There is no replacement for displacement. Yes or No? Also substitute

File: focusrs.jpg (220KB, 970x546px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 970x546px

there is a replacement

it's called clever engineering

>>15433581
>There is no replacement for displacement
This isn't really debatable, it just matters how well you use that displacement.
Some engines suck ass some are god tier, depends on many many factors.

Of course there is, it's called less weight.

>>15433581
nope
>>15433588
unreliable ford product n overpriced

>>15433611
This.

I'd take an awesome weight/power ratio and good handling over a fuckton of raw power, but I drive twisties more often than fast in a straight line.

File: 0408_05z%252B1990_audi_coupe_quattro_rs2%252Bengine_bay_view[1].jpg (70KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x480px

Eh, kinda. That's not to say I don't like a big ol' veeate though.

>>15433617

>unreliable
n
>overpriced

lol

there isnt
but huge inefficient engines are garbage no matter what

like using some shitty old big block when you can get an LS

>>15433581
I'd go for low weight if I wasn't too tall for Caterhams etc.

File: 378472342.jpg (337KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1600x1067px

>>15433611
>>15433623

Why not both?

File: Cat SV.jpg (74KB, 600x530px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x530px

>>15433719
Caterham SV breh. Or are you a 6'8 freak?

>>15433581
no there is not anything you do to a 2 inch motor you can do to a 4 inch and get better results period

>>15433718
I'm not talking about 500 inches in an old luxury car to smooth out the ride. High Performance 454,427,440,400 short blocks-thing like that. Of course there's a difference between a 455 in an Olds 98 and a 454 in a Chevelle SS.

>>15433581
Depends on how you see it. It's all a matter of amount of air passing the engine, if you do it using vacuume or force is another question.

>>15433581
The only replacement for displacement it $$$$$$$.

Objectively yes there is no replacement for displacement, but it's situational. There are plenty of low displacement cars that perform better than high displacement, depends on all of the small details of each car.

>>15434085
But if you had the same amount of displacement and $$$-unless you're talking "Supercars" as the magazines call them. They're in a class by themselves.

>>15433588
>turbos
go back to the 80s yuroscum

>>15434177
just a friendly reminder turbos are better than superchargers, cuck

>>15434180
I wouldn't say that so quickly. Both have merits and drawbacks compare to each other and even in themselves between different setups ... unless of course you're a turbo blinded importfag and will argue for hours about parasitic power loss now.

>>15434177
(You) I like.
Also checkin those 77s.

>>15434180
at having lag and costing more

>>15433581
>No replacement for displacement. Is true. What's going to be better 2.0 liter 4 cylinder or 4.0 liter 4 cylinder. Doesn't have to be a different configuration.

File: I am right and you are wrong.gif (13KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 960x540px

>>15434180
I never said that superchargers were good

File: FordGAA.jpg (118KB, 1067x800px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1067x800px

>>15433588
The Ford GAA combines both. Yes its a tank engine. But its an all aluminum 32V DOHC 1000ci V8 engine.

File: supercharger a shit 1.png (954KB, 643x739px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 643x739px

>>15434188
>>15434195
stay mad and in denial

>>15434215
>N/A cuck

top fucking kek

my sides are officially gone

File: supercharger a shit 2.png (669KB, 808x387px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 808x387px

>>15434333
>trips

nice, supercharger and N/A cucks officially BTFO

>>15434217

>clever engineering
>29 hp/liter

>>15434355
1940s mouthbreather. What did your germans, English, Italians, ruskies or japs do at the time? Remember this is a 30 ton tank. Not a 3,000 car.

>>15434355
When your done pulling you head from your anus look at the torque of the GAA. Hint: It wasn't built for high revving high horsepower numbers

>>15434217
Cool engine, but you'll get walked by a 302.

>>15434523
Oh sure but a 302 couldn't do what was required of that engine.

File: 4555.jpg (26KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 540x540px

>>15433581

no

how else do you think a 2.0L 4 banger 1992 Nissan 180sx made the same horsepower as a 1992 5.0L V8 Foxbody Mustang?

Torque is what matters you fucking ass clowns. Huge undersquare engines that make all their torque at 1500rpm are actually MORE efficient than your twin turbo shitbox that revs to 7 grand.

Torque per cubic inch is a lot more interesting because HP = torquexrpm/5252

Fucking clowns.

>>15434628
1992 Mustang GT 205 hp and 275 ft·lbf torque
1992 180sx 205 hp and 202 ft·lbf torque
I wonder which set of numbers is higher. Hint: LOOK AT THE TORQUE. And will I don't have the figures I'm certain the 5.0 doesn't need to be revved to 4000 rpm to get it.

>>15434599
Silly me, I thought that we were talking about cars.

>>15434688
I know. I posted it Just because of its size and design. A high performance engine it is not. Its made to run heavy loads at low rpm and not breakdown.

File: image.png (25KB, 191x126px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 191x126px

mfw my diesel shitbox has literally more torkz than a fucking NSX

File: 1460696888821.jpg (45KB, 570x487px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 570x487px

>6 cylinder cucks defend their engines
>always make comparisons with super chargers and turbo chargers to base V8s
>never consider those same performance upgrades can be added to V8s

>>15434756
Because that's not what the word "replacement" means.

File: adrlrock019.jpg (89KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x600px

>>15434756
ok

File: car004.jpg (107KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1024x576px

>>15434812
boost can be hard to get used to

File: 125.jpg (96KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x600px

will it work?

>>15433581
force induction or nitrous is the replacement for displacement.

File: js1.jpg (155KB, 750x650px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 750x650px

>>15434837

NRFD is best if you're drag racing. Otherwise it's the best performance/weight ratio.

>>15434812
This.
>>15434818
>>15434829
ITT; we learn the difference between "replacement" and "supplement" and how neither cancels the other one out.
For example, you can utilise a powerplant at a particular capacity, or a powerplant at half the capacity plus forced induction with a manifold pressure twice that of atmospheric conditions, and you have quite literally replaced displacement. Sure, you can go on to supplement the larger capacity powerplant with similar treatment, but that doesn't negate the previous scenario.

File: smnoke.jpg (306KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1920x1080px

sure there is

LESS STROKES FAGGIT

>>15434891
so the replacement on a 2 stroke is to make it a 1 stroke?

File: dl-sema_2015-jw-edit-23.jpg (74KB, 768x512px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 768x512px

2JZ

File: wankel_cycle_anim_retina.gif (236KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 480x480px

>>15434904
sure why not?

>>15434908
well fuck it, lets just make a 2L jet engine

While there is no true replacement for displacement, there are many alternatives that make smalls engines act like bigger engines i.e. turbos, bigger cams, stroker kits(increases displacement), weight reduction.

all that matters is how efficiently you can move mols of oxygen through the engine.

more mols of oxygen, more power.

>>15434922
different fuel

>>15434934
different fuel just allows you to more efficiently use the oxygen passing through the engine.

File: Opposite_piston_engine_anim.gif (586KB, 391x246px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 391x246px

>>15434913
the four stroke is the least problematic but its also a very inefficient engine.

those extra rotations without ignition are just wasted time.

and those parts just sucking up heat during ignition are shit as well.