9 hours ago, Aaron Clinton said:

It was calling out for more boost.

 

Is the old Audi statement coming true?

It actually has a small exhaust leak at the turbo flange so it's not even building all the boost it should be.  I've almost got all the bugs worked out of it though. 

Found those legatia L8s I got on the cheep too.

 

They sure look the tits.  I should really do something with them.

4 hours ago, dem beats said:

That's a fookin pile of sexy.

Decided to clean your closets too. Lol

Nah.  Loaning some love to a friend to play with.

When I was younger I really liked Audi.  

 

Now I am becoming cranky and old.  I want a sports car and then Every thing else to be a 2 stroke that I can fix with a thumb detecting nut fucker.  

12 minutes ago, ///M5 said:

Nah.  Loaning some love to a friend to play with.

So many toys. Not enough time.

4 minutes ago, dem beats said:

When I was younger I really liked Audi.  

 

Now I am becoming cranky and old.  I want a sports car and then Every thing else to be a 2 stroke that I can fix with a thumb detecting nut fucker.  

I love me some 2 smoke.

41 minutes ago, ///M5 said:

I love me some 2 smoke.

I don't understand engines.  So I don't really get why we went and stuck with 4 stroke.  I know physics and it seems like more air efficient explosions on 2 strokes.  

 

But I'm completely self educated and I ain't such a good teacher.

 

What I mean when I said j know physics, what I was trying to say was I don't understand physics.

 

Just wanted to clarify.

In terms of the 2 vs. 4 stroke it simply comes down to longevity equaling cost.  The 2 stroke wears out quickly.  There's no dedicated oiling system.  It would never survive an application like an automobile.  Some have actually tried, albeit on a small scale, limited production basis.  It failed miserably.  Some examples are still present, but attrition leads to scrap.  Throw in the simple fact that the mechanicals are different and are difficult to scale up and keep performance and it leads to futility.  No reliability, no feasibility, no sales.

In cars sure, but on smaller things it is easy to weigh the potential expenses.  Yes my 2 stroke snowmobile will need a full rebuild at 10k mi, a 4 stroke sled usually goes 25k but the maintenance and adjustments needed over the same time more than pay for the rebuild.  There is some extra cost with the 2 stroke and that is the oil which is consumable, but the side benefit is less weight.

I don't understand the companies though.  Either 160ish HP 800cc machines or 200+ HP 1000cc 4str turbos.  Where are the 160HP 750cc 4str turbos?  May even hold the same overall weight then and pretty much have no disadvantages other than complexity in operation and maintenance.

To show you how ridiculous uncomplicated 2 strokes are, when I want reverse on my sled the thing just slows down to nearly zero RPM's and then fires the spark plugs so that the motor spins and runs backgrounds.  Voila, reverse.  

I also pretty much only buy 2str shit for my yard.  My carb lost the fuel pump diaphragm on my leaf blower.  Could have surely rebuilt it, but a new carb was $4 shipped to my house.  Easier than cleaning, lol.  Uncomplicated ftmfw!

2 stroke emissions are a serious bitch too.  As a means to making HP though they are really good at it.  Something about firing on every stroke, lol.

2 hours ago, ///M5 said:

2 stroke emissions are a serious bitch too.  As a means to making HP though they are really good at it.  Something about firing on every stroke, lol.

That's kind of how I do math.  Wouldn't they be able to get much better MPG because of the efficiency if they refined it they way they did the 4 stroke? 

 

Again, I guess I don't understand it all but more push and less empty strokes...

Efficiency and 2 stroke requires a rather small power band and therefore a cvt.  Emissions are still tough although direct injection helps a ton.

1 hour ago, ///M5 said:

Efficiency and 2 stroke requires a rather small power band and therefore a cvt.  Emissions are still tough although direct injection helps a ton.

You are more engineer than me.  If we spent as much energy smoothing out those idiosyncrasies wouldn't it ultimately be a better burner and less emissions per mile?  Maybe more per gallon but if you get more power per gallon of go juice.... 

 

I don't know.  I know just enough physics to make engineers mad, and about engineering to make scientists mad.

It just won't work to scale.  Smaller engines and scales are fine, such as powersports and small engine applications.  If someone could make the two stroke work properly as a 4 stroke does, then it would be in production.  Just from a mechanical standpoint, they should in theory be cheaper to produce, but this is in a hypothetical perfect world.

The problem is without the extra cycles the exhaust port is open while fuel is incoming to the motor.  No way to really make the emissions great.  If they could drastically speed up the fuel atomization in the direct injection process and time it so that the ports didn't overlap then they would surely have 2 strokes on anything.  The addition of an oiling regimen wouldn't be hard....but the need above basically defies physics so instead we get diesels.

When I cold start my sled in my garage my whole house has the perfume of 2 smoke.  My wife isn't a fan.  I can drink the shit.

The 4 stroke hasn't even been nearly perfected yet.  The Mercedes F1 team just last year reached 50% thermal efficiency from their engines.  This is unheard of and never been done before.  Their nearest competitors are in the low 40% range.  Compare this to commercial vehicles which are a little less than half and you see how far off we are. 

Hell, I'm seeing some very ingenious designs coming around lately.  I saw an engine not to look ago that was actually pre-igniting the mixture.  This is just blasphemous to the normal train of thought in regards to the internal combustion engine.  Since the dawn of the engine, the goal has been to eliminate pre-ignition.  It's destructive in nature, but somehow, engineers are now using it advantageously.

14 minutes ago, Tirefryr said:

It just won't work to scale.  Smaller engines and scales are fine, such as powersports and small engine applications.  If someone could make the two stroke work properly as a 4 stroke does, then it would be in production.  Just from a mechanical standpoint, they should in theory be cheaper to produce, but this is in a hypothetical perfect world.

Not to be contrarian, but ships use some of the largest engines in the world and they are 2 strokes, specifically because of they can burn anything and they are incredibly more efficient at that scale.  Again, I'm not sure why.  

 

I thought it might be due to the power band, but then transmissions could make up for it?

Edited February 7, 20187 yr by dem beats

12 hours ago, ///M5 said:

In cars sure, but on smaller things it is easy to weigh the potential expenses.  Yes my 2 stroke snowmobile will need a full rebuild at 10k mi, a 4 stroke sled usually goes 25k but the maintenance and adjustments needed over the same time more than pay for the rebuild.  There is some extra cost with the 2 stroke and that is the oil which is consumable, but the side benefit is less weight.

I don't understand the companies though.  Either 160ish HP 800cc machines or 200+ HP 1000cc 4str turbos.  Where are the 160HP 750cc 4str turbos?  May even hold the same overall weight then and pretty much have no disadvantages other than complexity in operation and maintenance.

To show you how ridiculous uncomplicated 2 strokes are, when I want reverse on my sled the thing just slows down to nearly zero RPM's and then fires the spark plugs so that the motor spins and runs backgrounds.  Voila, reverse.  

I also pretty much only buy 2str shit for my yard.  My carb lost the fuel pump diaphragm on my leaf blower.  Could have surely rebuilt it, but a new carb was $4 shipped to my house.  Easier than cleaning, lol.  Uncomplicated ftmfw!

 That's my point.  I'm not trying to rewrite the world, but why I can't buy a Tacoma with a gangster 2 stroke....  

Wouldn't that be a fucking hoot? 

Maybe I'll make a 2 stroke buggy.  

Check out this fucker.

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&ei=YyZ7WvAcx5WPBM7eu5AM&q=aprilia+rs+engine+turbo&oq=aprilia+rs+engine+turbo&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..33i22i29i30k1l5.9388.16089.0.17203.7.7.0.0.0.0.332.1440.0j4j2j1.7.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..0.7.1438...0j0i30k1j0i22i30k1.0.yBc11K4EZI4#imgrc=bN7rttdlq-j65M:&scso=uid_dSZ7WrOEHoK-jwTnjYewDA_5:0[/img]

30 minutes ago, dem beats said:

Not to be contrarian, but ships use some of the largest engines in the world and they are 2 strokes, specifically because of they can burn anything and they are incredibly more efficient at that scale.  Again, I'm not sure why.  

 

I thought it might be due to the power band, but then transmissions could make up for it?

Totally different animal, built in small numbers. 

Your sales experience should make this easy to understand.  If you were an automobile manufacturer and you couldn't make an engine that was efficient, and reliable (think warranty work here and inevitably reputation), would you do it?

21 minutes ago, dem beats said:

Check out this fucker.

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&ei=YyZ7WvAcx5WPBM7eu5AM&q=aprilia+rs+engine+turbo&oq=aprilia+rs+engine+turbo&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..33i22i29i30k1l5.9388.16089.0.17203.7.7.0.0.0.0.332.1440.0j4j2j1.7.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..0.7.1438...0j0i30k1j0i22i30k1.0.yBc11K4EZI4#imgrc=bN7rttdlq-j65M:&scso=uid_dSZ7WrOEHoK-jwTnjYewDA_5:0[/img]

Small engine in a small production application.  Scale it up to an auto which is driven tens of thousands of miles a year and needs to start every time you turn the key in every condition you can think of every day of the year.

6 minutes ago, Tirefryr said:

Totally different animal, built in small numbers. 

Your sales experience should make this easy to understand.  If you were an automobile manufacturer and you couldn't make an engine that was efficient, and reliable (think warranty work here and inevitably reputation), would you do it?

I just assumed that the 2 stroke was abandoned because of exhaust concerns before they suck engineers into the design.  The evolution of engine design is waaaaaay past me.

 

 

2 strokes just deal with more wear parts eh?

Based on the scale argument is it saying that you can get away with cheaper parts on a 4 stroke and get similar power with less maintenance even though it's more complex less efficient and the fact it can stay sealed up for so much longer and doesn't consume oil is the real benefit right?