Timeline for Brake Specific Fuel Consumption of 2-stroke vs 4-stroke
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/ with https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 20, 2016 at 11:47 | history | edited | Zaid | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 248 characters in body
|
| Jan 20, 2016 at 11:20 | comment | added | Zaid | @sweber I posted up a question. Looks like you're right. | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 10:42 | comment | added | Zaid | @sweber I could be wrong. My reasoning is that the power needed to rotate the crank is small compared to the motive power generated by combustion, and the fuel is spent in only 25% of the 4S cycle compared to 50% of the time for 2S motors. Maybe ask that as a new question and see what others say? | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 10:25 | comment | added | sweber | @DucatiKiller: It's clear that 2S are less fuel efficient for many reasons. The point is I don't see why one combustion per one rev is less efficient that per two. (Of course, the other reasons are implications of this) | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 23:52 | comment | added | DucatiKiller | 2strokes dump a lot of unburned fuel into the exhaust due to the nature of their operation which, I believe, would be a detriment to their efficiency. | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 22:48 | comment | added | sweber | Hmmm, I have trouble to understand your 'main reason'. One power stroke per rev should be more efficient than one per two revs, because every rev steals some power due friction. So, each power stroke of a 4S-engine has to compensate twice the loss of a 2S-engine... | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 22:06 | comment | added | DucatiKiller | Now that's an answer! | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 22:04 | history | answered | Zaid | CC BY-SA 3.0 |