Why can't this be the new MS3?

[boosted1]

nice vid! I want one!!

Me t00!!!

 

[Young Roids]

You Fail! The design of a 4 stroke engine / 2 stroke engine does not coraspond with the number of cyclinders.



+1

Yes it does correspond. For a two stroke engine I would want a 2 cylinder engine and for a four stroke I would want a four cylinder engine.

 

[Young Roids]

..that rev to what, like, 2-3K RPM tops, get absolutely horrible fuel economy, and overheat?? (lol2)

ugh...should I even BEGIN to explain why that is an utterly retarded idea for car engines??

What makes you think a 5 liter 4 cylinder would only rev to 3k? Four cylinders get better fuel economy than sixes and eights. And since when do four cylinders overheat. Every point you made there is false, you sound like a faggot.

 

[Young Roids]

More cylinders=smoother engine. That is the major reason four cylinder engines dont go over typically 2.5 liters. Ever seen a piston from a v-12 ferrari ? they are super tiny. Thats why we dont have 5 liter one cylinder engines.

Four cylinders are plenty smooth. The disi motor is not rough at all. I never said I wanted a 5 litre single cylinder. I said I wanted a 5.0 litre 4 cylinder, one cylinder for each stroke.

 

[oaklandopen]

What makes you think a 5 liter 4 cylinder would only rev to 3k? Four cylinders get better fuel economy than sixes and eights. And since when do four cylinders overheat. Every point you made there is false, you sound like a faggot.

i hope some mods step in and do something with this guy cuz he has stupid and irrelevant comments galore

 

[Young Roids]

i hope some mods step in and do something with this guy cuz he has stupid and irrelevant comments galore

This whole forum is FULL of stupid and irrelivent comments. I try and bring a little truth here and you want to ban me.

 

[oaklandopen]

This whole forum is FULL of stupid and irrelivent comments. I try and bring a little truth here and you want to ban me.

banning is not up to me, nor did i say anything about banning

i don't know what you know about internal combustion engines and the auto industry, but i can tell it's not much

-2 stroke and 4 stroke has nothing to do with the amount of cylinders
-the more cylinders you have the smoother the engine is
-by your awesome logic you think someone would have made a gigantic displacement 4-banger by now...but guess what NO ONE DID cuz it's pointless

 

[Nliiitend1]

What makes you think a 5 liter 4 cylinder would only rev to 3k? Four cylinders get better fuel economy than sixes and eights. And since when do four cylinders overheat. Every point you made there is false, you sound like a faggot.

I suggest you do some reading and educate yourself, you arrogant, know-nothing prick.

A 5 liter 4 cylinder engine would have pistons that are all 1.25 liters in displacement each. That's HUGE. The effective reciprocating/rotating forces involved in moving engine internals of that mass at a what we would consider "normal" engine speeds would be nearly strong enough to destroy the engine by themselves in very short order. The more rotating and reciprocating mass an engine has, the less RPM it can safely/reliably/comfortably turn. (Ever wonder why 1 liter 4-cylinder superbike engines and 3.0 liter V10 Formula 1 engines can rev so high?)

The fuel economy characteristics of modern 4-cylinder engines have little to do with the number of cylinders, and is mostly due to the smaller overall engine displacement.

Which brings me to my next point: Detonation becomes a major problem in a spark-ignition engine as cylinder size gets too big, as the "burn" of the fuel takes on less predictable characteristics due to large area that it now must occupy in a short burst of time. This can lead to decreases in fuel economy, acceleration of wear-related engine damage, and overheating.

Now go waste someone else's time. You're obviously nothing more than a flame-baiting troll...

 

[dkswim]

sorry have to play devils advocate there are hudge displacement 4 cylinders out there. there are also big displacement 4 cylinders out there normaly they have slower RPMs and compression ignition engines. refering to cargoships and earthmovers. im in agreance with okland ang nliii

 

[Young Roids]

I don't agree with your logic at all. Lets look at truck engines, the biggest truck engines use inline 6 cylinders. Not four cylinders but they have single cylinder sizes of above 1.25 litres. They do not rev as high as car engines but that is because of the extra long stroke and higher compression they use due to being diesel.

I don't know if the burn area being "unpredictable is a problem on bigger cylinders but I highly doubt it. And if it really is a problem then up the boost pressure and the air will be more atomised for an even burn.

 

[oaklandopen]

sorry have to play devils advocate there are hudge displacement 4 cylinders out there. there are also big displacement 4 cylinders out there normaly they have slower RPMs and compression ignition engines. refering to cargoships and earthmovers. im in agreance with okland ang nliii

diesel engines can get big, but he's talking about gas engines im sure. else he would have just come out and said diesel

 

[dkswim]

i agree with you im just pointing out worthless info. im always good for worthless side info.

actualy let me look it up but i might be able to come up with some big displacement oposed 4cyl that runs on gas 100LL if you catch my drift

 

[dkswim]

6.04 lieter oposed 4 cylinder big enough.... runs on gas 5.319 in bore, thats huge.
Lycoming IO-390
wow im taking this farther off topic.

 

[Nliiitend1]

sorry have to play devils advocate there are hudge displacement 4 cylinders out there. there are also big displacement 4 cylinders out there normaly they have slower RPMs and compression ignition engines. refering to cargoships and earthmovers. im in agreance with okland ang nliii

Refer to my previous post:

...should I even BEGIN to explain why that is an utterly retarded idea for car engines??

I don't agree with your logic at all. Lets look at truck engines, the biggest truck engines use inline 6 cylinders. Not four cylinders but they have single cylinder sizes of above 1.25 litres. They do not rev as high as car engines but that is because of the extra long stroke and higher compression they use due to being diesel.

...AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF MASS IN THE RECIPROCATING AND ROTATING ASSEMBLIES. They also have a "delay-time" (the fixed amount of time that it takes to ignite the incoming fuel when it hits the superheated/supercompressed air) that limits peak power to a lower RPM range, so it'd be less useful to have high engine speeds. This is actually why diesels usually have large pistons and or/are turbocharged. Also, the higher compression ratio is not the reason that a diesel engine does not rev as high. In fact, running a higher compression ratio allows higher engine speeds because the exhaust valves can be opened earlier (something needed for high engine speed) in the power stroke (since the engine starts making power earlier in the power stroke because of the high compression). Diesel engines would have EVEN SLOWER engine speeds if they had lower compression ratios (which of course wouldn't really work since the compression in a diesel engine is what brings about combustion). Of course, if you actually took the time to read and comprehend my last post, you'd know I'm not talking about diesels, so all of this is really moot:

Which brings me to my next point: Detonation becomes a major problem in a spark-ignition engine as cylinder size gets too big, as the "burn" of the fuel takes on less predictable characteristics due to large area that it now must occupy in a short burst of time. This can lead to decreases in fuel economy, acceleration of wear-related engine damage, and overheating.

Obviously, I'm not even bringing diesels into the debate. Are you saying you want a 5 liter 4-cylinder diesel engine in your car?? Cause they could definitely make that work, though it would be a whole lot less fun to drive than any car with a 5 liter V8 spark-ignition engine...

I don't know if the burn area being "unpredictable is a problem on bigger cylinders but I highly doubt it. And if it really is a problem then up the boost pressure and the air will be more atomised for an even burn.

(hand)

You sir, are an idiot. It IS a problem. Efficiency on a SPARK-IGNITION engine goes WAAAAAAY down, and the propensity to detonate before the spark goes way up when you make the cylinders too big. It's fact. You can't just "up the boost pressure" to solve the problem, because that in effect makes the detonation problem WORSE. Diesel engines get away with large cylinder sizes because they don't have to worry about pre-ignition/detonation. They can "up the boost," as you say, because you can run virtually unlimited boost on a diesel engine since you don't have to worry about pre-ignition/detonation...it's the nature of the beast. Also, when you approach piston diameters over 5-6 inches the additional fuel you'd have to inject to make use of the extra room to make more power wouldn't burn fast enough to burn completely (especially at higher engine speeds), further reducing the fuel economy.

Now please, continue to show us all how little you really know about this subject...

(yupnope)

6.04 lieter oposed 4 cylinder big enough.... runs on gas 5.319 in bore, thats huge.
Lycoming IO-390
wow im taking this farther off topic.

OK. That is an AIRPLANE engine, which is an entirely different animal. It's designed to spend most of its running time at cruise speed (65%-75% of full power), with only short-lived dips into the higher power bands (during take-off and climbing). It also makes peak power at 2700 RPM, and probably only revs to 3-4K rpm...

Also, if you read up on that engine, they've gone to great lengths to minimize the drawbacks of running a large cylinder-size gasoline engine (and at a price of ~$30K, I'd hope so):

The current configuration includes a robust rotating system closely derived from the TIO-360-C1A6D, specifically developed cylinders, tuned induction system, Lycoming's roller tappets, Slick Start ignition and front facing fuel injection.

 

[dkswim]

Im in agreance with okland ang nliii

mabe i need to highlight that more or move it to the front.
and yes im going way out to the fringes far away from automotive engines just to point out some odditys.

 

[Nliiitend1]

No problem. I was merely pointing out that what you posted was indeed an "oddity."

 

[Young Roids]

In diesels I meant they had a longer stroke that's why they don't rev as high. I said higher compression but meant longer stroke.

 

[Nliiitend1]

In diesels I meant they had a longer stroke that's why they don't rev as high. I said higher compression but meant longer stroke.

THAT'S your rebuttal?

Why do I even waste my time?

Longer average stroke is only ONE of the MANY reasons that diesels don't rev as high as gasoline engines, and there are plenty of low-revving diesels with a stroke that's shorter than that of our beloved MZR DISI...

Regardless, are you ready to concede that making very large displacement 4-cylinder gasoline engines for cars is not a good idea?

Or are you going to continue off on the tangent of diesels and refuse to face the facts about the original argument at hand?

Anyway, anyone with half a brain can see you don't know what you're talking about when you go spouting off with inflammatory remarks and ill-informed logic. Let's get back to talking about the merits of the new Focus RS, which is what this thread is supposed to be about...

 

[Young Roids]

I don't concede anything. I don't see how I have made any inflamitory remarks. It seems like you guys all get your feelings hurt because I like four cylinder engines.

Why did you buy the ms3 in the first place if you wanted an inline 5 cylinder or a v6 or a v8? It's like you guys want to s*** on the very car this forum is supposed to be about.

 

[Nliiitend1]

I don't concede anything. I don't see how I have made any inflamitory remarks. It seems like you guys all get your feelings hurt because I like four cylinder engines.

I don't know, this sounds pretty inflammatory to me:

...variousillinformedbs...Every point you made there is false, you sound like a faggot.

So do homosexuals have a monopoly on stating facts? Is that what you're stating? In fact, nothing I said is even false, as you claimed it is...

Why did you buy the ms3 in the first place if you wanted an inline 5 cylinder or a v6 or a v8? It's like you guys want to s*** on the very car this forum is supposed to be about.

I'm not shitting on anything. Did I ever say the MS3 was a piece of s*** or make any remarks to that effect?

No.

I simply resoponded to your ill-informed assertion that the Focus RS's "engine is trash compared to the disi," that the RevoKnuckle is "just a fancy marketing term that does little to nothing to help with torque steer," and that 5-cylinder engines are "sheer stupidity."