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
out there, you can use your lack of HP to explain why you lost the race.
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