What is it with the more displacement is better mentality?

[Zargon]

This is akin to the Camry guys saying their car is just as _adequate_ as a bugatti veyron day to day.

who was that guy with the camry or altima or something that had like 200hp that was talking about how awesome it was?

 

[ShawnD1]

What does the turbocharging cost relative to the NA engine?

Let's compare two Accords. The EX and the EX V6. What does it cost to get the EX up to the EX V6's power?

You need 81 more horses and 92 more lb ft of torque.

Go!

Some guy: THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR SUGAR
Shawn: What if I try baking a cake with Splenda instead of sugar?
LTC8K6: What does Splenda cost relative to sugar?

In response to your question, Splenda is more expensive than sugar.

 

[JCH13]

Honestly I think the only reason the 0-60 times are so close is it's hard to lay that much power down. I bet with a longer swingarm the 600s would pull away harder.

This. Both bike's are traction-limited in their 0-60 times, so extra power just means extra tire smoke. Try a 50-100 pull with the two bikes, and the more aerodynamic and powerful bike will win.

On the street, yeah, the SV650 is great because you never really need the power available from a 600cc or 1000cc sport bike. But many, many people have a hard time telling the difference between a need and a want.

Also OP, don't argue with stupid, you can't fix it

 

[Zargon]

the sv is way better in traffic thats for sure

 

[LTC8K6]

Some guy: THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR SUGAR
Shawn: What if I try baking a cake with Splenda instead of sugar?
LTC8K6: What does Splenda cost relative to sugar?

In response to your question, Splenda is more expensive than sugar.

So, you can't just replace the V6 with a turbo 4 then? There's a bit more to it than that?

You can't just replace the displacement. It's not that simple. Correct?

 

[JulesMaximus]

This is akin to the Camry guys saying their car is just as _adequate_ as a bugatti veyron day to day.

Is stupid painful? It really should be.

 

[ShawnD1]

So, you can't just replace the V6 with a turbo 4 then? There's a bit more to it than that?

Nope, it's as simple as that. Some companies go with displacement, some go with forced induction.
Honda --> displacement (I4 and V6 accord)
Toyota --> displacement (I4 and V6 camry)
Subaru --> turbo (NA Impreza and turbo Impreza WRX)
Audi --> turbo (everything is turbo)
Cadillac --> both (supercharged V8)


The Chevy Cruze is an interesting example. Base model is a 1.8L engine and something like 140HP or whatever. The higher up models are 1.6L turbo and they make the same power. They really did replace engine size with turbo and say it's the same; Chevy did exactly what hillbillies said could not be done.

 

[yottabit]

Nope, it's as simple as that. Some companies go with displacement, some go with forced induction.
Honda --> displacement (I4 and V6 accord)
Toyota --> displacement (I4 and V6 camry)
Subaru --> turbo (NA Impreza and turbo Impreza WRX)
Audi --> turbo (everything is turbo)
Cadillac --> both (supercharged V8)


The Chevy Cruze is an interesting example. Base model is a 1.8L engine and something like 140HP or whatever. The higher up models are 1.6L turbo and they make the same power. They really did replace engine size with turbo and say it's the same; Chevy did exactly what hillbillies said could not be done.

How about the ford ecoboost v6 that are outperforming the 4.6 V8s in both performance and fuel economy?

 

[exdeath]

How about the ford ecoboost v6 that are outperforming the 4.6 V8s in both performance and fuel economy?

Ecoboost is making 700 hp? Since when?

Ecoboost is turbocharged and can only be compared with turbo or supercharged 4.6s if you want an even unbiased comparison. As for fuel consumption, obviously 700 HP will consume twice the energy than 350 HP, regardless what size engine makes D:it.

 

[EightySix Four]

Ecoboost is making 700 hp? Since when?

Ecoboost is turbocharged and can only be compared with turbo or supercharged 4.6s if you want a even comparison.

Eh, I disagree. A lot of turbo engines are meant to drive like bigger engines with more cylinders. Ford even markets the TT V6 as a V8 replacement.

 

[exdeath]

Eh, I disagree. A lot of turbo engines are meant to drive like bigger engines with more cylinders. Ford even markets the TT V6 as a V8 replacement.

I dont see a TT V6 in a GT 500 any time soon...because anything you can do with a 3.5L V6 can be done 54% better (5.4/3.5) with a 5.4.

You could also say the same, that if a turbo 6 is meant to drive like a V8, a turbo 6.2 V8 in meant to drive like a 12L V16.

You know which one I would have.

 

[ShawnD1]

Ecoboost is making 700 hp? Since when?

Ecoboost is turbocharged and can only be compared with turbo or supercharged 4.6s if you want an even unbiased comparison. As for fuel consumption, obviously 700 HP will consume twice the energy than 350 HP, regardless what size engine makes D:it.

I don't see anything on the ford website that does anywhere near 700HP.
6.2L natural aspirated V8 only does 411HP. Are you talking about the engine in a large yacht or something?

 

[exdeath]

I don't see anything on the ford website that does anywhere near 700HP.
6.2L natural aspirated V8 only does 411HP. Are you talking about the engine in a large yacht or something?

You can't compare a blown small engine to a NA large engine. Either both NA or both blown. To ignore this condition is to disbelieve the truth and arrive at the predetermined and false conclusion you want to see.

If you are going to compare an Ecoboost to a 4.6, it better be an 03 Cobra 4.6 running the same boost psi. Otherwise you might a well be comparing the Ecoboost to any arbitrary engine such as a mower from the 50s and concluding how much better it is.

"My car is faster than your bicycle" is not a fair or valid scientific comparison. When comparing a single claim, such as "smaller engine can make same power as a big engine", all other factors that affect power OTHER than displacement must be held constant and equal.

You cant just force 30 psi into the small engine and 0 psi into the big engine and make a claim that displacement doesn't mean anything, because you know damn well what the outcome would be if you also forced 30 psi into the bigger engine too. :awe:

 

[EightySix Four]

You can't compare a blown small engine to a NA large engine. Either both NA or both blown. To ignore this condition is to disbelieve the truth and arrive at the predetermined and false conclusion you want to see.

If you are going to compare an Ecoboost to a 4.6, it better be an 03 Cobra 4.6 running the same boost psi. Otherwise you might a well be comparing the Ecoboost to any arbitrary engine such as a mower from the 50s and concluding how much better it is.

"My car is faster than your bicycle" is not a fair or valid scientific comparison. When comparing a single claim, such as "smaller engine can make same power as a big engine", all other factors that affect power OTHER than displacement must be held constant and equal.

You cant just force 30 psi into the small engine and 0 psi into the big engine and make a claim that displacement doesn't mean anything, because you know damn well what the outcome would be if you also forced 30 psi into the bigger engine too. :awe:

I understand where you're coming from, but in reality the competition isn't going to be running a V8 at 30PSI to compete with your I4 at 30psi. While it's true that comparing engine designs F/I vs. N/A isn't accurate, comparing cars and the total drivetrain package despite the method used to make the horsepower is. OEM vs. OEM is all that matters here, because once we start going aftermarket you screw everything up. GM has been making Ecotec I4 blocks that will do 1000hp for drag racing for years now. So the Ecoboost in the F150 needs to be compared against the N/A V8 in the Silverado 1500 and Ram 1500, not against the Silverado 1500 *IF* it had the same amount of boost.

 

[LTC8K6]

Nope, it's as simple as that. Some companies go with displacement, some go with forced induction.
Honda --> displacement (I4 and V6 accord)
Toyota --> displacement (I4 and V6 camry)
Subaru --> turbo (NA Impreza and turbo Impreza WRX)
Audi --> turbo (everything is turbo)
Cadillac --> both (supercharged V8)


The Chevy Cruze is an interesting example. Base model is a 1.8L engine and something like 140HP or whatever. The higher up models are 1.6L turbo and they make the same power. They really did replace engine size with turbo and say it's the same; Chevy did exactly what hillbillies said could not be done.

Well, that makes no sense to me. Subaru has flat 6's as well. Audi has big N/A engines as well. Caddy's big engine is blown, while the little engine isn't.

With the Cruze, if the 1.8L were DI, it would probably have the same power as the 1.4L DI Turbo. They are nearly the same anyway. Plus, the bigger engine gets 2 more mpg in the city.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You can't compare a blown small engine to a NA large engine. Either both NA or both blown. To ignore this condition is to disbelieve the truth and arrive at the predetermined and false conclusion you want to see.

If you are going to compare an Ecoboost to a 4.6, it better be an 03 Cobra 4.6 running the same boost psi. Otherwise you might a well be comparing the Ecoboost to any arbitrary engine such as a mower from the 50s and concluding how much better it is.

"My car is faster than your bicycle" is not a fair or valid scientific comparison. When comparing a single claim, such as "smaller engine can make same power as a big engine", all other factors that affect power OTHER than displacement must be held constant and equal.

You cant just force 30 psi into the small engine and 0 psi into the big engine and make a claim that displacement doesn't mean anything, because you know damn well what the outcome would be if you also forced 30 psi into the bigger engine too. :awe:

Can we rev your forced induction 4.6l V8 to 18,000 rpms and compare it to a 2.4l naturally aspirated Formula One V8 engine?

 

[LTC8K6]

Can we rev your forced induction 4.6l V8 to 18,000 rpms and compare it to a 2.4l naturally aspirated Formula One V8 engine?

You can do it once...

 

[exdeath]

Can we rev your forced induction 4.6l V8 to 18,000 rpms and compare it to a 2.4l naturally aspirated Formula One V8 engine?

Sure, if you want to provide me with the $50,000 rotating assembly that can handle it

 

[alkemyst]

Can we rev your forced induction 4.6l V8 to 18,000 rpms and compare it to a 2.4l naturally aspirated Formula One V8 engine?

Different engine builds...you could more than likely build a V16/V12 capable of that range and putting out 3.5-4.5L of displacement.

The problem is there is no need and it would make the engine larger than desired.

 

[Greenman]

There isn't.

Take your boosted, overhead cam, vario this and that, 15k RPM engine that makes 300 HP / L but is only 1 liter.

Now make it 4 liters, without changing anything else. Now you have 1200 HP. Get it?

Anything you can do to a small engine you can do to a big engine.

Formula for engine power output:

power = (technology+boost+exotic materials+this+that+electronics+unicorn blood+RPM+balls to the wall every last bit of power per cubic inch you can possibly get with current design and materials) x displacement

None of the things in the parenthesis are "replacements for displacement" because their application is independent of displacement and can be implemented with equal effect on engines both large and small.

Seems you're a little vague on English. There is indeed a replacement for displacement. Forced induction, higher rpm's, variable valve timing. All of those things will get more power out of an engine, without increasing it's displacement. I don't see how the concept could be simpler.

 

[EightySix Four]

Seems you're a little vague on English. There is indeed a replacement for displacement. Forced induction, higher rpm's, variable valve timing. All of those things will get more power out of an engine, without increasing it's displacement. I don't see how the concept could be simpler.

And Exdeath's response to that is that while you can replace displacement with those things, if you add those things to a higher displacement engine you'll always get more. His formula from before explains his stance quite clearly. I'm more of a middle ground, while I don't necessarily believe there is no replacement for displacement, I do think that specific engine configurations which are usually displace more air are naturally better for their driving characteristics (V8, V10, V12, I6).

 

[Rifter]

There is no replacement for displacement, its really that simple i dont understand why people dont get this. If you used the EXACT same design for a 2L and a 4L the 4L is going to make more power, its just that simple.

If you are using something not an exact same design then the comparison is 100% USELESS. Obviously i can strap a 200 shot of NOS onto a 1.6L civic and destroy a mustang making 2-3 times the power, but i can also run a 200 shot into a mustang and beat a lambo making 2-3 times the power. The comparison when ONLY talking about displacement has to be the same engine just bigger or there is no point.

 

[exdeath]

Seems you're a little vague on English. There is indeed a replacement for displacement. Forced induction, higher rpm's, variable valve timing. All of those things will get more power out of an engine, without increasing it's displacement. I don't see how the concept could be simpler.

You aren't replacing displacement, merely augmenting the existing displacement.

BMW has a 3.2L I6 and a 4L V8 that both have high RPM and VVT. Guess which one makes more power? The ratio of difference in power is identical to the ratio of difference in displacement (eg: same HP/L). Ah but they have a turbo I6 you say? They also have turbo V8s and V10s with higher displacements, guess which makes more power?

You can add forced induction, higher rpm, and VVT to an 8L engine just as well as a 2L engine, and it will STILL produce 4 times the power when both have all the same augmentation.

Turbo a 2.0L 4 cyl Honda you get 400 HP. Turbo a 8L Viper V10 you get 1600 HP. Run the Honda on E85 so you can make 600 HP? Run the Viper on E85 and you get 2400 HP. I don't see how the concept could be simpler.

So what you can overclock a 2 GHz CPU to 3 GHz... you can take a stock 3.2 GHz CPU which is still faster, and overclock it to 4 GHz and be faster still.

So you added an 2000 sqft attachment to your 1000 sqft house so now your 3000 sqft house is bigger than my 2000 sqft house. Guess what, I added a 2000 sqft attachment to my house too, so now my 4000 is still > your 3000. GET IT YET?

There is no replacement for displacement. However, there is a design goal, and there are numerous ways to design a variety of engines to meet that goal, and exceeding that goal may be pointless to some people on some level. But to generically exclaim that "there is a replacement for displacement" is false. Show me a 2L 4 cyl making 8000 HP without making the case that top fuel V8s are bigger and it's not fair. Exactly. Even the real Honda tuners are swapping in K24s now, BMW has been going to bigger engines as well, the fastest Supras in the world are stroked 3.4L+, etc. Anyone who who actually knows anything knows the old saying is true: there is no replacement for displacement. As for those who still don't understand... well... live and learn.... you'll get there some day.

 

[ShawnD1]

You cant just force 30 psi into the small engine and 0 psi into the big engine and make a claim that displacement doesn't mean anything, because you know damn well what the outcome would be if you also forced 30 psi into the bigger engine too. :awe:

"there is no replacement for displacement" literally means that there's no possible way a smaller engine could ever generate more power than a larger engine under any condition. That's literally what you are saying, and the rest of us are saying that is incorrect and we've given several examples to support this claim. A 1986 Pontiac with a 5L V8 engine has less power than a 2011 2.4L Honda Accord. Honda somehow managed to increase power without increasing displacement. You're trying to tell us that they did not "replace" any other thing related to the engine that would have the same effect as increasing the displacement? Really???

 

[exdeath]

"there is no replacement for displacement" literally means that there's no possible way a smaller engine could ever generate more power than a larger engine under any condition. That's literally what you are saying, and the rest of us are saying that is incorrect and we've given several examples to support this claim. A 1986 Pontiac with a 5L V8 engine has less power than a 2011 2.4L Honda Accord. Honda somehow managed to increase power without increasing displacement. You're trying to tell us that they did not "replace" any other thing related to the engine that would have the same effect as increasing the displacement? Really???

Tell me then, why is Lamborghini coming out with a bigger 7.0L engine? Why aren't they using a 2.4L Honda engine?

The displacement wasn't "replaced". Newer technology allowed for better utilization of *any* given displacement. *All* engines got better over 25 years, not just small ones. You're comparison is flawed.

Honda "figured it out"? So did everyone else, and still in 2011, bigger engines make more power than smaller engines. Why dont you compare that 2011 2.4L Honda engine with a 2011 Mustang 5.0 utilizing the same technology? You don't even have to do that, why do Honda's own 2011 3L+ V6s make more power than their own 2.4L I4?

It's really hilarious these types of people making these arguments always have to compare engines 25 years apart to make your case. If *your* personal goal is only to equal or barely beat 25 year old engines with smaller engines in 2011, then you've succeeded. The rest of us still want 2011 5.0L engines. And bigger.