> no replacement for displacement > no replacement for

>>16755201
>not turbocharging a high displacement BBC

>>16755201
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.

>>16755219
ok

>>16755219
Just post it, or ask YouTube.

>>16755201
displacement=displacement
displacement=/=air consumption

>>16755288
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

>>16755336
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.

>>16755343
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

File: 00i0i_eqZb8oqAaK_600x450.jpg (30KB, 600x448px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x448px

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.

>>16755344
> being this much of a dumb cuck

>>16755378
Also you can boost the v8 still.

>>16755378
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

>>16755201
>> 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

>>16755242
>>16755259

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?

>>16755387
turbos literally compress air into a smaller volume so your engine can get more fucking air
learn to read dipshit

>>16755401
Things ignite easier with compression, so no.

>>16755344
Cmon, you make big engine people look bad

File: 2100hp 1000ci.jpg (175KB, 766x509px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 766x509px

>>16755343

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.

>>16755408
Why? Because I'm telling the truth? Do you think a turbocharger skips the intake manifold?

>>16755355
centrifugals are cool anon, try one

>>16755401
maybe in your imagination this magical physics makes sense

>>16755407

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

>>16755445
It does need to ignite because the system needs to get energy inputted from somewhere

>>16755455

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.

>>16755403
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

>>16755201
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

>>16755480
No it can't be done.

>>16755403
He implies that the turbo increases the volume which it does not

>>16755480
>what is entropy?

>>16755485
>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

>>16755486
>right into the turbo

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

>>16755217
This, almost enough to supercharge my ls6. Though thought of twin turbo too

>>16755503
>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

>>16755486
he was against turbos, but that wasn't the reason.

>>16755510
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.

>>16755515
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 <5ml with the plunger jumps the temperature of that air through the roof to be so hot it can auto ignite dry tinder

>>16755343
Superchargers are for domestic faggots who think 70s technology is cool.

>>16755515
The turbo doesn't affect volume though. The only way to increase displacement is with bigger pistons

>>16755515
No because in that case you keep pressure constant and change the volume

>>16755485
obviously i just mean it has the same end result

File: 1471549815215.png (106KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 300x300px

>>16755524
>what is a stroker kit

>>16755504
the turbo can help homogenise the fuel air mixture before it reaches the cylinder

>>16755490

Don't say that.

>>16755501

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.

>>16755519
>>16755524
>>16755532
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.

>>16755544
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?

>>16755343
>use engine power to make more power
no.

File: scrunch.jpg (471KB, 1100x755px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1100x755px

>>16755667
ahemm

>not donating hp to your power adder

>>16755696
turbo top fuel would be even more insane
i guess they don't use it because they exhaust is too hot?

>>16755201
Displacement is a meme for pushrods.

>>16755485
so what? still more air

>>16755496
no he didn't you literal stupid person you! he said more air... meaning more air (molecules), idiot

>>16755480
>>16755544
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???

>>16755503
^not an idiot

>>16755510
the fuck you talking about? the volume doesn't change. the amount of air entering the engine does though, because of increased pressure

>>16755637
this

File: dancing.jpg (417KB, 948x1908px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 948x1908px

>>16755213
I got a high-displacement BBC here you can turbocharge.

>>16755699
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.

>>16755699
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.

>>16755201
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.

>>16755485 #

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

>>16755201
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.

>>16756227
>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.

>>16756268
>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.

>>16756227
>You can't have a forced induction engine without displacement.
retard logic. you should feel ashamed

>>16756296
huur duur so 'tehcnikally akurate"
gtfo

>>16756310
Without displacement there's no power made to force the induction and no where for it to go...

>>16756311
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.

>>16756350
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

>>16756410
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.

>>16756296
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.
>>16756410
RPM ceiling (without getting into the flow) is another one.
>>16756434
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.

>>16755201
> 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.

>>16756487
I think you completely missed the obvious facetious nature of that post.

>>16756366
its a phrase.

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

stop shit posting

>>16755344
>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.

>>16755343

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.

>>16755544
You are literally trying to create a perpetual motion machine. It's not possible.

>>16755343
Turbos make more power and turbo lag isn´t a thing anymore since the advent of sequential turbos.
Also turbos are more efficient.

>>16755401
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.

>>16755536
Kek

>>16755544
You would need to be moving (or moving air) at like Mach 5, because you just described a scramjet.

>>16755213
Why would i wanna put a turbo on a high displacement big black cock?

>>16756499
What is the figurative phrase here that I'm taking literally?

>>16756227
actually, you can have turbine engines you dumb cuck
no fucking displacement at all

>>16757534
for better penetration?

>>16755355
>heat soak
>atomization of the fuel cools the intake/blower
Do you even own a vehicle

>>16759597
Relevant if you're running a fueling method invented by dinosaurs themselves.

>>16759755
It's cheap, simple, and it works.

>>16755401
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.

>>16755401
Yes, that is called misfiring. Except diesels don't really have that problem.

>>16760185
This.
It kinda goes against the second law of thermal dynamics.

>>16760673
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.

>>16759373
Massive intake pressure effectively gives it displacement without valves.

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

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

>>16762218
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.

>>16755378
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.

>>16755401
It's called a "steam engine".

You should learn about this revolutionary new technology sometime.

>>16755355
>less heat soak=turbo
>device connected and driven by 1200° exhaust gas
Put down the crack pipe junior and go back to school.

>>16762204
>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.