Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hi all.

as the title states, why does haveing the bore and stroke the same (or similar) size make it capable of reving high? if im wrong dont flame me cos this is just what I have been told. by a very knowledgeable bloke, so i believe him.

cheers guys.

james.

:laugh:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/130950-bore-x-stroke/
Share on other sites

yeah, i dont know if square (same bore as stroke) motors are rev happy, motors with less stroke than bore tend to be more like that. take RB26 VS 2JZ, the 2JZ being square, this is one of the reasons they hold together so much longer than the RB26, coz they dont really have to rev to make the power.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/130950-bore-x-stroke/#findComment-2422750
Share on other sites

Of course the bore x stroke is not a be all end all of how hard a motor can rev. (Note; the valvetrain design is also very important!) For example, the Honda B18C was actually undersquare, despite the fact that it revs easy to 8000rpm+.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/130950-bore-x-stroke/#findComment-2422850
Share on other sites

motors with a very short stroke are capable of revving significantly harder than motors with equal bore/stroke, or longer stroke.

A motor with a long stroke, however is capable of producing more torque at a lower RPM.

This is why the SR20 makes MORE torque than the RB20 whilst having the same capacity.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/130950-bore-x-stroke/#findComment-2424218
Share on other sites

i don't think there is a rule for stroke vs rpm. it partly comes down to the design of the rest of the motor. the cams and timing and valve ports, etc would play a role in it too.

but it is also a case of what the motor is being used for. if you have an engine that revs itself into next week, and want to use it for towing, it isn't going to be very good, but if you have an engine with a nice long stroke, then it is going to have bucket loads of torque so it will just chug along.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/130950-bore-x-stroke/#findComment-2425014
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...