5.0 vs Ecoboost interesting results...

[FasstChevys]

comparing two comparable motors like comparing apples and oranges? wat.

refer to post #7, only $750 more, for a twin turbo system, that make more power none-the-less...

If you haven't gotten it by now, you aren't going to.

Refer to post #45, get a cup of coffee, read the first paragraph over and over and really think about it.

[justinmc978]

If you haven't gotten it by now, you aren't going to.

Refer to post #45, get a cup of coffee, read the first paragraph over and over and really think about it.

look at post 55 again, second quote

[jad628]

look at post 55 again, second quote

I think all of us talking about "displacement" attributes are speaking in basic terms, meaning two different sized engines - both naturally aspirated - running at the same rpm's. Post 55 (second paragraph/quote) only indicates changes to the smaller displacement engine. If those same changes were ALSO made to the larger one, our opinion is that the larger engine will make more power.

[Smittro]

i wouldn't be surprised to see a rwd ecoboost in the mustang within a couple years and if that's the case then gm needs to step up their game and get a turbo in the v6 camaro. this is also further proof that the adage "no replacement for displacement" is less and less true all the time. modern v6 engines can outperform v8s with the correct power adders.

If they do lets hope it's not the total disaster the 3.1 McLearon(sp) turbo was..

There would be no need for FI if they would just stroke the stupid things..

IMHO

[justinmc978]

I think all of us talking about "displacement" attributes are speaking in basic terms, meaning two different sized engines - both naturally aspirated - running at the same rpm's. Post 55 (second paragraph/quote) only indicates changes to the smaller displacement engine. If those same changes were ALSO made to the larger one, our opinion is that the larger engine will make more power.

post #34; post #55 3rd quote.

you guys are picking apart my argument one peice at a time and not seeing the big picture. now if you are simply trying to prove that bigger motors are bigger, well 2+2 will always equal 4. I can't argue against that, and I never have.

[jad628]

post #34; post #55 3rd quote.

you guys are picking apart my argument one peice at a time and not seeing the big picture. now if you are simply trying to prove that bigger motors are bigger, well 2+2 will always equal 4. I can't argue against that, and I never have.

Time for me to agree that we disagree.

[FasstChevys]

post #34; post #55 3rd quote.

you guys are picking apart my argument one peice at a time and not seeing the big picture. now if you are simply trying to prove that bigger motors are bigger, well 2+2 will always equal 4. I can't argue against that, and I never have.

Okay - my ZO6 makes ~600 horsepower, and gets 24 mpg. Putting a turbo on it would not dramatically destroy the gas mileage during normal driving, and it'd be easily above 800 hp. Now what?

(427 cubic inches)

All engines are different, and are built for different purposes. Not every engine is built from the factory to it's ultimate potential (assuming on pump gas).

The statement is still true. More cubes can equal more power.

Done.

[FasstChevys]

Time for me to agree that we disagree.

X2

[korndawg]

Even tho this post is great for arguement, I do understand what the OP is trying to say. It would be nice for GM to have a motor out there that competes with the ecoboost from the factory. A high HP motor that gets 30+ would be a dream for me. I wanna see how these boosted motors last first before I jump on their bandwagon tho. Something breaks on one of those are your talking a major fix.

[Blakbird24]

Not sure what you mean here, the Ecoboost has been proven to outperform both the newest versions of the Chevy 5.3 and 5.7 Hemi in equal trim. And to add, they do this while producing excellent gas mileage.

The 5.3 LS motor is, by 2011 standards, an ANCIENT motor. In fact, the LS3 is getting old at this point. Next year brings a whole new crop of GM V8's to the table, so the landscape is going to be very different then. But for now, we have what we have, so we must work with it.

That said, let's at least try to make the comparison as even as possible, and to do so, we must go to car applications since that's the most current tech GM has right now (with all the gas truck motors being 5 years old at this point). The most relevant comparison is the LS3 vs. (Car trim) Ecoboost, in which the LS3 has a small power advantage with basically equivalent fuel mileage (16/24 for the LS3 vs. 17/24 for the Ecoboost). So basically the Ecoboost offers slightly less power and slightly better fuel economy at the cost of infinitely greater complexity and undoubtedly reduced longevity.

Not quite there yet, though it does make a strong case for further pursuit of this approach. If the Ecoboost can prove to be anywhere near as reliable as our good 'ole V8's, the case will be even stronger. However I can't possibly see it being able to match the V8's in longevity and maintenance costs, since those turbos will inevitably have to be thorougly serviced by the 100k mile mark.

really? what if an FI'd car with a smaller displacement can push more fuel and gas mixture into the combustion chamber than a larger NA motor can simulataniously? what if it can rev higher(as most can, the EBV6 can wind up to 9k I believe, much higher than the comparable 5.0) accomplishing the same thing? burning more A/F mixture in a given second than a bigger lower revving 8?

Again I think you are misunderstanding your own argument. I already said that you can make an argument either way for which type of motor is BETTER in a given application. But that's not "a replacement for displacement". That's just choosing your weapon.

Did you know that when specific output is calculated for a powerplant, "displacement" includes the compressor? This means that in addition to the cylinder bore x stroke, the turbo or supercharger's internal volume figures into the equation, which in just about every case will give you an effective displacement equal to or exceeding the larger displacement motor in the comparison.

[justinmc978]

Time for me to agree that we disagree.

great.

Okay - my ZO6 makes ~600 horsepower, and gets 24 mpg. Putting a turbo on it would not dramatically destroy the gas mileage during normal driving, and it'd be easily above 800 hp. Now what?

never said it would. it would be mighty expensive though to pay for an LS7 and have a turbo on top of that.

(427 cubic inches)

All engines are different, and are built for different purposes. Not every engine is built from the factory to it's ultimate potential (assuming on pump gas).

The statement is still true. More cubes can equal more power.

never said they couldn't, what I am saying is that more cubes does not always mean more power for less, given factors expressed in post #34, this will be more and more true as time and technology advances..

again, understand the argument I am making before jumping onto an old bandwagon.

Not quite there yet, though it does make a strong case for further pursuit of this approach. If the Ecoboost can prove to be anywhere near as reliable as our good 'ole V8's, the case will be even stronger. However I can't possibly see it being able to match the V8's in longevity and maintenance costs, since those turbos will inevitably have to be thorougly serviced by the 100k mile mark.

youtube: watch?v=J-fCzBHVFTY can't see it where I am, but I think this is the right video, not sure how honest it is.

Again I think you are misunderstanding your own argument. I already said that you can make an argument either way for which type of motor is BETTER in a given application. But that's not "a replacement for displacement". That's just choosing your weapon.

exactly, and what are you doing by choosing a smaller (possibly FI'd) application that better suits your build than a large N/A displacement motor, and puts out equal or more power for a similar(maybe less as technology advances) price...?

replacing displacement. that has been my argument this whole time.

Did you know that when specific output is calculated for a powerplant, "displacement" includes the compressor? This means that in addition to the cylinder bore x stroke, the turbo or supercharger's internal volume figures into the equation, which in just about every case will give you an effective displacement equal to or exceeding the larger displacement motor in the comparison.

that is exactly what I just said, I was making sure that you were aware of it.

[0rion]

for you young'ns...... The adage "there's no replacement for displacement" has been around for a long time and means that when you want to make HP you can't beat a motor with more cubic inches. There is no way in hell you can twist and reword what someone says to where that statement isn't true. Bottom line....if you want HP it's ALWAYS best to start with more cubic inches. You guys are pulling gas mileage and all kinds of stuff out to make a 6 banger seem like a better choice. Gas mileage has nothing to do with that adage. A boosted 6 is not greater than a boosted 8. A non-boosted 6 makes shit for torque compared to an 8.

[justinmc978]

for you young'ns...... The adage "there's no replacement for displacement" has been around for a long time and means that when you want to make HP you can't beat a motor with more cubic inches. There is no way in hell you can twist and reword what someone says to where that statement isn't true. Bottom line....if you want HP it's ALWAYS best to start with more cubic inches. You guys are pulling gas mileage and all kinds of stuff out to make a 6 banger seem like a better choice. Gas mileage has nothing to do with that adage. A boosted 6 is not greater than a boosted 8. A non-boosted 6 makes shit for torque compared to an 8.

but reliablility,MPG,etc is important for a car you are using as a DD, which I would estimate about 99% of all 5.0s and EBs are. this is where the argument started, some other guys took this to a NASCAR setting, but that it is not my intention.

if they are priced similarly(the EB is slightly more expensive...), perform similarly(...but the EB also performs better), and the V6 offers better mileage, reliablily, the other kinds of things car buyers look for in addition to performance, then there is in fact a replacment for displacement.

edit: for the x-trillionth time, I am not argueing that bigger motors aren't the best platforms for huge power numbers, I am argueing they are not always the most reasonable as a drivers with todays technology in smaller platforms that cost/perform similarly, this will be more and more true as technology progresses and that takes us back to post #4, 5 and 7 where this all started.

[jad628]

for you young'ns...... The adage "there's no replacement for displacement" has been around for a long time and means that when you want to make HP you can't beat a motor with more cubic inches. There is no way in hell you can twist and reword what someone says to where that statement isn't true. Bottom line....if you want HP it's ALWAYS best to start with more cubic inches. You guys are pulling gas mileage and all kinds of stuff out to make a 6 banger seem like a better choice. Gas mileage has nothing to do with that adage. A boosted 6 is not greater than a boosted 8. A non-boosted 6 makes shit for torque compared to an 8.

That one sentence says it best.

[Blakbird24]

edit: for the x-trillionth time, I am not argueing that bigger motors aren't the best platforms for huge power numbers, I am argueing they are not always the most reasonable as a drivers with todays technology in smaller platforms that cost/perform similarly, this will be more and more true as technology progresses and that takes us back to post #4, 5 and 7 where this all started.

...and that means that you are NOT arguing AGAINST "no replacement for displacement". Your argument is something different altogether that incorporates alot more subjectivity than the objective physics argument that is the displacement replacement theory.

So stop trying to say it's not true.

[1MileCrash]

if there's no replacement for displacement then why do formula 1 cars have very small engines?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines

*2006 2.4 litre Toyota RVX-06 V8 engine produces 740 bhp at 19,000 rpm and 202 lb·ft of torque

*BMW's P83 (2.3L) engine used in 2003 season managed an impressive 19,200 rpm and cleared the 900 bhp mark and weighs less than 200 lb

*engines for the 2013 season will be 1.6 litre 4 cylinder turbocharged engines, up to 10,000 rpm and fuel restriction (limited fuel flow and capacity); these engines will be designed to improve fuel efficiency by up to 50%, while keeping total power output at around 750 bhp

so...2.4L, 2.3L, 1.6L v10 engines...small displacement...huge power output...i guess there really is no replacement for displacement...

[0rion]

if there's no replacement for displacement then why do formula 1 cars have very small engines?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines

*2006 2.4 litre Toyota RVX-06 V8 engine produces 740 bhp at 19,000 rpm and 202 lb·ft of torque

*BMW's P83 (2.3L) engine used in 2003 season managed an impressive 19,200 rpm and cleared the 900 bhp mark and weighs less than 200 lb

*engines for the 2013 season will be 1.6 litre 4 cylinder turbocharged engines, up to 10,000 rpm and fuel restriction (limited fuel flow and capacity); these engines will be designed to improve fuel efficiency by up to 50%, while keeping total power output at around 750 bhp

so...2.4L, 2.3L, 1.6L v10 engines...small displacement...huge power output...i guess there really is no replacement for displacement...

weight.....how much HP does a top fuel car make?

[1MileCrash]

weight.....how much HP does a top fuel car make?

top fuel...what you're asking is how much hp does a car designed to run a non-petrol fuel make?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Fuel

*a mix of approximately 90% nitromethane and 10% methanol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_car#Fuel

*fuel used in F1 cars is fairly similar to ordinary petrol, albeit with a far more tightly controlled mix. Formula One fuel can only contain compounds that are found in commercial gasoline, in contrast to alcohol-based fuels used in American open-wheel racing

if we are going to talk about engines making power and displacement let's at least keep the type of fuel used in the same ballpark. i don't see many people driving around town in a car powered by racing alcohol but i do see a lot of people driving around using cars powered by petroleum based fuels.

top fuel argument moot.

[0rion]

ok...then how about 202 ft/lb of torque? Peak HP at 19000 rpm? If you're arguing that you can make more horsepower with a small motor vs a big motor then you obviously know nothing about cars or engines. Your whole argument is moot.

[1MileCrash]

ok...then how about 202 ft/lb of torque? Peak HP at 19000 rpm? If you're arguing that you can make more horsepower with a small motor vs a big motor then you obviously know nothing about cars or engines. Your whole argument is moot.

the question was never about the rpm at which the power was produced. people just started talking hp and displacement. if you think that you can beat a formula f1 car in a race with your LS1 then go for it but i think you're going to lose.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5588991_fast-f1-car_.html

*0-100mph in 3.2-3.8 seconds. (not 0-60 in 3.2 seconds...0-100)

*up to 200mph

how fast is the LS1 again...? the LS2...LS3? ford 4.6L...5.0L?