There's no replacement for dusplacement

[Atropine]

That is a cool engine...

But why does it matter?

Sure, it only has 2.5 liters...but still weighs 402 lbs.

While an LS Motor has 6.2 liters and weighs less than 400 lbs?

Isn't it all about weight...not really displacement?

I understand if you are talking about racing against certain displacement motors...

But for everyday use...I rather have an LS motor comfortably N/A giving me 500 hp and 475 ft/lb

Rather than a Volkswagon engine operating at 20 lbs of boost...which we all know is a ticking time bomb.

Oh yeah...and that LS motor....every mechanic in the world knows how to fix/rebuild it...that Audi engine...well at least Audi and Volkswagon owners already know their mechanics for their blinker fluid and headlight lube.

[gramicci101]

Still rather have a V8 for sound.

[ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Aog4P8ikrw[/ame]

[ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rgWbJhWXQUU[/ame]

Whipple supercharger vs. twin turbos.
[ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nuz9MWg27cI[/ame]

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

It doesn't, it has to do with the exhaust piping (and intake piping) and the engine's configuration. The number of cylinders and valve train determines the sound, adding a ton more displacement barely changes the amplitude of the sound. Physics, learn it.

I know, I ran simulations on exhaust designs for a college course, it's a fluid dynamics problem and a larger displacement engine will be pushing a different volume of fluid dictating a different exhaust design to reach desired sound. I don't know of a blind study off the top of my head and I don't care to dig up the math so we're at a stalemate.

Originally Posted by Vracer111

Ever heard a 1.5 Liter motor that will make a big block V8 blush by the noise and could be heard from miles away?...here's one:

Yes, I've also heard >4L V8's/V6's that make Prius's sound sporty, what is your point?

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Yes, I've also heard >4L V8's/V6's that make Prius's sound sporty, what is your point?

I think his point is exactly that displacement has no correlation with "quality of sound" or "emotion of sound".

[NWFRS]

I thought this was going to be an article about how to keep my car interior dust-free. :-(

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I think his point is exactly that displacement has no correlation with "quality of sound" or "emotion of sound".

I never made any argument against that and I completely agree with that statement.

[rice_classic]

What if... now now.. hear me out..




What if.. the competition was about efficiency? EH eh!?

Now who's horny about displacement?!

[ZDan]

Larger-displacement engines often get better fuel mileage than higher-revving smaller-displacement engines making the same power. I got 29mpg on a tank in my 6.0 liter ~530hp RX-7 once, and average 24-27 on the highway. Not bad relative to my S2000, with less than half the power, which gets ~26-28 highway, max 32.

Old 3.8 liter OHV V6 Buicks used to be the undisputed fuel-mileage champs for biggish/luxish cars. BMW's with similar power got WAY worse fuel economy from smaller-displacement engines. But speaking of engine noise, OHV GM V6s make about the ugliest sounds you can get out of an internal combustion engine...

[Atropine]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

What if... now now.. hear me out..




What if.. the competition was about efficiency? EH eh!?

Now who's horny about displacement?!

One thing that was neat with the big V8s is when they can turn off some of the cylinders when not needed.

Dodge has used this to get nice gas mileage out of their V8s.

Me, being a dreamer...I always hope that one day Mazda "solves the rotary issue" and they produce a rotary engine that is 1.3 liters with 300 hp...goes 150k miles and gets 35 miles to the gallon...

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Atropine

One thing that was neat with the big V8s is when they can turn off some of the cylinders when not needed.

Dodge has used this to get nice gas mileage out of their V8s.

Me, being a dreamer...I always hope that one day Mazda "solves the rotary issue" and they produce a rotary engine that is 1.3 liters with 300 hp...goes 150k miles and gets 35 miles to the gallon...

See here's the trick, consumer efficiency vs. physics efficiency.

When you compare an S2000 to a Corvette with cylinder shutoff and all the other tricks they've done the consumer thinks the Honda is a piece of shit, low 20's at best while the 'vette is getting mid 20's and touching 30 on the freeway with nearly double the power and only a couple hundred pounds more weight.

Yet the S2k is using more of it's fuel for power, it's a more efficient engine from a physics perspective since it can take in X amount of fuel and make Y amount of power whereas the Corvette loses that comparison. They are all tradeoffs, what Honda learned with Vtec in the S2k probably led to developments in the Vtec in their economy cars (more durable, finer controls, manufacturing, tuning etc.) resulting in their sedans getting ~35 mpg highway. Don't forget that other countries tax displacement meaning a high strung four banger is cheaper than a 'more efficient' V8, not accounting for emissions.

Edit: If Mazda can get 2/3 of those (power, longevity, fuel economy) sign me up, probably the only car that could get me back into a dealership.

[Levi]

Originally Posted by dem00n

Audi with I5's are like Toyota's with I6's, can't be beat.

Nissan has the V6's, Ford and Chevy have the V8, etc etc

V6 would rather be Alfa Romeo. V10 is Lexus.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

When you compare an S2000 to a Corvette with cylinder shutoff and all the other tricks they've done the consumer thinks the Honda is a piece of shit, low 20's at best while the 'vette is getting mid 20's and touching 30 on the freeway with nearly double the power and only a couple hundred pounds more weight.

S2k's average 23-25mpg on fuelly.com, same-era Corvettes average 19-22, and the current average for 2014 models with cylinder deactivation is 20mpg (4 cars, 20 fillups, 5933 miles tracked).
So even a new Corvette typically doesn't *really* get better mileage than an S2000. At least not these 4...

I get 26-28 highway in my '01 S2000, maximum ever 32mpg.

S2000 weighs a good 500 lb. less than C6 Corvettes on average (2750-2850 lb. vs. 3200-3400 lb.)

Yet the S2k is using more of it's fuel for power, it's a more efficient engine from a physics perspective since it can take in X amount of fuel and make Y amount of power whereas the Corvette loses that comparison.

Whatchoo talking about here? *IF* the S2000 were making "more use of its fuel for power", that goes against your premise that it gets worse fuel economy. But then since it *doesn't* get worse fuel economy, your kinda right here, but your reasoning makey no sense (to me).

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by ZDan

(4 cars, 20 fillups, 5933 miles tracked).

Horrifically small sample size is horrifically small...

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by Atropine

One thing that was neat with the big V8s is when they can turn off some of the cylinders when not needed.

Dodge has used this to get nice gas mileage out of their V8s.

Me, being a dreamer...I always hope that one day Mazda "solves the rotary issue" and they produce a rotary engine that is 1.3 liters with 300 hp...goes 150k miles and gets 35 miles to the gallon...

Mazda solved the rotary issues when they stopped making it.

Heh...

Plus the only thing limiting large displacement engine under boost is common sense and drivetrain strength.