Displacement
-
torbs;212904 wrote:
Also, I'm sure Dave has less $$$ put into his car when it's finished than a new Ferrari costs...Dave, being the master of the good deal that he is, is probably getting paid to build his car...not because he's sponsored (he's not...well no MAJOR sponsors) but because he is DaveH and is a God on SupraForums so people sacrifice parts to the NA-T God in hopes that he will grace them with his knowledge. It's true.
(I should start a wikipedia page about this so i'd have a reference to point to.)
-
id still rather have any of the above motors that i posted than any 4cyl honda, but thats just my opinion. and everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it shouldnt really matter wha anyone else thinks about your setup, mainly because its YOUR setup and not theirs.
-
This thread is pointless
-
I am Chuck Norris after all....
FWIW, the engine in the red car was stock as was the engine in Matts Probe the last couple years. The engine in my black car has aftermarket rods and pistons, as does the engine Matt is building for this year.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Raider;213038 wrote:
I personally perfer more displacement myself....I like the instant tq...nothing like having 300+ft/tq by 2500rpmscept a cummins making 600 by 2k???
speaking of jet/gas turbine engines........... I may way off base but i think i remember reading this somewhere
Don't they make insane ##'s for TO?? I mean their HP # is dwarfed by the TO #??
thought so anyway
-
If there is no replacement for displacement, how do things like this happen:
1988 Camaro RS. 5.0 L, 170 hp
1989 CRX SiR - 1.6 L, 160 hp
One year apart. 3.4 L. 10 hp.
You're right. No replacement for displacement.
And I would've gone further back in time but I had no resources for those old 1920's-30's v12's that made like 50 hp.
-
KidSupreme;213127 wrote:
If there is no replacement for displacement, how do things like this happen:1988 Camaro RS. 5.0 L, 170 hp
1989 CRX SiR - 1.6 L, 160 hp
One year apart. 3.4 L. 10 hp.
You're right. No replacement for displacement.
And I would've gone further back in time but I had no resources for those old 1920's-30's v12's that made like 50 hp.
1988 Camaro RS. V-8 5.0L (305CI) 4 Barrel Carb 170HP@4400 and 250Ft/lbs@2800
1989 crx SiR - 112 @ 7100
Wow only 1 year apart 3.4 L 138 Ft/lbs
No replacement for displacement. and BTW, next time you make a comparison between two vehicles you could probably use the top package for BOTH vehicles. You chose the lowest 5.0l motor option that gm offered. Lets try this comparison again evenly.
Low Package Comparison:
1988 Camaro RS. 5.0 L, 170 hp 250 ft/lbs1989 crx sohc 8 valve - 62hp, 90ft/lbs
High package comparison:
1988 Camaro Z28 5.0L, 220hp 290 ft/lbs1989 CRX SiR - 1.6 L, 160 hp
Displacement ftw, ....again :owned:
-
God that Camaro would be so good at towing my boat.
The argument was, "no replacement for displacement"
But reguardless of model trim, no one can deny there are replacements for displacements. Whether it be technology, forced induction, or nitrous. That's why they're popular and work in the real world.
EDIT: found one:
The original 448 in³ (7.3 L) Lincoln V12 was used in the large Model KB line for 1932 and 1933. It produced 150 hp (112 kW) and was an unusual 65° L-head design
Mind Blowing.
2ND EDIT:
I bet someone responds to this with something about torque -
Torque can lick balls.
-
-
Torque moves cars horsepower sells them. Why exactly did engines from the 20's come up? I should damn well hope that a newer smaller engine makes as much, or more, horsepower. We have had over 100 years to develop the internal combustion engine, wheras they had <u>maybe</u> 30. If technology is the replacement for displacement then why are race teams, drag teams in particular, using massive V8 engines? With all the technology the top teams have access to why aren't they building small inline 4 motors, or even small V8 motors for that matter. The arguement that RPMs are a replacement can be made, i.e. indy cars, but what are you doing when you run an engine at higher RPM. Moving more air into and out of the engine, pretty my the same thing as using a bigger one in the first place. Except with a bigger one you don't have to put as much time into making it hold together so its cheaper.
> Mitch Hedberg wrote:
> I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just going to find out where they are going and hook up with them later.ASE certified parts specialist.
2004 Impala LS 3.8 -
capitlj;213341 wrote:
Torque moves cars horsepower sells them. Why exactly did engines from the 20's come up? I should damn well hope that a newer smaller engine makes as much, or more, horsepower. We have had over 100 years to develop the internal combustion engine, wheras they had <u>maybe</u> 30. If technology is the replacement for displacement then why are race teams, drag teams in particular, using massive V8 engines? With all the technology the top teams have access to why aren't they building small inline 4 motors, or even small V8 motors for that matter. The arguement that RPMs are a replacement can be made, i.e. indy cars, but what are you doing when you run an engine at higher RPM. Moving more air into and out of the engine, pretty my the same thing as using a bigger one in the first place. Except with a bigger one you don't have to put as much time into making it hold together so its cheaper.Why don't they use V12s or bigger if displacement is the best thing ever??? 8 cylinders is the magical number i guess??
-
8 cylinders is (generally) the largest practical motor you will fit in most engine bays....aside from that, it is readily available already so the whole concept doesn't need to be redesigned. Then there is the cost factor of a larger block, 33% more pistons, re-engineering the cams/crank/etc... Then, there are class restrictions and other obstacles when it comes to professional racing which can limit the displacement and/or the number of cylinders allowed.
-
zbrown;213379 wrote:
yes HP is determined from TO and RPM............. but a car's acceleration G's is directly proportional to the HP curve .......... not the TO curveWrong. A car will accelerate exactly matching its torque curve, not its horsepower curve. A car will accelerate hardest at its peak torque.
300 foot pounds of torque will accelerate you just as hard
at 2000 rpm as it would if you were making that torque at 4000 rpm in the
same gear, yet, per the formula, [HP= (Torque * RPM) /5252] the horsepower would be double at 4000 rpm.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login