Potentially useless question: Consider two identical engines.

6000rpm because it is pushing more exhaust volume per rpm if it makes the same power as the 10k engine

>>16203455
Say the 6000 RPM engine makes boost at 50% - so 3000RPM.

Wouldn't the 10K RPM engine make the exact same exhaust volume at it's 50%, so 5K RPM?

I think it might be the 10k one, because its likely to be less efficient and thus have more exhaust volume for the same power

>>16203443
is the peak power the same?

>>16203469
Peak power is of course identical.

>>16203466
So you're saying the extra petrol and air needed to overcome the increased ring drag would make for more exhaust volume?

What if they also had the same piston speed at their peak RPM, making for about the same ring drag?

File: btuv3fino2pk;qwasbvlchxi zpu.jpg (60KB, 789x515px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 789x515px

>>16203464
I doubt it would be that straight forward pal.
The amount of torque (i.e work and therefore gas pressure on the piston, and ultimately mass flow) produced by the high revving unit would be much less than the low revving unit at every engine speed.

See attached graphical representation

>>16203443
>Doesn't label the Y axis
Shit graph.

>>16203599
>The amount of torque (i.e work and therefore gas pressure on the piston, and ultimately mass flow)
Isn't mass flow a function of power? As in, x amount of air (in a naturally aspirated application) will have the potential to make y amount of power?

I'm just rying to figure out if a 600cc motorcycle engine making 100hp would spool a turbo quicker than a 100hp 1.6L from a car, resulting in a more responsive combination.

>>16203617
>being this new

>>16203637
>Isn't mass flow a function of power?
It would be better to say a function of how much fuel you burn.
Which is related to the mass of air the engine consumes per intake stroke.
And the more air inducted, and the more fuel burned, the more exhaust mass flow.

>>16203653
So, given identical power, identical volumetirc efficiency and identical air:fuel ratio, both engines should burn identical amounts of air and fuel, and therefore have the same amount of exhaust volume (and intake volume as well)?

>>16203684
yep

File: ctgrcrvs.gif (10KB, 638x416px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 638x416px

It would be the 10k one because it would stay in lower gears longer.

>>16203880
The graph I just posted is totally wrong but may help convey the concept of gear ratios multiplying power output.

>>16203880
That advantage would be completely nullified though, because in this experiment you'd probably change the final drive ratio to be higher on the 10K RPM engine (10/6 times to be precise) in order to match the car's powerband better.

Even if you would not, you'd basically have that 10K RPM engine fighting against numerically taller (compared to it's powerband) gears, which would mean slower acceleration eventually. Not a compromise you'd be willing to make just for the sake of adding boost.

>>16203880
what if it was in a boat i.e no gears.

>>16203903

Then the 6k would accelerate faster but the 10k would have a significantly higher top speed.

>>16203897
For the sake of the thread let's assume equal final drives.

>>16203905
>For the sake of the thread let's assume equal final drives.
Let's not, because equal final drives would make for a complete difference in acceleration. You're not OP.

Anyways, how does staying in a gear longer add exhaust volume?