|
the reason the displacement is usually calculated on 1 rotation is because that is the best way to compare on a consistent basis.
While I agree that you bring up very good points, I also maintain my stance. However, as usual, every darned thing is always a bit different when it comes to these engines.
I doubt we'd ever see a thread like this on any other type of forum.... aside from jet turbines. :-)
By the way, that diagram is great!
As far as the argument that the engine is technically a 3.9l is extremely strong because of that. However, I think that figure would be divided by 3 to make it equivalent to its piston engine counterparts. But I am no expert.
When it comes down to it, the only argument that I see as truly weak is the argument that it could be a 2.6l. 1.3 for1 crank rotation. 3.9 for total of all faces regardless of number of rotations.
I am too the point where I am willing to accept either of those.
__________________
Uh.... hi.
|