No replacement for displacement is a crock!

[00 Si]

That's right.... I said it. It needed to be said. LOL. I don't know, I am just bored at work and trying to see if I can get a good debate going on here. Haven't seen one on the board yet.

"There is no replacement for displacement" is the biggest crock I have ever ever heard of!!! Simple as that! A turbo IS the replacement for displacement!

Anyone else think the same or different?

[ebpda9]

hmm but i don't think it's totally correct to say tah turbo is the replacement for displacement. while your 1.6 liter turbo can take an all motor v8, but when they get a turbo boosting the same, you are gonna get your ass handed to you. It's not common practice to see a turbo v8 but when you see one it most definitely haul some ass.

[00 Si]

Which is true....but I'm not argueing the fact of if you turbo a V8, the V8 will be faster. I'm saying that I can do a turbo to my car WITHOUT touching the displacement, and beat a V8. In that scenario, a turbo IS the replacement. Hands down.

[mt.biker]

Nope!

[slowEJ6]

displacement, EH...who needs it. NOT ME, ill take my gas mileage instead :banana:

[Wren57]

Well the replacement for displacement is simply effeciency. Take the 7.0L 450hp viper engine... not very much power for 7 liters... take the 2L s2000 engine making 240hp... now THATS impressive... and sure you can say just make it FI and you will be able to compensate for the difference in displacement... well you turbo a normal I4 engine and get less than 300hp... turbo a normal v8 and your talking upwards of 500... the only replacement for displacement is less weight!

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by 00 Si
That's right.... I said it. It needed to be said. LOL. I don't know, I am just bored at work and trying to see if I can get a good debate going on here. Haven't seen one on the board yet.

"There is no replacement for displacement" is the biggest crock I have ever ever heard of!!! Simple as that! A turbo IS the replacement for displacement!

Anyone else think the same or different?

I will put my V8 against your turboed Si any day. I agree these little engines make a lot of power, but even a turboed civic would not be able to touch a well build V8. Yes there are some out there pushing 20psi or whatever and I respect them a lot more now, but there is no replacement for displacement.

[slowEJ6]

caaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllled out :eek:

[Rob]

Originally posted by slow ej6
caaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllled out :eek: :D :busted:

[ShEaNy]

:busted: :busted: :busted: :busted: :busted: :moon: Im bored as u can see...

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
I will put my V8 against your turboed Si any day. I agree these little engines make a lot of power, but even a turboed civic would not be able to touch a well build V8. Yes there are some out there pushing 20psi or whatever and I respect them a lot more now, but there is no replacement for displacement.


LOL...ok so now you need to mod a V8 to win? But what about no replacement for displacement. Wouldn't this mean that no matter what I did a bigger displacement car, a V8, would be able to beat me????? But you chose to point out....."a well built V8" sounds like the trueth comes out and it does take mods, not just displacement.


And if anyone who thinks displacement is better......talk to Ferrari. A Ferrari F50, my fav car of all time, is only a 286.8 cubic inch V12. Not a lot of displacement there huh. Yet will still do the 1/4 in 12.1 and top speed of 202. Sounds like Imports still rule.

[juvenile]

Is this thread about displacement or Imports vs Domestics?
I think you should stick to your original point, don't sidetrack!

[94_AcCoRd_EX]

Originally posted by 00 Si
But what about no replacement for displacement. Wouldn't this mean that no matter what I did a bigger displacement car, a V8, would be able to beat me

You're taking the phrase too literally. Think generally and it makes more sense. Obviously a larger displacement car doesn't automatically win :rolleyes:

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by 00 Si
LOL...ok so now you need to mod a V8 to win? But what about no replacement for displacement. Wouldn't this mean that no matter what I did a bigger displacement car, a V8, would be able to beat me????? But you chose to point out....."a well built V8" sounds like the trueth comes out and it does take mods, not just displacement.


And if anyone who thinks displacement is better......talk to Ferrari. A Ferrari F50, my fav car of all time, is only a 286.8 cubic inch V12. Not a lot of displacement there huh. Yet will still do the 1/4 in 12.1 and top speed of 202. Sounds like Imports still rule.

Ok... first off there is no replacement for displacement. This has NOTHING to do with imports vs domestics as this is true in my world as well. I have a 383 V8 with over 500hp. This is a barely pump gas car, that is streetable, but just barely meaning that any more compression and I would need higher octane gas. I could have bought a larger engine such as a 502/540/572 ci motor which I would have loved but didn't have the money for. Those motors make 600-700hp with 8 or 9 - 1 compression and running on 89 octane all day. You can easily modify these engines to make over 1200hp and be daily drivers. Bigger motors simply make more power.. simple as that.

Second don't let's not talk about a F50 vs a V8. The F50 isn't some off the shelf motor. Ferrari has spent millions of dollars developing these engines to put out the power they do.

Third you can't say "I can mod my engine all I want but you can't mod yours" because that doesn't fly. No mods at all stock for stock a v8 would produce more power. Your motor comes with 120hp and I have yet to see a V8 that develops that or less than that. Please make a note that my NA V8 makes twice the power of your turboed motor. Who's do you think will last longer?

[ebpda9]

just an example:

2000 Honda Accord V6
3.0l
200hp@5500 rmpm
195ft-lbs of torque

2002 Impreza WRX
2.0l Turbo
227hp@6000rpm
217ft-lb of torque

2000 Honda Prelude Type SH
2.2l NA
220hp
156ft-lbs of torque

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by hondaman-iac
just an example:

2000 Honda Accord V6
3.0l
200hp@5500 rmpm
195ft-lbs of torque

2002 Impreza WRX
2.0l Turbo
227hp@6000rpm
217ft-lb of torque

2000 Honda Prelude Type SH
2.2l NA
220hp
156ft-lbs of torque


Ok let's say you have car X and you can put any engine in you want... you know you want 500hp so what do you choose? A 502ci motor or a 2.0L?

[ebpda9]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Ok let's say you have car X and you can put any engine in you want... you know you want 500hp so what do you choose? A 502ci motor or a 2.0L?

you are killing me with the cubic inches. what is that a 8.2l ? i want the 8.2 ofcourse

and i posted that just to show some turbo and na engines making about the same power. i could go with the integra gsr 1.8l making 170hp and the audi tt 1.8 l turbo making 180 hp. almost no difference. or the type r integra 190 hp na vs 1.8 turbo tt 180 hp. :busted:

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by hondaman-iac
you are killing me with the cubic inches. what is that a 8.2l ? i want the 8.2 ofcourse

and i posted that just to show some turbo and na engines making about the same power. i could go with the integra gsr 1.8l making 170hp and the audi tt 1.8 l turbo making 180 hp. almost no difference. or the type r integra 190 hp na vs 1.8 turbo tt 180 hp. :busted:

Actually 8.3112582781456953642384105960265L

[Racing Rice]

:D

Im going to have to stick with V8 on this one. There is now replacement for displacement.

A turbo is like a bandaid on a 4 cylinder motor. Itll help but it doesnt solve everything.:no:

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by Racing Rice
:D

Im going to have to stick with V8 on this one. There is now replacement for displacement.

A turbo is like a bandaid on a 4 cylinder motor. Itll help but it doesnt solve everything.:no:

Yea you can make everything more stout.. a smallblock can push 1000hp, but not as easily as a mountain motor can. I would choose displacement over my little 383 any day. I was very close to buying a 540ci motor.. god I wish I had.. :banghead:

[Niacin]

I'm not even going to get started in here, except to wish for a Weiand 177BB lashed to a 562ci Donovan mounted in a mid 80's Jaguar XJ6 with a total displacement of four complete Acura Integra Type R motors and eight Honda Civics of HP. On pump gas. :)

See, my mag-racing motor is faster than yours! :)

Max

[spoogenet]

One can't merely argue displacement is better or worse, or turbo is better or worse, without first defining the goal of the comparison. For instance, if you're talking about drag racing then there's a certain set of factors that go into the equation to yield the winner. If you are talking about running a road course then other factors need to be considered. If you're talking about fuel economy, of course other factors need considering.

First off you can't just take an arbitrarily sized engine and toss it in any vehicle. My guess is you'd have a pretty hard time fitting a 5.0L V8 into a Civic. I welcome anybody to try, please post some pics.

But there have already been plenty of discussions that go into who will win a drag race. Excluding the driver, things such as power, torque, weight, and the efficiency of the drivetrain (aka wheel HP) all go into whether a car will win the race. This clearly isn't an argument of displacement, it's an argument of many different factors. But toss a super heavy engine in the front of a light FWD vehicle like a Civic and take it out on the track.....that ought to be fun. Sure it may run a fast 1/4 mile, but good luck getting it to handle well with all the weight in the front 1/2 of the car.

Now if you're just looking for an engine to make power regardless of the application, then clearly a larger displacement is capable of a higher theoretical maximum power output than a lower displacement engine. However given two engines and measuring their actual power output, you can't just draw a line and say that higher displacement will have more power. You must consider such factors as the compression ratio of the engine and the overall efficiency of the entire system before making a call saying that the higher displacement engine will win.

Of course engines are usually engineered to have reasonable efficiency, but it isn't always the case. Here's a simple comparison. Take the Daewoo Leganza with its 2.2L DOHC I4 pushing 131 HP and 148 lb-ft torque and compare that to the Prelude SH's 2.2L DOHC I4 running 220 HP and 156 lb-ft of torque. Both cars are NA but we can see that displacement only has so much meaning. Just as a note for those who can't read, the Prelude clearly has much more power but not a lot more torque.

Anyhow, long story short you can't merely compare displacement and say one's better. First define the criteria, such as power output, drag racing, or track racing. If the criteria at all depends on the vehicle, then define the vehicle. A 1.6L turbo 4 in a Viper will yield significantly different results than it's native engine, equally a 7.0L in a Civic will be a little different than the normal I4. Second define the engine. Not all engines are created equal and not all are modded the same, if you want to consider mods at all. A heavily modded 2.0L I4 can push out more power than a stock 5.0L V8, as has already been shown. But a heavily modded 5.0L V8 will always be capable of pushing out more power than a 2.0L I4. Third, remove head from :censored: and have a good discussion. :yes:

b

[Addict]

Ahh as much as I like Hondas, displacement can give you an immediate advantage. This of it in turbo terms. More displacement can equate to more potential power. My car is definately fun to drive, but the power potential is greater with a larger displacement engine. Hopefully though I'll have that 'band-aid' that RR speaks of one day.;)

spoogenet ,
Are you a Communications/English major by chance? ;)

[ChrisCantSkate]

i'll throw a agument for replament up...

rb26dett 280hp 296ft/lb out of a 2.6 inline 6 does 12.8's bone stock

[Rob]

Originally posted by spoogenet
One can't merely argue displacement is better or worse, or turbo is better or worse, without first defining the goal of the comparison. For instance, if you're talking about drag racing then there's a certain set of factors that go into the equation to yield the winner. If you are talking about running a road course then other factors need to be considered. If you're talking about fuel economy, of course other factors need considering.

First off you can't just take an arbitrarily sized engine and toss it in any vehicle. My guess is you'd have a pretty hard time fitting a 5.0L V8 into a Civic. I welcome anybody to try, please post some pics.

But there have already been plenty of discussions that go into who will win a drag race. Excluding the driver, things such as power, torque, weight, and the efficiency of the drivetrain (aka wheel HP) all go into whether a car will win the race. This clearly isn't an argument of displacement, it's an argument of many different factors. But toss a super heavy engine in the front of a light FWD vehicle like a Civic and take it out on the track.....that ought to be fun. Sure it may run a fast 1/4 mile, but good luck getting it to handle well with all the weight in the front 1/2 of the car.

Now if you're just looking for an engine to make power regardless of the application, then clearly a larger displacement is capable of a higher theoretical maximum power output than a lower displacement engine. However given two engines and measuring their actual power output, you can't just draw a line and say that higher displacement will have more power. You must consider such factors as the compression ratio of the engine and the overall efficiency of the entire system before making a call saying that the higher displacement engine will win.

Of course engines are usually engineered to have reasonable efficiency, but it isn't always the case. Here's a simple comparison. Take the Daewoo Leganza with its 2.2L DOHC I4 pushing 131 HP and 148 lb-ft torque and compare that to the Prelude SH's 2.2L DOHC I4 running 220 HP and 156 lb-ft of torque. Both cars are NA but we can see that displacement only has so much meaning. Just as a note for those who can't read, the Prelude clearly has much more power but not a lot more torque.

Anyhow, long story short you can't merely compare displacement and say one's better. First define the criteria, such as power output, drag racing, or track racing. If the criteria at all depends on the vehicle, then define the vehicle. A 1.6L turbo 4 in a Viper will yield significantly different results than it's native engine, equally a 7.0L in a Civic will be a little different than the normal I4. Second define the engine. Not all engines are created equal and not all are modded the same, if you want to consider mods at all. A heavily modded 2.0L I4 can push out more power than a stock 5.0L V8, as has already been shown. But a heavily modded 5.0L V8 will always be capable of pushing out more power than a 2.0L I4. Third, remove head from :censored: and have a good discussion. :yes:

b
yeah...what he said :crazy:

[ChrisCantSkate]

we're gonna have to stick to stock cars if we want to have a fair discussion, cause its not fair saying i can turbo my h22, and get 290fwhp at 9psi, but the v8 cant put 3k into his. we arnt talking mear HP though. remeber, ive realized this week SO much that a car can be fast as hell in a strait line, but get owned in twisty's by a car you wouldnt even bother to race in a strait line. ive found my car loves twistys much more than strait line performance. backroads RULE!

[SilVtec]

Wow, you must be referring to my signature. Take a 5.0 Mustang and your 1.6 Civic, and tell me that there is no replacement for displacement.

[toykilla]

You guys are looking at it the wrong way. It should be a stock vs stock thing. In which case, turbo is the replacement for displacement. For example. v12 Diablo vs turbo v6 Porsche. The Porsche beats it in top speed, excelleration and it has better handling. Let me see if I can find the magazine I read this from and proove my point.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by toykilla
You guys are looking at it the wrong way. It should be a stock vs stock thing. In which case, turbo is the replacement for displacement. For example. v12 Diablo vs turbo v6 Porsche. The Porsche beats it in top speed, excelleration and it has better handling. Let me see if I can find the magazine I read this from and proove my point.
yes, thats the only fair way to compair. modding a car is going outside the manufacuters performance of the car, and thus creating a whole new argument

[toykilla]

Couldn't find the magazine that I wanted but I found another that I can make the same example out of.

2002 Lingenfelter Corvette
Engine Type: v-8
Horsepower@rpm: 802@4600
Torque@rpm: 866@3600
0-60, sec: 1.97

2003 Ferrari Enzo
Engine Type: v-12
Horsepower@rpm: 660@7800
Torque@rpm: 485@5500
0-60, sec: 3.5

I think that's a good example right there why you can replace displacement with a turbo or two. Oh, let's look at the prices of each of these powerhouses.

2002 Lingenfelter Corvette
Price: $165,000

2003 Ferrari Enzo
Price: $652,000

[SilVtec]

Originally posted by toykilla
You guys are looking at it the wrong way. It should be a stock vs stock thing. In which case, turbo is the replacement for displacement. For example. v12 Diablo vs turbo v6 Porsche. The Porsche beats it in top speed, excelleration and it has better handling. Let me see if I can find the magazine I read this from and proove my point.

I am looking at it from the stock vs. stock view. Stock mustang vs. a stock civic....which would win? lol Forced induction is going outside the topic, but spending a bunch of money on modding a car to beat a V8 is going beyond the "there is no replacement for displacement" theory.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by toykilla
Couldn't find the magazine that I wanted but I found another that I can make the same example out of.

2002 Lingenfelter Corvette
Engine Type: v-8
Horsepower@rpm: 802@4600
Torque@rpm: 866@3600
0-60, sec: 1.97

2003 Ferrari Enzo
Engine Type: v-12
Horsepower@rpm: 660@7800
Torque@rpm: 485@5500
0-60, sec: 3.5

I think that's a good example right there why you can replace displacement with a turbo or two. Oh, let's look at the prices of each of these powerhouses.

2002 Lingenfelter Corvette
Price: $165,000

2003 Ferrari Enzo
Price: $652,000
whats the engine size? you just show v8 and v12

[FAST97WS6]

Originally posted by 00 Si
LOL...ok so now you need to mod a V8 to win? But what about no replacement for displacement. Wouldn't this mean that no matter what I did a bigger displacement car, a V8, would be able to beat me????? But you chose to point out....."a well built V8" sounds like the trueth comes out and it does take mods, not just displacement.


And if anyone who thinks displacement is better......talk to Ferrari. A Ferrari F50, my fav car of all time, is only a 286.8 cubic inch V12. Not a lot of displacement there huh. Yet will still do the 1/4 in 12.1 and top speed of 202. Sounds like Imports still rule.

you can mod a V8 and not increase displacement....bolt ons! long tube headers, street cam, larger throttle body, intake and a pair of slicks, for most common new V8's your running 12s, for ZO6'S, and faster V8's your running low 11s! now i can't say shit because i have now added a power adder to my car, but THE ONLY WAY for an imported cars to keep up with stock american muscle, IS TO AD A TURBO! like some one else said, lets take a stock LT-1 and a stock VR-4....pretty decent match up, low 14s, high 13s, or even better for some freaks! now the VR-4 has twin turbos, LT-1 nothing, including POS stock intake box.......slap a twin turbo on a LT-1, and see what your results are, VR4 car lenghts behind.....now stick a 3000GT SL, up agaist a stock LT1, same thing, 3000GT, is not where to be found...DISPLACEMENT WINS!! yeah a turbo is a replacement, but take each car in stock form, 97 WS6- 00 honda civic...do the SAME EXACT MODS to each car, well more or less, turbo, cam or cams, headers, exhuast and so on, see what happens.......i'm not saying V8's are gods, thats why i'm on this board to learn more about imports and hybrids, so theres my point, NO TURBOS, NO POWERADDERS, NO NITROUS.....lets see what happens!

[toykilla]

Originally posted by 4thGenlude
whats the engine size? you just show v8 and v12

Vette is 7.0 and the Ferrari doesn't say. I was just guessing it was massive....

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by SilVtec
I am looking at it from the stock vs. stock view. Stock mustang vs. a stock civic....which would win? lol Forced induction is going outside the topic, but spending a bunch of money on modding a car to beat a V8 is going beyond the "there is no replacement for displacement" theory.
look at a stock 4.6L mustang vs a stock 2.6L skyline
or even a stock SS vs the same stock 2.6L skyline. (yes the skyline wins, ive witnessed it :yes:)
you can throw a 3.0 supra in there too against the mustang or a z28, i think a SS will run better than mid 13's though. if you really wana get technical, 1.3L rotory engine owns all for displacment/power
there is a replacment in stock applications

[toykilla]

Originally posted by 4thGenlude
whats the engine size? you just show v8 and v12

heres a better example...something I know the exact displacement of.

2003 Dodge Viper SRT-10
Engine Type:v-10
Displacement, ci: 505.1
Horsepower@rpm: 500@5600
Torque@rpm: 525@4200
0-60, sec: 4.12

Lingenfelter Vette
Displacement ci/: 427.5

[ChrisCantSkate]

the ferrari wasnt designed to haul ass in a strait line, it is "the closest thing to a formula one car you can buy"

[ChrisCantSkate]

but the Lingenfelter Vette owns in strait line performance

[SilVtec]

Also, you have to take into account the material the body of the car is made of, and the weight of the car that the engine has to pull.

[00 Si]

You all have to admit, this is a good debate. But it still stands though....try telling Porsche/Ferrari/Lambo, that there is no replacement for displacement.

2000 Porsche 911 Turbo
3.6ltr / 219.7 cu in
415 bhp @ 6000 rpm
413.0 ft lbs @ 4600 rpm

2002 Ferrari Enzo
6.0ltr / 365.4 cu in
660 bhp @ 7800 rpm
484.6 ft lbs @ ? I don't know this one.

2002 Lamborghini Murcielago
6.2ltr / 377.9 cu in
580.0 bhp @ 7500 rpm
479.4 ft lbs @ 4000-5400 rpm




And before anyone says anything about price.....this isn't a discussion about price of cars. It's about "no replacement for displacement" And the above shows that one doesn't need "displacement" to make power. I guess the correct saying is "There is a replacement for displacement, it's called technology".

[00 Si]

I would also like to add.....that Lingenfelters Bad Azz Vette, is twin turbo'd. It's not all motor. Even he knows there is a limit to displacement.

[SilVtec]

I would love to take all these engines out of the cars and have them dyno'd. Take away the weight and material of the car, and just have the engine.

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by 00 Si
I would also like to add.....that Lingenfelters Bad Azz Vette, is twin turbo'd. It's not all motor. Even he knows there is a limit to displacement.

Not really... you can get almost whatever you want out of a NA motor. Whether it's streetable or not is the issue. They can get 900hp EASILY out of a 427.

[00 Si]

Originally posted by 00 Si
..."There is a replacement for displacement, it's called technology"......



Going to be my new sig. Ya can't argue with that.

[ChrisCantSkate]

the weight of the car dosnt effect hp... these are all crank ratings also. what goes down to the wheels is different, and is effected by the transmition and other moving parts on the way to the wheels

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by 00 Si
Going to be my new sig. Ya can't argue with that.

Did I miss some kind of new technology that came out?

[ebpda9]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Did I miss some kind of new technology that came out?


:hmmm: :hmmm: i think tuned is a better word for that. :foot:

[ChrisCantSkate]

V-TECH! :no:

[guywithastang]

All of this is pretty much true But think about this: A 4.0l V8 V-TECH :hmmm:

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by guywithastang
All of this is pretty much true But think about this: A 4.0l V8 V-TECH :hmmm:

well from what I hear vtec engines like high rpms like 4-7000... larger motors don't.. so that would not work out...

[2ndGenTeg]

Couldn't help but add my .02.

HP= (torque x RPM)/5252

If displacement (more or less) means torque, one replacement for displacement would be high revving.

Let's look at some numbers from, I dunno, say Mustangs versus Hondas.

Mustang V6- 3.8L- 190hp- 50 hp/L
GT- 4.6L- 260hp- 56.5 hp/L
Mach 1- 4.6L- 305hp- 66.3 hp/L
SVT Cobra- 4.6L- 390 hp- 84.8 hp/L

Integra GSR- 1.8L- 170hp- 94.4 hp/L
Civic SI- 1.6L- 160hp- 100 hp/L
RSX Type S- 2.0L- 200 hp- 100 hp/L
S2000- 2.0L- 240hp- 120 hp/L

The S2000 with its 9000RPM redline proves my point about the revs.

We also see some other interesting things here: The RSX Type S produces more power than a V6 Mustang from roughly half the displacement. The S2000, with 43% of the displacement of a V8 Mustang, produces 92% of the power.

So there must be a replacement for displacement, and Ford itself even seems to have found it. In the same 4.6L of engine, output jumps from 260hp in the GT to 390 in the SVT Cobra.

Now imagine if Ford could hit the kind of efficiency Honda can. If the smallest Mustang engine could make power like a Civic, it would be 380hp. Now imagine the 4.6L hitting the S2000's numbers- to the tune of 552hp.

[ford50forlife]

omfg teggy! DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR R . I . C . E. motors FROM THE FACTORY COME WITH PERFORMANCE (hp wise) IN MIND????? V-8's ARE SLAPPED TOGETHER HIGHLY DETUNED FROM THE FACTORY!

TRY DO MAKE AN ALL MOTOR s2000 MOTOR I DARE YOU YOU CAN ONLY GET AS FAR A INTAKE EXHAUST IGNITION AND PULLIES i.e about 270hp AT THE MOTOR, mustangs come 225 stock (the ones that are GOOD anyway) and can be made to accept 373 hp normally aspirated and under 5K worth of work, or my setup for about 280hp motor for 500 bucks....
PLUS I DONT HAVE TO BRING MY CAR TO 5.6THOUSANDS RPM's to drive around town from lack of low end torque
god your ignorant. HP PER LITER HP PER LITER! btw HP for ford in the cobra supercharged jumped from 320to 390 not 260 to 390 because the its not the SAME 4.6L engine as you said, its a tuned version with the replacement of the heads for a DOHC instead of sohc. GAINS ARENT THAT NOMINAL BECAUSE YET AGAIN ITS MADE FROM THE FACTORY WITHOUT THE TUNING THAT HONDA DOES FROM THE FACTORY, THEY GO FREAKING NUTS TO GET hp numbers, ford doesnt ;) plus the aftermarket potential is CHeaper than honda, more potent, and MUCH more vast, BUT THE ENTRANCE LEVEL price is higher IF we talking new cars/=.

[Mushroom]

I think you're sidetracking. The discussion wasn't intended to be about about your freakin' mustang vs econobox civics, it's about whether volume is the end-all-be-all of engine performance. As has been said, there's lots of ways to make power - build your engine bigger, spin it faster, increase the pressure, etc. In your car, the approach is to use a big, heavy engine - but clearly that's not the only way to make a practical, useful vehicle.

And - technology is absolutely a replacement for size. Compare the power/volume of older engines to the power/volume modern engines - even the stock 5.0 for a couple of mustang gens ago to the 4.6 that replaced (and makes more stock power).

[ShEaNy]

:bow: :bow: :bow: Technololgy :bow: :bow: :bow:

[ShEaNy]

lol just thought of something.....Twin Turbo V-8 in a Chevette hehehe :D:D that thing would move like hell...theres some displacement for ya...a car with less weight.......

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by ford50forlife
omfg teggy! DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR R . I . C . E. motors FROM THE FACTORY COME WITH PERFORMANCE (hp wise) IN MIND????? V-8's ARE SLAPPED TOGETHER HIGHLY DETUNED FROM THE FACTORY!

TRY DO MAKE AN ALL MOTOR s2000 MOTOR I DARE YOU YOU CAN ONLY GET AS FAR A INTAKE EXHAUST IGNITION AND PULLIES i.e about 270hp AT THE MOTOR, mustangs come 225 stock (the ones that are GOOD anyway) and can be made to accept 373 hp normally aspirated and under 5K worth of work, or my setup for about 280hp motor for 500 bucks....
PLUS I DONT HAVE TO BRING MY CAR TO 5.6THOUSANDS RPM's to drive around town from lack of low end torque
god your ignorant. HP PER LITER HP PER LITER! btw HP for ford in the cobra supercharged jumped from 320to 390 not 260 to 390 because the its not the SAME 4.6L engine as you said, its a tuned version with the replacement of the heads for a DOHC instead of sohc. GAINS ARENT THAT NOMINAL BECAUSE YET AGAIN ITS MADE FROM THE FACTORY WITHOUT THE TUNING THAT HONDA DOES FROM THE FACTORY, THEY GO FREAKING NUTS TO GET hp numbers, ford doesnt ;) plus the aftermarket potential is CHeaper than honda, more potent, and MUCH more vast, BUT THE ENTRANCE LEVEL price is higher IF we talking new cars/=.

heres some coffee, smell it.... dude, chill out. not ALL honda engines are tuned from the factory. mine wasnt, its the bottom of the line h22 engine. there is a tuned one form the factory also, but we already established that we are talking about STOCK engines. this is not an argument about tuned engines. i will not stand by honda making the best power import engines. if you want to say what engine has more potential, we can look at a 2jz-gte which is good for over 900hp on a stock bottom end. than engine is also highly detuned to 320hp in the USDM(united states domestic market). the rb26dett is HIGHLY de-tuned to 280ps (276hp) in the JDM(japanise domestic market). i think a super charger counts as a replacment for displacment also, it is a form of forced induction as is a turbo, but driven off a belt instead of exaust gas.

[ChrisCantSkate]

i just thought of something, hodna was bragging about thier 120hp per litre s2k engine... nissan did it a year earlyer in the s15 silvia, rev'ed 3000rpms lower to achive max hp, and got 10 more hp.

Specifications

S15 Silvia 99-



Horsepower: 250ps at 6000rpm Transmission: 6 Speed, Close Ratio

Injector size: 480cc/min

Turbo specs:

Compressor: T-28, 60 trim 60 mm BCI-1 compressor in T-04B housing

Turbine: Inco turbine wheel. Cast divider wall between turbine discharge and wastegate.

Center Section: Ball Bearing

[ebpda9]

and what was the size of their engine ?

[ChrisCantSkate]

sorry... 2.0 its the s15 sr20det

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Did I miss some kind of new technology that came out?



No you were around but chose to ignore it. I notice you didn't comment on my Porsche/Lambo/Ferrari post. That alone, like I said in the post, shows you don't need big displacement to produce a lot of hp. I'm not saying you, but I notice that V8 people, some not all so calm down, only like to argue points that benift them. I'll argue any point. Don't matter to me. Not all people are like that I admit. But I just notice that when it comes down to it, a Porsche turbo motor (And I can't stand Porsche's so PLEASE don't think I'm argueing for them, OMG NO), 6 cyclinder at that, has a good 1/4 mile, good top speed, and hardly ANY displacement compared to a LS1 or LT1 or even the Viper.

Basically what I'm saying is this. Someone earlier said that Ferrari and all had invested millions to develop the Enzo. Which is true, everyone knows that. And look what came of it. 5988 cc / 365.4 cu in V12. Only 15 more cu in from an LT1. And it has 4 more cyclinders. 19 more cu in than the LS1.

I mean come on guys. I'm not saying I'm right by any means, I am just pointing out what I see here. For a V8 to have 350 but a V12 to have 365, something can't be right here if the saying is true.

[ChrisCantSkate]

since your bringing up the enzo, i'll add this, they invested all that money to develope a car that handles like no other also. it is basicaly a closed wheel F1 car. it ran 10 seconds faster than the McClaren f1 car on a track that currently slips my mind, but 20 seconds slower than a true formula one car. it has an onboard computer that will map out how hard you were pushing the car through each turn, it pulls 1.3xG's on the skid pad, and the engine compartment opens large enough to get a full f1 pit crew in there

[V8killimports]

ok the topic is no replacemet for displacement... I want a 500hp motor so where do I look? Do I look at 2.0L engines? 2.2L? 3.0? or 502ci? That is what we are talking about. And like I said before, those porsche/Enzo engines are not off the shelf out of a catalog stock. They are highly modified and tuned to put out that power.. and like I said earlier you can make a large ci motor like a 572ci to easily make 1000-1500hp depending on what you do... so even your theory backed up by supercars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and developed for years can be shut down with an average gearhead with a summit catalog.

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
....larger motors don't.. so that would not work out...

I forgot to point out that this would be wrong to. It's just this way for American Cars. Ferrari F50, V12, Redline is 8500rpm.

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
ok the topic is no replacemet for displacement... I want a 500hp motor so where do I look? Do I look at 2.0L engines? 2.2L? 3.0? or 502ci? That is what we are talking about. And like I said before, those porsche/Enzo engines are not off the shelf out of a catalog stock. They are highly modified and tuned to put out that power.. and like I said earlier you can make a large ci motor like a 572ci to easily make 1000-1500hp depending on what you do... so even your theory backed up by supercars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and developed for years can be shut down with an average gearhead with a summit catalog.


Umm, wrong again. Those 2 cars I pointed out you can buy as is. NO, I repeat NO, mods. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. They come like that. Sorry.


And as for the "you can make a large cu in motor", imagine if you did that to a Ferrari also. hmmmm, wonder who would win in that stand point. I mean a lot of muscle heads are know, if they lose to a turbo'd import or are argueing the fact, they ALWAYS say, well put a turbo on my V8 and who wins. Well, make the V12 a 572cu in and we'll see who wins. NOT the V8.

Thank you drive through.

[2ndGenTeg]

Originally posted by ford50forlife
omfg teggy! Blah, blah, blah...

First of all, calm down. I don't talk to you like that. I would appreciate the same respect and maturity from you.

Second, you completely missed the point. The point is that if there were no replacement for displacement, the increase in output would directly coincide with an increase in displacement, and every car would have the same specific output (power output per displacement).

This is clearly not the case. If there is no replacement for displacement, how would one explain the 130 hp jump from the 260hp V8 GT Mustang to the 390hp SVT (numbers taken directly from Ford, btw)? Also, notice how I said "the same 4.6L of engine" and not the same 4.6L engine." I was stating that the displacement is the same, not that the engines are identical.

Honda does the same thing, to an extent- they extract more power from less displacement- 1797cc and 170 hp from a GSR compared to 1854cc and 140 hp in an LS. If there is no replacement for displacement, how is this possible?

Remember, power is nothing more than the product of torque and RPM. Anything increasing either will create more power. Displacement increases torque, true enough, but so do many other things. Aggressive camshafts and boost both increase torque. Therefore, would these not be replacements for displacement? They do the same thing displacement does- increase the amount of a/f being processed.

Think about it- the ONLY way to increase power is to increase the amount of a/f being processed by the engine. Displacement is one way. Absolutely anything else that increases power- be it boost, cams, intake, exhaust, revving, TUNING (thank you for bringing that up!), or anything else- is another.

[ShEaNy]

amen to that^^.....but i would say this is going to be an arguement forever..:yes: :o :crazy: :pukey ... to the man with the most money wins....lol

[00 Si]

2ndGenTeg......THANK YOU!!!

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by 00 Si
Umm, wrong again. Those 2 cars I pointed out you can buy as is. NO, I repeat NO, mods. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. They come like that. Sorry.


And as for the "you can make a large cu in motor", imagine if you did that to a Ferrari also. hmmmm, wonder who would win in that stand point. I mean a lot of muscle heads are know, if they lose to a turbo'd import or are argueing the fact, they ALWAYS say, well put a turbo on my V8 and who wins. Well, make the V12 a 572cu in and we'll see who wins. NOT the V8.

Thank you drive through.

You are very confused... these motors from ferarri and porsche are already modified at the FACTORY. So your zero, zilch etc etc crap doesn't fly.. if you think they are stock motors with nothing special then you need to do more research. You talk as if you are taking small displacement motors, doing nothing to them, and they are magically powerful... btw the Turbo Porsche means that it is turbo in case ya didn't know. So I will let you have your turbo porsche, and my SMALLBLOCK NA 383 still produces more power. If I put a centri blower on my motor with lets say 8019lbs of boost, I will make anywhere from 750-850hp. But like I said, my larger ci motor still makes more power than a turboed porsche motor.

[ChrisCantSkate]

a supercharger is a form of forced induction, as a turbo is, that is a replacment for displacment.

[Addict]

Originally posted by V8killimports
You are very confused... these motors from ferarri and porsche are already modified at the FACTORY.
So if its done at the factory and is shipped that way, does it not make it stock?:bandit:

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
You are very confused... these motors from ferarri and porsche are already modified at the FACTORY. So your zero, zilch etc etc crap doesn't fly.. if you think they are stock motors with nothing special then you need to do more research. You talk as if you are taking small displacement motors, doing nothing to them, and they are magically powerful... btw the Turbo Porsche means that it is turbo in case ya didn't know. So I will let you have your turbo porsche, and my SMALLBLOCK NA 383 still produces more power. If I put a centri blower on my motor with lets say 8019lbs of boost, I will make anywhere from 750-850hp. But like I said, my larger ci motor still makes more power than a turboed porsche motor.


I'm confused???? The Enzo comes with that much hp bro. SORRY! What in the hell are you talking about that they are modded from the factory??????????????????????? Know your competition before you start going off about it. I know more about Ferrari than my own car. Ferrari is my fav car manufacturer. PERIOD. As is Shumie is my fav race car driver. Before you start to tell me about Ferrari, do your own research first. Just cause you have been proven wrong........don't say that they are modded because your losing a debate that you can't win. NO ONE, can win this debate. It's purely the person's opinion. PURELY!!. You believe one way and I believe the other. Plain as that.



Now a Ferrari F50 Bolide is modded. They take a factory F50 and mod that. The Enzo comes like that from Ferrari.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by V8killimports
You are very confused... these motors from ferarri and porsche are already modified at the FACTORY. So your zero, zilch etc etc crap doesn't fly.. if you think they are stock motors with nothing special then you need to do more research. You talk as if you are taking small displacement motors, doing nothing to them, and they are magically powerful... btw the Turbo Porsche means that it is turbo in case ya didn't know. So I will let you have your turbo porsche, and my SMALLBLOCK NA 383 still produces more power. If I put a centri blower on my motor with lets say 8019lbs of boost, I will make anywhere from 750-850hp. But like I said, my larger ci motor still makes more power than a turboed porsche motor.
you do realize that the ferrari is a naturaly aspirated motor? this isnt import vs. domestic its stock all motor vs stock forced induction

[V8killimports]

Oh wow look... 720hp from the GM factory:

http://www.sallee-chevrolet.com/Sneak/Previews.html

And yes a supercharger is forced induction... my point was that the porsche motor and its "replacement for displacement" doesn't make the power my NA 383 does.. and that's a small ci motor.

I was saying that if you even it out with forced induction and supercharge mine I would have 750-850hp depending on boost and other variables.

As for the Enzo motor... it's the same size as mine, and there are plenty of motors that size that make that much power, and more...

[V8killimports]

lol I didn't mean 8019lbs boost.. I meant 8-10.. I have no idea how 8019 came out.

[V8killimports]

Here is something else....

The Ford LTD was first offered in 1965 as a "trimmed" up Galaxie with a few more options as standard equipment. The famed 289-2V was the base engine, and supplied adaquate, but not extreme power. Other engines included the 352, 390, which were FE blocks.
1966 was a glorious year for the LTD. The same engines were offered as in '65, but a couple new ones were added to the list for balls out performance. This LTD was called the 7-litre. I will have to update the file, because I'm not sure on the codes. I believe there was a Q-code engine, but I'm not sure if it was the cammer or the cobra-jet. At any rate, the new engines were both FE blocks and they displaced 427 and 428 cubic inches respectively. Most of these 7-litres were 428 cobra-jets and were pretty damn fast, but a few managed to get the street animal, which can put a Hemi to shame, The 427 cammer. The cammer in 8V form boasted 658 horsepower and was the most powerful production engine to ever come out of Detroit.

Here is the site:

http://ellerbruch.nmu.edu/cs255/gducheny/ducheny.html

And that is mid 60's technology making 2 less horsepower than the high tech enzo motor.

[Addict]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Oh wow look... 720hp from the GM factory:

http://www.sallee-chevrolet.com/Sneak/Previews.html

And yes a supercharger is forced induction... my point was that the porsche motor and its "replacement for displacement" doesn't make the power my NA 383 does.. and that's a small ci motor.

I was saying that if you even it out with forced induction and supercharge mine I would have 750-850hp depending on boost and other variables.

As for the Enzo motor... it's the same size as mine, and there are plenty of motors that size that make that much power, and more...

Is it a production motor? Just wondering. It didn't say.

[spoogenet]

It sounds to me like there's a variety of arguments/discussions going on here. Some people seem to be talking merely about how much power output a given stock engine has, others are talking about handling and acceleration times, others are talking about how much power they can get out of a given engine, and some are just talking shit about nothing at all. These are all very different arguments.

First, if you want to talk stock motors, then you can't fairly compare engines that are and aren't street legal in the US. The US has a variety of emissions and efficiency laws in the US that must be met to be streetable, therefore putting different constraints on engine designs that are sold in and out of the country. Just compare the JDM and USDM motors from Honda and you'll see how they aren't fair comparisons. Regulations in the US have effects things such as timing, cam lobe shapes, cats, etc. Consequently, these all have an influence on the power of the car.

Second, if you want to talk stock motors, comparing motors from an engine such as some Ferarris to, say, a Mustang engine isn't really fair. Sure you can argue displacement all day if you want, but if you want to talk more about it then why not include F1 cars, or afterburning drag racers? To say a Ferrari engine is stock isn't really that fair either. The engine is, all things considered, a race engine. It isn't a stock motor by any means. The engine is highly engineered and highly tuned from the factory making it far from a normal stock motor that you find in a Civic or a Mustang. I'm not sure how much more power you could get out of the Ferarri motors sticking with an NA setup, but my guess is you won't get a whole lot more without upping the displacement. Comparing tuned-down stock engines to highly-tuned stock engines isn't a good comparison.

Third, if you want to debate cars with X amount of power and running Y times in 0-60 or something, you've got to consider that there are many factors that go into it. Sure one car may outrun a more powerful car in a drag race, but the lower powered car may weight less, may have stickier tires on it, may have a better transmission, etc etc etc. Acceleration is something that is dependent upon the car and the engine, not the engine alone. So if you're really trying to talk about high vs. low displacement, then you've got to compare apples to apples. HP doesn't have a linear relationship with drag times, therefore it is invalid to consider drag times in a HP discussion. But for all you :ricer: out there, you can use your lack of HP to explain why you lost the race. :yes:

Fourth, if you want to talk about the power potential of an engine then a few ground rules must be laid out. Is it NA or FI? This changes things dramatically. You can always make a smaller FI engine more powerful than a larger NA motor. Take any NA motor and tune it to have as much power as possible, and I can take a smaller displacement motor and give it FI and make more power. Of course you may choose a 7.0L motor and I may take a 6.99L motor, but hey I've got less displacement, right? See that's the kind of crap people are talking about....it's meaningless. Liter for liter, technology will give one motor more power than another. But that's where the line ends. Take the same technology and apply it to two engines with different displacement, and the larger displacement will win, period.

See this whole discussion is totally meaningless. You can't say technology is allowed in one and not the other. Comparing a 4.6L Mustang GT to a 4.6L SVT Cobra clearly shows that the same displacement yields different powers. Obviously the SVT has a more highly tuned engine. Comparing a 2.3L Accord I4 to a 2.0L S2000 is again an unfair comparison, because the S2000 has a much more highly tuned engine than the Accord. Make the Accord I4 rev up to 9k and change a couple other things and that little 2.0L S2000 isn't going to keep up with it in power terms. Meaningless meaningless meaningless.

Ok, I'm tired of saying this is all just meaningless discussion and arguments. There is a replacement for displacement....brains. The intelligent person recognizes that there are very many factors that go into the power output of an engine, the handling of a car, and the acceleration of a car. He recognizes that he can tune his Civic SI motor to have significantly more power than stock and to have as much power as many larger displacement engines. However he also realizes that if he wanted more power than that, he'd maybe need a higher displacement engine. He can tune his high displacement engine to kick the crap out of the guy with the same car who hasn't tune it. Blah blah blah yackety schmackety.

No, I'm not a communications major, but sometimes I think the world would be better off if everybody was one. Some of the arguments on this thread sound like the same kind of crap people say about statistics. Statistics are meaningless without understandig things such as how the study was conducted, etc. Just like arguing displacement is meaningless without considering tuning and other factors.

Sorry it was so long. Sorry for the rant statements here and there. Deal.

b

[FAST97WS6]

Originally posted by ford50forlife
omfg teggy! DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR R . I . C . E. motors FROM THE FACTORY COME WITH PERFORMANCE (hp wise) IN MIND????? V-8's ARE SLAPPED TOGETHER HIGHLY DETUNED FROM THE FACTORY!

TRY DO MAKE AN ALL MOTOR s2000 MOTOR I DARE YOU YOU CAN ONLY GET AS FAR A INTAKE EXHAUST IGNITION AND PULLIES i.e about 270hp AT THE MOTOR, mustangs come 225 stock (the ones that are GOOD anyway) and can be made to accept 373 hp normally aspirated and under 5K worth of work, or my setup for about 280hp motor for 500 bucks....
PLUS I DONT HAVE TO BRING MY CAR TO 5.6THOUSANDS RPM's to drive around town from lack of low end torque
god your ignorant. HP PER LITER HP PER LITER! btw HP for ford in the cobra supercharged jumped from 320to 390 not 260 to 390 because the its not the SAME 4.6L engine as you said, its a tuned version with the replacement of the heads for a DOHC instead of sohc. GAINS ARENT THAT NOMINAL BECAUSE YET AGAIN ITS MADE FROM THE FACTORY WITHOUT THE TUNING THAT HONDA DOES FROM THE FACTORY, THEY GO FREAKING NUTS TO GET hp numbers, ford doesnt ;) plus the aftermarket potential is CHeaper than honda, more potent, and MUCH more vast, BUT THE ENTRANCE LEVEL price is higher IF we talking new cars/=.

ok i don't know if some one already mentioned this, but he has a point, not sure if you guys knew this, but the NEW, and OLDER, LS-1's and LT-1s from GM, in all Z28s, SS's, TAs, Firehawks, Formulas, the motors are not tunned all the way if that makes sence, there tunned, but they are DETUNED on purpose, you wann know why, look at a new C5 and a stock Z28........ok C5 is about 40-45K, new Z28 23-28K, if they did not dentune, the Z28 motor, you'd have stock Z28's beating C5's all day long, and so why would some one by a C5 when for alot cheaper you could by the same thing.....look at CRANK HP, Z28 puts out like is rated at 305( no weight of car invovled) look at a C5 ..345???? BOTH A STOCK LS1.....same motor, 346cid! a SS, WS6 is tunned more, plus ram air, and a few little things differnet they put out 325....so i don't know if that makes any point, i was just backing up what he said!

[FAST97WS6]

oh yeah another thing, not trying to start a fight, but who really gives a **** about hp/L??? yeah i give the S2000 props for that, but who is walking around with 500hp car saying, braging about HP/L? not many people are! some kid used to give me hell in my old highschool, about my car has this much hp/l i just told him to shut up!

[spoogenet]

Originally posted by FAST97WS6
oh yeah another thing, not trying to start a fight, but who really gives a **** about hp/L??? yeah i give the S2000 props for that, but who is walking around with 500hp car saying, braging about HP/L? not many people are! some kid used to give me hell in my old highschool, about my car has this much hp/l i just told him to shut up!

Obviously plenty of people give a **** about hp/L or else nobody would be mentioning it. I'm not sure if anybody is walking around with a 500hp car bragging about hp/L, but are they the only people who count? Why'd you tell him to shut up? Hp/L is a testament to the engineering and tuning that went into the engine, surely that counts for something. Whether it means you'll win at the strip or track is a different story, though. For efficiency, I must say I'm not impressed with the S2000's rated 26 mpg hwy since a buddy of mine gets 26-28 hwy in his 3.0 A4 with Quattro. But who cares, the S2000 has plenty of style and character.

As ridiculous as your quoted post was you do make a good point on the detuning. There are other reasons for detuning, though, such as cost. It is cheaper for a company to mass produce the same block and then just swap a few things here and there to give one car more power than the other. In shorts it's called "value added." A translation for the people who aren't as familiar with corporate terminology, value added is the basis of how to give or spend a little in order to justify charging a much higher premium.

How do they measure how much of an effect ram air makes? It won't make crap worth of difference on a dyno unless you shove a big blower in front of the thing to actually produce compression. That's another question, do the ram airs even work or are they just a marketing gimmick? Sure the engines may have more power, but is any of it a direct result of having a ram air? Does it pull any harder at high speeds than, say, a similar engine tuned to have the same power on a dyno in the same car?

b

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by FAST97WS6
ok i don't know if some one already mentioned this, but he has a point, not sure if you guys knew this, but the NEW, and OLDER, LS-1's and LT-1s from GM, in all Z28s, SS's, TAs, Firehawks, Formulas, the motors are not tunned all the way if that makes sence, there tunned, but they are DETUNED on purpose, you wann know why, look at a new C5 and a stock Z28........ok C5 is about 40-45K, new Z28 23-28K, if they did not dentune, the Z28 motor, you'd have stock Z28's beating C5's all day long, and so why would some one by a C5 when for alot cheaper you could by the same thing.....look at CRANK HP, Z28 puts out like is rated at 305( no weight of car invovled) look at a C5 ..345???? BOTH A STOCK LS1.....same motor, 346cid! a SS, WS6 is tunned more, plus ram air, and a few little things differnet they put out 325....so i don't know if that makes any point, i was just backing up what he said!
i agree what your saying about detuned engines, thats the way the 2jz-gte (supra TT engine) and the rb26dett(skyline gtr engine) come. they lower boost and restrict airfow alot to lower insurance and to keep japans gentalmans agreement of 280ps.

[FasterThanLight]

Sorry to join thread late... however...

I have to agree with 2ndGenTeg and spoogenet, there is no ignoring the hp/L number when arguing over displacement as king. All internal combustion engines are fancified AIR PUMPS, and the more taken in the front and pumped out the back, the more torque/hp any given displacement will make. The practical limit for this is whenever you cram so much air and fuel into a motor that the mixture attains enough heat to pre-ignite(detonation). There are a lot of things that affect the ability of an engine to inhibit detonation, but the foremost contributor is the compression ratio(CR)!

Upping the CR increases power... to a point, that being when the motor experiences detonation. A primary inhibitor of detonation is... swirl! Swirl is the relative turbulence of the intake charge(when the piston is approaching TDC during compression, especially) and there are many factors that contribute to swirl, among them:
piston/head design
valves per cylinder(more increases swirl)

The piston and head design is doubly important because it not only can increase swirl, but also control detonation through even distribution of heat in the combustion chamber. Spark plug location within the head determines the rate and pattern of flame propagation during the power stroke(this has the potential to make or break an engine: think of the hemi; it is successful due to a combination of these principals.) More than two valves per cylinder(think DOHC) leads to better intake and exhaust flow: the smaller passages create air that moves more quickly and with more turbulence, both adding power.

Ahh... whoops, I kinda went off there... but I think the most important thing to note about FI vs. NA is that if you're adding forced induction, you're essentially increasing displacement by cramming more air into the same space, whereas a larger motor will intake a similarly larger amount of air without the coersion of a super/turbo - charger... and you'll hit a ceiling of performance. Then what happens when your buddy/opponent slaps a 'charger on his larger motor of equal specific output? You're toast...

Happy trails...

[V8killimports]

BTW this Enzo engine is a large ci motor about the size of mine.. so I guess that's FOR no replacement for displacement? Why didn't ferarri use a turbo or twin turboed 1.8 or 2.0?

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
BTW this Enzo engine is a large ci motor about the size of mine.. so I guess that's FOR no replacement for displacement? Why didn't ferarri use a turbo or twin turboed 1.8 or 2.0?

Bro, your missing the point here. I'm stating that if the saying was true and you have a V8 with that much cu in, and a V12 has the same.....the statement can't be true. 4 more cyclinders and the same cu in.


I'm starting to think here that your missing the point so bad that if you jumped ship in the middle of the Atlantic you wouldn't find water.

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by 00 Si
Bro, your missing the point here. I'm stating that if the saying was true and you have a V8 with that much cu in, and a V12 has the same.....the statement can't be true. 4 more cyclinders and the same cu in.


I'm starting to think here that your missing the point so bad that if you jumped ship in the middle of the Atlantic you wouldn't find water.

oh my.. do you know anything about motors?? If you say that the difference is the xtra 4 cyl is what makes that power, then you don't. Also, the 572ci motor is an 8 cyl and makes more power than the enzo motor... why is that? The enzo has 4 more cyls... so it should be more powerful? What you are saying is that the enzo motor's "replacement for displacement" is the xtra 4 cyls... well apparently not since the 572ci mountain motor owns the enzo motor.

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
oh my.. do you know anything about motors?? If you say that the difference is the xtra 4 cyl is what makes that power, then you don't. Also, the 572ci motor is an 8 cyl and makes more power than the enzo motor... why is that? The enzo has 4 more cyls... so it should be more powerful? What you are saying is that the enzo motor's "replacement for displacement" is the xtra 4 cyls... well apparently not since the 572ci mountain motor owns the enzo motor.


And I'm going to use the all time famous V8 response to this one......."Do the same to the Ferrari"

[00 Si]

'03 Viper 8275 cc / 505.0 cu in
500 bhp @ 5600 rpm


Enzo 5988 cc / 365.4 cu in
660 bhp @ 7800 rpm



And this will be my final point because this proves it with out a doubt.

Viper with a 505 cu in with 500hp or a 365 cu in Ferrari with 660hp. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[FAST97WS6]

Originally posted by spoogenet
Obviously plenty of people give a **** about hp/L or else nobody would be mentioning it. I'm not sure if anybody is walking around with a 500hp car bragging about hp/L, but are they the only people who count? Why'd you tell him to shut up? Hp/L is a testament to the engineering and tuning that went into the engine, surely that counts for something. Whether it means you'll win at the strip or track is a different story, though. For efficiency, I must say I'm not impressed with the S2000's rated 26 mpg hwy since a buddy of mine gets 26-28 hwy in his 3.0 A4 with Quattro. But who cares, the S2000 has plenty of style and character.

As ridiculous as your quoted post was you do make a good point on the detuning. There are other reasons for detuning, though, such as cost. It is cheaper for a company to mass produce the same block and then just swap a few things here and there to give one car more power than the other. In shorts it's called "value added." A translation for the people who aren't as familiar with corporate terminology, value added is the basis of how to give or spend a little in order to justify charging a much higher premium.

How do they measure how much of an effect ram air makes? It won't make crap worth of difference on a dyno unless you shove a big blower in front of the thing to actually produce compression. That's another question, do the ram airs even work or are they just a marketing gimmick? Sure the engines may have more power, but is any of it a direct result of having a ram air? Does it pull any harder at high speeds than, say, a similar engine tuned to have the same power on a dyno in the same car?

b

ram air really does nothing for your car untill high speeds, like over 60mph then it pulls harder yes, its only because at that speed theres enough force to "ram the air" into the intake which is directly connected to the throttle body, instead of going thru tubes and bends and shit like that! most intakes are about like what....a foot long? ram air all it is, its a box, MAF, throttle body!....well you guyys can talk all you want about hp/L i really don't give to shits!

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by 00 Si
'03 Viper 8275 cc / 505.0 cu in
500 bhp @ 5600 rpm


Enzo 5988 cc / 365.4 cu in
660 bhp @ 7800 rpm



And this will be my final point because this proves it with out a doubt.

Viper with a 505 cu in with 500hp or a 365 cu in Ferrari with 660hp. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

and 572ci motor = 720hp... again no replacement...this will be my final point because this proves it without a doubt.

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
and 572ci motor = 720hp... again no replacement...this will be my final point because this proves it without a doubt.



BAHAHAHAHA, no this doesn't prove it.


The statement "There is no replacement for displacement" states no matter the displacement, as long as it's larger, it ALWAYS, cause remember there is no replacement for it, has more hp. And it's not true!!!

Look at the Viper vs Enzo.


Thank you drive through!!!!!


And the best part is, you have to mod the car in order to have "your" agruement. I haven't modded ANY car in "my" arguement, atleast I don't remember doing so.

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
and 572ci motor = 720hp... again no replacement...this will be my final point because this proves it without a doubt.


And...


I didn't want to do it but I'm going to anyway

Chevrolet Callaway Sledgehammer Corvette
5733 cc / 349.8 cu in
880.0 bhp @ 6250 rpm

Mercedes-Benz W125
5577 cc / 340.3 cu in
736 bhp @ 5800 rpm

So you can now take that saying and throw it out the door. And that Mercedes-Benz is a V12 also.

So put that in your cab and drive around with it.

[V8killimports]

The Callaway is a modded car... and the 572 is not.. right from GM out 'O their catalog. So now YOU are talking modded cars. And the enzo is a large displacement motor.. like I said, no replacement.. btw you didn't answer my question... why didn't ferarri use a 1.8L or a 2.0L and twin turbo those or something along those lines? Why would they use a LARGER DISPLACEMENT engine? Interesting....

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
The Callaway is a modded car... and the 572 is not.. right from GM out 'O their catalog. So now YOU are talking modded cars. And the enzo is a large displacement motor.. like I said, no replacement.. btw you didn't answer my question... why didn't ferarri use a 1.8L or a 2.0L and twin turbo those or something along those lines? Why would they use a LARGER DISPLACEMENT engine? Interesting....


OH I've got to see this. PLEASE show me where a 572 from chevy is FACTORY!

And either way, if it's factory or if it's modded....your statement still isn't true then and you prove my own point. "LARGER DISPLACEMENT" would still be king, and it isn't. See my final post.


Chevrolet Callaway Sledgehammer Corvette
5733 cc / 349.8 cu in
880.0 bhp @ 6250 rpm


If your statement was true, your 572 would make more HP cause it has more displacement. either way you look at it, you got owned.

[V8killimports]

I posted the link earlier.. please pay attention.

[V8killimports]

First you complain aboutme using modded engines... so I show ya one from GM.. the 572.. then you compare it to your modded vette... please.. you are getting yourself confues.. pulling stuff out of your ass.. again I ask and you don't answer... why doesn't ferrari use a 1.8 or 2.0L engine?

[00 Si]

Originally posted by V8killimports
First you complain aboutme using modded engines... so I show ya one from GM.. the 572.. then you compare it to your modded vette... please.. you are getting yourself confues.. pulling stuff out of your ass.. again I ask and you don't answer... why doesn't ferrari use a 1.8 or 2.0L engine?


3586 cc / 218.8 cu in, that's the Modena engine. 3496 cc / 213.3 cu in is a F355 engine. 2936 cc / 179.2 cu in and 478 bhp @ 7000 rpm is a F40 motor. How's that for small liters!!!! 478 hp out of a 2.9ltr. Small enough for ya.

And if that isn't enough, 2997 cc / 182.9 cu in that produces an even 770hp is also made by Ferrari. It's an Indy car, LOL, but reguardless, still proves the point. Technology is the replacement for displacement! 3.0ltrs with 770hp.....OWNED!

And you still won't explain to me how this works if your statement is true....

5733 cc / 349.8 cu in
880.0 bhp @ 6250 rpm

HOW CAN THIS BE TRUE IF YOUR STATEMENT STATES THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT!!!



I just think that someone can't admit when they are wrong. Typical guy, I won't admit when I'm wrong either, but I can admit it to myself. Wonder if you can.

[00 Si]

And also wanted to add...



I know that you probably think that I'm a dick by now. I hope not. But debates like this are fun. I do it just to agrue.


Hope no hard feelings.

Take care. Nite. Since I have to wake up in about 3 hours and 30 min.

[ChrisCantSkate]

dont know who did, but the lingenfilter(sp?) vette is also a modded car, as is the saleen mustang. independently tuned by a different manufacuter then sold to a dealership

[2ndGenTeg]

Modded vs. Stock- Why does it matter? Wouldn't those mods be replacement for displacement? Wouldn't ANYTHING that increases output other than displacement be a replacement? And if the Enzo motor is the same size as yours, does that mean yours is just as fast? By the no replacement for displacement theory, the two motors should perform IDENTICALLY because they are the same size.

By no replacement for displacement, every 1.8L motor would have the same output, PERIOD. Every 400ci motor would have the same output, PERIOD. Every motor would have the same specific output, PERIOD. All three of these are false.

There seems to be some confusion about ram air. Ram air is creating boost by traveling at speeds such that there is a compression effect in the charge air. Ram air does not START until speeds of about Mach .5 (half the speed of sound!) are reached. And if you're reaching half the speed of sound in the 1320, I don't think you really need boost.

[Addict]

Originally posted by 2ndGenTeg
There seems to be some confusion about ram air. Ram air is creating boost by traveling at speeds such that here is a compression effect in the charge air. Ram air does not START until speeds of about Mach .5 (half the speed of sound!) are reached. And if you're reaching half the speed of sound in the 1320, I don't think you really need boost.
True. but I doubt he meant more than what the sticker on the side of his car says. Guess Pontiac thought "Ram-Air" sounded good. Better than "Lotta-Air" I guess.

[ChrisCantSkate]

i know that to create ram air but forcing air, you must be travling that fast, but what about the ram air things(lack of better name) KART cars used a few years back before they were determined unfair? those produced a ram air affect above 150mph or so didnt they? they had a vaccum design though, not jsut ponding air at the air filter

[spoogenet]

I didn't think Ram Air truly worked at such low speeds, thanks for adding that bit Teg.

00 Si....aka Mr. :banana:.....

WHAT IS YOUR POINT? I ask it in as nice a way as possible while still yelling in all caps. Are you trying to say that higher displacement always has higher power? If so, then you truly don't understand anything about engine design. Let's take an extreme approach.....two engines, each have the same block and displacement, same pistons, rods, cams, valves, valve springs, throttle bodies, heads, plugs. Which one makes more power than the other? It's undeterminable until considering the intake and exhaust manifolds, timing, A/F ratio, and a few other things. That is kinda where the technology changes the power of any given engine. Of course by changing pistons, cams, heads, and other things then the engines are capable of even more or less power than they come with stock even while maintaining the exact same displacement.

Oh, and you can't fairly compare F1 cars to normal cars....they don't run on gasoline like you and me can buy at the local Chevron or something. If you really want to open the door, I'll argue that my daddy's F15 produces more thrust than your daddy's Civic Si. W00t!!!!!

Assumption: All blocks are capable of handling extraordinary amounts of power.

That assumed, one can conclude that the theoretical maximum power output of an engine is proportional to its displacement, thus higher displacement engines are always capable of more power than smaller displacement engines. This does not mean that the actual power output will be proportional to displacement. Actual vs. theoretical is a very different ballgame.

I will give this one its own line:

Theoretical maximum power is determined and limited by physics and mechanics whereas actual power is determined and limited by engineering and manufacturing.

b

[spoogenet]

Another problem with the Ram Air designs of many cars is that the faster you go the less airflow exists over the hood. The bow wave of the car causes a low pressure area above the hood, hence the simple principle of how a car acts like a wing. Downforce becomes necessary.

Anyhow, that's why you notice that in drag cars the intakes are always mounted high up, more like a snorkel. This is such that as they get going fast enough the snorkel is still in the higher pressure region rather than trapped in the low pressure region.

My guess is that the ram air designs are purely marketing tools, but I don't know. They certainly don't look like they're very functional, but I couldn't say. Best bet would be to take the same engine in the same car, and give one a non "ram air" intake system while leaving the other stock, and race the two. Accounting for any difference in pressure drop through an intake tube could be done carefully on a dyno to ensure an even fairer test. I wouldn't be surprised if the two come out equal, or even if the non ram air one wins.

b

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally posted by 2ndGenTeg
By no replacement for displacement, every 1.8L motor would have the same output, PERIOD. Every 400ci motor would have the same output, PERIOD. Every motor would have the same specific output, PERIOD. All three of these are false.

he sumed it up here, 9:1 compression(just a number) will produce x amount of torque(read: real power) in a 4000cc engine(again, just a number) if you increase compression(via pistons or forced induction) you are increasing the engines power output. that is a fact of physics, the replacment for adding displacment is increasing the amount of air going into the combustion chamber then compressed, increasing the oxygen levels(n2o) or increasing the piston compression, or changing cam profiles are ways to increase the engines total output without changing the size of the engine.you can increase displacment to an extent on any block, and keep all other factors the same, and increase tq. you may not gain more hp, but more air will 99% of the time = more power considering you are not delivering increadably hot air(via poor turbo set up etc) to the engine. this theory applys to all engines i can think of. if there is one i forgot, dont ream me, state my error in a constructive matter. i know the engine layouts (v6 v8v10v12 or the VW W engines, opposing V engines, inline and boxer engines) also comes into play, but for the sake of this conversation, i dont think we need people with engeneering degrees explaning this to us, same thing with pushrod vs OHC setups. they are WAY beyond the technical competance of what this argument is.

ferrari increased power by having high compression pistons
porsche uses a turbo on a smaller engine
honda uses a variable valve lift on some engines
nissan and toyota use turbos sometimes
we will say for the sake of a benchmark that the standard american domestic engine is the origional engine because it was, these different companys have taken the design and built off it, improved in some eyes, changed for the worse in others.

rotory engines are not vaild, i know i brought them up, but thats a different technology than a crank and rod engine all together. 0.65Lx2(2 rotor engine, each one with .65L of displacment) yeilding 280hp STOCK is just crazy

[00 Si]

I like my dancing banana thank you very much. lol

[spoogenet]

Nothing against your banana....I like bananas too.

Toyota also uses VVTi, though. They change valve timing and fuel mapping, similar to VTEC, but it also maps out how you drive and adjusts the A/F for power or efficiency depending on what it thinks you want. :) I'm not sure how much of an effect it really has on power, but then again I don't know how much VTEC influences power either. Well, ok, I know that Toyota's VVTi can actually give you less power than your car is capable of if it thinks you want efficiency.......hmmm, I don't like that system.

b

[ShEaNy]

i think enough points have got proven...im getting a headache from reading...im not a real engine/displacement kinda guy...:no: :crazy: :eek: :pukey

[monkut]

its not over until i make my point. the term can be looked at in more than one way. it seems the displacement guys look at it in one way (when all else is even) and the small displacement guys look at it in another (i can make my 2.0 as fast as your 5.0) and to argue in this fashion gets nowhere. its a moot point. moot! moot i tell you!
:|

[monkut]

now its over....unless someone wants to compliment me on my genius.
:|

[V8killimports]

he's right.. you would have to specifically define the saying "no replacement for displacement"... too many variables...

[00 Si]

I'm not saying I look at it from my 2.0 can be faster than your 5.0. I look at it from the stand point.....

"There is no replacement for displacement" meaning to me that if there is a motor with more displacement, it should always win because there is no replacement for it. And everyone knows that isn't true. Hence the Sledgehammer Vette. All that power out of a 349.


Now am I correct? Who knows, who cares. I just enjoyed the debate about it.


:bandit:

[Addict]

Originally posted by 00 Si
... I just enjoyed the debate about it.
:bandit:

Is that what this thread was?:D

[monkut]

I'm not saying I look at it from my 2.0 can be faster than your 5.0. I look at it from the stand point.....

"There is no replacement for displacement" meaning to me that if there is a motor with more displacement, it should always win because there is no replacement for it. And everyone knows that isn't true. Hence the Sledgehammer Vette. All that power out of a 349.

so basically, even though you denied it, you are looking at it from the "my 2.0 can beat your 5.0" standpoint. you are saying that the phrase means: a motor with more displacement should always be faster. but you disagree with this statement...you said it's a 'crock' remember? therefore you think that small displacement engines can be as fast as large displacement...ie a 2.0ltr can beat a 5.0ltr
and by the way, im not arguing the validity of any of these statements im trying to point out the form of the argument itself. itself. (im a in a philosophy class so this is good practice for me:yes: )
:|

[monkut]

i guess i didn't do that quoting thing right, eh?
:|

[00 Si]

Originally posted by monkut
i guess i didn't do that quoting thing right, eh?
:|


LOL

And I'm not saying I look at it in ltrs. I'm looking at it from a cu in standpoint. Just due to more cu in doesn't make it faster or more powerful. So there would be a replacement for it.