/10

>>15674399
I said less air = less displacement and less fuel what's wrong about that? You're a retard displacement is only relative to the pressure of the atmosphere if you create a vacuum then you effectively lower the displsacement
>dumb plebs lrn to physics

File: 3mLydMU.png (70KB, 243x200px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 243x200px

>>15674332
>this guy thinks engines are elastic

>>15675207
Engines are not elastic, only the air that goes inside of them dumbass

>>15674240

It's internal combustion, not external combustion. The inside of an engine is much more capable of handling explosions and fire than the outside - especially modern ones with plastic intakes and injectors

>>15674121
>Could you decrease engine displacement by running a vacuum instead?

Various GM cars already have variable cylinder loading. At highway cruising speed with cruise control on, the load on the engine is quite reduced (no more drastic acceleration) and so the engine may turn off half the cylinders. This improves fuel economy of course. And no, it does use different cylinders to even out the wear. Computers just weren't available back in the carburetor era.

>>15675324
I remember that, it was called chuggling and misfiring.

File: citroen ax body roll yellow.png (506KB, 600x371px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 600x371px

>>15675209
Yes, and displacement is volume, and the volume contained within a cylinder is always the same, but it's the ammount of oxygen that increases inside of that volume of air.

Also, to answer OP's question, you can always get a hot air intake which sucks warm (therefore less dense) air into the engine.
A vacuum would be fucking retarded as it directly affects engine displacement (actually removing a certain volume of air from the cylinder rather than making the air less concentrated)

>>15674121
yes, obviously.
cars already have cylinder deactivation and overdrive so they're efficient enough for the time being.
-Elon Musk.

>>15675407
>A vacuum would be fucking retarded as it directly affects engine displacement (actually removing a certain volume of air from the cylinder rather than making the air less concentrated)
You were correct up until this point. You're just sucking air out of a container. You haven't changed the size of the container.

>>15674121
that's literally what a throttle butterfly valve does anon.
you can also do it by changing valve opening like valvematic and valvetronic.

File: Race_queen.jpg (205KB, 720x1080px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 720x1080px

>>15675324
>>15675432
"Active Fuel Management (formerly known as displacement on demand (DoD)) is a trademarked name for the automobile variable displacement technology from General Motors. It allows a V6 or V8 engine to "turn off" half of the cylinders under light-load conditions to improve fuel economy. Estimated performance on EPA tests show a 5.5%-7.5% improvement in fuel economy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Fuel_Management

A bunch of you talked about vacuum. GM indicated "a so-called "pumping loss" causes extra work for the engine to do under partial load conditions because the pistons have to work harder to suck in the fuel-air mixture when the throttle position results in low intake-manifold pressure. Under this scenario, deactivating some of the cylinders allows the remaining active ones to have less manifold vacuum to overcome during the intake stroke."

Other companies have different patented schemes for implementing variable displacement. Honda uses Variable Cylinder Management (VCM). Chrysler has Multi-Displacement System (MDS). Daimler AG has Active Cylinder Control (ACC).

The most drastic is Chevrolet Malibu with its 100% cylinder displacement reduction (aka Stop-Start). When no motion is needed, all the cylinders are stopped (engine stop).

GM is working to implement a revolutionary new software-based system named "Dynamic Skip Fire" to debut in 2020 which will vary displacement for ALL the cylinders in the engine.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/09/general-motors-and-delphi-working-on-revolutionary-cylinder-deactivation-technology/

A V8-powered SUV typically only requires 30 hp to cruise on a highway to hold its speed and, with DSF, six cylinders shut down to provide a monumental 21-percent increase in fuel economy, as tested in the real world on a GMC Yukon Denali.

>>15674581
Creating a huge vacuum in the cylinder would just result in increased oil consumption. It would be like having sustained engine braking going on all the time in the cylinders that were having the vacuum.

File: supercharger a shit.png (950KB, 643x739px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 643x739px

superchargers will make you a slow, stupid cuckold

>>15677419
>b-b-b-but muh dumb boomer memes

OP here, I'm back. Thread went to shit and I'm considering abandoning it.

>>15677419
>Judging a super charger on horsepower and not torque

>>15677419

>not giving the rpm at which the figures are attained
>ignoring that what matters is the fucking entire curve and numbers are just part of the story.

This thread is full of cancer.

>>15675770

OP here.

I heard it takes a lot of fuel to start a motor spinning.... So a 100% cylinder deactivation makes no sense.

But I guess computers and a modified transmission would allow much less loss.


I guess I'm talking about optimizing a motor to run on no more than 3/4ths of its normal specs. I guess you'd accelerate like a grandma but so long as you merge fine no problematical things would happen

>>15675198
Nobody is going to spoonfeed you, retard. Go to a fucking library.

>>15677878

OP here, this was my fault.

Anons are correct in saying displacement is unchangeable by current definition without piston/rod/chamber modifications.

Atmosphere is flexible.

I'm asking if instead of cylinder deactivation, can you modify pressures and fuel/air ratios inside the motor to achieve the same results as deactivating cylinders?

That's IT

>>15677919
Sorry, a bit of an overreaction.

>>15677954

Its OK, man.

I guess I want to be able to flip a switch on a big motor vehicle that forces me to drive like a granny but still merges into highways safely, then I flip the switch again if I need to tow something.

File: Race_queen2.jpg (279KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 800x1200px

>>15677860
>I heard it takes a lot of fuel to start a motor spinning.... So a 100% cylinder deactivation makes no sense.

The beauty of direct injection engines is that they spool up right away compared to a throttle body or carbureted engine. The re-start inertia comes from the battery and that is why the Bu has two batteries (one in front, one in the trunk). While the engine is stopped there is still power brake and power steering available since the car is drive by wire except the physical links with the steering wheel and brakes are still there as backup.

The start-stop system comes from Europe where it seems to not have killed the engines with wear and tear from all that starting and stopping. The driver can control it by not pushing all the way down on the brake pedal as he slows to a stop. If the driver anticipates a long wait at the light or traffic jam, he can push the pedal all the way down and the engine stops.

GM is desperate to find ways to get more mileage for the Malibu. The 2016 Limited seems to be the last of the normally aspirated higher-horsepower Bu (2.5 liter 197 HP) since the others use smaller engines with turbos to force more horsepower out of them. I don't like the idea of start-stop used on turbo engines due to the much greater number of cycles of turbo heat soaking of the oil. I guess those people should use full synthetic oil.

.

>>15675198
>...if you create a vacuum then you effectively lower the displsacement
There is no desire to create a really strong vacuum in the cylinder because that creates the situation of engine braking. In effect, that cylinder fights the others that are supplying energy.

Your idea is virtual displacement. GM is implementing Dynamic Skip Fire in 2020 as a step on the path achieving virtual displacement changes. FCA lacks research money. Ford lacks research enthusiasm. So it's up to GM to spend a ton of money to invent virtual displacement change.

Then the Chinese will just copy it for free

>>15678266
If you use a supercharger on the exhaust side then the engine can propel using vacuum instead of using gas to go boom then you can just turn the SC up or down to create more vacuum the suck on the piston

File: supercharger a shit 2.png (669KB, 808x387px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 808x387px

>>15677728
>>15677841
>turbo makes more torque and power on every portion of the redline

>>15678266

>There is no desire to create a really strong vacuum in the cylinder because that creates the situation of engine braking. In effect, that cylinder fights the others that are supplying energy.

op here.That's why I want to think of a system that distributes the load and wear across the entire motor. Shutting off cylinders creates uneven stress on the crank.

The only solution I see is reducing the volume of sir entering the motor.

>>15678305

OP here again. No matter how much vacuum is in the crankcase it won't suck a single piston down. The crankshaft and pistons are very balanced.

The bottom end of a motor would have to have a complex bolt on like a header with its own "throttle" capable of individual piston effect.

While this may well end up being the future for conventionally fueled engines I'm looking for other things.

Another header on the bottom of the motor, where the oil pan would be.... But instead of fuel injectors it has vacuum drivers?

That's more complicated than I hoped but it could evolve from an idea into a bolt on with an excessory powered by battery or belt. Literally a reverse supercharger

Maybe "vacuum directors" instead of vacuum drivers.. Lol

Just a fuel injector that pulls material in rather than push it out

The future is here!!!

>>15678345

I constantly mentioned crankcase vacuum tomake it easier for pistons to cycle in a motor aspirating on less than 1 atmosphere btw

>>15678361

I have too, because the motor needs to exhaust into a full atmosphere

>>15678475
>>15678361

Oh god I started talking to myself

>>15674121
Are you dumb as fuck? Do you know how a diesel works?

>>15674121
google mazda miller cycle engine

>>15678649

I did.

Apparently, all you need to do to get car companies to buy your bullshit is to fuck with your motor a bit.

speaking of superchargers

how worth is it to supercharge a fr-s/brz ?

File: variable-compression-engine-0.jpg (61KB, 616x602px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 616x602px

VCE (variable compression engines) will make all this bullshit, compressors, turbos, diesels, go away. It will be a complete NA wonderland.

>>15680588
Isn't that a 5000 dollar kit that nets 200whp?

>>15678316
no fucking way the thing makes over 4000 nm of torque.
If the dyno cucks can't even get their fucing axis labeled correctly why would I trust any of their data?

>>15680588

Only the kit from Crawford Performance that essentially doubles the hp and turns the 86 into a Ferrari-beater. All the other kits give modest dollar/hp gains. Sure, the Crawford kit costs $20k and will most likely grenade your pistons, but c'mon now...

>>15680629
>costs $20k and will most likely grenade your pistons
sounds like exactly what I need

>>15680622
edelbrock is the one i'm looking into the most
seems easy enough to install and get a conservative tune for +50hp. exhaust too tho

>>15680657

Seriously the one from Jackson Racing is well built, CARB compliant, and you can upgrade it to the C38 pretty reasonably.

>>15674121
>>15674240
They don't increase displacement, they increase the effective compression ratio.

>>15680610

IZ DAT A CAMSHAFT ON A CRANKSHAFT?!??

mind=blown

>>15680681

OP here yes its true.

I admit I'm stupid and suck at communication

>>15674121
That's exactly what the throttle body does. Your engine creates a vacuum on the intake stroke as it tries to suck in air. When you're at low throttle the valve blocks air from entering the engine.

>crankcase vacuum
That wouldn't do anything.

>>15681275

>crankcase vacuum won't do anything

Uhhh putting your crankcase under a hard vacuum is the cheapest way to give a motor the most horses per dollar.

It can nearly eliminate air resistance upon the crank, and seeing as those spin at thousands of RPMs, it's a very significant thing.

It will help literally everything in the motor from metal oxidation to circulation.


>throttle body does that already

It doesn't do it precise enough for my application but what do I know, huh? I'm just another idiot that wants to be a know-it-all

>>15680610
God damn I hope this becomes a thing.

File: valve_trim_profiles_for_equal_percent__l_6B21609B-F688-74B2-70349776DF2F5018.jpg (14KB, 400x221px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x221px

>>15681349
How precise do you want your throttle to be? Maybe replace your butterfly valve with a linear or equal percentage valve?

>>15681349
The oil resistance is far more significant than the air resistance. You could benefit more by moving to a dry sump oiling system.

Crankcase are vented to relieve the pressure pulses from the pistons moving up and down.

>>15681410

That's above my engine education level... Your post goes over my head lol

What's a linear or equal percentage valve? A valve with a switch?

>>15681478

But oil resistance is a good thing so long as the oil isn't overfilled. A lot of engines rely on oil splash for cooling. You need to open up the motor to get a great dry sump that lubes and cools effectively as a wet system, too.. And opening up the block is expensive and makes a stock motor suspect to future buyers. If I'm buying a car with over 150K on it I look at the layer of dust on the motor to see where work was done and ideally the dust shows true age and no prints except around the places where you check fluids. That's the sign of a good used motor right there, if it runs well after 150k and nobody fucked with it.

And crankcases are not vented because of pressure pulses lol when one piston goes down another goes up so it balances the crankcase displacement out.

>>15674121

No need as this is what Exhaust Gas Recirculation does

But there's also the Miller cycle as others have mentioned

File: 1471530877905.jpg (26KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x450px

>>15682128

..... No.

Exhaust gas recirculation doesn't make a V8 perform like a V4.

File: Valve-Characteristic.jpg (118KB, 1542x1551px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1542x1551px

>>15681553
Car throttle valves are usually butterfly valves, but in industrial chemical usage butterfly valves are usually considered very poor and inaccurate for use as throttling valves. Control valves in chemical plants are instead usually globe valves, and they can have different shapes which produce different control characteristics. The shapes of the trims are named for the mathematical relationship between valve position and flow that they produce, so a linear valve will produce a linear change in flow when opening and closing and so on for the other types of trim profiles.

But I only know that because I work in a chemical plant. As far as I know, I've never seen a car engine using anything other than a butterfly valve for the throttle so that other anon may be full of shit.

>>15682243

No, but by filling the chamber with CO2 it effectively decreases displacement

>>15682297
Globe valves seem like they would be terrible for air flow on an engine, though


OP, I just read through the entire thread and still have no fucking clue what you're getting at. Care to do another post and actually fully explain it?

>>15682297

Globe valves are circular and more precisely meter things.. Exactly like a valve version of an Infinitely Variable Geared Transmission.

A throttle can be practically anything I guess.

>>15682332

True, too. But then co2 becomes like fuel. I want to erase as much commodity as possible from a motor.

>>15682337

I guess I'm looking for snake oil 2.0

Trying to cheat the system. I want to have major fuel efficiency gains.

What would happen if you put a turbo on your intake for faster exhaust? Like you use the intake air to drive the turbo and push your exhaust out?

>>15674367
Underrated post

>>15682536
The piston pushes the exhaust out as it travels up on the exhaust stroke.

No need for for a device to suck it out

>>15682598
I mean I get that a piston will drive out the exhaust on its own, since cars don't exactly drive around with turboed exhaust. But what would happen if you did that though?

>>15682612
Well first of all it would slow down the intake so the engine couldn't breathe as well.

As for the ducking out the exhaust I would expect Jack shit to happen.

>>15682612

OP here.

I thinking you're trying to bridge a gap between 2 stroke engines and 4 stroke engines.

More power to you, man. Halve the strokes, double efficiency.

It's a better idea than mine

>>15674121

No, nigger

The only thing similar to what you said is using an intake air restrictor.

You can't physically "borrow displacemen", unless you physically mod the engine