If i may offer: There is, in fact, a replacement for displacement

>>16528992
die

>>16529111
Okay

>>16528992
First off, let me start by saying that the increase in horsepower between the Buick I8 and Nailhead V8 is not directly correlated to the increase in compression ratio.

>There is, in fact, a replacement for displacement and that is compression ratio.
No, because there is a practical limit to compression ratio, and it's dictated by octane and combustion efficiency. This is a hard physical limit. Is such a limit exists for displacement, it's the standard engine block - but a block can be replaced.

Effectively, there is no replacement for displacement. There is nothing that
>Adds horsepower the more you add, with no physical upper limit
>Does not add extra parts (such as a turbo)
>Does not require you to change the type of fuel

Turbo's, nitrous and compression are all great ways of adding power, but they are in no way a direct replacement for displacement.

>>16529147
Sir you are incorrect for you see in 1971 with upcoming emissions, Detroit automakers reduced compression across the board by some degree resulting in tangible power loss.

>>16529192
Nope, you are. The reduction in power wasn't just because of the drop in compression, the airflow of those engines was also choked, mainly by subpar carbs and primitive injecton systems, in order to meet emissions standards.

Compression adds power (up to a point), but to compare a 1930's straight eight to a 1950's V8 and claim that the increase in power is solely due to the increase in compression, is stupid. As is saying that the decrease in power from 1969 to the smog era is solely due to the decrease in compression.

Even if your point were true, it still doesn't make compression a replacement for displacement, because it has a practical limit. It is a merely a substitute.

>>16529200
Practical limits only apply to the practical world sir.
The truth in this is evidenced that Chrysler's 426 Hemi retained it's 11:1 compression ratio despite the upcoming emissions.
Further, I will provide that your carburetor example did not apply to the early 70s. In fact it did not apply until the mid to late 70's and that it wasn't the carburetors themselves which resulted in power losses.

>>16528992
I agree with this bird, hence why Mazdas' and 86s' naturally aspirated engines with lots of hp for their displacement have ridiculously high compression ratio that become ticking bombs if you slap on a tarbo (which is the point of said cars, to modify your rice burners amirite).

>>16529214
Horsepower comes from the cylinder head. Commission helps, but if you can't flow, which these old and smog era engine designs couldn't, then you won't make power.

Imagine

>>16529214
Stop being pretentious, it detracts from your argument.

>Practical limits only apply to the practical world sir.
Which is the only world where engines are built. Sure, you could get a 15:1 compression engine, but if you aren't Mazda, you'll never get it running on pump gas, making it largely inpractical for the consumer.

>The truth in this is evidenced that Chrysler's 426 Hemi retained it's 11:1 compression ratio despite the upcoming emissions.
That's because it was dead by the time emissions got around. The 2nd gen Hemi was built up to 1971, and the smog era only started in 1973.

It wasn't just the carbs (although electronic carbs flat out suck at making power), it was also the lack of heads that flowed well, cheaper build materials, smaller camshafts, air pumps - and wde range of choices that made advertised horsepower plummet. It wasn't just compression.

Still not a replacement for displacement, merely a substitute.

>>16529249
Those high compression engines only become time bombs once you add even more compression (albeit dynamically, with a compressor). Still, with a stroker crank and overbore pistons, you can add horsepower without adding as much strain on the engine, and without creating the demand for a higher octane fuel.

File: 1928-ford-model-a-ar-tudor-early-model-very-solid-original-barn-find-ratrod-4.jpg (67KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x360px

>1930s
>needing more than 4 cylinders, OHV, or more than 40 horsepower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhLHdPdo58U

>>16529250
I agree with you sir for you see, the Ford Flathead V8 had at best, 7:1 compression and increasing this compression would result in less power from the fact that the head had less clearance.
I would refer back to the "Nailhead". Reversing the valve train resulted in more power from the cleaner exhaust path but airflow is physically limited to the design of the engine whereas CR may only be limited by the quality of gasoline.

>>16529267
>you could get a 15:1 compression engine
Sir, you are speaking of the diesel cycle. It is clear you are desperate for evidence. I shant be bothered arguing with a miscreant such as yourself.

>you'll never get it running on pump gas
The examples of which i have posted come from a time when Tetraethyl Lead was available.

>That's because it was dead by the time emissions got around
Sir, it was only alive for the consumer to further Chrysler's motorsports ambitions.

>>16529291
>Sir
>shant
>miscreant
Could you please stop acting as if English is your second language?

>you are speaking of the diesel cycle.
Nope. Mazda Skyactiv gen 1 is 14:1, methanol dragsters are anywhere between 14:1 and 16:1 and F1 has gone up to 17:1 when they didn't have turbo's.

15:1 is possible on an Otto cycle engine, is just requires exotic fuels to be viable. Those fuels make it impractical for consumers, and therefore, compression ratio has a physical limit. Even with leaded gas (which you can't use anymore) or LPG, there is a limit.

>Sir, it was only alive for the consumer to further Chrysler's motorsports ambitions.
And Chrysler would have continued using it had they not had the problem of the upcoming emissions regulations.

Point still stands, and you can't refute it, that there is no replacement for displacement.

>>16528992
There is no replacement
You can't be comparing a i8 to a v8 from different eras
Take for example a 396 bbc and a 427 bbc
Stock the 396 was around 350hp
the 427 was around 430hp
They are both v patterns built of the same mark iv design with the same stroke with the only difference being in bore and valve train
Yes the 427 came with a compression around 12:1 and the 396 around 10:1 but even if you were to make the 2 similar and bring the 396 up to 12 the 427 would simply out preform it because it is bigger, more gas and air are being sucked in with a bigger area to combust

>>16529342
>Yes the 427 came with a compression around 12:1 and the 396 around 10:1 but even if you were to make the 2 similar and bring the 396 up to 12 the 427 would simply out preform it because it is bigger, more gas and air are being sucked in with a bigger area to combust
I expected proper equations to support your theory.

File: 427 CI @ 12CR.jpg (214KB, 1421x775px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1421x775px

>>16529351
Can't be arsed to redownload D&D, so Automation should do. It'll be accurate enough to simulate this scenario. I picked a 3.760'' stroke for both, a 4.252'' bore for the 427, and a 4.154'' bore for the 396.

Specs for both:
>Iron block/head crossplane V8, modern OHV
>Billet internals, 0 tech added anywhere
>''60%'' aggressive cam, no VVL/VVT, naturally aspirated
>Multipoint EFI w/ performance intake
>95 RON fuel,12.5:1 AFR, 15% ignition advance, 7K redline
>Longtube headers, 3'' true duals, no mufflers/CC

Pic related is the 427CI @ 12:1 CR

>>16529111
no

File: 396 CI @ 12CR.jpg (212KB, 1423x770px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1423x770px

>>16529417
>>16529351
And this is the 396@ 12:1 CR. Clearly, it makes less horsepower.

>>16529147
fugg dude, /thread

>>16529417
>>16529428
Interesting torque overlays.

File: 1483914482978.png (219KB, 403x419px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 403x419px

>>16529417
>>16529428
>uses a game as an example

File: 396 CI @ 12CR.jpg (216KB, 1425x776px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1425x776px

>>16529428
My bad, I used the 0.060' over as bore size for the 396. Should be 4.094'' instead.

>>16529453
Game or not, the physics behind it are 99% sound, and are perfect to illustrate a point.

If you're so adamant about a perfect simulation, go download D&D and make one.

>>16529463
>If you're so adamant about a perfect simulation, go download D&D and make one.
I have already provided sound examples to my arguments.

Anyway i'm just bs'ing,

>>16528992
>There is a replacement for displacement and that is compression

The more compression you have, the sooner your head gasket will begin to fail.