Search Results

The authors have published SAE paper 2008-01-0088 on the analytical comparison between 4 and 8 counterweight crankshafts for an I4 gasoline engine. This paper showed that for a particular design of a 4 counterweight crankshaft, the differences in bearing force and oil film thickness were very small and the only major difference in terms of bearing shaft tilt angle occurred at mains 2 and 4 (increase of ∼20% compared with 8 counterweight version). The 4 counterweight crankshaft has a significant mass advantage as it was 1.42kg lighter than the 8 counterweight crankshaft. This new paper addresses the testing performed to validate the analysis results in bearing durability by subjecting the engine to a mixture of high speed and general durability cycles. A comparison was made on the bearing conditions after running a total of 100 hours through prescribed durability cycles on a gasoline engine with both 4 and 8 counterweight crankshafts.

This paper presents results of an analytical comparison between two alternative versions of a crankshaft for a 2.2L gasoline engine. The first version had 8 counterweights and a bay balance factor of 80.3%. The second had 4 (larger) counterweights giving a bay balance factor of 56.6% and a crankshaft mass reduction of 1.42 kg. The results presented in this paper relate to the main bearings in terms of specific loads, oil film thickness and shaft tilt angle under full load and no load conditions across the speed range. Torsional vibration analysis and crankshaft stress analysis were also performed but the results are not presented here. The differences in bearing force and oil film thickness were very small and the only major difference in terms of shaft tilt angle occurred at Mains 2 and 4 (increase of ∼ 20% compared with 8 counterweight version).