>mfw there really is no replacement for displacement You'd

50/50 chance it blows up when you start it.

I think it's the cams. the exhaust scavenging from valve overlap sucks in air through the intake like a turbo/supercharger and can make an engine have over %100 volumetric efficiency.

>>13952563
>12k RPM an 3.0 inline 6 to make 350hp

....You went to the Bullshit University of Physics too, OP?

>>13952650
Who said inline 6? I'm talking purely about engine volume.

File: serious_face.jpg (34KB, 394x375px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 394x375px

>>13952656
The most known 3.0-related engine is the inline 6 3.0, retard

>>13952674
says who?

>>13952656
Except you're wrong.

F330 P4 had 450hp from three litres at 8,500 RPM. And that's without any forced induction. More than a healthy 350 by a country mile.

>>13952563
>1hp/cubicinch
like its 1950

>>13952677
Says your mother.

>>13952684
that's a race car you idiot. Who the fuck is talking about race cars? You think I don't know race cars exist? Jesus Christ.

>>13952693
The LS1 made 350hp

>>13952563
>making more than 1hp/cube NA is expensive!
Because stock Jap cars haven't made that for ages.

shit my Accord does better than that. Get with the times friend.

>>13952713
If we don't include race cars then its not really magical witchcraft then to get these engines to produce that much power

>>13952713
>Who the fuck is talking about race cars?
..... But you started this thread questioning corvettes.....

>>13952713
Also a 5.7 v8 only developing 350 hp is pretty anemic

>>13952725
Not at 6000rpm like a normal car. k20s and and f20cs did that by revving to 8000 rpm and that's aside the point.

I'm talking liter for liter, inch for inch, at the same rpm.

>>13952731
you're missing the point. I'm talking about street cars, no race gas, no revving to 10,000 rpm, I'm talking about normal cars.

>>13952757
Stock Gen I, II, and Gen IIIs made that much, in Gen I's case it was usually less so what are you talking about?

>>13952734
Corvettes aren't race cars.

>>13952713
>I like to move goal posts!

Fine then. How about the SuperAmerica, which matched the power output of a 350 at half the capacity?

2JZGTEs, making 330hp or so in stock component trim from half the capacity, in perfectly driveable format-- when "350s" were struggling to top 300?

RB26DETTs in much the same way when 350s were floating around 250?

And before you go "omg but boost!" those don't make fifteen pounds stock.

... speaking of 15PSI though, how about '94 WRXs coming 20hp short of '94 Camaro power levels-- on two litres?

>>13952774
... dude, the F22A6 in my Accord maxes out power at 5,500 RPM and won't go past 6,500. It's a SOHC 16v four cylinder 2.2 litre, no VTEC, and it makes 145hp. Standard.

Plenty of cars make that power. And don't go "OMG YOU CAN'T USE RPM!" as though street cars can't rev out.

Cherry. Picking. Faggot.

>>13952774
>I'm talking liter for liter, inch for inch, at the same rpm.
its bait

>>13952563
>You'd have to run a 3/0 at 12,000 rpm to even get close to the power of a health 350, either that or run 15lbs of boost
What's wrong with running that much boost. Also I'm not sure how much boost it's running but with a dinan tune a newer BMW straight 6 can put out about 400 hp

>>13952804
americans dont like boost because it lets 2 litre engines get more power than their 6 litre engines

>>13952817
You rang?

>>13952774
The c5 zo6 made over 400 hp at 6000 rpm

>>13952774
>Corvettes aren't race cars.
Basically no. Technically Corvettes C4 on ahead were made with the intention of being gran turismo and race cars, providing a good base for competition. Dude, everything you post here its fucking bullshit. There isn't a single thing in physics that wont allow a car to have high hp/l even at low RPM.

File: larry-larson-drag-week-chevy-s10-7-5.jpg (78KB, 660x439px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 660x439px

>>13952834
Shit

But yeah OP's a retard.

>>13952843
This only proves that "forced induction" is the only replacement for displacement.

This would rip shit out of a V8 twice its size, after all. Unless the bigger V8 had turbochargers.

it's like sticks and bigger sticks and suddenly nuclear war.

>>13952784
>Fine then. How about the SuperAmerica, which matched the power output of a 350 at half the capacity?
What's a SuperAmeica?

>2JZGTEs, making 330hp or so in stock component trim from half the capacity blah blah blah rb26dett blah blah

2JZGTEs are running 11psi of boost stock, that's close to doubling the size of the engine, the size of the turbo does the rest. So the top of the line 2JZGTE on stock boost is around a 5.4ish engine. 5.7 LT1s and LS1s around the same time made 300-350hp at the wheels on BASE trim, so you're doing absolutely nothing but making yourself look and sound stupid.

>>13952796
wow wow wow! a 134 cubic inch 4 valve makes 145hp, wow that totally doesn't completely prove my point! fucking retard lmao.

>>13952804
>>13952817

I'm not talking about boost though. I don't have a problem with boost I'm talking about NA volumetric efficiency. I'm completely aware that high-hp NA race cars exist but that's not what I'm talking about.

>>13952835
That's a high performance model, and is aside from the point.

>>13952840
Thanks for the history lesson but please learn to read first before you shitpost.

>>13952863
Forced Induction isn't a replacement for displacement though. Forced Induction INCREASES the displacement of the engine. RPM is the only replacement, but really a 3.0 engine and 5.7 liter engine at the same RPM, the 5.7 will always make more power.

It's not that difficult to see how they get that much power

Hp is just a function of torque and engine speed and if these newer designs can breathe better at 6000 rpm than the older ones then they can fit more air/fuel into the cylinder thus giving you more torque not necessarily peak torque but an engine that breathes better will have a flatter torque curve and won't drop off as much as the older engines therefore you will be able to make more power at higher rpms

>>13952952
>F/I increases the displacement
Not talking in terms of overall power potential, but just in terms of x power, could it be said then that it replaces the need for additional displacement?

>>13952563
> he doesn't understand that boost is more displacement

>>13952960
there's more to it than intake/exhaust.I I think. Are you talking about the heads?

>>13952975
No. Adding more water to a bucket isn't a replacement for the water in the bucket, you're just adding more water not replacing it..

>>13952998
>he doesn't know how to read

>>13952563
Don't know where the fuck you pulled these numbers from, but a 4 stroke engine with ~100% VE @ 7000rpm will be making close to 100hp/L.

>>13952952
>doesn't know what a SuperAmerica is
... righto.

>talks about how 11psi is 'close to doubling the size of the engine'
>then talks about 'the size of the turbo does the rest', as though he hasn't mentioned the 11psi
>nor the fact that 2JZ-GTEs have two turbochargers
>or BSFC or VE
>and mentions LS1s up against an engine that debuted in 1993

Sorry, what was that about stupid?

>also can't seem to math about 145 > 134
>seems to think this means his comment about >1hp/1cui valid when that 145hp comes from a generic non-performance family car

Let's start from the ground up.

Forced induction does not increase the displacement, it increases the volumetric efficiency.

Also you're absolutely incorrect about RPM and power there-- the only way that comment works is if the 5.7 is making more torque at the same RPM. Most high-efficiency low-displacement engines will actually make more torque at say, 6,000 RPM (your benchmark, not mine), and thus more power (power and torque and RPM are linked mathematically, remember?); so even cherrypicking like you are you're failing.

Any more cherries, Washington?

File: dyno1.jpg (48KB, 579x800px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 579x800px

>tfw 165 HP at 6000 RPM from a naturally aspirated 80 ci engine

>>13952563
How do the fancy new engines in corvettes make so much power? By being strung to the shit house and having piss poor reliability as a result

also forced induction /does not increase displacement/ how fucking stupid are you cunt

>>13953125
God fucking damn that is one nice torque curve.

Props.

>>13953125
And which 1.4 do you have? Presuming it's forced inducted.

File: obama.jpg (5KB, 186x186px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 186x186px

>>13953142
Remember. When you pressume you make a Pres out of U and Me.
>missing where it says N/A

>>13953068
I'm pulling them from real life. The LS1 didn't make 570hp, and it would take a large chunk of change and time to do so. Shit, even the Z06 LS7 didn't make 700hp.

The new LT1, however, makes 450hp at the wheels from a 6.2, which is a big improvement.

>>13953093
>>talks about how 11psi is 'close to doubling the size of the engine'
>>then talks about 'the size of the turbo does the rest', as though he hasn't mentioned the 11psi
>>nor the fact that 2JZ-GTEs have two turbochargers
What are you rambling about idiot? You seriously don't even know how twin turbos work and you think you can pretend to even have a clue?

Horsepower is torque*rpm/5252, in a controlled environment a large engine will always make more torque than a smaller engine. You do the rest and stop acting like an idiot.

>>13953148
Lel, but seriously, what 1.4L engine is it?

>i'll bait them, but i'll take the high ground so no one can call it bait

>>13953156
Check your math and it will make more sense. It's blindingly obvious that you're talking to a rotard.

>>13953150
>I'm pulling them from real life.
Which goes to show you how Volumetricly inefficient those engines really are. Those numbers mentioned in OP are in no way impressive, just expected.

>>13953163
Who are you quoting?

>>13953169
Well, thanks Bill Nye I didn't know that. I totally thought every road going car used a hyper-efficient race engine, thanks for proving me wrong though!

>>13953164
Oh... Durr. Suddenly makes sense.

>>13953129
Yeah it does.

>>13953180
>You'd have to run a 3.0 at 12,000 rpm to even get close to the power of a healthy 350...
It's extremely clear you didn't know that.

>>13952563
>1hp/cubicinch

LOL dude 1hp/cu has been a thing since the 90s, motors can put out so much power thanks to improved head flow, vastly improved engine management, ect.


>trying to make more than 1hp/cube NA is expensive and gets expensive very fast.

Thats people trying to do it aftermarket with older cheaper engines. An example is 240sx guys trying to build the 2.4 NA when nissan built that motor like shit. While honda guys can can make the k24 do 250+ HP NA with just a head and cams from a different motor.

1+hp/cu comes from motors being built well, something that only Italians did for the majority of the 20th century.

>>13953156
dunno, I was just obama posting.

>>13953150
>in a controlled environment
>apparently not talking about race cars

Choose one.

Also;

You were talking about how 11PSI "nearly doubles the size of the engine", instead of how it increases the VE. Which is what it does.

Secondarily you mentioned that-- then said "the size of the turbo does the rest", as though the turbos -- two of them not one -- does more than provide 11PSI of boost.

And yeah, I know how turbochargers work. Twin turbochargers are a variation thereof. There's a bunch of different ways they work, from the heavily controlled way Toyota ones do, to the strange sequentials with cross-feed wastegates that Subaru do to the parallel turbochargers on GTRs.

You apparently don't with your "sized turbos", jesus. And still don't get that torque depends on more than cubic capacity. And keep on movin' dem goalposts.

>>13952563
>tfw you realize that it's bore that determines power potential and that stroke just affects where that power is at, like a cam
>tfw you realize boost pressure has the same affect as increasing the bore of the engine

>>13953201
Well you're extremely retarded faggot and you don't know shit so go fuck yourself.

>>13953208
Not at 6000rpm like most cars on the road you idiot.

>>13953213
Dude shut up already. The turbos don't run at the same time. Larger turbos flow more air. Go fuck yourself gay nigger.

>>13953219
>tfw you realize you're just as stupid and lazy as >>13952998 and can't read

>>13953249
>"The turbos don't run at the same time!"

Fuck dude. They produce a maximum of 11PSI. That's all they do. They don't magically produce witchcraft at higher RPM.

And in the R32 GT-R if they didn't both run at the same time you'd make no fucking power because they each supply three cylinders.

Stop talking bullshit, you have no idea.

>>13953249
Cool nice shitpost

>>13953265
>Fuck dude. They produce a maximum of 11PSI. That's all they do. They don't magically produce witchcraft at higher RPM.

A larger turbo flows more CFM than a smaller turbo, boost isn't everything you cerebral palsiac. you think I don't know the the Gt-R uses both turbos like the 300zx? How arrogant can you be? must be your ASPERGERS you fucking failure.

>>13953273
Cool go fuck yourself. You didn't even have to make this post but you did anyways because you want to get a last word in like a faggot woman.

>>13953291
>a larger turbo flows more CFM

... yes, and if you combine that and flow you get manifold boost pressure (in this case 0.80 bar-ish). So in this case you have a VE increase of about 80% over standard--- give or take a few percent.

But that's where it ends. You know little bits of math but you don't actually know enough to put it all together.

I recommend "Internal Combustion Engines In Theory And Practice", MIT Press.

>>13953213
Not the guy you're arguing with, but how is VE that much different than displacement.

Displacement is basically the volume of your cylinders. It could be measured when the engine is off.

VE is the amount of air forced in the cylinder over the displacement. So more like when the engine is in motion.

So it seems that effectively you're just increasing VE, which would in effect be like increasing the displacement.


All I'm saying is OP has a point. The engines either of you have provided are very differebt. Different configurations, different applications, different design goals. OP is saying all else being equal there is no replacement for displacement.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (127KB, 499x675px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 499x675px

>>13953306
Whoa! I never knew science was so cool! Thanks for the physics lesson Mr.Zaloom. I'll go order a copy of "Internal Combustion Engines In Theory And Practice", MIT Press after I finish my calculus homework.

Oh wait, WCW is on tonight, nWo vs Sting, oh man oh man oh man EXTREEEEEEEME

>>13953321
Displacement is a certain thing in maths. But if there was truly no replacement for displacement then displacement wouldn't be regulated for forced induction cars in racing categories.

But it is, because VE is a replacement for displacement. QED.

>>13953322
>another quality shitpost, brought to by the one and only butt blasted OP
>>13953321
OP would have a point, if OP's numbers weren't completely skewed with cherry picked examples.

>>13953339
>But it is, because VE is a replacement for displacement. QED.
No it isn't. a 3.0 and 6.0 with the same VE, the 6.0 will always make more power so suck cocks.

>>13953347
the only cherry I'm picking is the one in your butthole because I own you faggot fuckboy.

>>13953363
... um. So, let's use your buckets, right? you're saying if I got a bucket and you got a bucket, and you filled yours entirely with water (displacement), and I filled mine with water and then oil (displacement and VE), they wouldn't both be full?

Because basically you're picking at straws here.

VE + Displacement == Power of higher displacement. Therefore higher VE == higher displacement efficiency == more power with lower displacement == your argument is fucked.

seriously, though, stop moving the goalposts.

you're only making yourself look dumber when we kick goals.

>>13953339
I don't think displacement regulations mean that there is no replacement for displacement.

I really don't understand how VE doesn't just artificially change displacement. Like I get disp is static and VE is dynamic, but running 200% VE on a 3 liter engine is the same as an N/A 6 liter at 100% VE right?

Forced induction is more like a simulated increase in displacement right?

>>13953347
Even with cherry picked engines the point remains.

>>13952563
>all things being equal a bigger engine makes more power
did you really need to make a thread about this?
did you just get into cars this week?

>>13953378
VE doesn't change displacement at all, it just changes how efficient the displacement is. You can't oversimplify the math, it just doesn't work that way, especially considering VE can vary all over the rev range and with so much as air temperature.

Displacement is one part of the math, VE is another.

>>13953372
I'm not picking straws either, fountain drinks suck and I'm not a farmer. The same VE means we get the same oil. Service my nuts and present that boypussy, slave~

File: different fag.png (13KB, 685x149px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 685x149px

>>13953395
>boypussy
That was another dude who you accused of owning the asshole of.

But also you're just moving the goalposts again talking about "same VE". Because yes, if the VE were the same, sure, the power would be greater with the increase in displacement.

but that's not the argument at hand. I'm not letting you move the goalposts more here. Man up and admit you're wrong or you're as much of a fag as your dickwarming fantasies suggest.

>>13953392
We're still not saying all else equal. We're comparing N/A to FI.

Also, do cars in racing categories that use NON PRODUCTION ENGINES(races with production engines brings us back to engines being different, and being affected differently from things even such as air temp like you said) ever go below the maximum displacement allowed?

>>13953413
the only goalpost here is your two soft buttcheeks, faggot. I'm going to cum deep inside you and leave your asshole more sore than Bret Hart at the 1997 Survivor Series.

>>13953427
Yes, many engines go below max displacement in order to eke out advantages elsewhere (maximum RPM to reduce gearchanges, perhaps, or lower fuel use to help in endurance racing) and there's many smaller engines running in unlimited categories.

As for comparing N/A to FI, N/A engines still get variant VE so that's a moot point. And it's possible to beat 1.00 VE with an N/A engine -- scavenging, for instance, helps overcome this limitation. And modern DI with full atomisation of fuel. And all sorts of interesting other things.

File: tony abbott raw onion.jpg (105KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1200x800px

>>13953437
>I want to fuck you, big hairy australian man
>and this makes you the faggot!

okay mate. Say, have you met our former PM? You guys might be great mates. Say hi next time he's over there peddling his BS.

>>13953442
I see. I understand your point on NA and FI.

But how much smaller do those displacements go? 10% under max? 5% under max? What examples are there? (I don't follow any racing really)

>>13953456
The BMW CSL went up to 3.2 litres so it could compete in the "over 3 litres" category and get bigger tyres, way back in the day. Audi's prototypes have been reduced significantly for fuel economy to try and beat Porsche on pit stops (Porsche did the same back in the day against Ferrari). Sometimes it's as little as 2% (say the GT-R at 4,420cc calculated displacement under 4,500), sometimes like with the CSL it's nearly 1/3rd allowable.

>>13953363
>No it isn't. a 3.0 and 6.0 with the same VE, the 6.0 will always make more power so suck cocks.
Too bad there's no 3.0L these days with a VE as atrocious as your 6.0 where "it's impressive to achieve >1hp/ci".
Hell, almost all ~3.5L V6 these days are achieving 300hp under 6500rpm.
>the only cherry I'm picking is the one in your butthole because I own you faggot fuckboy
Projectionist shitposting is still shitposting, no matter what shade of red your sphincter may be.

>>13953442
>And it's possible to beat 1.00 VE with an N/A engine -- scavenging, for instance, helps overcome this limitation. And modern DI with full atomisation of fuel. And all sorts of interesting other things.

OP here, this is all I wanted to know. With a few mods you can make a 1hp/cube engine make 100-150 or so more horsepower for a reasonable (being real liberal here with "reasonable") budget, but if you want any more than that people will laugh in your face and say go turbo or sell your house.

>>13953183
> I don't know the difference between ve and displacement
gtfo this board cunt

>>13953540
standard atmo pressure is 14.7
adding boost to that increases that
so 14.7 lbs/1bar basically double the size of the engine dumb nigger

>>13952674
>not the Duratec 30 V6

>>13953573
>I also don't know the difference between VE and displacement!

>>13953573
Displacement is not a measure of volumetric efficiency sorry bro

You can increase the ve of an na engine without touching the bore or stroke
Gg atheists