No Replacement for Displacement

[D-UNIT]

I would love that motor in 1/5 scale rc camaro ss.

I have one last point to make then i'm done. I promise.

Technology a.k.a Forced Induction is the replacement for displacement only when it's not practical or possible to increase your current displacement!!(ALL ENGINES!!!)

I can only stroke and balance a KA or SR so much till the motor can't be built up anymore. I'll need a bigger motor ( RB) to get the power I need. But I can't go too big and shoe horn a big block in there either. Thats when technology comes in ( turbo , fmu , ecu , standalone , $$$$ ) to get that big block power out of a small 4cylinder SR or KA or any small motor. But the max power of the smaller motor will NEVER exceed the max power of a bigger motor.If it ever does , the bigger motor doesn't have enough TECHNOLOGY. Hence the KA-T vs SR20 battle.

Take a moped 50cc , 35 mph engine right ( WEAK) and its not possible or practical to put an SR20 on it. So thats where technology comes in. Soup it up sure , but a bigger carb , race muffler , and a jet kit can only go so far. You'll have to UP THE DISPLACEMENT!! To a 110cc water cooled bore good for 100+ mph. If you really want to get crazy you can still add F.I. (nos) to it and smoke turbo cars to the 1/8 mile maybe even low 7's. Then you'll die!! To much technology!! LOL!!

[Mr1der]

it's been mentioned that forced induction is pretty much increasing displacement right?

[D-UNIT]

Fixed the link!!! http://www.lingenfelter.com

[Mr1der]

Is the H2 really necessary?

[deez1001]

sticky????

[s13sr20chris]

arguments arent even relevent unless you define terms. by replacement are we talking about same results(exactly) through a different route(tech)? or are we just saying, "i can match you one gazillion horsepower with half the displacement through technology". thats something doofus ricers debate. so, lets get specific. no, you can not exactly duplicate a big block torque curve with a rice burner. question: why would any of you want a rice burner that makes 340 lbft at 1000 rpm and 15 lbft at 5000 rpm(exageration of rediculous torque curve typical of stock big block). so, it could be said that replaceing something inefficien(spatialy) would not be a desirable feat. improving upon the stock big block? i dont care for push rods, but my buddys blown 502 puts a smile on my face every time. would i want it for myself? nope. lets get more silly. hp or torque? torque is more fun on the street because you feel it pulling you. high torque makes it feel like you are really moving even if you are not. for example, a '98 chevy monte carly with a 3100 in it pulls like all get out. however, you are still not going fast with your cheeks all pinned to the headrest. torque is great as an engineering statement. the more torque you can get out of equal displacement shows just how high tech you are. anyone could raise hp at the same displacement just by raising the rpm's infinitely high and modifying the breathing charichteristics of the engine. that is childs play. polishing this and coating that is where the serious gains(anywhere from .5 lbft to 2 lbft per mod in a full race motor) come in. that brings up the question of why do we use hp? already answered earlier in this thread. when it comes to results, hp is relevent and torque is not(assuming equality of usable powerband). now to dispell some silly arguments

1)f1 carsdont bring this up. f1 rules. i know it and you know it. it is not at all comparable to anything else. period.

2)top fuelalso not at all comparable, but for different reasons. any engine not burning some form of gasoline is nil in this discussion. do i have mad respect for the amazing power output of theese cars? nope, why choose to use some tech to get some other old tech to high hp. silly.

3)13b rotarysgreat engine design; no company to properly develop it. is it 1.3 or 2.6? sorry dave, i think its a 1.3. the airflow argument does not apply to fi does it? it is closer to a two stroke than a four stroke in all but the actual no. of strokes(confusing i know).

4)alternate fuels or engine designsotto cycle gasoline only for ease of discussion ok with everyone?

5)technology is not a base, but displacement is i disagree. internal combustion is a technology. 8.0 liters of soda dont get you down the road any faster than your ford taurus can get you there anyway.

[Onizuka]

your my engineering hero

[s13sr20chris]

dude, go hang out in the engineering forum. i am just a mechanic. those guys over there are really hardcore.

[Onizuka]

whats the address of the forum?

[lessthanjakejohn]

I'm over there every once in a while

http://www.nissaninfiniticlub....id=88

[s13sr20chris]

just go to the bottom of the nico menu. its there.

[Mr1der]

think I'm gonna try's to gets me sum learnin' from tem bois! mmm hmmm

[Chingon]

just wanted to drop a word of wisdom here. Mazda's rotary is a true 1.3 liter displacement machine. Each rotor pushes 650~660 cc per rotor. That's why the codename 1.3. In a 20b (cosmo 3 rotor engine) 3 rotors are pushing ~660cc ea. and are able to produce some wicked power and torque. The LeMan's specification engine produces 700bhp@9000rpm, 607Nm/448ftlb@6500rpm, and engine capacity is 654cc x 4 rotors=2616ccThe Mazda LeMans 787B racer powered by this engine won LeMans in 1991, the making both the first Japanese manufacturer and the first non-piston engine to win. Acceleration of the 787B is impressive, as it weighs 800kg, giving it a power to weight ratio of 1.2kg/bhp (2.6lb/bhp).As a comparison consider the following: Ferrari F40 2.6kg/bhp (5.7lb/bhp), Porsche 911 turbo 4.5kg/bhp (9.9lb/bhp)This will allow a 0-100m (328ft) sprint in ~2.5 seconds, and a 1/4 mile with a terminal speed of 250km/h (155mph) - somewhere around 9 seconds!(actually maybe about 10 or 11, as the car is not set up for drag racing)

Unfortunately the rotary was banned from European racing by FISA in 1992.Yashiro Iron Worksin Japan make components that convert 13Bs into "YR26B" engines. They use a built up eccentric shaft design and significantly there is a bearing on each side of each rotor (5 bearings vs 4 in the Mazda design)Capacity 654cc×4Maximum Power 500ps/8500rpmMaximum Torque 40kg-m/8000rpmIntake Peripheral port with downdraught weber style carburettorsDimensions 820×549×520(mm)Weight 200kg

So I think that technology may eventually replace displacement. Take into consideration that the rotary is a relatively new engine which is mainly being "developed" by one company. On a side note, remember that the rb30dett can push upwards of 2000hp, and this is much higher than many 5.0L would wish to push.

by the way, most of this data was pulled from: http://cp_www.tripod.com/rotary/pg03.htm

[yashin]

if there is no replacement for displacement, then how come my 2.4 L 240sx is constantly gettin beat by NA 1.6's, 1.8's, 2.0's and 2.2's???

[Chingon]

'cuz you suck at shifting gears?j/k

[yashin]

'cuz you suck at shifting gears?j/k

umm, not really

a civic sir, any b18 integra, any k20 rsx, and any h22 prelude will all beat 240s stock vs. stock, and a f20 s2k will destroy me

hell a lightly modded h22 prelude will run with a stock sr

just goes to show you that displacement is not the be all and end all when it comes to performance

[Chingon]

yeah, unfortunately, and I know the 240 is not the fastest, I was just "making fun" of your shifting

[tl1000sga]

You can't compare two completely different platforms and then say that one is better than the other for just one reason. The discussion was strictly aimed at engines, not complete cars. As far as an RB30 that makes 2000 HP, what if the same engine was a 4 L? The RB engines are very capable engines, but to say that a 5 L engine (no matter the number of pistons) isn't capable of the 2000 HP is ridiculus. As far as rotary engines, they produce power on every revolution, unlike 4 stroke internal combustion engines. So, if you have a 1.3 L rotary turning at the same RPM as a 1.3 L internal combustion engine then the rotary will actually have used twice the amount of displacement as the IC engine. This is why most people consider a 1.3 L rotary a 2.6 L. So as far as a rotary is concerned, they make more power because they displace more air and fuel, which is the same reason why larger displacement IC engines produce more power. Rotaries were developed by a lot more than one company, there was even a corvette with a rotary engine, not many people know about that though.:icon18

[nomuken]

I have heard this one too many times on this forum and i want to clear something up with all of the idiots that say forced induction is the replacement. ITS NOT. between a v8 and a I4 both running turbos who has more horsepower then? Any technology that can be applied to lower displacement engines can be applied to others. So there really isn't a replacement for displacement. just wanted to clear things up.

:poke

you logic is completely wrong. you're saying engine A doesn't benefit from a technology because another (bigger) engine B benefits from it. it's like saying person A doesn't benefit from an artificial heart because another person also has it.

[nomuken]

Quote »a civic sir, any b18 integra, any k20 rsx, and any h22 prelude will all beat 240s stock vs. stock[/quote] i think it's fair to say that you're talking out of your a$$

[tl1000sga]

i think it's fair to say that you're talking out of your a$$

I would have to agree. lol:boink

[yashin]

i think it's fair to say that you're talking out of your a$$

ur joking right??

[MrFox]

Rotaries were developed by a lot more than one company, there was even a corvette with a rotary engine, not many people know about that though.:icon18

Even less know that there were factory Silvias with rotary engines....

[Chingon]

yeah i knew rotaries were experimented on by more than one company, but mazda is the only one who kept going. as for the displacement, well you are right, a rotor uses 100% of its surface vs 50% of the piston. However I still think the displacement should be for only 1/3 of the stroke.

[tl1000sga]

I didn't know about the silvia rotaries. Even mazda advertises it's 787B as a 3 rotor, and claims it's a 3.9L, but it has the same displacement per rotor as the rx7.:icon18

[McAdam]

nissan rotary there was also a pic of a rotary powered suzuki on that page. almost bought one once.

I'll stick my 2 cents in here, just for fun.

torque.... is not the end all be all, we are talking about HP here too. Deisel motors have lots of torque, yet do we consider them fast? no. because they have no HP. what would be faster, a 9 lliter desiel motor with gobs of torque and 425hp or an RB26DETT making 850hp and the same torque rating?

technology can be seen as a substiture for displacement. If you have a pushrod engine, and you have 2 choices to make it go faster.....

a) make it bigger, more cubes

or

b) slap some 4 valve heads on your small block (its no joke, they make 4 valve pushrod heads)

the 4 valve heads will make more power for a given displacement than standard 2 valve heads. Hot rod wrote an article on them once. it was a BOLT on 100hp, no BS. Ued same carb, same cam, same complete lower end. just different intake and exhasut for the 32v. that is technology at work, operating with a given base, to produce more hp than displacement could on that given base.

there is a limit to how much you can bore and stroke a given block.

I'll shut up now. rbing on the flames, its getting cold here in ND

McAdam

[tl1000sga]

[quote=" McAdam [Btorque.... is not the end all be all, we are talking about HP here too. Deisel motors have lots of torque, yet do we consider them fast? no. because they have no HP. what would be faster, a 9 lliter desiel motor with gobs of torque and 425hp or an RB26DETT making 850hp and the same torque rating?

technology can be seen as a substiture for displacement. McAdam [/quote]

Well, desiel engines have thier own purpose, but if you had 2 identical cars with identical wieght then that desiel would destroy the rb in an acceleration test. Torque is what accelerates an engine. The RB would have to compensate for it's torque with rpm's, which takes time and means compensation through gearing, while the desiel would have more power at lower rpms, which translates to less shifting, less gearing, and more time spent accellerating. Of course, I would still rather have an RB26DETT. You make a good point, that is a tremendous amount of HP gained by those heads, but what if the engine you put them on was a 1.6? Do you think it would still add 100HP?Technology is deffinately one of the best was to make power, but it is greatly limited. An engines ability to make power is equal to the amount of air and fuel it can flow. Technology can make an engine more efficient, which translates to power, but an engine will always be restricted to what it's volume is. What happens when said engine becomes 100 % efficient?

Technology = efficiencydisplacement = power

:poke

[C-Kwik]

Well, desiel engines have thier own purpose, but if you had 2 identical cars with identical wieght then that desiel would destroy the rb in an acceleration test. Torque is what accelerates an engine. The RB would have to compensate for it's torque with rpm's, which takes time and means compensation through gearing, while the desiel would have more power at lower rpms, which translates to less shifting, less gearing, and more time spent accellerating. Of course, I would still rather have an RB26DETT. You make a good point, that is a tremendous amount of HP gained by those heads, but what if the engine you put them on was a 1.6? Do you think it would still add 100HP?Technology is deffinately one of the best was to make power, but it is greatly limited. An engines ability to make power is equal to the amount of air and fuel it can flow. Technology can make an engine more efficient, which translates to power, but an engine will always be restricted to what it's volume is. What happens when said engine becomes 100 % efficient?

Technology = efficiencydisplacement = power

:poke

Without knowing a 9L Diesel's actual HP output, if I were to assume it put out 425 HP based on McAdam's numbers, an 850 HP RB would still beat the 425 HP Diesel if all else were equal. Please go to page 3 of this thread and read my post about HP vs torque there.

You could always gear a 850 HP RB motor really low so that it creates a similar torque output at the wheels if you wanted to drive a truck with it. But the reason low RPM-high torque motors are more practical in a truck is because 8000 RPMs would probably present a lot of expense and reliabilty issues on a motor that is built to run 1,000,000 miles or so.

And if you want a small displacement example of HP, consider Toyota's 22RE motor(late 80's early 90's truck motor). It displaced 2.4 L and put out some 115 HP through a SOHC motor. And that was in the old Celicas so it wasn't exactly a truck purpose only motor. One of the most technologically advanced motor available to the public is the S2000 Motor. And it puts out more than double the power with 0.4 L less displacment. And if you want to make an even better comparison, you can look at the SR20DE which puts out 140HP with a fairly modern head and decent redline. Yet the S2000 puts out 100 more ponies.

100% overall efficiency is probably as reachable as unobtainium. But we do strive for it. If it were to happen, we'd have no need for cooling systems, no mufflers and no intake resonators. And the motors would be dead quiet. We would get more than 3 times the gas mileage and about 3 times the power for a given amount of fuel. Part of the problem with reaching 100% is that the way we control motors now is by restricting the intake with a throttle. There has been some research done in the use of electro-magnetically actuated valves that would allow infinite amounts of valve lift, duration and overlap.

But you can get 100%+ volumetric efficiency. Turbos and superchargers are one way. In normally aspirated motors, it can be obtained with a set of properly matched cams and headers. But would be restricted to a small RPM band and likely at high RPM's.

Technology is just as much a limiting factor as displacement. The less efficient a motor is, the more displacement is needed to create a similar output. I will always argue one is not better than the other. You need both. Even the earliest motors have some technology. Unless we have figured out how to convert heat energy into mechanical energy by putting fuel in a coke can and lighting it with a match. Even the largest cans will still only explode. Technology allows us to harness that power. They are in a sense....symbiotic.

[nametakennow]

My SR20DE puts out 145... the SE-R SR20DE puts out about 170 if I'm not mistaken, so Nissan is catching up. You also have to remember that the Honda engine has around 140 ld/ft of torque if I'm not mistaken, which is comparable to my 139, same displacement, lower RPM motor. I just had to mention that. I actually agree that the replacement for displacement is technology. Turbos do a lot for that, as a small, quick-spooling turbo such as can be found on TDi VW's, which have been know to beat out many a Honda in accelleration, despite a measely 115hp. I have .2 litres more displacement than my brother's Audi A4, even with chip and exhaust tuning (like he has) I would still lag behind by something like 25-35hp and an amazing 90-95 lb/ft, just because of the small, quick-spooling K03 turbo.

[tl1000sga]

You could always gear a 850 HP RB motor really low so that it creates a similar torque output at the wheels if you wanted to drive a truck with it. But the reason low RPM-high torque motors are more practical in a truck is because 8000 RPMs would probably present a lot of expense and reliabilty issues on a motor that is built to run 1,000,000 miles or so.

100% overall efficiency is probably as reachable as unobtainium. But we do strive for it. If it were to happen, we'd have no need for cooling systems, no mufflers and no intake resonators. And the motors would be dead quiet. We would get more than 3 times the gas mileage and about 3 times the power for a given amount of fuel. Part of the problem with reaching 100% is that the way we control motors now is by restricting the intake with a throttle. There has been some research done in the use of electro-magnetically actuated valves that would allow infinite amounts of valve lift, duration and overlap.

But you can get 100%+ volumetric efficiency. Turbos and superchargers are one way. In normally aspirated motors, it can be obtained with a set of properly matched cams and headers. But would be restricted to a small RPM band and likely at high RPM's.

You can't create torque from gearing, you can however create HP from gearing. Torque is the base, and HP is a derivative of it, therefore if you could create the HP without the rpms, gearing, etc. needed then that will always be better. No one ever said that 100 % was a reality, it was just an example. and I wasn't talking about volumetric efficiency. 100% + volumetric effeciency is a theory, and in that theory turbos and superchargers actually add to the engine volume, therefore it's still not 100% +. And no, you can't get 100 % + from just cams and headers. remember we aren't talking about an actual engine, nor am i comparing any. it sounds as though you are biased on this matter, so a discussion based on facts is impossible.:icon18