5.0 vs Ecoboost interesting results...

[Firebirdjones]

light duty 1/2ton trucks outsell 3/4+ trucks probably close to 10-15:1 here, not sure about in AZ though..

More than likely people that aren't towing much with it. I used to own a 77 1/2 ton,,,,but it had a 454 in it

Now the 1/2 tons come with what,,,,,,a 5.3 tops??? That's not going to climb the 6 mile long Verde mountain on I-17 with 10,000 lbs. strapped to it

[Firebirdjones]

My current truck, a 79 1 ton with a 454 that I've had for years is currently getting a 502 transplant.
I guess I'm not like the rest of society,,,what the hell was I thinking. I should have shoved some type of eco friendly peanut motor in there
I guess I'm just bassackwards

[justinmc978]

My current truck, a 79 1 ton with a 454 that I've had for years is currently getting a 502 transplant.
I guess I'm not like the rest of society,,,what the hell was I thinking. I should have shoved some type of eco friendly peanut motor in there
I guess I'm just bassackwards

one of my buddies has a two-tone gold 80's model with a 454, one of the good 'freak' ones, the thing is just a monster. a .5mpg monster.

[Smittro]

No shit Sherlock.

That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Um yes it does.. In case you missed the 10 pages of the arguement @ hand, "no replacement for displacement"..

Which is moot..

Because big displacement was replaced long ago with small displacement "V" and flat 12 cylinder engines..

Not to mention all the small displacement high powered v8's Ferarri produced/s..

Why do you think it took till the LSx line for Vette to make "super car" status?

Because prior to the LSx line unless you bought a "king of the hill" LT5,,, Vette was really nothing to write home about..

WHich is also funny because the LS1 has less displacement than a 350 SBC..lol



So no replacement for displacement only holds water if you live your life a 1/4 mile @ a time I guess..

[0rion]

Um yes it does.. In case you missed the 10 pages of the arguement @ hand, "no replacement for displacement"..

Which is moot..

Because big displacement was replaced long ago with small displacement "V" and flat 12 cylinder engines..

Not to mention all the small displacement high powered v8's Ferarri produced/s..

Why do you think it took till the LSx line for Vette to make "super car" status?

Because prior to the LSx line unless you bought a "king of the hill" LT5,,, Vette was really nothing to write home about..

WHich is also funny because the LS1 has less displacement than a 350 SBC..lol



So no replacement for displacement only holds water if you live your life a 1/4 mile @ a time..

or if you have common sense and understand how an air pump works.

[Smittro]

one of my buddies has a two-tone gold 80's model with a 454, one of the good 'freak' ones, the thing is just a monster. a .5mpg monster.

lol, I sure hope you're talking a "torque monster" bro lol, because those smogger 454's from the 80's were not horse power monsters I asure you..

Keep your eye on the small displacement car in the left lane too..lol

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWJm_2EE7LE&feature=related[/ame]

My y87 would burn this 454 BBC to the ground..

[Blakbird24]

post #101 lays it out pretty clear, but it's never changed...

are all parameters equal? why don't parameters include price? or MPGs? if they aren't allowed to for whatever reason, who made the rule? is there some book on this I don't know about?

You just don't understand what you are arguing here.

"Replacement for Displacement" has nothing to do with price or efficiency. It is simply a concept that addresses methods for increasing power on an internal combustion engine. You are getting into something completely different with your argument.

This is ridiculous, right now you are arguing over what your own argument is about. How much longer would you like to continue this waste of thread? No one is saying that you are wrong universally. We are saying that you are wrong about "replacement for displacement". You are simply misapplying otherwise sound ideas.

great debater.

For you to know what kind of debater I am, we would have to pick a topic that is debatable. While we are in the realm of debating laws of nature, would you like to debate relativity? Or conservation of energy? Wouldn't be any more a waste of time than the current argument, so what the hell.

[Firebirdjones]

one of my buddies has a two-tone gold 80's model with a 454, one of the good 'freak' ones, the thing is just a monster. a .5mpg monster.

Mine tows my 28 foot enclosed loaded close to 10,000 lbs. without a hickup. It's actually not all that terrible on gas for what it is (454/400 turbo/3.73 gears) Empty I can drive highway and get 14 mpg. Around town it gets about 12 mpg.
Towing my trailer accross country 2,000 miles, all highway and the trailer overloaded (I was moving) I got a best of 10 mpg and the worst was 9 mpg. But I was asking alot from it. 32 years of faithfull service. It's time for a 502 upgrade. GM built a hell of a truck back then, it'll do anything I ask it to do. The only thing better out there nowadays would be a turbo diesel, but for as little money as I have in this truck I can't justify the cost of a new diesel.

[Firebirdjones]

lol, I sure hope you're talking a "torque monster" bro lol, because those smogger 454's from the 80's were not horse power monsters I asure you..

Keep your eye on the small displacement car in the left lane too..lol



My y87 would burn this 454 BBC to the ground..

Bring in on smittro. All my smog 454 needed was a distributor recurve, remove the smog, rejet the carb, a set of headers and a performer intake and it came alive. 5,500 lbs. and it runs mid 14's. It's nothing to sneeze at for what it is. Takes alot of torque to move that much girth.
And with the 502 swap going in, I expect it to be just "slightly" quicker

Put your Y87 in my truck and it wouldn't fall off a cliff fast enough.

[1MileCrash]

I can understand that.

Here is how I look at it.

It makes more sense to me to keep my mountain motor gas guzzling big blocks and drive them around than to spend another $30-40,000 on a new econbox just to save a few mpg in gas.
The way I see it,,,even if I spend $50 a week in gas (and that's a high estimate) That $30-40,000 for a new car sure would buy a whole hell of alot of gas. As a matter of fact, at $50 a week that would supply me gas for the next 12 years
I don't think an ecobox saving me even as much as 10 mpg would return me $30-40,000 in the next 12 years.
At which point in time they might not even be making gas by then,,,or i'll be dead,,,one of the two,,,lol.

Not to mention,,,insurance and tags are very cheap for a 40 year old car. Besides that, I don't waste money on other things like cigarettes, beer or alcohol, and I can cut out buying lunches if I have to and just pack.
All that money I'm not spending on that stuff easily fills my gas tank every week anyway. Know what I mean?

I'd rather spend a little money on the big engine cars that I have in finding ways to save a few mpg here and there rather than go out and buy an entirely different car. Just makes more money sense to me.

that's fair enough as well. i ended up having to buy a new car last year cause my old one shit out on me. so i have a loan that i'm paying on and full insurance even if the car is sitting like last summer without plates on it while i drove the camaro with full insurance on it. this year it may simply make more sense to just drive the g6. still debating but it's leaning that way.

[Firebirdjones]

Um yes it does.. In case you missed the 10 pages of the arguement @ hand, "no replacement for displacement"..

Which is moot..

Because big displacement was replaced long ago with small displacement "V" and flat 12 cylinder engines..

Not to mention all the small displacement high powered v8's Ferarri produced/s..

Why do you think it took till the LSx line for Vette to make "super car" status?

Because prior to the LSx line unless you bought a "king of the hill" LT5,,, Vette was really nothing to write home about..

WHich is also funny because the LS1 has less displacement than a 350 SBC..lol



So no replacement for displacement only holds water if you live your life a 1/4 mile @ a time I guess..

Where have you been Smittro? If you think the vette wasn't supercar status until the LSx engine, you'd be mistaken.
Ever heard of the L88? It ruled the road courses right along side all the other supercar greats like the shelby cobra's and Ferrari's.

An LS1 has less displacement than a SBC? Do you really want to go there? You don't honestly think 4 cubic inches is any kind of advantage do you? 350 verses 346?
The only thing that makes the LS family of engines great is their 15 degree cylinder heads. 12 degrees if you look at the LS7.
If it wasn't for the superior valve angles they wouldn't be squat. Stick a 23 degree head back on the engine and you'd be stuck right back to gen 1 power levels.

[Firebirdjones]

that's fair enough as well. i ended up having to buy a new car last year cause my old one shit out on me. so i have a loan that i'm paying on and full insurance even if the car is sitting like last summer without plates on it while i drove the camaro with full insurance on it. this year it may simply make more sense to just drive the g6. still debating but it's leaning that way.

Totally understandable. In your case it would probably work out to be beneficial.
I just have an old man way of looking at things sometimes

[jad628]

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.

Someone mentioned Ferrari, well:

Ferrari F430 4.3L - 483 HP @8500 rpm's
343 ft lb @5250 rpm's

Using my earlier formula that means:

37.8L per HP
32.9L per ft lb

Amazingly close to what the figures were for a LS1 above. And the Ferrari gets a mpg rating of 11 city/16 hwy.

The conclusion is that displacement was not replaced, it was just created by increasing rpm's in a smaller engine size. Regardless, the displacement exists. I wonder if the decreased fuel mileage is partially created by the need to throw in more fuel to dissipate the heat (and potential detonation issues) caused by the increased rpm's?

[justinmc978]

You just don't understand what you are arguing here.

orly?

"Replacement for Displacement" has nothing to do with price or efficiency. ... blah blah same thing I've been saying this entire thread blah....You are simply misapplying otherwise sound ideas.

I've already said the term is subjective... you say its not, but can't tell me why.. it's almost like you are personally offended by me using the saying in a different context, are you? did your grandfather make the term or something? did he give you a book of rules that say the only way the term can be used? all serious questions at this point.

For you to know what kind of debater I am, we would have to pick a topic that is debatable. While we are in the realm of debating laws of nature, would you like to debate relativity? Or conservation of energy? Wouldn't be any more a waste of time than the current argument, so what the hell.

but it's so much fun isn't it?

[justinmc978]

The conclusion is that displacement was not replaced, it was just created by increasing rpm's in a smaller engine size.

which is the idea, 'big' high displacement engines replaced by 'small' low displacement engines that can get the extra displacement when it is necessary (in this case, using a very high redline) to make power, but otherwise dont have it.

Regardless, the displacement exists.

exactly

[0rion]

which is the idea, 'big' high displacement engines replaced by 'small' low displacement engines that can get the extra displacement when it is necessary (in this case, using a very high redline) to make power, but otherwise dont have it.



exactly

huh?
Do you realize how much you contradict yourself?

[Firebirdjones]

The higher HP numbers are a result of RPM. Notice how less efficient the torque numbers are in the smaller engines, as was pointed out.

High RPM is fun, and making HP is fun. The problem that comes into play though is higher RPM is more wear and tear. Less life expectancy of course. You also have to run more rear gear. An engine like this wouldn't like overdrive and low rpms, especially when you hit mountain grades. Your then looking for a lower gear and gas mileage goes out the window. If the ground was perfectly flat everywhere it wouldn't be a problem. But we all know that isn't so. If you can live with that idea then your fine.

I prefer a much larger engine making torque, less rpm, less rear gear, and enough low end power to pull up hills without the need for a trans to find lower gears, you also get a longer lasting engine.

I don't mean to say I don't like smaller engines. I do nothing but V8's anymore, but I do have a little DZ 302 sitting here. A perfect example of a high strung SBC that needs alot of rear gear.

[Firebirdjones]

huh?
Do you realize how much you contradict yourself?

I was having trouble reading that too

There simply is no replacement for displacement.

Sticking a huffer on a small engine is (in simple terms) increasing it's displacement. There is really no way around that idea.

It's what everyone wants, and people approach it different ways, but in the end.......well it's just self explanatory to me.

You can even take it a step further, and start with a larger engine to begin with and then stick a huffer on that, which would be a more apples to apples comparison.

[Spaz]

again, who made this rule?

well shit fine then... put some FI on the v8 then... whoopy doo... v8 still wins...

[Firebirdjones]

And that's just it Spaz. Power adders make engines more efficient. To make an honest comparison both engines either have to use a huffer,,,or both have to stay NA. You don't see mixed racing classes in NHRA like this, and there's a good reason for that. You can play that game with any engine.