How many cylinders 'til..

[cato]

6

[Alex Swinney]

It is dependant upon the size of cylinders as to how many you can have. But the limit is considered to be no more than 32.

After that, complexity takes over and humans have a HARD time getting proper timing down so that they would make significant power over what they could do with 32 cyls.

However, it IS possible to attain more power at higher cylinder numbers. But it just isn't worth it(R&D time/money). So 32 is a good round number.

[TwoDollars]

WEll that was a nice little riddle:smile:

[Stingray77]

So 32 is a good round number.

wow, imagine the cost on a valve job for a motor like that.

[Stevie27]

------------
[quote]
VW's W8 would change the number then (2 cranks), that would then double your number.
------------

sorry..., VW's W8/W12-engine is not a true W-motor..., it has only one crankshaft. the definition W is misused here.., the engine is nothing more than a double VR4/ VR6-engine...
btw..: the engine is not the best solution for a motor setup..., the only good thing is the short engine length, in all other kind of performance (especially milage) the W8/W12 are only second choice...

Steven from germany

[AutoX PGT]

You guys are forgetting the radial engine! Not rotary, radial.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/radial.htm

in 1943, Lycoming made a 36 cylinder radial engine. 127 liters displacement. 5000hp at 2600 rpm.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/xr-7755.html

Also, to correct some earlier errors I read above, I6 and V12 engines are 'naturally' balanced. A VW VR6 isn't a 'true' Vee engine (IMHO) because it only has one head, nor is it an I6 either, as the cylinders aren't in line....

[Alex Swinney]

On Monday October 15, 2001 1:00 PM, AutoX PGT wrote:
You guys are forgetting the radial engine! Not rotary, radial.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/radial.htm

in 1943, Lycoming made a 36 cylinder radial engine. 127 liters displacement. 5000hp at 2600 rpm.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/xr-7755.html

Also, to correct some earlier errors I read above, I6 and V12 engines are 'naturally' balanced. A VW VR6 isn't a 'true' Vee engine (IMHO) because it only has one head, nor is it an I6 either, as the cylinders aren't in line....

They might have, but remember I did not say that over 32 they couldn't make power, I just stated that it is NOT a significant increase over 32 cylinders. I am sure that if they made 32, the power output would have been very similar and would have used MUCH less fuel.

[JTT]

On Sunday October 14, 2001 6:29 AM, JTT wrote:
The number you already have -1
I'm right! AHAHA!

Bah, I'm right you know it, just tell us.

[PurpleMetal1]

On Monday October 15, 2001 5:00 AM, AutoX PGT wrote:
Also, to correct some earlier errors I read above, I6 and V12 engines are 'naturally' balanced.

Partially true.
They have a "nicely balanced firing order".

Sometimes they have to have their crankshafts balanced twice, and they're never really balanced "true" (as compared to other engines).
This is how it is on the older engines I was studying, anyway. Pretty sure the same dynamics apply to current I & V format engines.

I'm saying this based mostly on experience modifying an I-6, and on a mechanics' publication from '97 (they were modifying a 300CI I-6 with a turbocharger, and running it on natural gas) that I was studying.

If you have something else different, I would like to read it.

[tweek69]

what does it matter because "THERE'S NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT"

[Rick_96PGT]

On Monday October 15, 2001 6:00 AM, AutoX PGT wrote:
You guys are forgetting the radial engine! Not rotary, radial.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/radial.htm

in 1943, Lycoming made a 36 cylinder radial engine. 127 liters displacement. 5000hp at 2600 rpm.
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/xr-7755.html

"There were nine overhead camshafts which could be shifted axially for METO power in one position and cruise at the other."

So thats where V-Tec came from.

[Snorb93GT]

On Sunday October 14, 2001 7:10 AM, QuadCam_GT wrote:
just go get some triangles

Hell yes.

Dis brotha knowz what up.

[Alex Swinney]

On Tuesday October 16, 2001 12:01 AM, Snorb93GT wrote:

On Sunday October 14, 2001 7:10 AM, QuadCam_GT wrote:
just go get some triangles

Hell yes.

Dis brotha knowz what up.

BAH!














:grin:

[AutoX PGT]

On Tuesday October 16, 2001 2:40 AM, PurpleMetal1 wrote:

On Monday October 15, 2001 5:00 AM, AutoX PGT wrote:
Also, to correct some earlier errors I read above, I6 and V12 engines are 'naturally' balanced.

Partially true.
They have a "nicely balanced firing order".

Sometimes they have to have their crankshafts balanced twice, and they're never really balanced "true" (as compared to other engines).
This is how it is on the older engines I was studying, anyway. Pretty sure the same dynamics apply to current I & V format engines.

I'm saying this based mostly on experience modifying an I-6, and on a mechanics' publication from '97 (they were modifying a 300CI I-6 with a turbocharger, and running it on natural gas) that I was studying.

If you have something else different, I would like to read it.

I must disagree.

As shown in the picture, straight-6 engine is simply two 3-cylinder engines mated symmetrically together, thus piston 1 is always in the same position as piston 6, piston 2 the same as piston 5 .... in other words, the engine is balanced end-to-end and requires no balancer shaft, unlike 3-cylinder engines.
What about vertical / transverse forces? like 3-cylinder engines, the vertical and transverse forces generated by individual cylinders, no matter first order or second order, are completely balanced by one another. The resultant vibration is nearly zero, thus inline-6 is virtually a perfect configuration.

Inline-6 is not the only configuration can deliver near perfect refinement, but it is the most compact one among them. All boxer engines are perfectly balanced, but they are two wide and require duplicate of blocks, heads and valve gears. V12 engines also achieve perfect balance, but obviously out of the reach of most mass production cars. Automotive engineers knew that long ago, that’s why you can see most of the best classic engines were inline-6, such as Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost, Bentley Speed Six, Mercedes SSK, many Bugattis, Jaguar XK-series and BMW’s various models.

Theoretically [the V12 is] the best balanced configuration for practical use. It is simply a duplication of inline-6 (therefore achieve the same perfect balance), with corresponding cylinders in both banks joined at the same crank pins. V12 is better than inline-6 just because it has more cylinders, thus doubling the firing frequency and smoothen power delivery.
Of course, the disadvantages are cost, size and weight.

There’s no structural differences in crankshaft for all V12s, no matter for luxurious cars or supercars. Most employ 60°, although Ferrari prefers 65°.

From: http://www.fortunecity.com/silversto...ne/smooth3.htm

Read the descriptions of the other engines and you'll see that the I6 and V12 are the best balanced of the lot.