What is more important? Amount of displacement? or Number

Cylinders but V6 is sucky in general
Come at me senpai

Within the bounds of reason, number of cylinders. Outside the bounds of reason, displacement.

>>13827395
nice wishy washy answer faggot.

It isn't a displacement vs #Cylinders thing. Longer engines (L6, L8, V10, V12) are capable of producing torque much sooner than shorter engines (L4, V6, V8) but the greater the rotational mass generally limits horsepower - torque and RPM determine this make-believe number we call "horsepower."

In my oppinion (and that's all it is), Torque potential from idle to cruise (500 - 3000 RPM) is far superior than anything you can get at 4500 - 7000 RPM because I can use it every day. Going fast is only cool for a while because after that you're just another wannabe and there's always someone much faster than you.

The best engines are the straight sixes and the now-extinct straight eights. They are smoother. At the same displacement per cylinder they get better mileage - a 200 / 223 / 240 / 250 six can get better mileage than a 302 by 10-15% with a crossflow head. The stock heads blow - don't get confused - but that's not comparing cylinder design to cylinder design when you have to incorporate intake and exhaust flow.

>>13827527
>Longer engines (L6, L8, V10, V12) are capable of producing torque much sooner than shorter engines (L4, V6, V8)
How far up your ass did you have to go to get this out?

>>13827376
>implying there is a replacement for displacement

>>13827527
>Torque potential from idle to cruise (500 - 3000 RPM) is far superior
Nah, hell peaky power is better, you get to keep the car restrained while commuting then you essentially have a new car when you floor it. 2 for 1

>>13827527
>L-engine layout

I really want to see this.

File: radical-motor-rpa-28v8-1-638[1].jpg (137KB, 638x903px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 638x903px

>>13827406
How important is displacement when displacement is 0?

How reasonable is an engine with no displacement?

File: Dodge_Challenger_conv_six_eng[1].jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>13827588

Bigger engines with less parts = less stress

>>13827620
That's straight 6, aka I6. Dumb retard for some reason writes 'L' instead of 'I' to denote an engine with straight layout.

>>13827376
Both, a 5.0L 4 cylinder isn't going to rev for shit and a 2.5L V8 could very possibly make more power with more displacement.

>>13827636
L# is how some people denote inline engines.

http://www.s10forum.com/forum/f105/l4-engine-what-does-the-l-stand-for-280926/

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5414306-What-does-engine-quot-L4-quot-and-quot-L5-quot-refer-to-on-Fuelly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-six_engine

I don't know why you're calling me names when this nomenclature probably predates your birth.

>>13827709
I've never encountered anyone who denotes it with 'L'. Oh well, sorry if I offended you.

>>13827725
Now you have.

File: 12-ducati-superquadro-2.jpg (384KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1280x960px

>>13827709
Intredasting. I've also never heard of "L" used apart from Ducati being all special and using the term for their 90 degree V-twins.

File: 1425670179751.jpg (272KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1280x720px

>>13827709
Referring to inline engines with an L designation is silly and probably the work of the filthy British. Line 4? Line 6?

I makes more sense and is proper terminology for true Americans.

>>13827376
Whistles are more important.

Gotta have that WOOOO.

>>13827805
That's a lower case l, retard

File: 1445362615674.png (222KB, 915x694px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 915x694px

>>13827834
How did you do that backwards b?

>>13827805
Nah, it stands for long