No replacement for displacement?

[thearabian]

yes, this is the age-old debate...
i wanna know what people on this forum think

i for one, do believe that there is No replacement for displacement

some people say that forced induction, and technology are replacements. i say no. what if you apply the same technology and turbos(adapted) on a larger engine, you will get even more power than putting turbos and whatnot on a smaller engine... right?
then there are reliability issues with technology and forced induction

then there are the people who say larger engines eat more fuel, pollute more, are much heavier, or rev lower than small-displacement engines.

thats ALL true, bus still does not change the fact that a larger engine will ultimately give you more power and more to work with. this is also very important: larger engines give you more to work with, you don't have to squeeze all possible power from them.

yes, many racecars have small engines and output much power, but the racecars with the most power, are the top fuel dragsters: biggest engines running all the other enhancements to make 3000 HP

lets not turn this into a "my sentra can beat your corvette if i..."

so what does everyone think, am i overlooking any major facts?

[Ayastigi]

Thearabian, I agree with you. It should also be noted that a detuned larger displacement engine can be as fuel efficient and clean running as a smaller engine. I think it was C&D or MotorTrend that did an article a while back describing the theory (I'll do some research) and how it was a better approach to getting higher fuel mileage.

Basically, pick a target horsepower rating, say 200HP. You can/could tweak a smaller 4 cylinder up to that rating with compromised reliability and increased complication. Much easier = detune a larger 6 or 8 cylinder engine to the same HP rating and achieve increased engine life and cleaner emmissions with less complication.

Of course, somebody out there must want to shoot this down?

-2kMax

[Meeks32]

Top fuel dragsters make 7000+ hp est. As far as fuel effiency, a c5 corvette gets just as good of gas mileage on the highway as my 240 does(id say around 27mpg or so)

[Nismo]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thearabian:
I for one, do believe that there is no replacement for displacement. Some people say that forced induction, and technology are replacements. I say no. What if you apply the same technology and turbos(adapted) on a larger engine, you will get even more power than putting turbos and what not on a smaller engine... right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree; afterall, bigger engines are, well, bigger. But the reasoning behind the statement that "technology is the replacement for displacement" lies in a powerplant's application. For example, if you needed an 850~900 horsepower n/a powerplant, would you rather have (a) 16L Dart V12 or (b) 3L CMW V12*? If your goal was to design a car that people could roar around town in, impressing fellow citizens with big smoky burnouts, then clearly the Dart is the way to go. And if you wanted to design a car to win at the track, then clearly the CMW powerplant would be a better choice for the vehicle.

Personally, it's statements like, "yeah, but the 16 liter powerplant would have more torque" that really frustrate me. Of course, more displacment ultimately allows for more power to be generated. But more important than displacement is the intended application. For a lightweight racecar (or streetable "racecar" like a Ferrari, NSX, or at the lower end, S2000) then you have to decide how much power you need, then design the smallest lightest engine that will meet your power goals.

*Names altered to protect the innocent.