no replacement for displacement

> no replacement for displacement
> no replacement for how much air my engine can breathe in a given amount of time
> turbos don't increase the amount of air my engine breathes in a given amount of time

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/BZoymnZRBVc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>not turbocharging a high displacement BBC

For a given power level you can use a variety of methods to achieve said power.
For maximum power you need maximum displacement to start with, then you need to throw every power-adder you can at it.
Now you can all go home.

I have a legitimate question about turbo charged engines.

ok

Just post it, or ask YouTube.

displacement=displacement
displacement=/=air consumption

sure but if you want to be technical that means that turbos are better than more displacement (because a big displacement engine can be held back by a shitty head or something)

superchargers > turbochargers

you can not deny this

A turbo will be held back just as much by shit heads numbnuts. Also you can still turbo the big displacement engine and make yet more power.

High end power, less heat soak = turbo
Consistent gainz, dat whine at expense or heat soak = roots/twin-screw superchargers
Worst of both worlds = centrifugal
To be determined = electric supercharger

I should post this in a notepad so I can copypaste it.

People (in this case, benchracers that have never owned a car) keep spouting that turbocharging is the replacement for displacement. The thing is, no, it is not. Sure, you can achieve numbers, but that's pretty much it. The behaviors of a turbo 4 with 25 pounds and a 350 V8 are very different and have very different torque curves once you put them on a dyno, or, you know, actually fucking drive them, despite achieving numbers. So no, a turbo 4 may achieve the numbers of a n/a V8, but the behavior will not be the same. And that's why there is no replacement for displacement.

> being this much of a dumb cuck

Also you can boost the v8 still.

torque is only good because it gives you power without lots of rpm (i.e. low-end)

if a turbo spooled very early, or if you have a supercharger, it gives you torque at the low end with gives you power

still not exactly the same but basically good enough

>> turbos don't increase the amount of air my engine breathes in a given amount of time
It doesn't. A turbo is like an after burner except instead of burning exhaust it uses it to spin a turbine which pushes air into an engine post intake

So yea displacement is the relative size of an engine not including turbos

Is there ever a point where you boost an engine so far that you are no longer combusting gases and the pressure of the air being forced into a cylinder is enough to turn the engine over, force more air out, turn the turbo and force more in?

turbos literally compress air into a smaller volume so your engine can get more fucking air
learn to read dipshit

Things ignite easier with compression, so no.

Cmon, you make big engine people look bad

A big V8 will spool up a set of twin turbskies almost instantly. Go for a high comp big block if you want instant torque and throttle response.

Why? Because I'm telling the truth? Do you think a turbocharger skips the intake manifold?

centrifugals are cool user, try one

maybe in your imagination this magical physics makes sense

It wouldn't need to ignite though.
Just air pushing the pistons pushing air to push the pistons.

It does need to ignite because the system needs to get energy inputted from somewhere

It would need to be ignited to start it but at some point there has to be an equilibrium where the amount of air going in equals the amount of air going out.
I'm sure it can be done with overdriven turbos where you can get to highway speed and shut the fuel and spark off and just maintain engine speed.

Then that means your volume does not change only the pressure does

Even if you stuff (by mass) a kilo of air into a space that space is still finite and the only difference is the temperature is really fun ki g high because you have a lot of energy in a confined space and your pressure is really high too obviously

duck worth thinks that turbo are cheating
as at the time in formula 1 you are only allowed one engine
and some teams would inject fuel directly into turbochargers

No it can't be done.

He implies that the turbo increases the volume which it does not

>what is entropy?

>Then that means your volume does not change only the pressure does
yes obviously, how would the volume change?

>Even if you stuff (by mass) a kilo of air into a space that space is still finite and the only difference is the temperature is really fun ki g high because you have a lot of energy in a confined space and your pressure is really high too obviously
just as well intercoolers exist

>right into the turbo

Why not just increase the volume of fuel through the piston?

This, almost enough to supercharge my ls6. Though thought of twin turbo too

>yes obviously, how would the volume change?
It wouldn't, you'd have to make your air intake volume bigger with bigger intakes or bigger pistons and by default a bigger engine

he was against turbos, but that wasn't the reason.

So you fit a turbo to increase manifold pressure then enlarge the engine to reduce manifold pressure back to atmospheric?
You're a real engineering genius.

It's simple pressure temperature and volume

Hell they even make fire starters that work by taking a small 250ml space with a plunger, compressing that space into something like

Superchargers are for domestic faggots who think 70s technology is cool.

The turbo doesn't affect volume though. The only way to increase displacement is with bigger pistons

No because in that case you keep pressure constant and change the volume

obviously i just mean it has the same end result

>what is a stroker kit

the turbo can help homogenise the fuel air mixture before it reaches the cylinder

Don't say that.

Maybe its not practical right now but I bet it could be.
>start car, go, drive, cruise
>highway speed, turbo overdrive
>air out now pushes more air in
Fuel and spark could be limited to nearly none just to maintain speed firing once every whatever engineered thousands of revolutions.

It probably is some really massive thing needed for a tiny little engine though.

Are these replies just to show you know 8th grade physics and what bigger pistons do or is there some deeper meaning?
Thanks for the (You)s anyway, have some back.

nothing can propel itself without using up some energy. it's conversation of energy.

anyway, turbos do add backpressure, maybe you thought they didn't and that's where the idea came from?

>use engine power to make more power
no.

ahemm

>not donating hp to your power adder

turbo top fuel would be even more insane
i guess they don't use it because they exhaust is too hot?

Displacement is a meme for pushrods.

so what? still more air

no he didn't you literal stupid person you! he said more air... meaning more air (molecules), idiot

are you trolling or seriously implying unity or over unity power? it takes energy to keep a car moving... ever tried turning off your engine while moving? what happens???

^not an idiot

the fuck you talking about? the volume doesn't change. the amount of air entering the engine does though, because of increased pressure

this

I got a high-displacement BBC here you can turbocharge.

It's against the rules. They're only allowed to use superchargers.

Aside from that, the exhaust gasses (which are still combusting when they leave lol) will fuck the turbine. If they engineer past that, they have to figure out how to lube it at such high temps. Then they have to deal with the massive heat transfer to the pump, which then requires a fuckhuge intercooler (if that will even fix it).

The supercharger is just more simple, period.

In practice with a vehicle that operates on either 0% or 100% throttle a turbocharger wouldn't really work. Top fuel vehicles don't really have a progressive throttle and they can't stall up a load on the start line like alcohol vehicles do. They literally go from idle to WOT as soon as the green shows.

Depends on the argument. I can downsize my engine displacement for the same power by usiny FI, DI, VVT, etc. However, adding those tech to a bigger engine will always make better power.

#

Volume would change actually if pressure were to be increased. PV=mRT assuming the air was an ideal gas.

You can infinitely increase displacement and power along with it. Slapping an infinite number of turbos on a 2cc engine will not yield infinite power.

Forced induction supplements displacement, it does not replace it.
You can have a large displacement engine without forced induction.
You can't have a forced induction engine without displacement.

>Forced induction supplements displacement
This is 100% correct.
>it does not replace it
And this is 100% false.
Depending on the situation and the goal, one does not cancel the existence of the other. If you're designing a power plant to meet a particular objective, you can do so with a power plant half the size of one otherwise needed it atmo form, with the aid of forced induction. That is replacing displacement in the most literal form.
If your goal is for example "most hp achievable", then it's usually better to start with the largest displacement power plant possible for your platform and apply forced induction, which is literally supplementing displacement.

>with the aid of forced induction.
This is the part you're overlooking. The forced induction is ALWAYS an aid, the displacement is ALWAYS a requirement. You cannot have the forced induction without first having displacement. A "replacement" implies you get rid of one in favor of the other. You can replace all of your forced induction with more displacement, but you can not replace all of your displacement with forced induction. There is a replacement connection there, but it is only one sided. The two do not freely interchange both ways.
If you wanted to push the wording I suppose you could accurately call forced induction a partial replacement, but simply calling it a supplement would be more accurate.

>You can't have a forced induction engine without displacement.
retard logic. you should feel ashamed

huur duur so 'tehcnikally akurate"
gtfo

Without displacement there's no power made to force the induction and no where for it to go...

you are taking it to literal

example. any 4 cylinder basically nothing to be gained with increasing displacement. spend 13k on an f20c making 275hp.. or 6k on a turbo build making 500hp+.
displacement is replaced by forced induction as 'the' means of gaining power.
or you have a 4.8l vortec, slap two chinese turbos on it and its making a strong 1000hp for less than 5k. good luck making that power na without breaking into five figure dollars.

Yes, words have defined definitions. Choosing to follow them doesn't mean I'm being too literal, it just means that you're just grasping at straws.
>Well yeah that's what the word means but we don't interpret it how it's defined by any definition
Do you know what that makes you? Wrong. Forced induction is a supplement. It cannot sustain itself without being applied to something else.

The replacement for displacement is high rpm, you can have NA 3.0l v10s making 1000hp at 20,000rpm.

>muh tork

And if you made a larger engine from the same witchcraft that lets a 3.0 v10 run to 20000 you'd make more power since you'd have more displacement, thus more torque, running at a similar RPM.

Not overlooking anything. You're correct that without displacement, there is no forced induction. Forced induction is entirely reliant on the existence of displacement in the first place.
But then replacing the need of a percentage of the displacement as I outlined is still very literally a displacement replacement.
RPM ceiling (without getting into the flow) is another one.
You can, but that gets back to the supplement side of things and doesn't negate twice the RPM being able to half the displacement requirement.

> turbos don't increase the amount of air my engine breathes in a given amount of time

thats exactly what turbo's do you fucking idiot.

I think you completely missed the obvious facetious nature of that post.

its a phrase.

"its raining cats and dogs"
>huur its h2o not household pets!!!

stop shit posting

>A turbo will be held back just as much by shit heads numbnuts
Ah, no it won't. It does restrict the turbo's ability to flow air, but to nowhere near the degree it restricts an engine breathing under its own displacement.

i used to think so until i came across twin turbo engines.
The old 6g72tt had its turbos spooling at around 1200-1300rpm.
The newer hot vee engines like the merc 278 feel like fuckhuge n/a engines.

You are literally trying to create a perpetual motion machine. It's not possible.

Turbos make more power and turbo lag isn´t a thing anymore since the advent of sequential turbos.
Also turbos are more efficient.

After a point you are running enough boost that the fuel air mixture is nearly a liquid, but no, you can't have the engine perpetually power itself with boost.

Kek

You would need to be moving (or moving air) at like Mach 5, because you just described a scramjet.

Why would i wanna put a turbo on a high displacement big black cock?

What is the figurative phrase here that I'm taking literally?

actually, you can have turbine engines you dumb cuck
no fucking displacement at all

for better penetration?

>heat soak
>atomization of the fuel cools the intake/blower
Do you even own a vehicle

Relevant if you're running a fueling method invented by dinosaurs themselves.

It's cheap, simple, and it works.

Because we haven't created a 100% efficient machine EVER, that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Most streetable boost I've heard of is 50psi on a 4g63 in Panama running fast or alcohol, and that's nowhere near the force you need to move a vehicle over a ton. Maybe diesels or racecars push out more, but it's not near the levels of pressure you would need to do what you're talking about.

Yes, that is called misfiring. Except diesels don't really have that problem.

This.
It kinda goes against the second law of thermal dynamics.

Runaway engines aren't a thing? Direct drive fuel injection and all.

But I digress, it takes more effort to turn the engine over than is given to the turbo to force induction.

Massive intake pressure effectively gives it displacement without valves.

I have found the replacement for all
youtu.be/BZoymnZRBVc

What are you idots arguing about when forced induction literally means you are increasing the mass of air displaced?

but it effectively becomes a turbo that is backfiring.

You can make jet engines out of turbos quite easily. Colin furze made one out of duct tape with simple tools.

That example is true, but an extremely high boost small v8 with a S/C (roots, not centri) will out power and out torque even a massive built N/A motor. Ofc, you could add nitrous or S/C that as well.

my opinion comes from personally having felt about 550wtq on tap at 2000+ rpm, up to 590 at about 4-5k, from only 4.6 liters.

It's called a "steam engine".

You should learn about this revolutionary new technology sometime.

>less heat soak=turbo
>device connected and driven by 1200° exhaust gas
Put down the crack pipe junior and go back to school.

>Runaway engines aren't a thing?
Runaway diesels are something entirely different. They're controlled by fuel input, so if they start running on engine oil, they run (and often quite a bit past redline) until you cut the air supply by covering the intake, or it runs out of combustible oil to consume.