5.0 vs Ecoboost interesting results...

[1MileCrash]

and blah blah blah...top fuel car 0-100 in one second whatever. doesn't run on gasoline or a petroleum based fuel so it doesn't matter in the conversation. when companies start making cars that run on fuel that costs $100 a gallon then we can talk about top fuel dragsters in the same line as some of these other vehicles.

[Spaz]

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?

so let me get this straight... your argument is that there is replacement for displacement... yet teh RPM is a null and void argument...


i'll take your bet on the race against the F1 car...

however... since there is replacement for displacement the F1 car will only be able to shift at the 6.3k prm that i shift at...

[0rion]

and blah blah blah...top fuel car 0-100 in one second whatever. doesn't run on gasoline or a petroleum based fuel so it doesn't matter in the conversation. when companies start making cars that run on fuel that costs $100 a gallon then we can talk about top fuel dragsters in the same line as some of these other vehicles.

I forget....who was it that brought up a frigin formula 1 engine to compare? It's fairly obvious you're just making this stuff up as you go. Why did F1 go from the 3L to the 2.4? Hint: It's in the very link you posted. Answer: They made too much power so they went to a SMALLER engine.

[jad628]

I forget....who was it that brought up a frigin formula 1 engine to compare? It's fairly obvious you're just making this stuff up as you go. Why did F1 go from the 3L to the 2.4? Hint: It's in the very link you posted. Answer: They made too much power so they went to a SMALLER engine.

I didn't know that F1 engines run on pump gas, either.

[justinmc978]

...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.

"no replacement for displacement" is a subjective term in itself, many magazines will use the term during gas hikes when big-motor cars and trucks sales are plummeting. they'll say the 'market is in fact, replacing displacement, as muscle car sales drop, and sporty compacts take the lead', or something to the same effect. If I want it to mean that the market is finding ways to replace V8s and the substitutes are selling (which they are: http://wot.motortrend.com/ecoboost-6...150-72903.html) then it can mean that,
I wont say that was what OneMileCrash was trying to imply, but that's what I got from it and it made sense.

[0rion]

"no replacement for displacement" is a subjective term in itself, many magazines will use the term during gas hikes when big-motor cars and trucks sales are plummeting. they'll say the 'market is in fact, replacing displacement, as muscle car sales drop, and sporty compacts take the lead', or something to the same effect. If I want it to mean that the market is finding ways to replace V8s and the substitutes are selling (which they are: http://wot.motortrend.com/ecoboost-6...150-72903.html) then it can mean that,
I wont say that was what OneMileCrash was trying to imply, but that's what I got from it and it made sense.

keep twisting and tweaking it....you still won't be right. You guys should team up with some Honda owners......they like to argue the same points.

[justinmc978]

keep twisting and tweaking it....you still won't be right. You guys should team up with some Honda owners......they like to argue the same points.

I haven't once changed my stance on the matter

[0rion]

I haven't once changed my stance on the matter

no you haven't....you've consistently flip flopped the whole time.

[snaggeltooth]

Basically, when we measure the displacement of an engine, we’re measuring the volume of the cylinders. The problem, as I see it, is that this doesn’t actually measure the displacement of the engine. In some countries this presents a problem because we can increase the actual displacement of the engine without increasing the swept volume of the engine.

Follow me, if you will, while I explain. Assume for a minute that you have an engine that displaces exactly what is claimed, for example, 3.5-liters. Now, also assume that you have a turbo or supercharger supplying air to it at double the pressure, which would effectively mean double the force using the formula: Pressure = Force / Area. Force is defined as Mass x Acceleration; in this example we’re going to keep it simple and say that the mass increases 1.5 times and that the acceleration into the cylinder increases 1.33 times.

The total swept volume of this engine is 3.5-liters, and in this example it’d be displacing 3.5-liters if it was naturally aspirated. But, because it’s being forcefully inducted it’s actually displacing 5.25-liters of air and gas per revolution. Even other methods of keeping the swept volume down while increasing power increase displacement. If you, for instance, changed a camshaft to a more aggressive profile that let more fuel mixture in, you would invariably also increase the displacement.

[justinmc978]

Basically, when we measure the displacement of an engine, we’re measuring the volume of the cylinders. The problem, as I see it, is that this doesn’t actually measure the displacement of the engine. In some countries this presents a problem because we can increase the actual displacement of the engine without increasing the swept volume of the engine.

Follow me, if you will, while I explain. Assume for a minute that you have an engine that displaces exactly what is claimed, for example, 3.5-liters. Now, also assume that you have a turbo or supercharger supplying air to it at double the pressure, which would effectively mean double the force using the formula: Pressure = Force / Area. Force is defined as Mass x Acceleration; in this example we’re going to keep it simple and say that the mass increases 1.5 times and that the acceleration into the cylinder increases 1.33 times.

The total swept volume of this engine is 3.5-liters, and in this example it’d be displacing 3.5-liters if it was naturally aspirated. But, because it’s being forcefully inducted it’s actually displacing 5.25-liters of air and gas per revolution. Even other methods of keeping the swept volume down while increasing power increase displacement. If you, for instance, changed a camshaft to a more aggressive profile that let more fuel mixture in, you would invariably also increase the displacement.

said that earlier, totally correct, this effectly gives an FI motor 'variable displacement' of sorts, where instead of activating more cylinders you are activating compressors to accomplish the same thing. the advantage obviously being better MPG when the 'compressor' is not in use.

if you think of displacement in a 'traditional' sense, bigger pistons, more stroke, then there are ways FI systems have advantages and can be more cost effective for the same results,(my point). but if you think of it in a sense of how much air is in the chamber, regardless of how it got there, then 5.25 liters of compressed air=2.25 liters of N/A air, so why is THAT point worth argueing? I shouldn't have to explain this...

[Smittro]

I like v6's...

[jad628]

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


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

I just played around a bit and while I'm not guaranteeing any scientific evidence, consider this comparison of the above engine and a LS1:

2.4 Toyota - 740 HP/202 ft lb @19,000rpm

5.7 LS1 - 350 HP @5600 rpm/340 ft lb @ 4400 rpm

Cutting rpms in half for a full cycle:

2.4 - 9500 x 2.4 = 22,800L

5.7 - 2800 x 5.7 = 15,960L
2200 x 5.7 = 12,540L


Results in:

2.4L Toyota - 30.8L per HP
112.8L per ft lb


5.7L LS1 - 36.8L per HP
35.8L per ft lb

So the Toyota engine is 20% more efficient in making HP, but over 200% less efficient in making torque.

Anybody want to revisit the fuel-efficiency discussion?

It ain't gospel though, just playing with numbers.

P.S. And the LS1 costs MUCH less and will run forever.

[Tobynine9]

Same as you could with the Solstice GXP/Saturn Redline, I'd imagine there's a pretty simple way to crank the boost on the EcoBoost and get serious power gains.

The turbo DI 2.0 will put out near LS1 #s with approx. $1k (installed) worth of GM-approved, warrantied parts.

It's only a matter of time before GM adapts DI to a V8, mates it with a proper-sized turbo (or two) and we've got ZR1 power from a MUCH smaller V8 than the current Gen-IV engines, all with much better fuel economy.

THEN, it'll only be a matter of time before an aftermarket shop figures out how to retro-fit the DI parts onto a big-bore LSx block...

Embrace the new technology. Much good will come of it.

[justinmc978]

Embrace the new technology. Much good will come of it.

I agree, some legitimate car guys see new technology like this as a 'threat' of some sort, but it is really the exact opposite.

[Tobynine9]

I know a professional tech like that. He owns a Fugly 3-rd gen with a pretty stout SBC. His brother had access to a young, iron 6.0 he could have picked up for cheap before he started the SBC build. He didn't want it because he "don't trust that fuel injection crap."

[jad628]

I agree, some legitimate car guys see new technology like this as a 'threat' of some sort, but it is really the exact opposite.

Look, I get your argument. Your viewpoint is akin to having a goal of 300 hp. Can it be made with less displacement by use of better technology? The answer is YES, it can.

But others (and I) argue that if a set horsepower goal isn't mandatory, a larger displacement engine built exactly the same as a smaller one will make more power, hence the adage "no replacement for displacement".

It's not just old school thinking, it's physics. Lots of us old-timers embrace newer technology as well, and don't limit ourselves to only one way of reaching a goal.

[Smittro]

All that "displacement" and "Hp/tq" don't mean shit if you can't get it to the road or turn it..imho..

And why are so many afraid of high rpms?

[0rion]

I guess what I don't understand is why you guys keep comparing a boosted motor to a NA motor? Put that boost on the larger motor to make the comparisons the same. I feel like we're going in circles here because the next post will be a gas mileage post. I'm talking strictly for making power which would you rather have.....a boosted 6 or a boosted 8? That's what the saying was orignally intended for. Comparing 2 engines to build to make power do you want the small engine or the big engine. Stock form or potential. Big motor wins every time.

[Tobynine9]

I guess what I don't understand is why you guys keep comparing a boosted motor to a NA motor? Put that boost on the larger motor to make the comparisons the same. I feel like we're going in circles here because the next post will be a gas mileage post. I'm talking strictly for making power which would you rather have.....a boosted 6 or a boosted 8? That's what the saying was orignally intended for. Comparing 2 engines to build to make power do you want the small engine or the big engine. Stock form or potential. Big motor wins every time.

That's what I was saying. We live in a Brave New World where our overlords have decided we all need to get 40+ mpg. Like it or not, the big, NA V8s are going Do-Do, being replaced with smaller, direct-injected and boosted 4-bangers and V6s.

Eventually the tech allowing these little V6s to make NA V8 power will be applied to the V8 and we can all go back to bench racing our hypothetical engine swaps.

[Spaz]

Look, I get your argument. Your viewpoint is akin to having a goal of 300 hp. Can it be made with less displacement by use of better technology? The answer is YES, it can.

But others (and I) argue that if a set horsepower goal isn't mandatory, a larger displacement engine built exactly the same as a smaller one will make more power, hence the adage "no replacement for displacement".

It's not just old school thinking, it's physics. Lots of us old-timers embrace newer technology as well, and don't limit ourselves to only one way of reaching a goal.

That's what I was saying. We live in a Brave New World where our overlords have decided we all need to get 40+ mpg. Like it or not, the big, NA V8s are going Do-Do, being replaced with smaller, direct-injected and boosted 4-bangers and V6s.

Eventually the tech allowing these little V6s to make NA V8 power will be applied to the V8 and we can all go back to bench racing our hypothetical engine swaps.

i wish we had a "post rate" thingy... 5 stars out of 5 stars!!!