A poll of sorts

[silvermanblue]

Well before I begin I want to stress that ricers and tuners are two different people. Ricers are like noobs they are more flash than substance. Tuners on the other hand actually do the home work and actually find ways to make ther car faster and than they rice it up (just kidding). Whats better in your opinion. Is there no replacement for displacement or tunning is the way to go.

 

Im going with no replacement for displacement. Mmmmmm V8

[-slash]

V8s aren't worth the price of admission when you can tune up a turbo 4 or 6 for half the price. I think displacement is a my penis is bigger than yours thing personally.

[SIP YEK NOD]

Got torque?

 

there is no replacement for displacement. you can pull 1000hp out of an inline 4 but it won't have near the torque or reliablity of a 1000hp v8.

 

there is a reason the veyron is an 8 liter quad turbo v16 and not an inline 4 with turbos bigger than the engine

[EvilPenguin]

When it comes down to it, an engine is a giant air pump. To increase power, you must increase the amount of air moved through the engine. There are a couple ways to do this: increase volume of the engine (displacement) or increase the amount of air in the engine (forced induction). Each method has its benefits in its search for power, so whether you increase displacement or increase air pressure keep it sporting.

 

There really is no point to this debate.

 

 

 

PS.

 

V8's vs I4s hurrrrrrr

[Touge]

There is no replacement for displacement. Although, there is 'technology'. A better solution is to put the two together.

 

With European or Japanese manufacturers, the solution to more power is to make the most of an engine's design through the use of variable valve timing systems or forced induction. Or increasing it's efficiency. And the results speak for themselves.

 

Most American manufacturers, being the money-hungry cost-cutting marketing geniuses that they are, have been waking up every morning for the last 30 years saying to themselves "if it aint broke, don't fix it". Their solution? Super Size Me!!!!

 

"How will we make the C6 Z06 faster and betterer than the C5? I know! We'll jump the displacement up to 7 Litres. Then we'll market it as a 427cu so our target audience can understand just how great this car truly is!"

 

It's like the difference between a pro-wrestler and an awesome martial artist. One is big and brawn and obviously has the power, while the other may not be as big, but is quick, efficient, and makes better use of what it has to deliver just as big a blow. One's liberal, one's conservative. Both essentially do the same job, but one is far better at it.

 

EDIT: Kinda lost focus of what this debate was for. And no, there is no replacement for displacement. EvilPenguin pretty much summed it up perfectly. But in saying that, I dont agree with the 'replacement for displacement' thing when used in the context of muscle vs. rice.

Edited December 18, 2006 by Touge

[silvermanblue]

There is no replacement for displacement. Although, there is 'technology'. A better solution is to put the two together.

 

With European or Japanese manufacturers, the solution to more power is to make the most of an engine's design through the use of variable valve timing systems or forced induction. Or increasing it's efficiency. And the results speak for themselves.

 

Most American manufacturers, being the money-hungry cost-cutting marketing geniuses that they are, have been waking up every morning for the last 30 years saying to themselves "if it aint broke, don't fix it". Their solution? Super Size Me!!!!

 

"How will we make the C6 Z06 faster and betterer than the C5? I know! We'll jump the displacement up to 7 Litres. Then we'll market it as a 427cu so our target audience can understand just how great this car truly is!"

 

It's like the difference between a pro-wrestler and an awesome martial artist. One is big and brawn and obviously has the power, while the other may not be as big, but is quick, efficient, and makes better use of what it has to deliver just as big a blow. One's liberal, one's conservative. Both essentially do the same job, but one is far better at it.

 

EDIT: Kinda lost focus of what this debate was for. And no, there is no replacement for displacement. EvilPenguin pretty much summed it up perfectly. But in saying that, I dont agree with the 'replacement for displacement' thing when used in the context of muscle vs. rice.

I do agree with alot of what your saying. The american car manufaturers have been resting on their laurels. I just thought that it was funny when the gas prices spiked and most of my countryman went screaming to the big three, we want fuel efficent cars now! Do these people realize that they have been wanting big powerful SUVS for well over ten years. And all of a sudden they expetct the car companys to retool and come up with new cars in a month pfft yeah right. Also evil penguin brought a very good point a engine will run better if it gets more air. So yeah there isnt really a point to this debate. I just like hearing peoples opinion. So with out further ado back on topic please.

[Rocketkiller]

I also say displacement. If you have a small engine with big turbos, nitrous, etc. the power curve will be horrible. Say, almost nothing below 5000 RPM, then a huge surge of power up to about 7500, and a huge drop until the rev limiter. Making throttle control very hard.

[tuff_luv_capo]

I also say displacement. If you have a small engine with big turbos, nitrous, etc. the power curve will be horrible. Say, almost nothing below 5000 RPM, then a huge surge of power up to about 7500, and a huge drop until the rev limiter. Making throttle control very hard.

Not neccessarily. The Mitsu Evo's turbo spins at 150,000 rpms, decreasing lag noticeabley for a flatter curve.

[Dr Doidberg]

For the street, 4 cylinders are the way to go. but when is too much power? Theres TONS of 4 cylinder ecotecs running 6's on the 1/4 with over 1000hp. I forgot to mention as well FWD. Why would anybody need to go faster than that? BTW the ecotec is capable of 1500+hp.

 

This no replacement for displacement is bullsh*t.

[EvilPenguin]

Every engine has its application - smaller turbo charged engines are more at home in smaller track oriented cars because of reduced weight and a smaller moment of inertia than a larger V8 - V12.

 

Also, modern turbo technology has the ability to overcome the inherent disadvantages of smaller engines. For example, the BMW I6 that has famously been used for years was a buttery smooth powerplant but was often anemic exempting the high strung M applications. Now with the twin turbocharged N54, the engine is able to output around 300hp and 300lb*ft of torque with unnoticable lag and by just a few thousand RPMs.

 

At the same time, the simple brilliance of the Chevy small block V8 has made it one of the greatest engines of all time. And one of the most popular. The LSx series engines are notorious for their small size, lightweight, and incredible power potential and have found homes in many sports cars - American and European.

 

Like I said, every engine has its place.

[Rocketkiller]

For the street, 4 cylinders are the way to go. but when is too much power? Theres TONS of 4 cylinder ecotecs running 6's on the 1/4 with over 1000hp. I forgot to mention as well FWD. Why would anybody need to go faster than that? BTW the ecotec is capable of 1500+hp.

 

This no replacement for displacement is bullsh*t.

4 cylinders with big turbos produce turbo lag, which screws up the powerband unless the turbo is specially tuned by a group of skilled engineers or something along those lines. That's why people say STI's are really hard to drive on the street, at around 3000 rpm the engine finally wakes up and it just takes off.

 

Why do you think supercars have v-8, v-10s and v-12s? Why not just a 4-banger with a couple of huge turbos?

[Touge]

 

For the street, 4 cylinders are the way to go. but when is too much power? Theres TONS of 4 cylinder ecotecs running 6's on the 1/4 with over 1000hp. I forgot to mention as well FWD. Why would anybody need to go faster than that? BTW the ecotec is capable of 1500+hp.

 

This no replacement for displacement is bullsh*t.

Yeah because this one time, i pulled up at the lights next to a 1000HP Ecotec-powered thing, and I was all like 'pffft' and then the lights went like, green, and then like this guy smoked the sh*t outta me. I swear He must've covered a standing quarter mile in like 6 seconds. And this was on the street in a FWD!!!11

 

Would you mind justifying why you think 4 cylinders are the way to go for 'the streets'? what makes them more suitable for street race applications than any other configuration?

 

And as for "why would anybody need to go faster than that?" ever heard of Drag racing? yeah well it's this competitive form of motorsport where people basically try to go faster than everyone else in a straight line. Read that sentence again and it should all make sense. And if all that fails:

 

BTW, just because the Ecotec is 'capable' of 1500HP doesn't mean it's the baddest thing firing on 4 cylinders. the BMW M10 engine was capable of similar feats and that's a 30+ year-old design.

 

BTW. There aren't 'TONS' of 6-second FWD Ecotecs at all. Come to think of it, has anyone even cracked the 6-second mark in a FWD yet?

[Dr Doidberg]

...i think you need to check up on NOPI. you will find your answers when you find the standings.

 

theres turbos capable of 450hp and fully spooled by 3k rpms. why do people still think turbo lag is common? its not anymore. its becoming a thing of the past.

[Rocketkiller]

...i think you need to check up on NOPI. you will find your answers when you find the standings.

 

theres turbos capable of 450hp and fully spooled by 3k rpms. why do people still think turbo lag is common? its not anymore. its becoming a thing of the past.

You can't eliminate turbo lag, but you can lessen it, which is what's happening right now. And horsepower isn't everything, it's how and when you hit the peak horsepower. If you hit it near the rev limiter with almost no bottom end power, you won't be able to get moving fast enough.

 

And Dr. Doidberg, one thing I forgot to say was, you can put turbos on bigger engines too, and guess what? They make even more power. There a certain limitations of engine configurations and sizes, there's no way that you can get 100+ usable horsepower out of a 4-banger. (By usable I mean a relatively flat power and torque curve)

[EvilPenguin]

Its true that larger displacement engines with more cylinders raise the cap for possible power output, but at the same time those engines are large, bulky and require a smorgasbord of engineering and development to make room for the powertrain, ensure the drivetrain is up to snuff to handle the oodles of torque, and that the chassis is capable of supporting the weight and moving it about in a sporty manner. This is why cars with more than eight cylinders tend to cost more than five figures.

 

At the same time, if a car is lightweight and is driven by a compact engine (a la Lotus Elise, Ariel Atom, Caterham Super 7, Nobles, S2000, Silvia's, Miata's, FB/C RX-7's, E30 BMW's, etc.) the cars are still fast and are also maneuverable. Also much less expensive.

 

Then again, if you put a huge engine in a small car (LS1 powered Miata anyone?) you're liable to kill yourself. But have a lot of fun doing it.