BMW 2.4L vs 3.0L

[@TheKnightOperator]

I actually would prefer the 2.4l with boost and a great head. Much higher rpm, safer motor with less compression. Tell me why im wrong....

[@driller7714]

In real world application the 3.0 will produce more torque in the lower rpm range where most engines spend 90% of their lives. Unless you’re building a race car that will be driven at high rpm regularly the 3.0 will give you a much better driving experience.

[@TheKnightOperator]

@@driller7714 I don't need a ton of torque put putting around, depends on the weight of the car, but 200lbft -300 more than fine. If your building a performance vehical, you want the power curve in the mid to upper range, where it will spend most of its useful time. If I was building a Chevy Malibu daily, and I'm Chevy, yea mid to low torque is fine, as long as it's not advertised for performance orientation.

[@TheKnightOperator]

@driller7714 there was a time attack r35, that had a fancy high compression motor. They spun a bearing during testing prior to qualifying and had to put the stock crank in fast, with the modified pistons and stock rods. It was running a staggering.... 7:1 compression. And they tuned it over the course of a day. When they were finished, they were absolutely stunned, and blown away with the new performance and feel of the car... higher rpm, great power if not more (could run the turbos harder). and safer numbers they were seeing for engine health. They weren't even sure if they were going to share their findings, it was so good. And they ran the car for the full event, and were successful with this Frankenstein build.

[@driller7714]

@@TheKnightOperator Depends on the vehicle you’re driving. Also, many of the 3.0 applications are naturally aspirated so that is the measure I’m using. A stripped down race car is obviously much lighter than a luxury sport coupe. The stripped down race car is also not going to operate in a lower rpm range very much. On the other hand, even a sports car that is driven daily or even weekly on the street is not going to be spending much time in the seven to eight thousand rpm range. These cars will be stopping and starting regularly and that added torque will make a difference in how the car feels. I own a BMW Z4 with the 3.0 and an Infinity G35. It is a rare occasion that either of these vehicles see over 6k rpm. About the only time that happens is if I’m feeling frisky getting on the freeway. Or the rare occasion I’m on some twisty back road. Most of the time they don’t see over 4K rpm. In the end, it all depends on what you’re intending to do with the car. A daily driver, the 3.0 is in my opinion the better choice. A full blown race car, go with the de-stroked high rpm engine.

[@СергейМалышев-ч5е]

Чем больше обороты-тем больше износ поршневой группы, выгоднее малые обороты и длинный ход, но страдает экология. Вспомните ресурс двигателей Ф1 и двигателей из 90-х

[@AO-ow6tt]

The 3.0l has a longer stroke therefore has more torque but at less rpm than the 2.4l.

[@andrewll]

Why?

[@-poirnitch-2929]

@@andrewll 3 l one goes all the way up and all the way down

[@mateuszg9866]

​@@andrewll because physics. Longer connecting rod mean more leverage = higher torque

[@DieselRamcharger]

@@mateuszg9866 the 3.0 has a SHORTER connecting rod.

[@Amin.Ashraf]

​@@mateuszg9866 Longer stroke = longer crank radius = more leverage = higher torque. Longer conrod can produce slightly higher torque but it depends on geometry

[@igorsemeniuk384]

Ход поршня от длины шатуна никак не зависит, он зависит от разности расстояния между осью рамовых и шатунных шеек коленвала. Чем оно больше, тем длиннее ход поршня, больше плечо передачи усилия. При этом при одинаковой длине втулок и одинаковых размерах блока, шатун нужен более короткий, для сохранения положения поршня в ВМТ. Я думаю мощьность двигателя 3.0 больше, поэтому для уменьшения нагрузки на мотылевые подшипники и шейки это и сделано, при этом мощность отдаваемая будет выше. Скорость же вращения это совсем другая тема. При одинаковых оборотах мощность развиваемая 3.0 будет выше чем 2.0 двигателя...Тут вообще нельзя просто так ответить на вопрос, нужны конструктивные особенности моторов, диаметры поршней, валов, количество подаваемого топлива и воздуха, короче полный расчет мотора. Как то так....

[@interseptor9716]

Скорее даже не пиковый показатель мощности, а крутящего момента в диапазоне малых и средних оборотов.

[@ewesone4609]

Не лечи меня 😂😂😂😂😂

[@ewesone4609]

Хот поршня зависит от длины шатуна!!!

[@ewesone4609]

То есть ты хочешь сказать что если поставить шатун короче то ничего не изменится???? 😅😅😅😅

[@interseptor9716]

@@ewesone4609 ход поршня останется неизменным. Изменится расстояние от ВМТ и НМТ.

[@barakuda51]

⭕️⭕️⭕️я отсюда вижу что оно масло жрет)))

[@Jim-we6mn]

Longer stroke

[@barakuda51]

@@Jim-we6mn вот скажи мне американец...)

[@КоляИванов-щ7з]

​@@barakuda51в чем правда..

[@МуратХубиев-у1д]

😂

[@JohnFord8310]

​@@КоляИванов-щ7з Правда в длинне хода поршня.

[@タダタカサトウ]

Although it looks like the stroke has simply increased, the strength of the piston rod is significantly different.

[@mcplutt]

Aftermarket rod.

[@2seep]

It’s not that the strength has been reduced. It’s that the forces acting on the longer rod are more extreme due to it having to travel faster coming down. This is the reason why long stroked engines can’t rev high

[@ralfwindte5986]

looks like the 3l engine rod is stronger because it is forged.

[@Gchang54]

​@@ralfwindte5986they are both forged but 2.4 looks aftermarket

[@jumpierwolf]

Different stroke. Left can rev a lot higher while the right produces more torque.

[@dav1dbone]

BMW all the engine variants consist of one of 4 blocks tuned or detuned to whatever badge is on the rear

[@iamthemobey]

Same with the majority of manufacturers. Developing an engine from scratch is extremely time consuming and expensive. Even more so now with all of the registrations.

[@sivansharma5027]

​@@iamthemobey Damn those registrations

[@iamthemobey]

@@sivansharma5027 🤣🤣🤣 regulations, you knew what I meant 🤦‍♂️

[@icarustanovic3097]

It is in extreme with VW and Bmw.

[@czesaw597]

That is, similar to most brands. The same capacities have different accessories and different powers.

[@tatarugabriel4328]

Remember guys. Horsepower is torque × rpm. Some might think the 3L in this video is more powerful. But i spot with my little eye that custom lightweight connecting rod. If the smaller engine has less moving mass, it has more rpm

[@ijumpshot2613]

Longer stroke on the 3.0

[@petrpohnan875]

The last sentence is a nonsense. By far it is not this simple. Many more things in the game

[@Mr.Thermistor7228]

​@@petrpohnan875^^^

[@tatarugabriel4328]

@@petrpohnan875 I understand what you're saying sir. Installing lightweight parts alone won't do much. It just opens up the potential for boost and other things

[@Supergoldk]

Good eye only mechanics see that

[@ThanhTran-gm6cy]

The 2.4L engine has more power, but the 3.0L engine has more torque.

[@qwepkrt]

это же одно и тоже

[@mphocio4016]

Ambos tienen misma carrera...

[@theturkishprince]

what does that even mean haha

[@Константин-ь5э8к]

Не имеет он большей мощности если говорить о гражданском исполнении. Он слабее. Но если в тюнинг версии тотза счет более высоких оборотов можно или сровнять или сделать его можнее чем 3.0

[@deazy3409]

No, the 3L would make more power and torque. This isn't rocket science. a bigger engine means bigger power

[@DylanWicker-z9r]

Bore length is the same the centerline offset on the crank is offset more per the longer stroke. It does not affect the rpm the diffrence is the longer stroke makes more torque at the same rpm as the shorter stroke.

[@timehmalzeuzkeh7618]

It does affect rpm. Its all to do with piston speed. A combustion flame travels at a certain speed. Lets just go with a random number, 30m/s. If both engines are at the same RPM, the longer stroke engine, has a higher piston speed. At a certain rpm, the longer stroke will have its piston going so fast, that it begins to approach the speed at which combustion happens, usually resulting in torque drop at higher RPM’s. This is why your diesels begin to ‘run out of legs’ at higher rpm’s. A shorter stroke slows down the piston at higher RPM, allowing for torque to continue to be produced higher in the RPM range Hope this helps! Im just saying its not as simple as that

[@DylanWicker-z9r]

@timehmalzeuzkeh7618 rpm is rpm if your spinning 2000 rpms your spinning 2000 rpms. The offset of the crank does not affect the rpm. You can cover more surface area faster, which is what you're comparing your piston speed to. But actual rpms are rpms. If you had a crank spinning at said rpms the and magically put a larger offset the and left it spinning the same rpm the rpm would not change your "surface area" or distance your piston covers would be greater but that's it. 1 rpm is 1 rpm. Hints you make more torque at that same rpm with a longer stroke. In a friendly argument we go. Ha

[@kevinmonahan2820]

It is not offset, there are engines that the bore is offset in relation to the crank to mitigate the rapid acceleration at the end of compression and beginning of power strokes that are made worse by long stroke engines. You are mistakenly calling the longer stroke of the crank an "offset". Also "bore length" would be referred to as deck height

[@DylanWicker-z9r]

​@kevinmonahan2820, we aren't talking about other engines. I'm talking about this video.

[@DylanWicker-z9r]

​@kevinmonahan2820, and no, I'm not mistaken the crank offset for the longer stroke. It's the reason there is a longer stroke. Your offset from the centerline of the crank in this video causes the longer stroke because you are swinging a bigger radius.

[@Bob-s5s]

So basically you can turn any 2.4 into a 3L. That 2.4 looks more beefy though

[@AndreDiasRJ]

Id say its the other way around, since the cilinder is 3.0

[@kampfmeersau]

@@AndreDiasRJCylinders are the same size, but different engine displacement… 🙄 0.4 Liters on the left, 0.5 Liters on the right. Makes 2.4 inline 6 on the left and 3.0 inline 6 on the right.

[@augustusmaximus891]

​@kampfmeersau Yeah but.. it looks beefier though so must be better

[@Sulordan]

He’s referring to the piston rods on the 2.4 looking beefier, because they are. They’re aftermarket.

[@exoticbeast25]

@@kampfmeersauI think the 3L is some thing like 2.98kcc

[@종섭-e3f]

스트로크가 길어지면 토크는 높아지지만 엔진진동이 심해집니다. 그래서 4기통보다 6기통에 유리합니다. 아이들 알피엠도 2.4가 더 높습니다. 즉 3.0이 많은부분 유리합니다. 단점은 정비비용과 연료소모가 많습니다.

[@davidperry4013]

The BMW 3.4L M engine has the same stroke as the 3.0 but a larger bore and has an 8K rpm redline.

[@SoulTouchMusic93]

so you should be able to sping a regular 3l just fine to 8k. smaller bore usually means better piston stability. how fast can you really spin the 2.4l then?

[@lovepreetkular2264]

@@SoulTouchMusic9310k rpms for 2.4 destroked

[@interieurtuning6085]

There is no bmw 3,4L engine, there never was one

[@OwenWellsp-wz5hg]

​@@interieurtuning6085 the M3 is a 3.2 and the alpine b3 is a 3.4

[@myboy051]

Girl on the left is definitely happier😊

[@spannaspinna]

@wilfordbrimley5180 part of being old and miserable I guess

[@nickmarcos5553]

@wilfordbrimley5180 i forgot to ask

[@chuckclark6162]

@wilfordbrimley5180 Diabetes. Small pp.

[@TimSlee1]

@wilfordbrimley5180 I forgot

[@fausanhabibie7515]

Sometimes FASTER is not better than HARDER & DEEPER tho 😂😂

[@regsmith7604]

That 3.0 has a longer stroke, but the 2.4 has a more beefier con rod

[@EZ-D-FIANT]

That's an after market rod for sure.....

[@internet_internet]

Yeah, I’ve described my 2.4 that way before.

[@yt500pmd]

Wow. A beefier connecting rod on a CUT-AWAY engine. It must make more power 🙄

[@jimmyslilo6318]

เท่าที่ดูก้านสูบเครื่อง3.0L เล็กกว่าเพลาข้อเหวี่ยงและตุ้มถ่วงจะใหญ่กว่า แรงสั่นสะเทือนจะเยอะกว่า มิน่าล่ะเครื่อง 3.0L ไม่ค่อยมีคนเล่นแล้ว รอบเครื่องมาช้า เครื่องพังง่ายกว่า ยางรองแท่นเครื่องเปลี่ยนไปหลายรอบแล้ว

[@TheMolar777]

Здесь явно один коленвал вращается быстрее другого. 1000 оборотов в минуту, это 1000 оборотов в минуту и не важно какой ход поршня, они будут вращаться синхронно в независимости от литража. На этом видео скорей всего один и тот же двигатель в разрезе, только с разными шатунами. Возможно видео предназначено показать как будет работать двигатель с «кастомными» шатунами, а кто то влепил 2.4L и 3.0L Другого логичного объяснения у меня нет

[@slavikpavlish5624]

При чем тут шатуны,ход поршня разный!Почитай хотя бы матчасть.От хода поршня зависит кубатура и мощность.

[@igor5771]

​@@Фуфускардинальность кроется в разной степени сжатия У левого будет 10 у правого 16 Далее разное топливо для нормальной работы Левому газолин 76 октановое число Правому премиум 98

[@Geralt-y]

Видно, что разные коленвалы и 2,4 вращается быстрее, но на вид поршень 3,0 двигается как будто быстрее

[@ВасилийЗадов-д8и]

​@@Geralt-y конечно быстрее, ведь за одну и тот же оборот он проходит больше линейного расстояния.

[@Geralt-y]

@@ВасилийЗадов-д8и 💯

[@하이브리드가짱이지]

배구공 한바퀴 굴리는거랑 농구공 한바퀴 굴리는것의 차이임. 동일한 주행거리에서 배기량이 큰 엔진이 수명이 길수밖에 없음.

[@JosephCowen-fz8vj]

Yes if they were both rotating at the same speed it would have made much more sense .

[@Degen.Diesel]

Look at the stroke of the piston.

[@rodmacd8357]

They are at the same speed if you watch the crank spin.

[@aaronnoyb]

​@@rodmacd8357 They are not, if they were, regardless of stroke, the counterweights would stay lined up.

[@dg9bfc]

smaller stroke can rotate faster ( more rpm) longer stroke has more torque on lower rpm

[@DevinM420]

​@dg9bfc that's true when it's running, for this demo not so much

[@Supergoldk]

That’s an awesome short

[@ふた-j1n]

上死点の高さが同じなので、 この場合は、クランクシャフトの直径の差とシャフトマウント位置のズレが下死点の差になり、ボアの違いになります ストロークの違いは時間の違いになるので、 １ストロークごとに時間に差が生じます

[@Andre-uv2dd]

Разница в коленвалах. Шатуны равные длиной, хотя у 3.0l он облегчëный.

[@jiebb1nkorbn803]

дядя как ты понял что шатун равной длины?

[@nordlichbear]

Если у трёшки колено с бОльшим ходом чем у 2.4 , то у него либо должен быть короче шатун (на величину увеличения колена), либо поршень со смещением оси пальца. Одним изменением коленвала не добиться увеличения объёма.

[@DevinM420]

Having them spin at the same speed would of been nice but i see whats going on "i think". Same engine just different crank and rods

[@walkingsmilee]

Could watch it probably all day long😅

[@donilofreedom692]

Слева шатун кажется прочнее, но так ли это? МОжет он литой/штампованный, в то время, как справа кованый?

[@Саня29]

Это видео как снять ещё плюсом 10 лошадей заменой коленвала. А разница будет в шейках 10мм. Которую на глаз вы не увидите. 3л будет мощнее так как у коленвала больший рычаг . Нагрузка на шатуны меньше и соответственно и на вкладыши. Но топлива ему надо больше так как объём получается разный. До сих пор не пришли к мнению какой размер поршня лучше к его ходу. Поставьте рядом 1.6 😂 Я за то чтоб максимально использовать возможность коленвалов но маркетологи скажут что это не практично. И задачи у них разные. Одному нужны обороты а другому тянуть на низах. А поиграть коробками не кто не пробовал. Да и от законов физики далеко не убежишь😂

[@radivojkurucki3065]

Jacina klipnjace,,,,

[@poomanik7919]

3.0L has Longer stroke, more torque, but If I'm not wrong it comes at the cost of a smaller red line compared to the 2.4L. Since the stroke is longer, it has to go all the way up and down. So, at the same rpm, the piston of the 3.0 travels longer distance than the 2.4, hence 2.4 can do a few hundred RPM more than the 3.0 before both of the engine reaches their peak.

[@Thingsandtimes]

2.4 has serious forged conrod for heavy boost turbo application.

[@alexanderackerman686]

Correct. Those are H-beam connections

[@taeseongki76]

실린더 경은 비슷한데 행정거리가 차이나네. 당연히 체적 차이가 나고.

[@ansahpatrick5880]

The lengh of stroke from TDC to BDC of 3.0 is also longer making it have more space for combustion to take place increasing work output. The 2.0 on the other hand has a shorter stroke . Less area for combustion making its power output lower . In calculting the output of an engine we use the formula PLAN. Where P represents actual mean effective presaure . L is the lenght of stroke ie distance between TDC and BDC. A representd the cross sectioná area of the cylinder and N represents the Number of revolutions of crank shaft per minute. With this into consideration . The bore of the cylinder and length of the piston rod can affect the total output of the engine

[@dronkozkov5804]

На видео видно, что число оборотов в секунду у 3х литрового двигателя ниже.

[@vasilypupkin2107]

Are you serious?

[@user-xi6lg7sc3l]

영상 본인이 올렿죠? 그럼 직접 보세요 . 멍멍이 소리 말고

[@Pceekh-x_beet.]

Да конечно 3L медленее, это слепой может не увидеть.

[@алексейворожбит-р6ь]

Число оборотов здесь вообще не при чём

[@mikeruthen6236]

Very debatable application to this. ALL high hp drag machines run strokers. JZ, RB, VR, LS etc. Now for the street this thing will need to run 4k rpm just to spool stock turbos not mentioning anything considerably bigger. All been there motorbike engines only good for motorbike weights

[@sendogandem5052]

Ich denke das beide Zylinder identisch sind nur das der 3.0 durch den längeren Hub auch mehr NM erzeugen kann. So kann man kostensparen in der Automobilindustrie

[@andygna2281]

Fajnie wyjasnione mala różnica w budowie a potężna w użytkowaniu 👍👍👍

[@Paucomle]

The throw out on the 3.0 so different to 2.4, More pressure on shells

[@Tempest-ec2nn]

I dislike how close that piston skirt is to leaving the bore.

[@SillyPuddy2012]

Those are some curiously beefy connecting rods on the 2.4.

[@andydelassus2734]

Good catch

[@MatterLivesWhite]

Or keep same rotational speed and increase diameter of the cylinder. Many factors come into play here but good demenstration if all things kept constant

[@МихаилПьянков-к3ы]

Ход шатуна от его длинны не зависит.Зависит на сколько от центра оси колена расположенная шатуная шейка.Отсуда вердикт разные коленвалы.😅😅😅

[@nordlichbear]

Увеличив ТОЛЬКО радиус кривошипа КВ у тебя поршень в голову упрётся. Вместе с увеличением кривошипа уменьшают пропорционально либо длину шатуна, либо подбирается поршень с измененным центром оси пальца. Тоесть центр оси пальца приближается к донцу поршня на величину изменения кривошипа. Одно из двух.

[@スズキ-o5j]

It took me a while to understand what the comparison meant because the left and right rotational speeds are different. Essentially, if the bore is the same and the thickness of the piston is the same, the difference in rotational speed does not occur because the stroke is different.

[@ГеворкСаркисян-и6п]

Левый шатун предпочтительнее,он не так искривляется как стандартный правый

[@valeriylampu146]

Слева кованый H образный шатун

[@Fraggy1972]

Just look CLOSE! The piston on the right side is running a longer way, so the volume of the cylinder is bigger, than on the left side. Same engine, different volumes. Might be useful for raising the power. If it helps with revving, is a different story.

[@januszkrupa4965]

W 3 litry Slaby korbowod Długi skok tłoka-harley Wolne obroty

[@carcrazyguysa4059]

The people who build this engine are 4N motorsport. This engine goes upto 11k rpm

[@Kpostma100]

The longer the stroke the lower the rpm.thats why f1 emgines have realy short strokes,and thats why they van rev so fking high

[@johnlilley9363]

@@Kpostma100yes, the piston velocity being the limiting factor, the right piston is higher average velocity than the piston on the left. Also crankshaft on the left seems to rotating slightly faster than the right side

[@jcdazamont]

.. and radious to crankShaft in 3lit is little bit long than 2.4lit and recieve more volume

[@camputorify]

회전수는 리터의문제가아니라 피스톤 직경과 길이 압축비의문제입니다.

[@igorsemeniuk384]

Вы не правы от слова совсем...

[@negativeindustrial]

That 3.0L rod looks like it’s good for about 200hp before it turns itself into a pretzel.

[@ThatOneCatNyx]

If I'm correct that is an M54B30 rod- and surprisingly we send those to around 4-500hp regularly and don't get many failures from the rods. Mainly the pistons and heads lifting 😂

[@311superfly]

222 HP lol.

[@FaszSzopóGoogle]

U must be kidding. That's a forged conrod. You can't have any better than that. A lighter one perhaps, for a few extra HP in racing, but nothing's as durable as those forged conrods.

[@АлексейСемёнов-ж7е]

Разные коленвал и шатун, соответственно разный ход,отсюда и разный объем

[@ToT_Camblu]

Короткий ход, обороты больше ,мощность скорость больше , более термонагруженный , меньше ресурс-длинный ход больше тяга больше эконии топлива скорость меньше больше ресур . А что выберешь ты🫵

[@F-Yuriy]

Длинный ход - больший износ цилиндро-поршневой группы. Большая скорость поршня - чревато обрывом. Вибрация.

[@ToT_Camblu]

@@F-Yuriy скорость поршня одинаковая поэтому и оборотов у длиноходных ДВС меньше.

[@brandyoverly3485]

Depends on what I am doing if I'm racing the short stroke but if traveling from one side of my country the USA to the other side I would take the long stroke for fuel mileage to save money so it all depends on what you are doing me I'm always taking shorter stroke cause I ain't traveling anywhere but the track kicking ass

[@ToT_Camblu]

@@brandyoverly3485 К сожалению в приложении Ютьюбе (в версии для смартфона)в ответах на комментарии гугл не переводит на русский язык и поэтому я не могу прочитать что вы мне ответили .

[@ToT_Camblu]

@@brandyoverly3485 я не могу прочитать гугл не переводит с английского на русский в ответах на комментарий

[@larshartmann609]

I Prefer High Displacement But Relatively Short Stroke. 👌🏼 Meaning Larger Bore.

[@wan-atz7606]

I think they want to said how to increase volumetric of engine, just increase piíton’s trip

[@xandrasa]

That's the point!

[@Performer_sm]

Разный ход поршня при одинаковом диаметре поршня и частоте вращения коленвала. Если повысить частоту вращения,то можно литров до 4-х дойти.

[@アキト-d1j]

画面を逆さで見ると違和感なく見れるね😂

[@leongaskell1533]

Good idea.

[@williamschubert3929]

The aluminum connecting rod is longer Same piston definitely a different crank with shorter stroke I caught that.

[@robertpotvin8872]

shorter travel of the piston meens higher max revs,,longer stroke more low end torque,but higher velocity of the piston for synchronous rpm,,,,short about 8 thousans rpm max ,,long 6,5 thousans rpm max maybe!!,,,n.b. for safe operation and durability,, could rev more but I think the cutoff is in those ranges,,,!!

[@5uprnva]

Stroke has zero effect on max rpm, as long as airflow is available a long stroke motor will rev as high as a short stroke motor. It will just have greater piston speed.

[@slipknot1943]

Vibrations kills long stroke high revving engines tho

[@robertpotvin8872]

@@5uprnva forgot to say,for safe operation and longevity of the engine,,,!! on the video comparing both you can see that the short stroke engine is reving higher , !!🤔😉

[@carcrazyguysa4059]

11k rpm

[@robertpotvin8872]

@@carcrazyguysa4059 I made some corrections on my comment!😉

[@romantsoy2561]

It's the same way as with the SAABs 2.0l and 2.3l engines! I've had both of them and both were amazing engines! The only thing with the 2.3l SAAB engine was the common problem of oil starvation at high rpm and many engines got destroyed by it, the engine overheats and seizes up, it happened to my mates 2.3l SAAB 95 Aero HOT(High Output Turbo) while he was racing a BMW M3! We(I was in his passenger seat) were constantly up the BMWs ass and weren't loosing to it, keeping up no problem, then when both cars got to about 110mph, my mates (SAAB) engine suddenly overheated and just died on us, cut out completely, seized up and had us stranded on a by-pass(Scottish version of a motorway). Had to call our boss at 2 in the morning to come and pick us up 😬 he wasn't happy to say the least! 😂

[@user-gl2eq2ly4g]

Showed this to the wife ...... Crickets .., not sure what it means.

[@internet_internet]

It means she don’t understand why tf you’re showing that to her.

[@DUKE_of_RAMBLE]

Unfortunately, it means it's time for a new wife. You had a good run, but she clearly isn't the right gal for you anymore... Just, break it to her gently. _(as for the individual above me who takes things too literal/seriously: I'M ONLY KIDDING and _*_do not_*_ think he should leave this wife over this! 😏)_

[@GreenYouth1984]

​@@DUKE_of_RAMBLE he needs a dog/cat pet more than a wife in this situation. Joking😢

[@user-gl2eq2ly4g]

@@internet_internet why you swearing?

[@isf4801]

"квадратная" геометрия лучше для высоких оборотов. Длинноходные двигатели менее оборотистые, но лучше по крутящему моменту. А так да, интересно понаблюдать) Но, кривошип у них всё равно разный, тут одним шатуном не отделаешься))

[@СашаКравчнко]

Різниця в ходах поршнів. Справа має більший хід.

[@JohnFord8310]

Справа это дело по вашему, по тарабарски.

[@nikitaobada3454]

Правильно говори не ризница а разница, не хид а ход

[@cheesebusiness]

Look at how jerky the 2.4L piston is at the bottom (from our POV). This jerk gives more torque on low RPM.

[@igorsemeniuk384]

Двигатель крутится без рывков. Мощность 2.5 будет ниже чем у 3.0 при тех же оборотах коленвала.

[@nasrulhaq6071]

Now I can Understand why F1 engines with low engine capacity are making more horsepowers

[@Man_Emperor_of_Mankind]

They're making more HP because of forced induction, which the video doesn't address.

[@bm_wuratli6883]

F1 cylinders has tiny head and push way more likely 3.0l in the video and th y remove every racing which mean it's not good for common ppl consumer like us lul😂😂😂

[@piotrc966]

@@bm_wuratli6883 "way more likely 3.0l" Nop, bore-to-stroke is 2:1. So stroke is much shorter than in 2.4. This 3.0 is similar to diesel, not high rpm engine.

[@narichannel.]

ストロークをよく見てください 次にクランクの直径 つまりクランク軸からのコンロッド取り付け軸の距離を見てください この距離がトルクを生み出す源です

[@grantleypotts8046]

I was curious about why's nothing in time with each other.. Like the piston movement up and down or the crankshaft Rpms. Then I thought you can see the difference between the two. 🤷‍♂️

[@jorismk1]

If the rpms were the same you would be able to tell better what the difference is. The difference is in the crankshaft.

[@kushnir850]

Разница в ходе поршня.

[@TheLowrider2040]

Difference in height is stroke length

[@lewis7515]

​@@jorismk1 What?..

[@Yoomoron]

Are the heads same? If yes, how bigger CR are getting in 3L?

[@hansdampf2104]

Left engine spins faster. Watch the holes on the crankshaft

[@igorsemeniuk384]

Насколько я понимаю мощность мотора даётся в характеристиках максимальная. При переменных оборотах она будет переменная. Но если рассмотреть мощность 2.5 и 3.0 мотора при одинаковых оборотах в любом диапазоне, то мощность 3.0 будет выше по причине более высокой подачи топлива и воздуха в более большую камеру сгорания. А размер камеры сгорания определяется диаметром цилиндра и ходом поршня, который зависит от расстояния между коренными и мотылевыми шейками коленвала... Длина шатуна будет определять положение поршня в ВМТ и величину камеры сжатия.

[@Raven86_]

Different strokes for different folks 😂

[@neveryawn]

😂

[@paulbriozzo4895]

The 2.4 L uses a H section connecting rod as opposed to the 3.0 which has a more conventional I section connecting rod.

[@minnos78]

Very nice

[@cyberkiller83]

if i am seeing this correctly. The only difference is the stroke, but the block is the same, you can see the missing stroke space on the 2.4L. So in theory you can convert a 2.4L to 3.0L using the 3.0L connecting rods right? that would increase its displacement and even the compression ratio.

[@cyberkiller83]

But as i see it closely, in order to have bigger stroke, need to have thiner connecting rod, i think the 2.4L is more realiable this way. Have a wider connecting rod, better quality.

[@EricStephens-w2j]

Same block and piston different conmecting rod and crank

[@thebaronwatson4610]

And the 3 l seems to have a smaller con rod to compensate for the extra crank throw. Guess that would make it weaker !

[@phiropont5568]

Правый желтее..😂

[@CaptainBlackadder75]

Ok - question to all those talking about the relative rpm of these two examples: in this demo the crankshaft is driving the pistons, not the other way around, so surely commenting on the relative rpm is pointless? This demo only shows the differing stroke length, and therefore displacement.

[@GrillerRohde]

People are just pointing out that changing the stroke will affect the RPM.

[@naterally2176]

chevy 4.8 to 5.3

[@user-kb8gh5jv9t]

Just a modified Crankshaft and connecting rod to be able to use the same block but achieve different displacement. It’s one way to do it…

[@대한민국-m8w]

숏스트로크 롱스트로크

[@derkommentator2022]

Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal die ….. 😂😂 Bei einem Kurzhub-Motor muss die Zylinderbohrung größer dem Kolbenhub sein, Langhuber entsprechend andersherum. Bei gleichem Verhältnis ist es ein Quadrathuber. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubverh%C3%A4ltnis?wprov=sfti1#

[@xandrasa]

Die Chinesen erkennen sofort das Wichtige.

[@Cihan92]

​@@xandrasa das ist ein Koreaner

[@PieterHalveLiter]

​@@Cihan92 😂Whatever....

[@Enendi_urain]

​@@xandrasastupid 😂

[@drekson23]

Similar design, different result. Mechanical engr is awesome.

[@acabhafizAli15619]

So basically just changed the rod to become 3liter

[@hotrodsurplus]

The crankshaft journal location is responsible for the displacement difference. The con rod influences engine dynamics to a slight degree, but it does not affect displacement.

[@ghostwrench2292]

The crank is what determines the stroke, not the length of the connecting rod.

[@danhufferdoutdoors]

​@@ghostwrench2292and the rod has to be narrower for clearance

[@rotondwalucky4068]

Rod and crank

[@furrdingding]

계속 보고있자니 잠이 오는군요!

[@ИльяБарановский-ж6ф]

2.4 крутиться как будто быстрее крутиться

[@АбдурахимАбускаев]

Да, в этом и смысл. Меньше плечо рычага (если смотреть на эксцентриситет коленвала как на рычаги), ниже крутящий момент, но выше максимальные обороты двигателя

[@ИльяБарановский-ж6ф]

@@АбдурахимАбускаев тогда было бы справедливо для данного видео сделать одинаковое кол-во оборотов для кв. Либо сровнять скорость хода поршней. А так чепуху какую-то сняли

[@АбдурахимАбускаев]

​@@ИльяБарановский-ж6фВсе равно может показаться не так. Видите ли, у 3.0 ход поршня больше, нежели чем у 2.4. Вроде все и так ясно и наглядно. Другой вариант, что можно увеличить объем двигателя за счёт увеличения диаметра поршня, а не за счет увеличения его хода. Тогда можно согласовать визуально эти два варианта)

[@ИльяБарановский-ж6ф]

@@АбдурахимАбускаев да дело не в том что можно расточить, и подогнать. А в том что бы синхронизировать один из движущихся элементов для большей наглядности. Это к слову о значении видео, я так считаю

[@ProjectCarTV]

@@АбдурахимАбускаев like Honda. Short stroke lots of rpm.

[@TheFogLakeshore]

Could have made it equal: Same RPM, same connecting rod. The conn rod penalty and piston speed penalty is well illustrated though.

[@trueword34]

On the left is you. On the right is the guy she told you not to worry about.

[@kamaz23570]

3.0L слева, 2.4L справа. Диаметр поршней одинаковый, ход у мотора справа больше. Объём на цилиндр у 2.4=0.6 литров/цилиндр (мотор 4ёх цилиндровый) а у 3.0=0.5 литров/цилиндр(мотор 6ти цилиндровый), значит наоборот, чем в описании

[@mrcho2453]

Usually the displacement is changed by the bore size, but this is a very unique method, isn't it?

[@mcplutt]

no

[@SuperPandaren]

Are these the same bore and just destroked on the left?

[@gxe10000]

この差で排気量を稼いでトルクも出すという。逆の手法でピストンを薄くしたりピストンヘッドの形状を深くして稼ぐ方法もありまし

[@변사또-z5g]

2.4는 4기통, 3.0은 6기통, 오른쪽 6기통이 훨씬 여유롭게 움직이며 토크와 마력을 뽑아냄. 그 만큼 엔진 수명이 길어 짐. 왼쪽 2.4처럼 엔진 졸라 돌리면서 뽑아먹으며 굴리면 당연히 엔진 수명 줄어 듬. 운전자도 엑셀 조져야 되니 장거리 뛸때와 급가속 할때 맘이 급해져서리 피곤 함. 배기량이 깡패란 소리가 괜히 나오는게 아님.

[@Anonymous..VQ3.5Lg35]

2.4 has a beafy con rod!!! Although the 3L is my style! More torque!

[@bosshoggett]

The difference between a short stroke engine and a long stroke. Piston on the right has a longer rod with crankshaft with longer stroke. You can see the difference between the two buy how far the piston skirt travells up the bore.

[@inakitus1998]

Yes. But what if u have a 3.0 which is shorter and wider? Not more range. Not less rpm

[@troutbassncat3025]

One's ahead and one's behind, but I really couldn't tell which. But I think the 3.0 is leading.

[@zaan1338]

2.4l berputar lebih banyak dibandingkan 3.0l ? yang berarti membutuhkan usaha lebih keras untuk mencapai tenaga mesin?

[@rotorblade9508]

the 2.4 only has shorter crank and better internals so it can make more power.

[@パンシロンG]

私のE85はN52エンジンの2.5ですから、左の2.4に近い動きですね。

[@krzysztof8813]

A jak wyglada różnica pomiędzy silnikami BMW M30B30. Vs. M30B35. ? Pozdrawiam z Polski 🖐🇵🇱

[@maldotec]

El 5 jaja

[@spacedoggo4337]

I dont know anything about bmws but could you theoretically get a 2.4 and put 3.0 crank and rods and make the 2.4 a 3.0?

[@AnonyVaderStudio]

Explanation, its the same block but the connection rod is shorter but the crankshaft is sitting higher up

[@maxbrown80]

За определенную единицу времени,мотор 2.4 литра сделает намного больше ходов поршня.перемножаем на годы и понимаем почему мотор в 3 литра не износился на том же пробеге так как другой.

[@sawomirpasturek6957]

Z logicznego punktu widzenia ,chodzi tu o wytworzenie tej samej mocy w silnikach, dlatego lewy musi się kręcić szybciej aby uzyskać te same parametry mocy , lub napompować tyle samo powietrza i tak dalej , jestem tylko murzem

[@PotatoeJoe69]

The longer the stroke of an engine, the faster the piston speed must be to maintain a specific RPM. So for pure example purposes only, if you took two identical engines, but one had a 2 inch stroke, and the other had a 2.25 inch stroke, both engines running at 3000rpm, the 2 inch stroke engines piston speed would be 1,000 feet per minute. For the 2.25 inch stroke engine, at 3000rpm, the piston speed would be 1,125 feet per minute. The engine with a longer stroke has to move the piston faster to maintain the same RPM, because the piston has a longer distance to travel.

[@DersNoNem]

Compare S1000RR and GSXR 1000 K5. You see the difference with same displacement.

[@Gchang54]

So essentiall they share the same block, i can clearly see the 2.4 not using the full depth of the cylinder during stroke.

[@Z06Richi]

Mayor diámetro y carrera ?

[@Fugitive_8]

2.4L can provide more RPM because of Its short stroke piston 3.0L can provide more torque but less RPM because It has a longer stroke piston