Are big singles the future?

blackmega3500 said:
Interesting. It's definitely a much simpler approach, but the tilt of the head angle to adjust TDC is just wacky when you look at the graphic. To imagine that in a car would be just unnerving for some reason to me.
Click to expand...

It doesn't move during every rotation or anything, it moves with RPM to change compression ratio. It's a turbo charged engine. Very high compression at low RPM gets a turbo spooled and gives the car a lot of pep, then lowers compression at higher RPM so you can handle more boost and timing.
 
"Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm. Both are equally important. Double either and HP doubles. Double both and HP quadruples."

There's nothing to argue about it, the above statement rings true. 1 HP = 33,000 FT-LB/Min, 746 watts, etc....

What everyone gets bent out of shape over is the fact that engines produce varying torque values at different RPM levels.
 
Ah, another classic asinine "torque versus horsepower" debate. Derailing discussions since the early 1900's I'm sure.
 
I came here to read about big singles, and instead I see this...
blackmega3500 said:
In return the greatest power output comes from the hip rather than the thigh, this is the reason it's easier to climb a hill standing as it's more of a true vertical stroke such as the cummins I6 vs a V8 design which looses force from the angular stroke.
Click to expand...
This is quite possibly the dumbest argument for V vs inline that I have ever heard or read.
 
I tried to stay clear.
Begle1 said:
Ah, another classic asinine "torque versus horsepower" debate. Derailing discussions since the early 1900's I'm sure.
Click to expand...

To the original topic

It comes down to Intended application and the duty cycle involved.

You *should* always be able to make torque across a broader curve, more reliably, with twins.



Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Hurley said:
"Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm. Both are equally important. Double either and HP doubles. Double both and HP quadruples."

There's nothing to argue about it, the above statement rings true. 1 HP = 33,000 FT-LB/Min, 746 watts, etc....

What everyone gets bent out of shape over is the fact that engines produce varying torque values at different RPM levels.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

allan5oh said:
I refuse to answer a question that have nothing to do with your lack of understanding of the difference between torque and hp.
Click to expand...

:hehe: you can't even answer, because you don't know.

Here's a hint..... The motor blade.:bang

JoshH said:
I came here to read about big singles, and instead I see this...

This is quite possibly the dumbest argument for V vs inline that I have ever heard or read.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood the analogy, buts its not a big deal. One things for sure the single thing spitting hot air out is senior truffle butter Allan.

But in regards to argument of V vs I..... I could care less.
 
Last edited:
blackmega3500 said:
I don't think you understood the analogy, buts its not a big deal. One things for sure the single thing spitting hot air out is senior truffle butter Allan.
Click to expand...
I tried really hard to understand the point you were trying to make, but in the end, I guess my thinking isn't abstract enough. Maybe you can explain it to me. I'm curious to see your thought process on how an inline engine makes more torque than a V engine because the cylinders are angled.
 
Blackmega's don't matter. Somebody please give us a permaban for the window licker. Praise allah or whoever is needed to make this happen.
 
Last edited:
JoshH said:
I tried really hard to understand the point you were trying to make, but in the end, I guess my thinking isn't abstract enough. Maybe you can explain it to me. I'm curious to see your thought process on how an inline engine makes more torque than a V engine because the cylinders are angled.
Click to expand...

Like I told you I could care less, but since you insisted...

It has to do largely with balance, stroke length, crank design, and overall efficiency.

The V subsequently has it's advantages of course.

You put the same displacements with the same air to fuel setups, you'll see the inline motor make more initial torque yet will likely make as much if not a bit less horsepower compare to the V as it benefits from increased rpms which equal crank speed.

There are countless articles and such on this.

You're a Dmax guy, and I can appreciate your passion for your setup.
 
Last edited:
Broaner said:
Blackmega's don't matter. Somebody please give us a permaban for the window licker. Praise allah or whoever is needed to make this happen.
Click to expand...

ramthiscummins said:
+1 LOL
Click to expand...

I love yall leg humpers!:hehe:

Speaking of!

It's about time for this in Wisconsin right...?

acs-triple-dog-dare.jpg
 
Last edited:
blackmega3500 said:
Like I told you I could care less, but since you insisted...

It has to do largely with balance, stroke length, crank design, and overall efficiency.

The V subsequently has it's advantages of course.

You put the same displacements with the same air to fuel setups, you'll see the inline motor make more initial torque yet will likely make as much if not a bit less horsepower compare to the V as it benefits from increased rpms which equal crank speed.

There are countless articles and such on this.

You're a Dmax guy, and I can appreciate your passion for your setup.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said. You said an inline makes more torque because it has a vertical stroke rather than an angular stroke of a V configuration. I'm genuinely interested in how that is. Do you think gravitational pull on the rod and piston being directly over the crank is adding that much torque to the overall output? That is the reason it is easier to pedal a bike standing than sitting.
 
Big singles make lots of HP and diesels make that torque, so really it’s the combination of horsetorques that gets the job done! LOL
 
Well, I thought this was a discussion on big singles. I was sorely mistaken. I will never get the time back it took to scroll through this seemingly meaningless babble, luckily I didn't have anything better going on.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 
JoshH said:
That's not what you said. You said an inline makes more torque because it has a vertical stroke rather than an angular stroke of a V configuration. I'm genuinely interested in how that is. Do you think gravitational pull on the rod and piston being directly over the crank is adding that much torque to the overall output? That is the reason it is easier to pedal a bike standing than sitting.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm not sure on the gravity effect for an inline vertical rod being more efficient.

From the bike component your right momentum allows a kinetic transfer from the thigh to the press while standing, yet still while standing the majority of energy transferred is originated in the glutes. While seated it's primarily through the quads. Distance and competitive cyclists train themselves to pull through the pedal using the hamstring following the press while the opposite leg is pressing. Same as the push pull effect connecting rods have on a crank.
 
Last edited:
Thank you blackmega3500 and allan5oh for the lesson, but i do actually have a question for those running big singles. Ive seen a couple of guys running big singles to same the bottom end on a duramax. I know at some point it will give, but have seen a few people run some big singles and having very good outcomes with stock fuel. I was wondering if there is some testimonies out there? Thanks in advance!
 
"Good" and "Big" are subjective as can be. Define what you consider to be "good results" and "big single".

My definition of good doesn't associate at all with big single and stock fuel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top