What is it with the more displacement is better mentality?

[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???

In fact... even better...

When and why does Honda even have a 2.4L Accord anyway, let alone the V6? Was the 1.5L not good enough?

 

[Throckmorton]

"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???

It's like "ain't nothing like the real thing". Well there are substitutes that are like the real thing, but that's not the point of the saying.

 

[Rifter]

"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???

this is a stupid comparison, you are comparing 25 year old tech to brand new tech. Guess what, a 5.0L 2011 mustang gets 412 HP and thats more than any accord is making. like i said, compare the same tech to the same tech or its a pointless comparison.

Edit To add to this:

All you did by making that comparison is prove that in 25 years tech has advanced, HOLY SHIT who would have thought in 25 years they would advance technology! wow!

 

[Mike Gayner]

ShawnD1 yet again proves his inability to understand basic concepts.

 

[LTC8K6]

A 1986 Pontiac with a 5L V8 engine has less power than a 2011 2.4L Honda Accord

Are you sure? There was a Tuned Port Injection 305 V8 available for Pontiacs in 1986, and what did Honda do with the torque?

 

[jlee]

Are you sure? There was a Tuned Port Injection 305 V8 available for Pontiacs in 1986, and what did Honda do with the torque?

They used it all putting the lug nuts on.

 

[yottabit]

I don't think anyone argues that a larger displacement engine will always make more horsepower (all other things equal) but I think in the real world you need to look at the engine as a total package: weight, size, power, fuel economy, etc... and in that sense I think boost is and can be even better than displacement. That's what I meant with the ecoboost motors. Clearly they are a "replacement" as Ford is using them to phase out the 4.6 V8s in F-150s etc. They have more torque and power, better fuel economy, fit the same application, and I imagine they must be comparable in cost.

So I think it's fair to compare two engines that are both targeting the same vehicle, price range, etc...

 

[Rifter]

They used it all putting the lug nuts on.

I have bumper stickery on my chev 3/4 ton that says my truck's lugnuts require more tourque than your honda makes

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't think anyone argues that a larger displacement engine will always make more horsepower (all other things equal) but I think in the real world you need to look at the engine as a total package: weight, size, power, fuel economy, etc... and in that sense I think boost is and can be even better than displacement. That's what I meant with the ecoboost motors. Clearly they are a "replacement" as Ford is using them to phase out the 4.6 V8s in F-150s etc. They have more torque and power, better fuel economy, fit the same application, and I imagine they must be comparable in cost.

So I think it's fair to compare two engines that are both targeting the same vehicle, price range, etc...

What's the point if the engine costs way more, and causes the vehicle to cost more? It kills the small fuel economy advantage.

If they phased out the 4.6L V8 with the EB V6, then why have the 5.0 V8 in the F-150?

 

[Zargon]

In fact... even better...

When and why does Honda even have a 2.4L Accord anyway, let alone the V6? Was the 1.5L not good enough?

I want to post in the thread more, really, but you are all over it posting what I would, so why bother :awe:

 

[EightySix Four]

What's the point if the engine costs way more, and causes the vehicle to cost more? It kills the small fuel economy advantage.

If they phased out the 4.6L V8 with the EB V6, then why have the 5.0 V8 in the F-150?

To offer choices, especially since engineering the 5.0 and 6.2 into the platform probably cost them next to nothing. Some of the truck buying public would never buy a TT V6, ever.

 

[yottabit]

What's the point if the engine costs way more, and causes the vehicle to cost more? It kills the small fuel economy advantage.

If they phased out the 4.6L V8 with the EB V6, then why have the 5.0 V8 in the F-150?

Because it's called "phasing out" for a reason. The ecoboost v6 was targeted to replace the 4.6, not necessarily the 5.0 and 6.2 V8s. I suspect it eventually will replace the 5.0, but we'll have to see. Most likely if they do plan on removing the 5.0 option eventually then Ford hasn't gotten the return on investment they expect out of it yet. If they can still get them off their hands while using this period to test the market for ecoboost, why not?

EDIT: Seems I'm wrong, the Ecoboost is in fact targeted to replace the 5.0, whereas their 3.7 Naturally aspirated V6 is replacing the 4.6 V8

 

[JulesMaximus]

This thread: blah blah blah blah blah blah blee blee blooo

 

[LTC8K6]

To offer choices, especially since engineering the 5.0 and 6.2 into the platform probably cost them next to nothing. Some of the truck buying public would never buy a TT V6, ever.

The whole mantra is that the EBV6 is replacing the V8.

The fuel economy isn't much different.

We know that the 5.0 can make a lot more power than it does in the F-150.

We know that ordering the EBV6 increases the cost of the F-150.

Ford also appears to be pricing the I4 EB in the Explorer at a premium.

I think what's going on is largely marketing, and the EB engines can only "replace" their rivals if you use the widest tolerances.

Of course, maybe times are changing? Maybe folks are getting used to the sound of smaller engines? Maybe the need for that V8 rumble is beginning to fade?

 

[Zargon]

This thread: blah blah blah blah blah blah blee blee blooo

you started it


no replacement for displacement should really be:

all other things being equal, there is no replacement for displacement.

no matter how tech'd up or FI'd the 2L I4 is, you should always be able to outdo it with a 5L V8. notwithstanding utterly horrid block or head design that limits powermaking

 

[yottabit]

The whole mantra is that the EBV6 is replacing the V8.

The fuel economy isn't much different.

We know that the 5.0 can make a lot more power than it does in the F-150.

We know that ordering the EBV6 increases the cost of the F-150.

Ford also appears to be pricing the I4 EB in the Explorer at a premium.

I think what's going on is largely marketing, and the EB engines can only "replace" their rivals if you use the widest tolerances.

Of course, maybe times are changing? Maybe folks are getting used to the sound of smaller engines? Maybe the need for that V8 rumble is beginning to fade?

I think it's hard to comment on the pricing now because it's yet to be fully adopted. Currently Ford charges the dealer about $600 more for the Ecoboost than the 5.0 V8. To the customer this translates to a ~1200-1500 markup I think. If Ecoboost became the new standard, I'm sure the cost would go down as volume went up. In contrast I'm sure ford has warehouses filled with 5.0 v8s

Also don't forget the ecoboost gets slightly better mileage as well as offering MORE towing capacity

I think the thing with ecoboost is the potential. If ford wants to offer a higher end model, that could be as easy as a tune and some intercoolers or something.

 

[JulesMaximus]

you started it


no replacement for displacement should really be:

all other things being equal, there is no replacement for displacement.

no matter how tech'd up or FI'd the 2L I4 is, you should always be able to outdo it with a 5L V8. notwithstanding utterly horrid block or head design that limits powermaking

Wasn't really a rant about displacement as much as it was a rant about stupid people.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think it's hard to comment on the pricing now because it's yet to be fully adopted. Currently Ford charges the dealer about $600 more for the Ecoboost than the 5.0 V8. To the customer this translates to a ~1200-1500 markup I think. If Ecoboost became the new standard, I'm sure the cost would go down as volume went up. In contrast I'm sure ford has warehouses filled with 5.0 v8s

Also don't forget the ecoboost gets slightly better mileage as well as offering MORE towing capacity

I think the thing with ecoboost is the potential. If ford wants to offer a higher end model, that could be as easy as a tune and some intercoolers or something.

The gas mileage is only 1 better combined.

The towing capacity is whatever Ford wants to make it. Has nothing to do with the engine as far as I can tell. The 3.7L could have the same tow rating, but Ford removed a few clutch plates in the transmission to limit the towing capacity with the 3.7L.

 

[Jeff7181]

I like the idea of turbocharging engines rather than adding additional cylinders for the majority of cars that will be used for commuting. You get the fuel efficiency of a small engine with passing power when needed.

I can't wait to see the first EcoBoost V8, though. I wonder if it'll be in a truck first, or the Mustang. Mustang makes sense to me since there's already a solution for those who need more power from a truck... turbo diesels. Maybe a turbocharged 5.0 Mustang pushing 600 HP from the factory... that would be interesting.

 

[ShawnD1]

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.

We already used the examples of the 2011 WRX and the Lancer Evo and you didn't accept those either. You are assuming that "replace" means all conditions must be the same, which is the exact opposite of what the word means.


you: I can't get a bulb brighter than this 60W bulb without increasing our energy bills.
wife: Replace the 60W incandescent bulb with a 30W fluorescent bulb. It will be brighter and it will consume less energy. We absolutely can increase the brightness without increasing the power consumption.
you: That is not a valid comparison. You can only compare incandescent bulbs to other incandescent bulbs, in which case a 100W bulb would be brighter than a 60W bulb. If you're talking about a fluorescent bulb, a 100W fluorescent is brighter than 60W fluorescent. I cannot replace our existing 60W incandescent bulb with a 30W fluorescent bulb because they are not the same type.

If they phased out the 4.6L V8 with the EB V6, then why have the 5.0 V8 in the F-150?

Because hillbillies will never use a turbocharger. Sales of diesel trucks would drop like a rock if diesel trucks had a big sticker on the back that said it was turbo charged. "I don't want no stinkin turbo diesel. I want the real thing!"

 

[Jeff7181]

I think hillbillies agree that a turbo diesel is better than a naturally aspirated diesel, they just can't tell you why.

 

[ShawnD1]

I think hillbillies agree that a turbo diesel is better than a naturally aspirated diesel, they just can't tell you why.

Because it pulls in as much air and fuel as a much larger engine
(and the hissing noise sounds cool)

 

[Zargon]

I like the idea of turbocharging engines rather than adding additional cylinders for the majority of cars that will be used for commuting. You get the fuel efficiency of a small engine with passing power when needed.
.

with DOD/cylinder deactivation tech thats not as big of an issue as it once was. but its probably the best argument against displacement

I enjoy both

 

[Zenmervolt]

We already used the examples of the 2011 WRX and the Lancer Evo and you didn't accept those either. You are assuming that "replace" means all conditions must be the same, which is the exact opposite of what the word means.

Replace, Verb, transitive: to take the place of especially as a substitute or successor

Show me where it says that conditions must not be the same (as would be necessary to substantiate your "exact opposite" claim). While they imply that the conditions may be different (through the use of "substitute" as a descriptor), they do not restrict the use of "replace" only to situations where the conditions are different. In any case, the definition clearly does permit all other conditions to remain the same and "may" is not by any stretch the "exact opposite" of "must".

All pedantry aside, remove the rod from your ass and realise that people speak in idioms and try to understand that many phrases aren't used precisely accurately. The meaning of the idiom "there's no replacement for displacement" does not hinge on a literal interpretation of its component parts . For example, the meaning of the phrase "a cat may look at a king" does not hinge on a literal understanding of what it means to "look at" something, but rather it stands as an illustration of the fact that there are some things that are beyond the power of superiors to prevent.

In the case here, it's important to understand that the colloquialism "there's no replacement for displacement" is not intended to suggest that there can be no substitutes, but that if you hold everything else equal, the larger engine will always make more power. It would be similarly "true" to say that "there's no replacement for forced induction" or "there's no replacement for higher compression ratios", but those phrases don't rhyme and therefore aren't as memorable.

ZV

 

[JulesMaximus]

Replace, Verb, transitive: to take the place of especially as a substitute or successor

Show me where it says that conditions must not be the same (as would be necessary to substantiate your "exact opposite" claim). While they imply that the conditions may be different (through the use of "substitute" as a descriptor), they do not restrict the use of "replace" only to situations where the conditions are different. In any case, the definition clearly does permit all other conditions to remain the same and "may" is not by any stretch the "exact opposite" of "must".

All pedantry aside, remove the rod from your ass and realise that people speak in idioms and try to understand that many phrases aren't used precisely accurately. The meaning of the idiom "there's no replacement for displacement" does not hinge on a literal interpretation of its component parts . For example, the meaning of the phrase "a cat may look at a king" does not hinge on a literal understanding of what it means to "look at" something, but rather it stands as an illustration of the fact that there are some things that are beyond the power of superiors to prevent.

In the case here, it's important to understand that the colloquialism "there's no replacement for displacement" is not intended to suggest that there can be no substitutes, but that if you hold everything else equal, the larger engine will always make more power. It would be similarly "true" to say that "there's no replacement for forced induction" or "there's no replacement for higher compression ratios", but those phrases don't rhyme and therefore aren't as memorable.

ZV

They don't sound nearly as cool either.

This thread is now about semantics.