 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
orcabonita(at)hotmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke |
 |
|
This thread about engines have been very interesting and informative. The
Rotax 2 stroke engines definately have their place, and can obviously be
flown safely when the operator knows how run and maintain his engine
properly.
That being said, the day someone puts an HKS on thier Firestar they will
turn a really good ultralight into a great ultralight. The HKS is
expensive, but considering the price of building a new firestar, it is only
4,000 dollars extra to get the HKS over the Rotax. Im suprised no one has
done it yet. I paid an extra 10,000 dollars extra over the 2 stroke price
to put the 912S on my MK III , and its worth every cent. Just look what
the 912 S did for the MK-III. I bet the HKS will do the same thing for the
Firestar.
Michael A. Bigelow
MK-III Xtra under construction
Do Not Archive
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear, you did not go as fast as you could have
!!!
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
link(at)cdc.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:15 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke |
|
|
Some one please enlighten me. Why do these 4 stroke engines turn above
2400 rpm to produce their rated horse power? Is it cylinder volume or
stroke? The little aeronca c3 had a twin cylinder that produced 36 hp in
the 2000+ rpm range (Must have had a much larger cylinder volume).
Wonder what it weighed. When engines run faster do they become more
efficient? I remember an article in popular science where Smokey Yunick
attempted to redesign an engine to comply with the upcoming
environmental pollution standards. He changed the stroke got more burn
out of the fuel and a great deal more torque Out of the engine and also
reduced the hydrocarbons. It just seems to me that there has to be a
simpler way to produce a lighter and more efficient 4 stroke engine.
Steve Garvelink
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rsanoa(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke |
|
|
Steve,
I at one time had three C3 Aeroncas with the Aeronca engines. They had a bore of
4-1/4" and a stroke of 4". Produced 36 HP at 2400 rpm. Displacement was 113.5 cu.in. Complete engine weighed 121 lbs.
Ray
UltraStar Tenn.
Do not archive
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donghe(at)one-eleven.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: 2 Stroke VS. 4 Stroke |
|
|
Steve..
the only 4 stroke engines mass produced that are more efficient than than
these Vtwins, are the auto engines today. EPA and CARB regulations have
forced this market to produce cleaner burning and since we sell in the
industrial market by the Horsepower....there was no choice but to gain in
efficiency. IN fact the calif air rescorce board (CARB) has instituted regs
than begining in 1999 started a year by year reduction in emmissions with
all engines produced faceing a stricter compliance each year thru 2008.
This has been a difficult process for manufacturers. when we sell engines to
our OEM customers in the USA...they seldom buy a bigger engine than just
will do the job to remain competitive in their respective market place. So
we could not just lean out the engines..because the resulting loss of
horsepower would not have satisfied the loads.
Maintaining horsepower and torque is a must in this biz...and it must be
done at the 3600 rpm level because the entire marget and all drive
components have been standardized to this level. Transmissions...blade
speeds...coupler ratings...everybodys machines are designed to run at 3600
input.
Honda has done it by varible ratio valve trains....super efficient carbs and
contolled ignition curves. This year we introduced the IGX series of fully
controled fuel mapping and ignition curves, which will be the next
generation of small industrials, just as the auto division as had to do to
keep up with the regs.
So as far as efficiency goes....you will be hard pressed to find engines
more efficient that what is currently out there.
It used to be...to make more horsepower, all we had to do was raise the rpms
and pour the fuel to em....not any more.
Honda engines as of 2005 are compliant to the CARB 08 regs BTW!
Don Gherardini
OEM.Sales / Engineering dept.
American Honda Engines
Power Equipment Company
CortLand, Illinois
800-626-7326
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
