Renze
Elite Member
It is a fact, if your piston bore remained the same.It’s not “a popular belief “ , it’s a Physics fact.
However, if displacement stays the same (meaning a bigger piston diameter at the shorter stroke) and mean combustion pressure stays the same, they cancel each other out.
Thats a fact, yes... Just do the math, if displacement, combustion pressure, rpm, cam timing and lobe shape remain the same, the math doesnt just get another outcome if you change bore and stroke ratio... unless other minor design factors are involved that prevent such engine from achieving the same mean combustion pressure, namely cylinder fill rates, determined by intake tract resistance and valve timing...Your “Smaller piston fully cancels out the extra mechanical leverage “
Shorter stroke engines however, can make more rpm with the same piston speed, thereby making more power with the same displacement. Therefor, cams of short stroke engines are generally tuned to improve high rpm breathing while loosing bottom end torque, while popular belief thinks its just the stroke causing this. Basic engine explanations that are common, when attributing secondary design characteristics of long stroke and short stroke engines to stroke itself, are grossly oversimplified: there is no causal connection between them

Indeed, there isnt in this day and age. There is a thermal effeciency advantage because the combustion room surface area at or near TDC is smaller with a smaller bore and the same compressed volume.then there’s no torque advantage to design a longer stroke engine
Piston speed and combustion room surface area are what drives industrial engine design into oversquare engines with a 1 to 1.2 to 1.3 bore stroke ratio in heavy industrial engines.
In automotive engines, weight is a bigger factor and longevity less, so the consensus is undersquare engines that operate at high rpm when accelerating fast, and drop a few 1000 rpm when cruising.
Last edited: