love2ride450

A friend (Honda owner) texts me a pic of a turbo that says "the replacement for displacement". I tell him boost is only a substitute for displacement. He disagrees. I send him a pic of a Nelson racing 632 bbc with twin 88's to make my point. He laughingly says that's cheating. Well, it gave me an idea for a meme/comic...

mateols1ss

iTrader: (1)

Yeah I've heard the cheating excuse before

sick_tight

haha i like the meme

custm2500

iTrader: (11)

Boost is a replacement for displacement. If you don't agree you are ignorant as hell. Look at factory working on it. Ecoboost, colbalt SS, and then you get into aftermarket. Stock short block 4.8 running 9s and 10s. They didn't stroke it and bore it, simply boost.

For all out builds bigger on every side is the only way. So yes 600+" and boost is nice but it would take about 1000 cubes to make the same power N/A.

JD_AMG

Boost is an alternative.
If it were a replacement it wouldn't add weight, complexity and potentially hurt reliability, there would be no downsides, but there are. If it were truly a replacement then you would see RC car engines with turbos replacing car engines. But we don't, because there is no replacement for [adding] displacement.

xXxSilveradoxXx

iTrader: (5)

LOL @ the Honda guy with the Duramax turbo in the first frame!

love2ride450

I see you get it!

It's one of those statements that can be interpreted in different ways, so it polarizes people. In my eyes, there truly is no replacement for displacement, but there are substitutes. If your displacement is restricted for whatever reason, boost is an excellent substitute. The misconception is that boost magically loses it's power when applied to larger engines. LOL.

Zlow28

iTrader: (11)

thats like saying nitrous is a replacement for displacement too. Or headers, or any power adder for that matter. Its the dumbest **** ive ever heard. Displacement itself isnt power, its potential. Turbos are power adders to reach a certain power level. 2 very different things that consequently increase power to reach different goals.

Boost is a replacement for POWER, not displacement. Get your **** straight.

custm2500

iTrader: (11)

Any power adder is a replacement by my defonition. Displacement most directly is a measure of how much air the engine can pull in to make power. If you add air chemicaly or mechanically you and replaced the need for bigger cubic inches.

Ypu don't se rc engines but you do see 4 cyl engines making the same power that stock v-8s used to. Like the example I used earlier you can make 1000 or so hp with a 4.8 liter. Compared to n/a you would generally need at least 500+ cubes.

We could argue all day but in my opinion you are compleatly ignorant if you can't see that boost especialy and nitrous are replacments for displacement. Boost especial is not only a replacement but a huge improvement over larger cubes.

JD_AMG

Then by "definition" it still wouldn't be a replacement then, it would actually be adding displacement, and going right along with the saying.

This right here is only hurting your argument, the fact that you have to compare new engines, with vastly new technology to very old engines with much inferior technology to only come up with the same power (and likely around the same engine weight and physical size as well when you add in the turbo, piping and intercooler).

Uhh, ok, so what? Will that 4.8L weigh less, and be physically smaller with the turbos, piping, intercooler(s)?
So you end up with an engine that makes the same peak power, but is heavier, bigger, more complex, and might even have a worse power band.

You are seeing things way too much in black and white.
How about this scenario. You want to build a ~400hp kit car and you are looking at two engines, both making the same peak power and for simplicity's sake lets say they have the same torque curve and everything.
Engine A is N/A, 6L 390lbs and phsically smaller.
Engine B is turbod 4L, weighs 500lbs+ and is physically bigger (more expensive and more complex as well). You also must mount this engine higher up and further forward in the chassis do to its size, hurting center of gravity and weight distribution.
Which engine would you take given the goal?
Can you see there is more to it than peak power now? Boost is not always the answer.

TNTramair

iTrader: (15)

Power adders are alternatives not replacements.

Zlow28

iTrader: (11)

Just by this quote, i can tell you have no idea what youre talking about.

Boost can help you achieve a certain power level much easier or faster than cubic inches. Nobody here is arguing that. The difference is that a higher CI engine will generally put out more power if it has the same power adders as a small CI engine, all things being equal.

Look at it this way, if you where in a challenge where you have to build the most powerful engine you possibly can with about $10k, and you had a choice between a DOHC 4 cylinder car, or a DOHC 8 cylinder car, which engine would you start with?

custm2500

iTrader: (11)

I have a very strong understanding of what I am talking about.

The most direct solidification is the point I made that displacement directly means that it can ingest more cubic inches of AIR. So anything that adds more air to the current configuration is artificially adding displacement. Not things that increase it's efficiency like heads, exhaust, and other common mods. So in that sense it is directly replacing it.

As far as making power 99% of the time boost or nitrous is a much more effective, cheaper, and better way of doing it. There are times that an n/a build with bigger cubes in the same outside package is needed.

The strongest real world example I can think of is Top Fuel. You show me an engine any were near the size of a dragster engine that makes 10000 hp n/a? Not going to happen. How about tractor pull engines that run 100 psi of boost?

custm2500

iTrader: (11)

I would ask if I could forgo the dohc v-8 since ford is junk, and ask for an LS427. Then boost it or nitrous is since I don't know how much they cost.

But I would be willing to bet that boosting the 4 cyl and keeping the v-8 N/A you could make similar power levels on that 10K budget. That being if it were common 4 cyl that you can build a decent bottom end for Less then $6K so you could afford a nice turbo set up.

Now you take the 4 cyl and it would be hard to make similar torque but if you gave me a decent 6 cyl and turbo vs. the V8 and you could probably make similar torque numbers.

Zlow28

iTrader: (11)

Dont steer off the subject. I said dohc because im trying to keep all things as similar as possible. Youre comparing apples to oranges here, but if you want to compare with lsx pushrods, then more power to ya.


Again, things need to be equal if boost truly replaces displacement. Youre doing apples to oranges. Do boosted v8's not exist in your little world?


Exactly my point. Just remove the v8 from the equation and hopefully you can see what i mean.

Zlow28

iTrader: (11)

Youre confusing displacement with volume efficiency.

custm2500

iTrader: (11)

Bigger is always better! no ****! Bigger boosted will make more power when set up. Max effort means everything bigger. So yes a larger cube engine will make more power if it is also boosted. But you can make the same or more power boosting a smaller engine then adding cubes. Boosted 4.8 or LSX427 out of the box? The 4.8 will make more power max effort then the 427 can max effort. At least I havn't seen a 427 N/A making 800, 900, 1000 hp!

But you have to boost the V8 to make more power then the boosted smaller cubes. Small V8 boosted vs. 600+ V8 typicaly the boosted V8 will make more power. Like I said make a 10,000 hp N/A nitro engine and I will agree with you.

MyFirstLS1

iTrader: (8)

make a 10,000hp n/a 4cyl.......

You need the displacement don't you, it's only a power adder not a replacement.

justin455

Who gives a ****?

Zlow28

iTrader: (11)

Thats all i needed to know. If you want to make 1000000000hp, no one cares how you get there. All that matters is bigger is better. /thread