5.0 vs Ecoboost interesting results...

[jad628]

I know. Just adding fuel.

...and boost.

[Transamws6]

You might be right, but I'm also of the opinion that more displacement equals less fuel economy, and that's one - if not the main - reason for less displacement by the makers. I think improvements in gearing are going to prove more important than engine development. The addition of 5, 6, 7 and now - if I've heard correctly - 8-speed automatic transmissions have made huge improvements to performance and fuel economy at the same time.

The ECOboost is impressive, but so is a LS1 M6 getting 30mpg highway.

The LS1 never went into a fullsize truck though so you can't really compare the two.

[jad628]

The LS1 never went into a fullsize truck though so you can't really compare the two.

I agree, but I'm making more of a general statement. Then again, I wonder what the LS1 would do with a different flywheel in a truck....hmmm.

[snaggeltooth]

You might be right, but I'm also of the opinion that more displacement equals less fuel economy, and that's one - if not the main - reason for less displacement by the makers. I think improvements in gearing are going to prove more important than engine development. The addition of 5, 6, 7 and now - if I've heard correctly - 8-speed automatic transmissions have made huge improvements to performance and fuel economy at the same time.

The ECOboost is impressive, but so is a LS1 M6 getting 30mpg highway.

hook that bad boy up to a old TH400 and see if you still get 30 mpg .....lol...

[Blakbird24]

Just wanted to note that the displacement cliche is rooted in physics. It's not just a fun saying in motorsports, it's a law of physics. So yes, in level comparisons, there is NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. It's not arguable or debatable...it's a universal law.

Now if you are talking simply about whether it's better to have a car with big displacement, or turbo/supercharger, well then arguments can be made in both directions. Though i'd like to note that the LS3 still gets better gas mileage than the Ecoboost, despite having more power and two more cylinders. So i'm still a fan of the N/A V8. Until they can produce one of these turbo'd sixes that outputs REAL V8 power with REAL V6 fuel mileage, i'll stay away from the expensive and complicated FI systems.

[Packy]

...and boost.

Always. You must always perform well under pressure!

[Packy]

hook that bad boy up to a old TH400 and see if you still get 30 mpg .....lol...

Well that will depend on what converter, rear gears, and tire size you have.

[FasstChevys]

why? who set these rules? is it fair to say that? why not judge on the basis of cost to build? what about other factors besides speed such as drivability, weight, MPG, reliability, etc?

It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Don't even start on basis of cost to build in this discussion. Turboed applications will 99 times out of 100 cost more to build.

[Transamws6]

Just wanted to note that the displacement cliche is rooted in physics. It's not just a fun saying in motorsports, it's a law of physics. So yes, in level comparisons, there is NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. It's not arguable or debatable...it's a universal law.

Now if you are talking simply about whether it's better to have a car with big displacement, or turbo/supercharger, well then arguments can be made in both directions. Though i'd like to note that the LS3 still gets better gas mileage than the Ecoboost, despite having more power and two more cylinders. So i'm still a fan of the N/A V8. Until they can produce one of these turbo'd sixes that outputs REAL V8 power with REAL V6 fuel mileage, i'll stay away from the expensive and complicated FI systems.

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.

[FasstChevys]

engineering>Displacement .. If there was no replacement for displacement top fuel would be using 600-700cid engines but there is a place where bigger is not better ..... Look at NASCAR, why did they drop the big 400+ CID blocks ... because they found a smaller displacement engine would make same HP and weigh less ...

They could, but they don't because of NASCAR rules. If they had more cubes, they'd have more horsepower, right? With where they are at, they really don't need more horsepower, due to the rules.

I don't think you're making much of an arguement. They would definitely not make the same horsepower.

[FasstChevys]

hook that bad boy up to a old TH400 and see if you still get 30 mpg .....lol...

You might need a lil' help from Gearvendors to even remotely come close

[FasstChevys]

Just wanted to note that the displacement cliche is rooted in physics. It's not just a fun saying in motorsports, it's a law of physics. So yes, in level comparisons, there is NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. It's not arguable or debatable...it's a universal law.

Finally.

[snaggeltooth]

They could, but they don't because of NASCAR rules. If they had more cubes, they'd have more horsepower, right? With where they are at, they really don't need more horsepower, due to the rules.

I don't think you're making much of an arguement. They would definitely not make the same horsepower.

After doing some reading into what the no replacement for displacement really means I will agree , but that more CID is always better than less CID .. will not agree

[StuntmanMike]

You might be right, but I'm also of the opinion that more displacement equals less fuel economy, and that's one - if not the main - reason for less displacement by the makers. I think improvements in gearing are going to prove more important than engine development. The addition of 5, 6, 7 and now - if I've heard correctly - 8-speed automatic transmissions have made huge improvements to performance and fuel economy at the same time.

Not always. For an example, the 1.4L Chevy Cruze is rated at 38mpg highway. The 1.8L Hyundai Elantra is rated at 40mpg hwy, while making 8 more hp w/out resorting to a turbo.

And look at some of the GM cars with the old N/A 3.8 V6. They're actually rated higher hwy economy vs. the newer tech 3.6L as installed in the same car. (such as the Buick Lucerne and LaCrosse)

It depends on the engine design, but it also depends alot on putting a engine with power suited the the vehicle. A small, underpowered engine is going to get worse mileage than a larger, more powerful one if they install it in a heavy vehicle. That small engine will have towork much harder to move thevehicle, thereofore getting worse economy.

And Car and Driver did a comparo a few years ago of turbo 4cyls vs. the same cars equipped with the V6 engines. IIRC in all the examples they used, the V6's had better performance AND mileage.

I agree with you about gearing though, that can make a huge difference.

[justinmc978]

You might be right, but I'm also of the opinion that more displacement equals less fuel economy, and that's one - if not the main - reason for less displacement by the makers. I think improvements in gearing are going to prove more important than engine development. The addition of 5, 6, 7 and now - if I've heard correctly - 8-speed automatic transmissions have made huge improvements to performance and fuel economy at the same time.

The ECOboost is impressive, but so is a LS1 M6 getting 30mpg highway.

but what of city driving? where a huge segment if not a majority of vehicles in this country spend their time?

Just wanted to note that the displacement cliche is rooted in physics. It's not just a fun saying in motorsports, it's a law of physics. So yes, in level comparisons, there is NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. It's not arguable or debatable...it's a universal law.

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?

It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Don't even start on basis of cost to build in this discussion. Turboed applications will 99 times out of 100 cost more to build.

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...

[1MileCrash]

The point is, it doesn't matter what year it is, or what "the factory" advertises for horsepower.

Rewind back to the statement - "there's no replacement, for displacement"

There isn't. Larger cubed engines have always, and always will have the most power potential, as long as the playing field is level - which means the comparison must include two n/a engines, two FI engines, or whatever. Comparing n/a to FI, NO2, or whatever you want to come up with - doesn't hold water.

i already compared several n/a engines. the ford 4.6L, the ford 5.0L, the LS3 6.2L and the LS1. they're all n/a engines they're all fuel injected but time and time again due to the ways in which fuel and air are delivered it seems that ford has been able to make more power than the competition or at least more power per cubic inch than the competition.

[1MileCrash]

You might be right, but I'm also of the opinion that more displacement equals less fuel economy, and that's one - if not the main - reason for less displacement by the makers. I think improvements in gearing are going to prove more important than engine development. The addition of 5, 6, 7 and now - if I've heard correctly - 8-speed automatic transmissions have made huge improvements to performance and fuel economy at the same time.

The ECOboost is impressive, but so is a LS1 M6 getting 30mpg highway.

all of it true

[jad628]

Not always. For an example, the 1.4L Chevy Cruze is rated at 38mpg highway. The 1.8L Hyundai Elantra is rated at 40mpg hwy, while making 8 more hp w/out resorting to a turbo.

And look at some of the GM cars with the old N/A 3.8 V6. They're actually rated higher hwy economy vs. the newer tech 3.6L as installed in the same car. (such as the Buick Lucerne and LaCrosse)

It depends on the engine design, but it also depends alot on putting a engine with power suited the the vehicle. A small, underpowered engine is going to get worse mileage than a larger, more powerful one if they install it in a heavy vehicle. That small engine will have towork much harder to move thevehicle, thereofore getting worse economy.

And Car and Driver did a comparo a few years ago of turbo 4cyls vs. the same cars equipped with the V6 engines. IIRC in all the examples they used, the V6's had better performance AND mileage.

I agree with you about gearing though, that can make a huge difference.

Good point, but I don't know the weight, gearing, and aerodynamics of those two vehicles. My guess is that if the two engines could be swapped (and everything else left the same), it's likely going to change the discrepancy in mileage versus displacement.

[jad628]

but what of city driving? where a huge segment if not a majority of vehicles in this country spend their time?

That's where the larger displacement engines will be at a disadvantage for mileage. Same would be true for running two engines at idle to see how long each would run on a gallon of gas. At 1000 rpm's a 1.4L is not going to use the same amount of fuel as a 5.7L. Now in actual "city" driving conditions, aerodynamics won't matter too much, but weight and gearing will make huge differences. This is NOT the forte of larger displacement engines UNLESS they can do the same job at much lower rpm's [enter the diesel engine].

[justinmc978]

That's where the larger displacement engines will be at a disadvantage for mileage. Same would be true for running two engines at idle to see how long each would run on a gallon of gas. At 1000 rpm's a 1.4L is not going to use the same amount of fuel as a 5.7L. Now in actual "city" driving conditions, aerodynamics won't matter too much, but weight and gearing will make huge differences. This is NOT the forte of larger displacement engines UNLESS they can do the same job at much lower rpm's [enter the diesel engine].

exactly.