On 8/3/2012 4:23 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 05:29:58 +0000 (UTC), John Doe
wrote:

I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL.

On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a
"2-cycle" engine.

Uhg.

It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers
would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle".

Per Merriam-Webster...

stroke:
the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a
piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of
such movement
cycle:
a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly
and usually lead back to the starting point

"2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine

About 3,270,000 results

"2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine

About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds)

Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides
being less popular, it's semantical nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle

I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either
4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle.

Until you get to Wankel engines, in which case I don't think there is
anything stroking.

DTA

Sure there is. It's a four stroke.

Does it take 2 revolutions to complete a cycle?