FAQ  •  Login

Bore and stroke for reliability?

<<

ABlockOfCheese

Posts: 12

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:48 am

Cars: White 3.0 V6 auto extended cab '01 ford ranger

Post Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:58 am

Bore and stroke for reliability?

Hi all.

So I've kindof started my own imaginary company in 1950 and I'm having trouble getting my V8's above 42 reliability. So far I have finished one engine with a bore and stroke of 3.543" for a total displacement of 279.4 ci. I've heard that under square engines are better for reliability but make less power and have a much lower redline. Also I would love for someone to explain exactly what one reliability unit means, like 1 reliability unit means x number of miles between failures or whatever.


Thanks.
<<

utopian201

User avatar

Naturally Aspirated

Posts: 382

Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 11:12 pm

Post Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:32 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

I'm pretty sure oversquare engines (larger bore than stroke) can rev higher for the same reliability. However I think they have less torque (and therefore power) and efficiency vs longer stroke engines.

In old versions of the game, the reliability rating was multiplied by 1000 and called mean time before failure (km), whereas now it is just a number. I personally preferred mbtf, or maybe have the reliability number have more decimal places for more precision.
I think it is difficult to get above 75 without quality sliders.
Aurora Motor Company: Nothing Comes Close | Youtube ads: Aurora Manticore - "Dyno"
Auto magazine plus directories - list your car in the appropriate directory to be considered for a magazine cover/article.
<<

Leonardo9613

User avatar

4-Star Beta Tester
4-Star Beta Tester

Posts: 1270

Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:59 am

Location: Curitiba, Brazil

Cars: '15 Ford Ka 1.0 SE

Post Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:06 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

42 engine reliability in 1950 is a good number. You could increase bottom end and fuel tab quality to achieve better reliability.

As utopian said, oversquare engines tend to be more reliable than undersquare ones. But they are heavier and slightly less efficient.

One way to check if the engine is good or not, is to try and recreate an engine from the era, to get a feel for how it should be.
Also, in the 50s, a 5000cc engine with 130 hp would be an engineering master piece.
<<

ABlockOfCheese

Posts: 12

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:48 am

Cars: White 3.0 V6 auto extended cab '01 ford ranger

Post Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:29 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

Thanks to both of you. Also Leonardo my 279.4ci (4.5L I believe?) makes 159hp with all quality sliders at 0, I guess I actually put together a pretty nice engine after all.
<<

nialloftara

User avatar

Supercharged
Supercharged

Posts: 1983

Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:07 pm

Location: Northeast USA

Cars: 2006 Scion Xb

Post Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:55 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

If you switch test modes you can see the stress of different parts of the engine. The parts will start to turn yellow to Orange to red to flashing red than failure. Different parts show different levels of stress. Bottom end wise your piston and rod will show stress both for too much torque and for too high a redline. Where as the crankshaft will only show over torque. Now over revving the bottom end is the most common way to lose reliability, its normally the connecting rods that start to fail first, but sometimes it will show the piston getting yellow, this might also be the fault of the rods. I'm not great at math but the piston's speed is determined by both engine revolutions and stroke distance, basically the longer your stroke the more distance the piston has to move and the more momentum it has and the more stress is placed on it as you climb higher in the revs. If you start to notice a drop in reliability and the piston is glowing the quickest way to fix it without losing revs is to shorten the stroke. That said, stroke makes the engine more efficient specificly because of that extra piston momentum, a long stroke means that more torque is made per revolution which makes a more usable engine.

45 is pretty good for the 50's if you're looking for a higher reliability and shortening your stroke doesn't gain you any look to your carburetor, or valve train, the more complex the system the less reliable it is, you might lose some power and efficiency by switching from 2 four barrel carbs to just 1 four barrel, or from a four barrel to a two barrel but it will gain you a small reliability bump. Same with the valvetrain, for more info on that see this http://automationgame.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5305&p=55031&hilit=+pushrods#p54950for
Chief designer and CEO, Centauri motor works, Centauri Performance Vehicles (CPV)
"Centauri: The Stars Are Within Your Reach."
Centauri engines Centauri cars
CPV engines CPV cars
Company ID: 1943047
<<

ABlockOfCheese

Posts: 12

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:48 am

Cars: White 3.0 V6 auto extended cab '01 ford ranger

Post Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:12 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

Thanks for the info nialloftara. Seeing as how I built the engine in 1950 my bottom end selection was pretty limited. Cast iron crank, cast rods and cast pistons. That being said now that I know what is good for 1950 in terms of reliability, I'm satisfied now with what I have. I may however replace the two single barrel carbs with one two barrel and see if that helps.
<<

Corvette6317

User avatar

Turbocharged
Turbocharged

Posts: 145

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 2:03 pm

Cars: None

Post Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:16 pm

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

I have a recreation of a 1950 Chevrolet 235 engine in my Real-Life Engine Recreations thread, the reliability of that is 42.2, which is pretty average for all the engines of the period I have created.
<<

BurningBridges

User avatar

Naturally Aspirated

Posts: 378

Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:56 pm

Location: Berlin

Cars: Golf

Post Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:24 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

I am getting pretty good results with square engines. That means a bore/stroke ratio of roughly 1:1. Especially with cam profiles around 68 which I like.
It isn't surprising when long stroke makes the engine more power per kilogram, short stroke gives higher rpm, that 1:1 is a good compromise.
It's also noteworthy that (within certain limits) only the stroke determines the reliability and max rpm (once you found the right stroke for a certain rpm you can move the bore up considerably).
So when I go 1:1 the tech year sort of determines the displacement (for the same cam).
If you need bigger displacement you can simply take a good 4 cylinder block and make it a 6 or 8 cylinder, the physics of the cylinders roughly stay the same.
<<

TrackpadUser

User avatar

2-Star Beta Tester
2-Star Beta Tester

Posts: 877

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:20 pm

Location: Montreal, Canadia

Cars: 2006 Suzuki Swift+

Post Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

Large bores also create reliability issues because the valves get bigger causing valve float earlier, which is worse than bottom end issues because it also reduces how much power you make. You don't even need to go that big before problems start to appear. My ATCC 2 I6 engine is only 2L and with the maximum bore to stroke ratio it ends up severely limited by valve float.

The valve float issue can be fixed to some extent by using a more aggressive cam and a higher quality high-end but that's not a good solution in some cases, especially since agressive cams will reduce smoothness in the next patch.

But yeah, 1:1 is usually a safe choice, although if you want to maximize certain aspects of your engines performance you will have to go slightly under or over square.

As for changing engine type to change displacement, that also works. The main issue is that not everything fits in everything. The I6s in particular tend to be long and therefore not fit in a lot of cars, depending on the engine layout.
<<

BurningBridges

User avatar

Naturally Aspirated

Posts: 378

Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:56 pm

Location: Berlin

Cars: Golf

Post Fri Feb 13, 2015 11:45 pm

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

There is no best choice of course but I want to have reliability close to the maximum possible at the particular year, and quality at 0. Quality improvements should be avoided at all costs because they are kind of a magic bullet that make it impossible compare designs. If I stick to that principle, square gives me the best hp per kilogram. The key seems to be that a square engine can achieve a similar reliability as a short stroke engine, but is much lighter. Of course I would get most hp/kilogram with long stroke but only if I make big compromises in reliability and rpm.

However, take that with a grain of salt. It depends on the year and the type of car. I currently build small sports cars in earlier years, ca 1960-1975. CAM profile is usually 65-70. If you want to build simple, reliable engines with low rpm (<5,000) you should not rule out long stroke engines, even in the early years. And year 2000+ I have no experience, but the better materials should allow to build long stroke engine with larger displacement and higher rpm.
<<

TrackpadUser

User avatar

2-Star Beta Tester
2-Star Beta Tester

Posts: 877

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:20 pm

Location: Montreal, Canadia

Cars: 2006 Suzuki Swift+

Post Sat Feb 14, 2015 7:15 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

Quality isn't ''magic''

It means using better materials and doing more optimisation of your designs that end up costing more.

Ex: Higher top end quality could mean:
-Valve springs made out of more expensive materials.
-Valves made out of titanium instead of steel.
-Manually polished ports and valves to help airflow.
-Better coatings.

For the bottom end it would mean:
-More optimized design with tighter tolerances that causes more rejects/requires more expensive manufacturing processes.
-Better coatings.
-Better bearings and bushings.

I could probably make a similar list for every single quality slider in the game. The quality slider is not magic and it emulates things that are doable IRL.
<<

nialloftara

User avatar

Supercharged
Supercharged

Posts: 1983

Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:07 pm

Location: Northeast USA

Cars: 2006 Scion Xb

Post Sat Feb 14, 2015 7:24 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

There's an associated cost in both money and production units that scales up with both the complexity of a part you're improving, and with the amount of quality you use. It's not just giving performance away for free.
Chief designer and CEO, Centauri motor works, Centauri Performance Vehicles (CPV)
"Centauri: The Stars Are Within Your Reach."
Centauri engines Centauri cars
CPV engines CPV cars
Company ID: 1943047
<<

strop

User avatar

3-Star Beta Tester
3-Star Beta Tester

Posts: 3462

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:31 pm

Cars: Honda Civic VTI-S MY13

Post Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:21 pm

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

Were you to attempt to build to a budget, or for a tournament with restrictions, you'd quickly come to appreciate the way quality scales the costs and production units.

Furthermore, you'll find that tech pool is going to play a big role in tycoon mode. A hint as to the requirements and penalties can be seen in various scenarios.
<<

BurningBridges

User avatar

Naturally Aspirated

Posts: 378

Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:56 pm

Location: Berlin

Cars: Golf

Post Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:44 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

You can only use quality so liberally as long as money does not mean anything in the game, but once you run a real company you will quickly convert to the other philosophy.

In the game right now it's a bit like cosmetic surgery, many people do it but no one wants to admit it ;)
<<

strop

User avatar

3-Star Beta Tester
3-Star Beta Tester

Posts: 3462

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:31 pm

Cars: Honda Civic VTI-S MY13

Post Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:53 am

Re: Bore and stroke for reliability?

...or flagrantly and openly abuses it like I do... but I'm also upfront about the ridiculous prices of the cars that result, they were never intended to be anything else :P

You'll find that a lot of players are really quite scrupulous about using the quality sliders when making their own models, because they're so mindful and particular about their vision of making a relevant car. That's the kind of person this game attracts.
Next

Return to Engine Sharing Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron