dozer

iTrader: (3)

^HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

chickenwafer

iTrader: (9)

Well, ya, I said that

But if you're building a car for the 1/4 mile, I don't think you care about the 100-lbs you're gaining by having 6,000-bhp compared to that built 6 cylinder or even 4 cylinder that would net you "only" 3,000 or 2,000-bhp respectively.

Now of course there are reasons why other engines exist in motorsports, because in an F1 car when you are more concerned about handling, longevity, and weight, all-out power isn't the main concern then yeah, a twin turbo V-6 or a smaller, compact V-8 could work.

Ever Hernandez

Holly ****! that video was crazy.

MICHGoBlue

There's no replacement for displacement

tmak26b

Nope, something called regulation in the rulebook....

Hoss

x2, because it doesnt matter if you get beaten on the top end, its not about who crosses the finish line first, its who starts off strongest

rotarygod

If you are building a race car, there are lots of things to think about when designing the perfect race engine. The number one thing is usually budget. If you are a private owner who wants to build a track car, lets say for drag racing since many have no talent for turning, the cheapest easiest thing may be to just find a gutted car with a large engine in it. It should be reliable and decently fast and making it faster shouldn't be all that costly. You just run whatever transmission it has but maybe change out a clutch (or torque converter).

However if you have an unlimited budget and don't mind rebuilding your engine every run, it may be very different. Suddenly you consider weight as a stronger consideration and think that maybe that cast iron ocean liner engine you were using before could be faster if it weighed less. At this point your limitless budget takes gearing into account. You buy a car that has a suspension setup that will work for you. You get a car that is light yet can still do the job. You decide to go with a smaller engine for weight reasons. Then you choose a small engine and boost it to within an inch of it's life. It's getting rebuilt in a quarter of a mile anyways. Your transmission matches you engine's powerband. You are light and fast.

Then at some point you realize that if you add 100 pounds, you can gain 400 more hp. It's worth it. You install a larger engine and take the same philosophy. Now you're faster. At some point though it's not a matter of power. It's traction. Top fuel dragsters are there. They have no shortage of power to go faster. They don't have the traction.

Hopefully you get the idea. The old addage "there's no replacement for displacement" is right and wrong. It all depends. Then you get the person who said whatever you can do to a smaller engine you can do to a larger one. That is true. When someone responded to it with a weight comment, in a perfect world that would be true too. There are lots of things to consider such as expected life, desired power level, weight, and most importantly budget. If the argument is strictly nothing more than to compare a smaller engine to a larger one, on even grounds the larger engine should always win, especially from a power potential standpoint. Once you start comparing one that is turbocharged to one that isn't, then you get into unfair comparisons. At the end of the day, it's really a worthless argument. The large engine proponents will never see your side and you will never fully see theirs. The best answer, albeit a bit abstract, is that there is a time and a place for nearly everything but no time or place works best with everything.

Ever Hernandez

Thank you..

dillsrotary

I found something that might actually answer your questions:

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/eng-tagen.html

Called the Tag Turbo Formula 1 engine, created in the early 80's it was a 1.5L V-6 good for 1000 bhp. Dominated F1 in 1983, 1984, 1985.

playdoh43

its a dumb assumption to assume smaller displacement automatically means lighter,

a 1.5l FI v6 can easily weigh more than a 2.0L I4. A 6.0L small cam in block v8 can weigh less than a 3.8L SOHC V6. Lighter engine is better given all else are equal but all else are never equal and displacement does not have a 1:1 correlation with weight or power regardless of how big or how small the displacement is. so many other factors are involved in how power is made and weight is saved.

A car with a bigger displacement engine does not mean it would handle better or worse than a car with a smaller displacement engine

chickenwafer

iTrader: (9)

That's NOT even what I'm talking about....of course F1 and other racing leagues have regulations on engine size, etc, I know that.

Do you honestly think that if F1 has NO engine regulations they would be running Top Fuel V-8 engines? Nope.

The point I was trying to make was a 6,000bhp top fuel burning V-8 may be the pinnacle of horsepower production for an internal combustion engine, but that doesn't mean it perfect for every type of racing.

Hopefully now that I've held your hand you understand

chickenwafer

iTrader: (9)

Thank you Fred, that's basically EXACTLY what I said, in less words, LOL.

In drag racing, at least, bigger is always better. In other types of racing, where hairpins turns are involved and longevity, fuel efficiency, weight, and cost are more prudent, then bigger isn't always better.

I think I have a unique perspective since I appreciate both types of engines

ASH8

As we know from 2011 you will be seeing Smaller displacement engines from Mazda in their Banger line up, 1.4l, 1.6l and max 1.8l with Turbo's

YaXMaNGTO

It was said in a joking and exagerated manner, since everybody has this weird complex about it.

I will quote a recent post from the local celebrity and icon, MM... he has said this numerous times on this board. It can't be any clearer than this.
"low-end torque is everything" vs. "torque is everything". There's a difference.

dillsrotary

I completely agree. Good example is the LS1 swap for the FD, they are VERY close in weigh,though you could argue that the FD 1.3 also includes the 2 turbos and miles of tubing.

rotarygod

I don't think it's a dumb assumption. It's a good generalization though. There are always exceptions to the rule. If we had a 2L 4 cylinder, a 3.8L V6, and a 6L V8, and they were all made from the same material, it's a pretty safe assumption that the smaller engine will weigh less. As you pointed out not all is created equal. That's true but I don't have to get a scale out to know a Civic engine weighs less than even the light for it's size Chevy LSX V-8. Now if we are comparing that same LSX engine to a 3L 4 cylinder Pontiac 3000 engine from the '80s that had a cast iron block, then we've got a different result!

dillsrotary

^true and relates to my previous post, the LS1 block is aluminium while the FD 13b is iron.

rotarygod

As a generalization based on what we perceive, I'd argee with this. Technically it's not true though. In fact technically it's dead nuts wrong! You need to understand that he's really nothing more than a computer guy who understands code and programming. He thinks in terms of numbers rather than in terms of mechanics of what is going on. Numbers are a way of expressing things in a way in which we can easily understand and since torque is a numeric variable on paper, that's what he considers important. Unfortunately it doesn't tell us much. If you know horsepower, you know either torque or how fast it is applying it. If you know only torque, you don't know if it is being applied at all. It can't be ALL that matters if it doesn't tell you if it is even doing anything. Horsepower on the other hand does tell you a result so shouldn't it be ALL that matters? Not necessarily. Here's why.

I prefer to think in mechanical terms first. I don't think of torque as doing anything because it doesn't. I prefer to think of torque as leverage since that's far more appropriate. A larger engine has more leverage on the crankshaft and hence on the ground. That doesn't mean it is doing any work though. If it isn't running, it isn't working. Don't interpret this to mean that leverage (torque) isn't important. It is. It just isn't ALL that matters. This is why I get into the stupid HP vs TQ arguments all the time. When it comes to making a car faster (or just move), what matters is how much work was done. This obviously includes torque as it is torque over time. This is what people get held up on. They say torque is all that matters since torque is a variable. However a variable is not a result. Think of torque as a variable in an equation and horsepower as the answer. It's the answer that matters! In math class in school sometimes they only cared that you knew how to get to the answer (knowing the process) and the answer didn't matter as much. Don't get confused with the real world. In the real world only the answer matters!

1+?=? What's the correct answer? Don't just throw anything in there to get an answer. Give me the correct answer. There's only 1. You can't do it. 1 in this case represents torque as it is nothing more than a variable, granted in a very simple equation. Let's try this again.

1+?=15 What's the value of the missing variable? You can answer it pretty easily. 15 represents HP as it is the end result. TQ is a variable. The missing variable would represent time and we can easily figure this out. Conversely the known variable could represent time and the missing represent tq. It doesn't matter. Obviously the HP/TQ equation is different but the point is clear. Now let's go one step farther. Remember the first variable we'll call TQ and the answer we'll call HP.

Which is faster? You don't know HP. You only know TQ (or conversely, time).
1+?=?
5+?=?

Can't answer that? How about this one? You know HP. You just don't know TQ (or conversely, time).
?+?=10
?+?=20

HP is all that matters! The amount of actual work being done is what counts. While we can say that we have to know torque to know HP, all we really need is one variable. If we know end HP and know how long it took to get it, we can figure out TQ. If we know end HP and know TQ, we can figure out how long it took to get it.

"Torque is ALL that matters. EVERYTHING else is computed from it." That's really nothing more than the way the math formula is setup to get to an end result on paper. It's a way in which we simple humans can comprehend it. Much like languages. Writing something in English vs French doesn't mean it's not the same thing. It's a visual representation of a concept that is presented in a way in which we can comprehend it. BTW I can't comprehend French.

To make a fair comparison of engines of varying sizes, we need to know multiple VARIABLES (rather than only 1 variable such as torque) such as engine displacement (potential leverage) and time (rpm). If we had the same time variable, the potential leverage of the larger engine would win. This is of course not taking into account VE of each engine but for simplicity sake it's a pretty safe assumption. A difference in the time variable could change the results. Then we still have reliability to factor in. Lots of variables.

If we had all of the same variables with the only difference being displacement, the end result (what matters) is that the larger engine would aways be superior everywhere. Change any of the variables and the results could differ. The hardest part of arguing about or comparing engines of different sizes and styles is that there is never only 1 variable difference. There are many and typically favoring any one engine over the other is going to be based on putting more importance on certain variables and less on others. That's hardly fair. It's all a balancing act and it's the best we can do.