Why only two valves per cylinder??
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Leeds, where I have run into this many lamp
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Why only two valves per cylinder??
Ok, we've got two plugs per cylinder to improve burn efficiency but why only 2 valves per cylinder??
We know that more smaller diameter valves flow more air than fewr large diameter valves, and I expect Porsche was making engines for their racing cars with more valves per cylinder, so why just 2 in the 964?
I'm not complaining, but 69 HP/litre in a 1250-1350 kg car is not incredible for a 1990's car made by a company like Porsche.
We know that more smaller diameter valves flow more air than fewr large diameter valves, and I expect Porsche was making engines for their racing cars with more valves per cylinder, so why just 2 in the 964?
I'm not complaining, but 69 HP/litre in a 1250-1350 kg car is not incredible for a 1990's car made by a company like Porsche.
#2
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by johnfm:
<strong>I'm not complaining, but 69 HP/litre in a 1250-1350 kg car is not incredible for a 1990's car made by a company like Porsche.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Not (delibarately) being pedantic but it must be more like 1250-1500kg car...my car weighed in at 1352kgs/2988lbs (from memory) with half a tank of fuel and it has no aircon, no airbags and is not a Tip. A C4 with aircon has got to be looking at 1500kgs or as near as dammit (what does the manual say - 1460kgs?).
<strong>I'm not complaining, but 69 HP/litre in a 1250-1350 kg car is not incredible for a 1990's car made by a company like Porsche.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Not (delibarately) being pedantic but it must be more like 1250-1500kg car...my car weighed in at 1352kgs/2988lbs (from memory) with half a tank of fuel and it has no aircon, no airbags and is not a Tip. A C4 with aircon has got to be looking at 1500kgs or as near as dammit (what does the manual say - 1460kgs?).
#4
Burning Brakes
Officially my car - a '92 C4 - is 1450 kgs empty.
Add a slightly overweight driver a, few CDs and the necessary fluids and we're talking a normal running weight of probably the best part of 1600 KGs.
As for valves, more valves tend to leave you with less low down torque and more top end power. I like the compromise as it is. Porsche made the right decision.
Add a slightly overweight driver a, few CDs and the necessary fluids and we're talking a normal running weight of probably the best part of 1600 KGs.
As for valves, more valves tend to leave you with less low down torque and more top end power. I like the compromise as it is. Porsche made the right decision.
#5
Advanced
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Orchard Park, NY
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi:
Wil Ferch here ( from 3.2 list)...
Officially, Porsche didn't offer 4 valves on the air-cooled versions because there would be too little material left in the head for adequate cooling. All of Porsche's racing cars of that and prior eras ( as well as 944/968/928 series) could use 4 valve heads because they were water cooled...at leas the heads were water cooled on the air cooled racing versions. Notive that the later "996" 911's ...water cooled...are 4 valve head designs.
--Wil Ferch
Wil Ferch here ( from 3.2 list)...
Officially, Porsche didn't offer 4 valves on the air-cooled versions because there would be too little material left in the head for adequate cooling. All of Porsche's racing cars of that and prior eras ( as well as 944/968/928 series) could use 4 valve heads because they were water cooled...at leas the heads were water cooled on the air cooled racing versions. Notive that the later "996" 911's ...water cooled...are 4 valve head designs.
--Wil Ferch
#6
Rennlist Member
I thought the main reason Porsche ran 2 valves instead of 4 valves was heat related; with an aircooled head it is too hard to keep 4 valves cool enough. Valves dump a lot of heat through the valve seat to the head, and with 4 valves instead of 2 there is less head material to draw away the heat.
If I recall correctly from Bruce Anderson's "Performance Handbook", Porsche has raced with 4-valve heads but the heads were liquid-cooled, not aircooled.
[Edit: Wil posted while I was typing, looks like we agree!]
If I recall correctly from Bruce Anderson's "Performance Handbook", Porsche has raced with 4-valve heads but the heads were liquid-cooled, not aircooled.
[Edit: Wil posted while I was typing, looks like we agree!]
Trending Topics
#9
Everything that I've read is that Porsche stayed with 2 valve heads on the 3.0 SC, 3.2 Carrera and 3.6 964/993 motors because 4 valve heads would generate excessive heat, which could not be dissipated by oil/air cooling alone.
For this reason, the 935's flat 6, 24 valve motor has watercooled heads, but is otherwise oil/air-cooled.
For this reason, the 935's flat 6, 24 valve motor has watercooled heads, but is otherwise oil/air-cooled.
#10
Super Guru
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by johnfm:
<strong>I'm not complaining, but 69 HP/litre in a 1250-1350 kg car is not incredible for a 1990's car made by a company like Porsche.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I still haven't figured out how that 250bhp lump behind me propels my car so quickly, so responsively to such speeds. I've driven many cars with more cc; valves; bhp and cylinders and still don't understand how come 250 Porsche Horses feel like 350+ of other manufacturers?
What I'm trying to say is that the power-weight ratio doesn't tell the whole story here - although I don't know why not?
<strong>I'm not complaining, but 69 HP/litre in a 1250-1350 kg car is not incredible for a 1990's car made by a company like Porsche.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I still haven't figured out how that 250bhp lump behind me propels my car so quickly, so responsively to such speeds. I've driven many cars with more cc; valves; bhp and cylinders and still don't understand how come 250 Porsche Horses feel like 350+ of other manufacturers?
What I'm trying to say is that the power-weight ratio doesn't tell the whole story here - although I don't know why not?
#11
Burning Brakes
I agree, Ruairidh! I think it's called torque.
Does a 4-valve design affect where (at what RPM) that the engine delivers the power?
It seems like the 4-valve cars I've driven are very "revy", but deliver their power at higher RPM's with less torque. At the same time, many of the 2-valve cars I've driven (American muscle cars) are not "revy", and deliver their power at lower RPM's with more torque.
Is there a correlation?
Does a 4-valve design affect where (at what RPM) that the engine delivers the power?
It seems like the 4-valve cars I've driven are very "revy", but deliver their power at higher RPM's with less torque. At the same time, many of the 2-valve cars I've driven (American muscle cars) are not "revy", and deliver their power at lower RPM's with more torque.
Is there a correlation?
#13
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Leeds, where I have run into this many lamp
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Erick
the correlation you seek comes from cubic inches:
torque is effectively the amount of work you can get out of an engine per revolution - this is why you can increase peak power by increasing engine RPM, as BHP is a function of HP and RPM.
So, though little 1500 cc engines can produce impressive PEAK power, this is often at very high RPM, as they burn less fuel per cycle.
A small flat 6 with 2 valves per cylinder wil produce less torque than a 3.6 litre flat 6.
the correlation you seek comes from cubic inches:
torque is effectively the amount of work you can get out of an engine per revolution - this is why you can increase peak power by increasing engine RPM, as BHP is a function of HP and RPM.
So, though little 1500 cc engines can produce impressive PEAK power, this is often at very high RPM, as they burn less fuel per cycle.
A small flat 6 with 2 valves per cylinder wil produce less torque than a 3.6 litre flat 6.
#14
Burning Brakes
Thanks John, I understand what you are saying. But let me try another analogy:
I've driven a 944 and a 944S. The main difference is 2 valves/cylinder for the 944 and 4 valves/cylinder for the 944S.
944 is 158hp and 155 lb/ft of torque.
944S is 188hp and 170 lb/ft of torque.
While the 944S feels more powerful when you get the revs up, the 944 actually FEELS peppier at lower RPM's. Some even claim that the 944 is a faster autocrosser than a 944S!!! This leads me to surmise that the 944 torque curve peaks at lower RPM's, whereas the "pull" comes in later (albeit higher) for the 944S.
My question:
Is the difference in the shape of the torque curves a result of 2 or 4 valves - or is this simplifying things WAY too much?
Thanks.
I've driven a 944 and a 944S. The main difference is 2 valves/cylinder for the 944 and 4 valves/cylinder for the 944S.
944 is 158hp and 155 lb/ft of torque.
944S is 188hp and 170 lb/ft of torque.
While the 944S feels more powerful when you get the revs up, the 944 actually FEELS peppier at lower RPM's. Some even claim that the 944 is a faster autocrosser than a 944S!!! This leads me to surmise that the 944 torque curve peaks at lower RPM's, whereas the "pull" comes in later (albeit higher) for the 944S.
My question:
Is the difference in the shape of the torque curves a result of 2 or 4 valves - or is this simplifying things WAY too much?
Thanks.
#15
The behavior of torque curve between 2 valves and 4 valves engines is due exactly to this different distribution.
At higher rpms, the target is to achieve the more air/fuel mixture flow into the cylinder, so a 4valve engine is better.
At lower rpms, air/fuel flow is low, and only 2 valve is not an obstacle; but, with only 1 intake valve, the mixture increases speed obtaining a better filling of the combustion chamber.
To collect both advantages, modern 4valve engines use a variable phase distribution, that at low rpms reduces opening time to emulate a 2 valve engine.
At higher rpms, the target is to achieve the more air/fuel mixture flow into the cylinder, so a 4valve engine is better.
At lower rpms, air/fuel flow is low, and only 2 valve is not an obstacle; but, with only 1 intake valve, the mixture increases speed obtaining a better filling of the combustion chamber.
To collect both advantages, modern 4valve engines use a variable phase distribution, that at low rpms reduces opening time to emulate a 2 valve engine.