A replacement for displacement

Status
Not open for further replies.
depends.

Supercharging a petrol engi9ne reduces the overall thermal efficiency. Diesels, and appropriate cam timing and they can be amazingly efficient.
 
Originally Posted By: byez
Honda S2000 2 Litre 4 cylinder 240 hp with a 9000rpm redline. The replacement for displacement is gearing and/or turbo.


Now that's impressive, 240 horsepower from a NA 2 liter that anyone can drive and it meets all emission requirements.

Listen to this one it sounds great, not so much that guy in the first 30 seconds of the clip.
 
Top fuel dragsters use huge superchargers, but their gas pedal has only two settings. I think any real vehicle would benefit more from turbo. In the 90’s here, the little cars switched from superchargers to turbos. the US still used roots blowers because people wanted the power down low. But by design the blower will eat some of the hp you have in order to make more. The turbo will eat much less. It’s also easier to play with, so it’s more risky for an OEM application.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
depends.

Supercharging a petrol engi9ne reduces the overall thermal efficiency. Diesels, and appropriate cam timing and they can be amazingly efficient.


This is true, but if absolute power is the only criteria an 8000 horsepower top fuel engine wins.
 
If automakers had spent as much time on weight reduction as they had drivetrains, we'd have that V-6 Accord weighing around 2500lbs. Imagine what that would do for fuel mileage, acceleration and handling.
 
The most powerful engines use turbochargers. I believe the most powerful gasoline powered "car" is an NSCA drag car that makes about 2500 hp - single turbocharged big block.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Jkwt79AxDQ&feature=related

Top fuel engines would make more power if they were turbocharged but no one has been able to make an exhaust housing that can stand the heat - plus, they've used roots style blowers for eons and it's just part of the rules set now - kind of like Nascar. Things don't change.
 
Last edited:
That's AS heavy as a XJ Cherokee ..and just a little lighter than my Wrangler. I find that hard to believe.

That sounds like some warped Hue Downs "road hugging weight" that the Pintos had when the 5mph bumper thingie came out ..oh ...and the explosion resistant gas tank.
 
I think it's funny when people say gearing and RPM are the replacement for displacement. Does that mean a motorbike engine at 1000cc "has replaced" larger 3.0L V6s in passenger cars? Or that by using the small displacement for more time (by RPM/gear ratio) = the equivalent of more displacement? Actually the lack of displacement is the entire reason one would need to use revs to match power output. But as the OP stated, they believe a switchable cam profile is the replacemnt? Actually VTEC could theoretically, by switching cam profiles, enhance the torque (driveablility) for the non-vtec powerband. The problem is Honda has never managed to make their VTEC engines shine for driveablility because the rest of the engine must be tuned as a compromise at best. Thus low end suffers, because high end is favoured, and needed to achieve peak numbers and performance.

Increasing displacement was an easy way out back then, but now it's not only a spolution for more power. Large displacements can acheive very good fuel economy, because they can have a much higher thermal efficiency (and thus more torque) at lower RPM allowing an efficient (and powerful) running low RPM cruiser... :) I mean even Honda knows there is no replacemnt for displacement, or else their V6s would still be 2.7L and their 4 cylinders would still be 600cc :)
 
Originally Posted By: ms21043
Originally Posted By: byez
Honda S2000 2 Litre 4 cylinder 240 hp with a 9000rpm redline. The replacement for displacement is gearing and/or turbo.


Now that's impressive, 240 horsepower from a NA 2 liter that anyone can drive and it meets all emission requirements.

Listen to this one it sounds great, not so much that guy in the first 30 seconds of the clip.


And the torque number is .... an unimpressive 162 lb/ft @ 6800 rpm. Being a Japanese car, even that anemic number is probably overrated.

That engine would have a tough time busting a tight lug nut loose.
 
Displacement always wins. The flaw here is you're comparing '70s technology with a modern, fuel-injected, computer-controlled V6. Fast forward to 2008 and imagine if Honda were to produce a 440 big block Accord. I'd expect it to blow the tires off both the Buick and the V6.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: ms21043
Originally Posted By: byez
Honda S2000 2 Litre 4 cylinder 240 hp with a 9000rpm redline. The replacement for displacement is gearing and/or turbo.


Now that's impressive, 240 horsepower from a NA 2 liter that anyone can drive and it meets all emission requirements.

Listen to this one it sounds great, not so much that guy in the first 30 seconds of the clip.


And the torque number is .... an unimpressive 162 lb/ft @ 6800 rpm. Being a Japanese car, even that anemic number is probably overrated.

That engine would have a tough time busting a tight lug nut loose.



Thats also one of the main reasons why Honda increased the displacement in the later S2000 to 2.2L with the F22C, due to complaints of the engine being severely underpowered below 6000RPM
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As a car enthusiast, I cannot help but be impressed in the progress made in 40 years in the automotive world.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have one of those big cube muscle cars.

But I can also appreciate how far we've come since 1970, and give props where they are deserved.

Modern carmakers, including Honda deserve credit for the advances we've made since 1970, IMO.


Well said javacontour.

Today's engines are far advanced and improved from yesteryear's. The simple fact I was trying to bring out in my apples to oranges comparison is that today's cars go just as fast as yesterday's muscle cars with 1/2 the displacement.

If you can get over the fact that they don't make as much torque (but quite obviously make up for it on the upper end of the RPM range) when you stomp the peddle you are closer to understanding how different, and for 95% of all normal uses, better today's engine are.

Clark
 
Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Actually the lack of displacement is the entire reason one would need to use revs to match power output.

Not really. Displacement vs. revs is just a design choice.

Yes, lack of displacement requires you to rev higher because it means less torque. But don't forget: less torque means the rest of the drivetrain doesn't have to be as beefy, so it can be lighter and more efficient and allow better shift quality.

And that's only scratching the surface. There are a LOT of variables. It's all about what you're trying to achieve.


Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
I mean even Honda knows there is no replacemnt for displacement, or else their V6s would still be 2.7L and their 4 cylinders would still be 600cc :)

I'd say that trend is more a product of demand for more torque than a natural evolution as you are suggesting. That's especially the case in this country, where it's not about how fast you can go but how little you have to press the gas pedal...
 
Originally Posted By: Win
And the torque number is .... an unimpressive 162 lb/ft @ 6800 rpm.

Compared against the weight, that number isn't as bad as it looks in isolation.

Besides, if you're driving the car as it's designed to be driven, it's the power that matters most.

Originally Posted By: Win
Being a Japanese car, even that anemic number is probably overrated.

That engine would have a tough time busting a tight lug nut loose.

Ah, the old anti-VTEC quips...

I guarantee that number is not overrated. If anything, it'll be underrated because they'll have tested it under less than ideal conditions to ensure that real world performance is at least what they say it is.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Compared against the weight, that number isn't as bad as it looks in isolation.


Except that the S2000 is NOT all that "light" for it's size.

Originally Posted By: dOOdfOOd
Besides, if you're driving the car as it's designed to be driven, it's the power that matters most.


Yes, but that's the problem. The vast majority of the owners are either unable, or not willing to rev to 8000+ rpm for the launch, nor between shifts.
 
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Except that the S2000 is NOT all that "light" for it's size.

So?

It still has a better torque to weight ratio than many cars that are praised for having good torque.

Originally Posted By: dOOdfOOd
Yes, but that's the problem. The vast majority of the owners are either unable, or not willing to rev to 8000+ rpm for the launch, nor between shifts.

Then does the problem reside with the car, or the people buying it?
 
d00df00d It still has a better torque to weight ratio than many cars that are praised for having good torque. [/quote said:
d00df00d,

The Honda S2000 weighs 2,865 pounds according to Car and Driver, who weigh their own cars that they test. The torque rating of the bigger 2004+ 2.2 liter is 162ft lbs of torque.

My question is, can you start a list of ONE sporty car that is praised for its torque to weight ratio despite that ratio being less than the Honda S2000?

To add, after the SAE tightened its standards on testing advertised power for engines, after spending about 5 to 10 minutes on the net, I counted 5 Honda and Acura cars and trucks that had to lower their(over rated)horsepower rating from that previous year. I stopped at 5, there may have been more but I don't know. The S2000 was one of those cars so perhaps it is currently no longer overrated.

Generally speaking there weren't that many engines at all whose numbers actually did go down.
 
Originally Posted By: Kernel Potter

To add, after the SAE tightened its standards on testing advertised power for engines, after spending about 5 to 10 minutes on the net, I counted 5 Honda and Acura cars and trucks that had to lower their(over rated)horsepower rating from that previous year. I stopped at 5, there may have been more but I don't know. The S2000 was one of those cars so perhaps it is currently no longer overrated.

Generally speaking there weren't that many engines at all whose numbers actually did go down.


Which is almost meaningless the way you approached it.

First, you cite SOME number, but say it's not complete, but fail to give any comparative figures for any other car maker.

You bias is exposed, not to mention your methodology flawed.

A better stat would be to look at engines, not cars, as the same engine may be installed in any number of vehicles, and to look at all of the engines for a number of car makers to give a valid comparison.

For all we know, it could be the same engine in those 5 vehicles, and out of all of Hondas engines, only one was impacted by the change in how torque is measured.

Plus, you have to prove that the engine was not changed from the previous year. If you cannot prove that, then your statement is is totally worthless, and in my opinion, simply demonstrates your bias against Honda.

After all, you didn't do the same sorts of research for other brands that you may view more favorably. It appears you found what appeared to you to be a negative, and then stopped doing research, by your own admission.

So it appears your mind is already made up. Which is fine, it's your money.

But I simply want to point out that your criticism is by no stretch of the imagination, objective or balanced.
 
IIRC, Toyota also had a few overrated engines, it wasn't just Honda that was fudging the numbers to make themselves look better. It seemed like they could actually make the numbers published or close to it, but only if they were fed premium fuel.

I also seem to recall that Ford and GM were either right on the numbers, or could have been rated higher than they were. Anyway,
I didn't pay a lot of attention at the time, but the overall impression I got was that the Japanese car makers were inflating their numbers, and the domestics and Europeans were not.

But, really, 162 lbs/ft, 168 lbs/ft, what's the big deal? Either way, it's nothing to get excited about, no matter how high an rpm it winds up to. As far as I am concerned, a high winding gutless engine is just a more annoying version of a gutless engine.
 
And that's a matter of preference. There will always be those who like the big torque of big cubes and others that like higher revs. It's not an issue of right or wrong, or best or worse as in absolutes.

My personal favorites for fun engines have been domestic low cube, high horsepower engines.

I had an SVT Contour with the 2.5L V6 with close to a 7K redline. 200 peak hp and about 170 give or take peak torque. That engine was like good music as it raced to redline before the next shift.

Almost as good, but certainly not as refined was my 1990 Beretta GTZ with the 180HP 2.3L Quad4. I have no idea what the peak torque was, but suspect it was in the 150-160 lb-ft range given the displacement.

Some people like NASCAR and if I recall correctly, sub 10K redlines. Others like Indy Car/F1 type cars with redlines over 15K RPMs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top