0
I also tow things on my two-stroke, and I still prefer it. My 600 Summit pulls better than the new 800 4s other departments have."
"I agree the 2 strokes have better torque than teh new 800 4 stroke. I workin AK and we need a sled that handles deep snow and steep terrain so the new rev chassis 2 strokes work great for the mechs. We have our snow makers on wide track Bearcats and they love the low end torque for towing."
No - all two-strokes have less "low end" than four strokes, all things being equal. It's a dialed-in fact. You may be fooled by differing displacements, differing vehicle weights or differing gear ratios - but the two-cycle system is not a torque producer on the bottom end. They work best at high frequency.
This said, allow me to reveal myself as somewhat of a student of the two-cycle design - I've been deeply into them for a very long time. If you're willing to accept reciprocating pistons and crankshafts as the basis of an engine, the 2-stroke system cannot be beat - neither for power per pound nor for its elegant (perceived) simplicity. You just have to resign yourself to high RPMs. In my opinion, the four-stroke "Otto Engine" is a highly-developed lousy idea - complex beyond reason... and getting steadily worse in this respect.
The two-stroke system has earned a (popular) bad name mainly due to it's "dirty" exhaust and rather poor fuel economy. This is partly due to the mixing of fuel and lubricant and partly to less-than-perfect scavenging of the cylinder between cycles. I firmly feel that both of these "deficiencies" can be overcome by fresh thinking on the subject (not dollar-driven or political thinking).
The original two-cycle engines did not use the crankcase as a charge pump (though it is a clever idea) - nor did they mix lubricant with the fuel. Pressure for the intake stroke was created by a separate "supercharger", and the crankcase and piston were lubricated in much the same manner as with a four-stroke engine. Getting back to this thinking would be the first step in designing a "friendly" 2-stroke. The second step would be to gain better control over the intake and exhaust timing, in hope of wasting less of the fuel charge. I firmly believe that as we gain a better understanding of standing waves (in a sonic frequency system - i.e. "pipes") and learn to make better use of the Coanda effect, the 2-stroke will make a resounding comeback... in spades.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Coanda_effect
http://aardvark.co.n...et/coanda.shtml
Just out of curiosity, who among you can explain how "piping" 2-stroke has such a dramatic effect? Please be specific.
This post has been edited by Emax: 12 January 2008 - 07:59 PM
