THERE AINT NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT

> THERE AINT NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT

> meanwhile, nearly every big v8 has been replaced with a smaller, usually turbocharged engine

ok grandpa

Technically speaking, if you make a modern, turbocharged big block it will be able to make more power still than smallblocks. But you knew that already and just wanted to post bait.

> modern [..] big block

exactly my point

they don't exist because they've been replaced

Boost literally is the replacement for displacement, I never got this meme.

Turbos have displacement.

This
>570hp 2.0L

The idea is that n/a will have the power in a more natural and stronger curve as opposed to a i4 waiting to spool up. Reality is some boomers ancient piece of shit V8 is going to blown the fuck out by some kids 2.0L with a turbo. Boomers just don't like to admit it. And yes, cramming more air into a smaller cylinder is a replacement for a natural vacuum sucking air into a larger cylinder.

>He needs a turbo to keep up with an naturally aspirated engine
>THERE REALLY IS NO REPACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT
Kek boomers are right.

But you can only boost so much before you start destroying something.

Similarly, you could always boost a bigger displacement engine for more power.

lightness is a replacement for displacement

It's ultimately going to come down to a potential vs equivalent thing. The volume of your cylinders is what you have to work with. The more of that you have, the more power you can make period. However, if you just have a set power level you want to reach, large displacement is no longer the only way to get there.

Fuck off Ecoboob shill

you're the first person to have posted that in this thread though

In return you need more displacement (which means heavier moving parts and therefore a lower redline and more lethargic reving) and more fuel to make accomplish the same as a turbocharged engine when you only have atmospheric air pressure to work with, so on the bottom line it's worse. And no, ram air doesn't really do a lot and was mainly a marketing thing.

>durr tiny engine tarbo is bettar!
>not an ecoboob

not an argument

>displacement
Small twin turboed 3.0l V8s are probably just around the corner because GM can't make a powerful engine without 8 cylinders.

What if I just like high displacement torquey V8's. Y have to be so mean?

its just facts
can't deal with facts? i'm sorry

Turboed doesnt mean faster you twat.
>Engine manyfacturing hasn't changed since the 70's
Are you retarded?

They've been replaced due to stringent government emission standards, not because they don't produce more power.

nobody said anything about faster

nobody said anything about power

Yeah, because pressurizing the air before intake totally isn't just another way of cramming more air/fuel mix into the cylinders.

Tarbos ain't magic brah. The move to them is mainly because it makes it easier to game emissions tests since the turbo car is going to burn less off throttle (real world numbers will be close unless you're extremely careful not to step on it, but then you aren't really getting the extra power anyway)

>if two engines have the same peak power they are the same

i know all of that though, it's boomers who don't count turbos are essentially extra displacement

i dont get your point. the turbo engine will have better power all around.

compare apples to apples you fucktard
the larger displacement turbo engine will have a better powerband than the smaller displacement turbo engine

>it's boomers who don't count turbos are essentially extra displacement

"Hello, I believe the turbo is an essential part of the engine block because it is inside the engine block and magically increases the cylinder volume, even though it is totally not an accessory to the engine. That is just how things really are."

Maybe you should actually read a book about how turbochargers actually work you fucking nigger.

correct, but then the gears would need to be tall in order to put the torque down to the road properly. wide rear tires would need to be used to accommodate the torque. beefed up drivetrain components would be needed so shit doesn't break. these larger components would mean a larger body car. this would ultimatly lead to more weight and the handling would suffer as a result.

high revving engine, paired with short gearing is the way to go regarding performance.
t. 3rd year mechanical engineering student

Except to make the same amount of power, you sacrifice reliability and a usable power-band. Want response? Sorry, gotta run an anti-lag system which will make the engine even more unreliable and force constant turbo rebuilds.

The replacement for displacement is lower overall vehicle weight.

I don't disagree with you, but the saying comes from a different school of thought. A 9-second car isn't concerned with going around corners, unless it's some supercar or hypercar.

>the turbo engine will have a better powerband than a larger displacement na engine
ftfy. its an endless cycle. low displacement turbo>higher dispalcement na

>bbut turbo the bigger engine
then its better than an even bigger na engine

Lol. If you increase displacement by stroking you'll drop your red line. If you increase displacement by boring your red line will not change, your engine will also be lighter.

>Except to make the same amount of power, you sacrifice reliability and a usable power-band
wrong and wrong. turbocharged engines are plenty reliable. ignore civic ricers with their $200 ebay turbo kit.
as for powerband, turbo always offers superior low end, mid end, and top end power.

>Want response?
throttle response is no problem. the only people who even bring this up are busriding faggots.

>The replacement for displacement is lower overall vehicle weight.
this only increases acceleration, not speed.

stop posting any time

I'm guessing you struggled at school and have a low paying job

So you're saying a turbo engine with the same peak HP and torque as a N/A engine will have a better powerband across the rev range.

Protip: Mass affects both acceleration and top speed.

>a 2 liter turbo 4 with a turbo large enough to make an equal 500hp to a generic sports scar v8 is going to have equal throttle response and a power-band that has more desirable power at every rpm

Not unless you run anti-lag or a very high compression ratio--which drops the reliability of the engine.

damage control

>turbo will have a better powerband across the rev range
yes

>Protip: Mass affects both acceleration and top speed.
its insignificant

There isn't.
It's called torque and tell me when your 4 banger gets it.

8.4l na vs 6l turbo

wait that picture is wrong. its the other way around

>s65 vs viper srt

>two variables
see

>6.0L turbo

Uhh...

>no no i dont want to believe it!
keep damage controlling

Fuck off nerd, turbo lag will always exist

>600lb-ft at 3000rpm vs 375lb-ft at 3000rpm
BUT MUH BIG DISPLACEMENT CHEBBY

>linear gains vs turbo lag
Yeah no

>muh turbo lag!
yeah im sure the bus you ride has a lot

>oh shit he's seen through my retarded arguments :(
>better say he's damage controlling :D
shitty trolling lad

Sometimes FA can be an essential part of an engine, if it was one designed to work specifically with FA. I had a couple of GM crate engines that'd run like shit unless you had a supercharger or similar on them, they naturally don't have much compression to them.

>using insults instead of a proper reply
damage control alright

...

>that trailer
and stancefags think they have trouble with driveways in their civics

Ill take a lighter more efficient engine over some pigfat anchor any day

torque is for when your car is a fat piece of shit

>heavier engines make more torque
I need you to leave.

larger engines make more torque

surprise surprise they usually weigh more

more efficient engines make more torque too
do they weigh more?

a more efficient engine like a turbo 1.6 isnt going to make the same torque as a N/A 6.0 most likely

Yeah those engines were phased out because of emission restrictions not because displacement was a red herring for horsepower. Do you like to be retarded and simply forget the focus of auto manufacturers after 1970? (Hint it had to do with air quality) Go back to playing with your bratz dolls young fag.

I drive an n/a dohc v6 5spd but can respect an excellent pushrod v8 . Fuck you nerd

those big block engines were pigs (that weighed as much as cows) anyway

the oil crisis was the best thing to happen to the American car

> what is gearing

Sure, but if you can make a thousand horsepower with a 2.0L I4, why bother making a 6.3L V8?

Well now if we are arguing weight instead of displacement. Then this engine punches a big block hole into your statement.

As for the oil crisis statement. I won't argue that because i believe it to be right as well. It coupled with the emissions laws forced auto manufactures (both in the U.S and those outside selling to the U.S) to make the internal combustion engine more efficient no matter the size and cylinder number.

I know this. le amerifat meme

>Boost literally is the replacement for displacement
So what happens when you boost something with more displacement to begin with?

FI isn't the replacement to displacement, it's enhancement.

call up an auto maker's engineering department and ask them

>So what happens when you boost something with more displacement to begin with?
it becomes more powerful than a larger displacement na engine

Chevy made the 8.1, dodge and ford had those v10s. Had all around 300 horsepower and 400 lbs of torque.

Bigger engine and turbo.

So as long as intake conditions are the same (and at the same level of pressure where applicable) the one with more displacement wins?

Yeah because you can put more air and fuel in the engine, and so you get more power out.

>comparing 50 year old cars with modern ones

If you increase displacement by boring you will also increase your heat loss.

Except that all those trailer wheels are independently steerable. It can go straight, diagonal, turn on the spot, anything.

Depending on the application, it's either a replacement or a supplement. Neither cancels the other one out.

Nobody said drag racing production cars wasn't shirt on legs retarded

>guys i bought the faster piece of shit

you could of course just use a step-up box to double or treble the output shaft speed

Are there even any N/A V8s left?
Manufacturers ditching V12 was natural due to them not being widely used to begin with, but Seeing the N/A V8s getting ditched was even more surprising.
I guess the pressure for cheaper and more efficient engines made them move to forced induction.

You were a magnificent piece of a layout V8. F.

Because if you tune the 6.3 v8 to the same level as the 2.0 i4 it will make 2000+ hp