No Replacement for Displacement

[SmithSR]

D-Unit, why stroke the RB26? Mario on exvitermini suggests the RB26dett is capable of "generating and sustaining" 500+ BHP per liter of displacement. He would know, his race prepped GT-R drag car cuts 8's on street legal rubber.

500HP per liter, 2.6 liters, simple math...plenty of power.

[89S13SILVIA]

did anyone mention that the lingenfelter vette was smoking the tires all the way down the track i saw it on speed vision, he was in 6th gear right after the halfway point on the track they said if it could hook up it would run low 7s

[deez1001]

wow sorry guys i must have hit a sore spot with this post. looks like it actually needed to be discussed though.

[Meantime]

There is a replacement for displacement.

MORE DISPLACEMENT.

To dispel some of the misconceptions in this thread:

1) On the highway, my LS1 gets roughly the same gas mileage as a stock KA (upper 20's mpg). Even around town, it's not thatbad, we're talking 17-19 mpg on average, which still beats any SUV out there. Show me another 330 hp motor that gets that kind of gas mileage.

2) The LS1 is just as responsive as any hi-tech 4 cyl I've driven so far, and has power at either end of the tach.

3) The LS1 is quieter and has less vibration at higher RPMs, even at WFO, than the stock KA.

4) Don't make the mistake of assuming "muscle" cars with big engines can't handle. This is not the 60's and they don't make sports cars with 7-liter engines and 4-wheel drums anymore. An F4 or C5 is cruder than a 240 in terms of handling, and a good deal heavier, but not less capable - just different.

*plink* there's my two rupees.

[aleph1]

Someone mentioned the Rx-8 at 250hp. Just so you know, Mazda is a big bull****ter and after they found out people werent getting even close to that out of their RX8s, the specs went down to 238hp =) lame.....

[D-UNIT]

[quote=" SmithSR

500HP per liter, 2.6 liters, simple math...plenty of power. [/quote]

That is exactly the point of this thread , dude.

Why settle for 1550 hp when with more displacement you could have 2000+ hp and cut 7's.

You know that GM drag cavalier with 2 liter turbo hits like a low 7 sec quarter mile. That little motor puts out 1250 hp!! "625 hp per liter"!! Now take that "technology" , add 6 more liters and voila 7000hp , 4.7 sec 1/4 mile @ 320mph. Top fuel power baby!!

[deez1001]

D-unit that is the exact point i am trying to convey. Also we are talking about engine power not handling. I really dont give a d*mn if our car can outhandle a muscle car... thats not what this thread is about.

[C-Kwik]

You should be caring about torque curves, because hp is a calculated number from an actual torque measurement.

The C5 has the torque advantage, and would have a much flatter torque curve, giving it greater force to move the mass of the vehicle sooner .. if it can get proper traction.

Actually HP matters. Torque means nothing in the numbers sense. HP translates torque based on RPM to equalize for gearing advantages. The reason High RPM motors make so much HP is because it can use a lower gear ratio to achieve the same wheel speed but it would have more torque multiplication by the time it hits the wheels. Here's a write up I did many months back(Sorry if some of it doesn't make direct sense with this post. It was actually a response to something else, but you'll get my point):

"Torque peak on a stock KA occurs at 4400 RPM according to Nissan's rating. The highest redline I've seen on any KA is 6900 RPM. The peak torque is occurring way before that.

There could be a number of reasons to increase redline. If there is still power to be made, then it may extend your power band some. Keep in mind for a given amount of torque, the higher the RPM it is made in, the better. As an example, let’s consider an electric motor. They tend to make the same amount of torque all the way to its maximum RPM. You'll find that while torque is the same, HP will increase directly with RPM. So the more RPM you have, the more HP you have. Internal combustion engines do not have perfectly flat torque curves. Typically it rises to a peak and then starts diminishing. Even though it diminishes, due to the nature of Hp being greater with RPM (for a given amount of torque), the HP rating after the peak torque can still be higher than at peak HP. And in most motors, this is typical.

The reason that HP rises with RPM, is because it's a measure of potential. Frankly, HP is one of the most misleading terms when it comes to rotating engines. Torque is the force that actually accelerates your car. The higher the torque, the faster you will accelerate. So the best acceleration in each gear occurs at peak torque. But some smart guy thought up a device called a transmission. It has many gears that allow the motor to have more leverage. Lower gears allow you to put more torque to the wheels, and therefore you will accelerate faster. Notice your car accelerates its fastest in first gear? So why do we care about HP? Well, since the HP is a number that takes into account torque and acceleration it can tell us more about how well it uses the leverage your transmission provides. Typically, the longer you can stay in a lower gear, the more torque you can get to the wheels at any given time. All motors will get to a point where the speed is mechanically limited, or get to a point where the torque has diminished so much that shifting to the next gear would give you more torque to the ground. Ideally, you would want to shift at the point where the torque measurements at the wheels in each gear crosses the curve for the next gear.

HP is a calculated number. It is much easier to determine how fast a car will be from looking at this number than looking at just the peak torque number. If I were to say a motor had 150 lb-ft of peak torque, it would be hard to determine how fast the car is. It could end up being a motor that spins at 1 RPM but makes 150 lb-ft of torque with a 1 RPM redline. This would not be useful for nothing more than turning something that needed an exact output of 150 lb-ft of torque at 1 RPM. You could have 50 gears, and chances are you’d never get moving very fast at all. 150 lb-ft of torque at 1 RPM is .028 HP btw.

Now let’s consider I tell you that a motor makes 150 HP. It may make 150 HP even at 1 RPM. But at that one RPM, you would have 787,800 lb-ft of torque. Now, even with some seriously tall gears, I'm sure you could accelerate a car with some decency with that much torque.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume we have two motors that have a perfectly flat torque curve. Both make 150 HP. The first one has a redline of 100 RPM and the 2nd can rev to 1000 RPM. The 100 RPM would make 7878 lb-ft of torque. The 1000 RPM motor would make 787.8 lb-ft of torque. If we took the 1000 RPM motor and used a gear ratio of 10:1, you’d be making 7878 lb-ft of torque(ignoring any drivetrain losses), at 1/10 the speed of the motor. It would actually have the same torque and HP curve as the 100 RPM motor after the gearing. If the gearing were matched so that each motor hit redline at the same wheel speeds, they would accelerate the same. Even though the 1000 RPM motor made 10 times less torque, it can make the same HP because it can make use of the leverage additional RPM's give. And as you see it is quite linear. 10 times more RPM with 10 times more leverage with 10 times less torque achieved the same results."

[C-Kwik]

Lingenfelter's most powerful kit puts out over 900 hp and runs 9's in the quarter and looks stock. Nobody said anything about a stock C5. The different ways to make HP do matter, they all have different uses. All that typing and you basically said nothing that hasn't been said. How about reading the posts before you express your opinion. If all you care about is horsepower, then go find another post to be ignorant on, we're not discussing HP:thinker

I thought there might have been something more powerful, but the Lingenfelter catalog I downloaded months ago only listed a 750 HP version as their highest rated. I make it a very big point not to quote information that I can not prove.

Uhh? how are we not discussing HP? You don't go creating a 7 liter motor to not make HP. You don't add a turbo not to make HP. I'd rerear your post before you start calling others ignorant...

[D-UNIT]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by C-Kwik "]I thought there might have been something more powerful, but the Lingenfelter catalog I downloaded months ago only listed a 750 HP version as their highest rated. I make it a very big point not to quote information that I can not prove.[quote]

but there is proof.....

[quote]Originally posted by D-UNIT I'm kinda late but....Lingenfelter Twin turbo C5 as of aug. 2003! $50,000 gets you a fully built 7 liter C5-R block, LS6 heads , Two Garret GT28 turbos (14 to 20 pounds of boost). Installed with a 24,000 mile warranty!! <-- wish jdm sr's came with that. lol.

This equals over 1100 very streetable ( F.I. big block) horsepower and 950 ft\lb of peak torque. Good for a 0 to 60 of 1.97 seconds. A 1/4 mile of 8.95sec. @ 153.7 mph on drag radials (not slicks). stock suspension and no weight reduction. 230mph!!

http://www.ligenfelter.com[quote]

C-kwik your first post was pleasing to the cranium!!

How about rc cars eh. .12cc engine putting out 1.29 hp and 0.48 oz/in of torque!! At 30,000 rpms. This engine can get my 5 pound rc car up to 65 mph in about 2.5 seconds.

[tl1000sga]

I thought there might have been something more powerful, but the Lingenfelter catalog I downloaded months ago only listed a 750 HP version as their highest rated. I make it a very big point not to quote information that I can not prove.

Uhh? how are we not discussing HP? You don't go creating a 7 liter motor to not make HP. You don't add a turbo not to make HP. I'd rerear your post before you start calling others ignorant...

We were discussing power potential from engines(torque, not HP as that is a much broader term), not how much HP you measure on a dyno through various gear ratios. We were trying to keep as many factors out of it as possible. I appologize for the insult, but I took your first post as an insult and it pissed me off.:icon18

[SmithSR]

That is exactly the point of this thread , dude.

Why settle for 1550 hp when with more displacement you could have 2000+ hp and cut 7's.

You know that GM drag cavalier with 2 liter turbo hits like a low 7 sec quarter mile. That little motor puts out 1250 hp!! "625 hp per liter"!! Now take that "technology" , add 6 more liters and voila 7000hp , 4.7 sec 1/4 mile @ 320mph. Top fuel power baby!!

Then you would not have a road legal car. I thought we were trying to stay somewhat close to driveability. The guy I mentioned uses road legal tires, and his seemingly large wallet allows him to build an engine that is, again, capable of "generating and sustaining" 500BHP per liter.

That, however overpowered and under-tired, is a road legal car.

[D-UNIT]

What I was saying is why not RB30 2000+ hp. That cav and top fuel thing was just an example of NO R FOR D (main subject).

Pls refer to the "street legal" twin turbo corvette specs ( thats 92 octane by the way!!) Is his car awd , that must be one heck of a ride. torquesteer me!!

[SmithSR]

Yes, he runs it in AWD configuration...although he's been asked on many occasions why he runs AWD....

To paraphrase him: "I challenge" anybody putting down 500BHP per liter to get traction on two road legal tires instead of four.

[charlotte240]

[D-UNIT]

Yeah I agree. Ha ha talk about Burnout Betty. That would be like doing a 12 sec. burnout at 110 mph. lol.

[ShadowKnight006]

holy hood ornaments batman, look at the size of that thing!(the car in the pic on the bottom of page 3)I'm surprised there aren't more threads like this, the displacement vs technology debate has been simmering for so long. Personally, sure more displacements gives you more to work with but most of us don't have a lot of time or more importantly money to put into a project. We like our cars for what they are, if we wanted something to put a giant engine into just to get the lowest 1/4 time possible, we would have bought a something else. Lets not forget though that in drag racing, it can come down to the driver more than anything cus if you red light its all over anyway no matter how much power you have.

[R4v3n]

I think we can all agree that both Technology and Displacement increase horsepower, but they are different. Displacement is a base, because you can build horsepower onto a motor using technology. Technology is not a base, you do not start with a turbo kit and crap without having a motor in mind, do you? No, you always start with displacement. Technology adds horsepower to displacement, period. Apples and Oranges people, so how exactly can Technology be a replacement for displacement? They are 2 different things, period. Displacement is displacement, Technology is technology. Therefore there is no replacement for Displacement. There, problem solved. If you want more power, you can add technology to your motor or just go with a bigger motor. Bottom line, it all has to do with opinion and how far you really want to go. Well, that and how much you are willing to spend...

[C-Kwik]

Displacement is as much a power adder and anything else that increases breathing. More displacement pumps more air through the motor. A turbo pumps more air through. Higher RPM's pumps more air through. Increasing the VE of a motor pumps more air through. Hell people even go and bump up displacement in a motor by boring and or stroking which pumps air through. So what is really the difference? I can replace the pumping volume of displacement with my turbo. You say you can't replace displacement, yet you can put a turbo on a large displacement motor and now you are replacing even larger displacement with a turbo. The statement just seems hypocritical to me...

[SmithSR]

Not that's it's hypocritical.. perhaps easier to say "replacement" instead of what is really taking place, which would be more appropriately described as "replication" or "duplication" or "a method to equal specific torque output by other means."

Who's got a streetable, 92octane, under warranty inline4, inline6, V-6, V-8, or any other lesser-displacement variant that produces 525ft lbs at 4200rpm?('03 Viper V10)

Side note: it's documented that Dodge's first move to increase output for this newer Viper engine was to increase displacement,(R&T Oct '02) so C-Kwik has a very good point about that...

[MrFox]

Nicely worded C-Kwik!

[D-UNIT]

^^ yup , and that viper engine is still pushrods with two valves per cylinder. Not much technology , but lots of streetable power!!

I was going to try and jump the technology fence with a trump card for the tech guys but I can't. The ultimate supplier of tech in engines (small displacement , high hp) would be Ferrari *drool*. BUT their new flagship The Ferrari Enzo with 660 hp (NA) , 484 tq and 1/4 of 11 flat , has a 6 LITER engine. Oh well I guess five valves per cylinder and a 11,000 rpm rev limit can only go so far!!

Not bad for naturally aspirated. So I guess no R for D counts way more in the NA category than the turbo category. 4 cylinder suck a** NA. Yeah take that turbo off your SR and my KA would trounce it. No honda backing either cause I know already. Just look at the ferrari specs again, that could be a 6 liter hnda engine with vtec!! if honda made big engines (displacement)!!

So the point is Forced induction is the replacement for displacement. You can't have a 16 liter engine pumping out 6000 hp! It would probably weigh 3000 pounds and blow up in a sec.

get a 4 banger put boost inside whamo 1000 hp. get an 8 liter put boost inside a full race one and go from 1500hp to 7000hp!! <--- 5 sec at a time hp then rebuild time!!LOL! Boost is the answer. Technology to run 42 psi at 12:1 compression ratio is secondary! Done!!

[Kaioshin1982]

omg i got a headache after reading the whole thread....everything i read went in to my head and out as soon as i got to the next post :-/

I can safely say that i didnt learn 1 thing at all after reading so much

[Charlie240sxt]

You guys know this little war is never goin to end cuz both of us r right in your own way but ther is no replacement but you can sub. displacement but you cant replace it so ther for both sides are in ther own right now ther i ended it haha

[reggiegsd]

This topic has been argued in every paddock in the country.

The old racers saw still applies, "The only way to beat cubic inches is with cubic dollars."

If weights are held constant, this will be true every time.

[MasterMan]

well here is a V8 that will fit in your hand (and yes it runs) i bet any one of our cars will beat it

http://www.wt.com.au/~namps/small/

[MasterMan]

this is the link i was looking for.. these lil V8's are awsome!

[MasterMan]

http://www.conleyprecision.com/prod01.htm

link helps

[Mr1der]

neato

[tl1000sga]

Damn, That engine cost just as much as the real thing!:eek: