Will an engine spin faster with the spark plugs removed?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the effects of removing spark plugs on the RPM of a two-stroke snowmobile engine during starting. Participants explore the implications of engine compression and air dynamics on engine performance, with a focus on experimental observations and theoretical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant observed that their engine reached 4200 RPM with spark plugs removed and 4800 RPM with plugs in but without spark, leading to questions about the underlying mechanics.
  • Another participant suggested that if RPM is the same with and without the plugs, it indicates no compression, which could explain starting difficulties.
  • A participant noted that the engine's compression was approximately 175 PSI in each cylinder, countering the previous claim about compression.
  • One hypothesis proposed that the engine spins faster with plugs in because the energy required to compress air is recovered on the downstroke, while without plugs, air escapes and requires more torque from the starter.
  • Another participant argued that a properly sized starter would typically spin faster with plugs out, but suggested that the starter used in the experiment might be oversized, affecting results.
  • One participant confirmed the RPM increase with plugs in, attributing it to the mechanics of air compression and the efficiency of the downstroke.
  • Another participant mentioned that air rushing in and out at 4800 RPM without plugs would create drag.
  • Some participants debated the relevance of valve or port timing, with differing views on its impact on engine performance in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the engine spins faster with spark plugs in or out, with some supporting the idea that it spins faster with plugs in due to compression dynamics, while others suggest that typically, it would be faster with plugs out. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about engine dynamics and starter sizing are not fully explored, and the discussion includes varying interpretations of the effects of compression and air dynamics on engine performance.

bluechipx
Messages
64
Reaction score
30
I had a drag race two stroke snowmobile that was over ported to a point that low end power was so poor that the engine was very hard starting. I put a drive socket on the end of a V-8 car starter and used 24 volts (two car batteries) for power. Being a bit nervous of the torque kickback, I tried it several times first with the spark plugs removed. 4200 RPM on a mechanical tach consistantly. Next I tried it with the plugs in, but with no spark. Any guesses what the results were? For verification, I went back and forth, plugs in and plugs out and got very consistent results. The answer was not what I was expecting. Guesses?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
If the RPM is the same with and without the plugs, then you have no compression.

That would certainly explain why starting is difficult!
 
The compression is close to 175 PSI in each cylinder.
 
If it is not what you expected, I guess the rpm was faster with spark plugs than without.

That would be because, with spark plugs, the (higher) energy required to compress the air is entirely recovered on the down stroke. Without spark plugs, The air is still partially compressed, but it escapes through the plug holes. Hence, the energy cannot be recovered and more torque is required from the starter.

That would be my guess.
 
I think normally a starter that is properly sized to an engine will spin faster with the plugs out. But, in your case I would say that the starter was oversized so the results might not be the same.
 
jack action said:
If it is not what you expected, I guess the rpm was faster with spark plugs than without.

That would be because, with spark plugs, the (higher) energy required to compress the air is entirely recovered on the down stroke. Without spark plugs, The air is still partially compressed, but it escapes through the plug holes. Hence, the energy cannot be recovered and more torque is required from the starter.

That would be my guess.

Jack, bingo! The engine went from 4200 without plugs to 4800 with plugs for exactly the reason you stated. I didn't see this one coming and wouldn't have figured it unless I witnessed it personally and mentally analysed the reason or was asked the question and thought it must be a trick question! I've been told the same thing happens with a camshaft being installed in a V-8, the more rockers/valve springs the easier the cam turns.
 
bluechipx said:
Jack, bingo! The engine went from 4200 without plugs to 4800 with plugs for exactly the reason you stated. I didn't see this one coming and wouldn't have figured it unless I witnessed it personally and mentally analysed the reason or was asked the question and thought it must be a trick question! I've been told the same thing happens with a camshaft being installed in a V-8, the more rockers/valve springs the easier the cam turns.

To be honest, if I had answered the question in the title, alone, without thinking, I might have thought the same thing as you.

I'm glad you did - and share - the experiment; I'll be less stupid when I'll go to bed tonight!
 
4800 RPM without plugs in there will definitely cause drag by air rushing in and out.
 
Depends on valve (or port!) timing.
 
  • #10
brewnog said:
Depends on valve (or port!) timing.

I don't see where port timing is a factor. Simply, without plugs you are pumping air out the open plug ang working to draw air back in on the down stroke. With plugs in, a large percentage of effort used to compress the air will be used to push the piston down, resulting is an easier rotating engine. This isn't my theory, I've done it and it definitely spins faster with the plugs in. I would be surprised if the reason I've given wasn't the right explanation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
23K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
20K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
13K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
5K