cc/hp/rpm

Discussion in 'General Home Improvement Discussion' started by Wuzzat?, Dec 26, 2012.

  1. Dec 26, 2012 #1

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,471
    Likes Received:
    175
    Can anyone add some values to this, along with what it is?

    People ask for this conversion a lot and depending on what I get, I may be able to come up with formulas that have small errors.

    cc hp rpm
    1.76 0.27 17000
    3.5 3.45 42600
    9.95 1.9 16000
    32 2.2 10000
    50 4.2 7000
    125 28 14000
    2998 920 19200
    28000 1400 4000
    71500 3500 2800
    25498000 108920 102

    I need practice with fitting formulas to data.
    TIA
     
  2. Dec 27, 2012 #2

    JoeD

    JoeD

    JoeD

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,528
    Likes Received:
    273
    I think there is much more to the formula than the three values you are using.
    The grind on the cam, the shape of the piston head, the compression ratio, the valve size , the carburetor fuel and air flows, the type of fuel, the ambient temp, the altitude of operation, all have and effect.
     
  3. Dec 27, 2012 #3

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,471
    Likes Received:
    175
    That's the beauty of stat formulas; they summarize. In return you get some error in the values predicted by the regression formula.
    For a small range (not what I've shown) in cc values and using many values you can get pretty decent accuracy.

    Grainger publishes comprehensive specs for their engines so I guess I should look there first.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  4. Dec 28, 2012 #4

    inspectorD

    inspectorD

    inspectorD

    Housebroken Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,503
    Likes Received:
    267
  5. Dec 28, 2012 #5

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,471
    Likes Received:
    175
    Thanks.
    I'll start with the cc/cu.in vs. hp specs on my lawnmower, leafblower, chainsaw and string trimmer and proceed cautiously from there.
    While using various Excel functions to reduce these data and hone my data reduction techniques, it would also be good If I come up with some useful answers. :p
     
  6. Dec 28, 2012 #6

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,471
    Likes Received:
    175
    I've got a new take on this.

    First I did just lawnmower engines, then just leaf blower engines, then both, none of these using zero cc = zero hp.
    My chainsaw and string trimmer did not post hp values.

    Then I repeated, using zero cc = zero hp, which makes sense based on the physics.


    The max percent error, 3 ea. lawnmowers, no zero, was 8.3 and with zero, it was 8.4.
    The no zero formula is hp = cc x 0.01875 + 0.475 for the range 148 to 188 cc and 3 to 4 hp, and 1/0.01875 is incrementally 53 cc/hp.

    The max percent error, 5 ea. leaf blowers, no zero, was 8.2 and with zero, it was 8.2. The no zero formula is hp = 27 x cc for the range 0.95 to 1.1 hp and 27 cc, and 27 cc/hp.

    The max percent error, 8 ea. lawnmowers + leaf blowers, no zero, was 8.4 and with zero, it was 17. The no zero formula is hp = cc x 0.01854 + 0.509 for the range 27 to 188 cc and 0.95 to 4 hp, and is incrementally 54 cc/hp. Therefore, cc = (hp - 0.509)/0.01854

    With this formula, a 100 cc engine should put out 1.854 + 0.509 = 2.4 hp, + 8.4%, - 8.2%.

    There's a big gap between the 0.95 and 4 hp, so if anyone has some other values, the formula above can be made more comprehensive (with possibly larger errors).

    And, for some reason, using zero makes the errors worse.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  7. Dec 28, 2012 #7

    inspectorD

    inspectorD

    inspectorD

    Housebroken Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,503
    Likes Received:
    267
    Here's that word again...Assuming with just the "motors-CC's "all the carbs are the same....Now add in your other carbs, and your turbos or govorners....still same cc's but different Hp.
    I think that is why a formula is hard to come by. Variables everywhere.But maybe still able to be narrowed down.
    I won't pretend I understand your formula, however, if you have not already included this in your theory,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower
     
  8. Dec 28, 2012 #8

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,471
    Likes Received:
    175
    If you plot a graph, lawnmowers seem to be in a class by themselves, so
    for only things that people carry with their hands,
    e.g., leaf blowers, chain saws and string trimmers,

    hp = (cc x 0.09966)-1.6430
    with about 10cc/hp.
    Max error is +10%, -15%, with avg. error lower.

    No theory, just fitting a straight line to samples picked from the Web.

    Plotting the values makes outliers obvious so I removed them.

    cc hp ratio calc'dhp.% error device
    27 0.95 28 1.05 .....10.3....leaf blower
    27 0.95 28 1.05 10.3 leaf blower
    27 0.95 28 1.05 10.3 leaf blower
    36 1.9 19 1.97 3.9 chain saw
    66 4.9 13 4.92 0.5 chain saw
    29 1.4 21 1.25 -10.9 string trimmer
    25 1 25 0.85 -15.2 string trimmer
    75 5.9 13 5.79 -1.8 chain saw
    32 1.6 20 1.57 -2.1 chain saw
    50 3.2 16 3.36 5.0 chain saw
    27 1.1 25 1.05 -4.8 leaf blower
    27 1.1 25 1.05 -4.8 leaf blower
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  9. Dec 28, 2012 #9

    nealtw

    nealtw

    nealtw

    Contractor retired

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    23,904
    Likes Received:
    3,122
  10. Dec 29, 2012 #10

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,471
    Likes Received:
    175
    That's what I started with.
    It shows 1 to 42 cc/hp and my straight line formula had terrible errors using it. Maybe some kind of exponential formula would work better with it.

    1 hp per cubic inch (16.4 cc) was supposed to be the holy grail of car engines in the 60s but some of these manage to exceed this.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  11. Dec 31, 2012 #11

    nealtw

    nealtw

    nealtw

    Contractor retired

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    23,904
    Likes Received:
    3,122
    Maybe when you get this figured out you could work on turning lead into gold.
     
    inspectorD likes this.
  12. Jan 1, 2013 #12

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Wuzzat?

    Well-Known Member Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,471
    Likes Received:
    175
    I can do the straw-into-gold thing but The Big Gold Interests bought the patent and shelved the technology. :(
     
    nealtw likes this.

Share This Page