With the 1.8 liter 4 cylinder coming short of the magical 500cc per cylinder and this causing the piston actually extinguishing the flame before the reation is complete, wouldn't side gapping the spark plugs help with the burning of the fuel faster?
With the 1.8 liter 4 cylinder coming short of the magical 500cc per cylinder and this causing the piston actually extinguishing the flame before the reation is complete,
What are you talking about? The piston doesn't extinguish the flame, consuming all of the fuel available in the power stroke extinguishes the flame. The burn is finished before the piston reaches Bottom Dead Center. If it tried to return toward Top Dead Center while burning were still in progress, you would hear a knocking sound or the engine would outright tear itself apart. The flame itself lasts only a tiny fraction of a second in the overall power cycle, the resulting heat and pressure rise are what drives the piston back down.
wouldn't side gapping the spark plugs help with the burning of the fuel faster?
Advancing ignition timing when the engine is revving up and retarding it when revving down is how you control the finish point of the combustion. The fuel/air mixture doesn't burn at the same rate at all RPMs.
Your question makes no sense. Please answer the questions in the first paragraph of the web page. Side gapping MAY give you a little extra power but not for long and it wears out faster. I would consider indexing the spark plugs instead for better flame pattern and efficiency.
No.
Toyota had a 2.0L version (on the CH-R, 3ZR) of their ingenious 1.8L (form the Corolla, 2ZR) engine and it wasn’t better in any way - definitely not on fuel efficiency!
Hilariously, the best engine in that series was actually the 1.6L (1ZR) - in terms of fuel efficiency, reliability, and longevity.
And hey, the cylinders in my cars are 350ml, and yet? 40-50mpg with no stinking direct injection, any weird cycles, etc.
I think you may have been influenced by some marketing material.
