No replacement for displacement

[91HBSi]

I don't believe that that statement is true at all. I mean to a certian extend it CAN be true, but not in many situations. I mean, look at the rx-8. A 1.3 liter engine making 250 stock N/A horsepower. Or the 2.0 liter 3 rotor engine, I think it makes 350hp but not sure.

[91HBSi]

Lol, I thought someone would try and argue or something...

[Polygon]

Yes this is true but they really can't produce that kind of power in the lower RPM range. They have to get to a much higher RPM to get those kinds of numbers. Whereas a V8 will produce its power at a much lower RPM. For instance a Bentley that produces around 600 foot-pounds of torque at 3000 RPM, or a Viper that produces 550 torque at 3250 RPM. The smaller engines are just barely starting to produce their numbers.

That is why there is no replacement for displacement.

[Heep]

I agree and disagree. Turbos and high revvers are fast, no doubt about it. But then again, look at Polygon's examples about torque. Either way you look at it, boring+stroking and turbos both increse power....if you, say, increase an S2000's engine sixe to a 4.0 liter, it will be far more powerful, but if you turbo it you'll get basically the same acceleration as the 4 liter car, it's just in a different way. Yes, there are replacements for displacement, but a 4.0 liter turbo engine will whoop a 2.0 liter turbo engine anyday....

Rotary's are a different story altogether, as they don't really even operate on the same principles...small rotarys produce so much power because they have 3 "bang" "strokes" per revolution, where a 4-stroke piston engine only has .5 per revolution....

[91HBSi]

They are still really small and make lots and lots of power, can't argue with that

As for the guy that said something about the low RPM torque and stuff. When the camaro or whatever shifts then the S2000 is still in 1st gear and gaining on the camaro. Just because it makes horsepower and torque at lower rpms doesnt make it better.

Read this...

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...7&goto=newpost

[91HBSi]

poopoo, it doesnt work.

There it goes...

[Polygon]

Originally posted by 91HBSi
They are still really small and make lots and lots of power, can't argue with that

As for the guy that said something about the low RPM torque and stuff. When the camaro or whatever shifts then the S2000 is still in 1st gear and gaining on the camaro. Just because it makes horsepower and torque at lower rpms doesnt make it better.

Read this...

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...7&goto=newpost

Ah but it does. In a drag race, torque is what wins. Also you are comparing a dinky S2000 to a much larger Camero. There are many things that can hinder you as the power leaves the engine and heads for the ground.

[Heep]

Originally posted by 91HBSi
As for the guy that said something about the low RPM torque and stuff. When the camaro or whatever shifts then the S2000 is still in 1st gear and gaining on the camaro. Just because it makes horsepower and torque at lower rpms doesnt make it better.

But...in the time it takes for the S2000 to hit its relitively low 170 or whatever lb-ft at 7000 RPM, the Camaro has already used its bags or torque to get a big head start (assuming it gets traction ). Whether or not it keeps the lead it the question that determines the outcome of the race.

For the record, I'm not really rooting for either side, I love S2000's, but I also love Camaro's. They just entirely different types of accelerating.

[91HBSi]

I wasnt saying the S2000 would win or not. I know that was not really a good comparison. The point I was trying to make is basically that the camaro may come out on top at first, but then he has to shift and then the S2000 gains that ground back as it has still got a good ways to go till it has to shift. I am not biosed. Sorry if it sounded as if I were flamming domestics.

Oh and the S2000 has 240 Horsepower not 170

[91HBSi]

Here's something else to argue about

http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.c...ecycle101.html

It is why rotaries are better than Reciprocating engines. I couldn't find the full explanation. It went into full detail with all the formulas and junk

[Polygon]

Originally posted by 91HBSi
I wasnt saying the S2000 would win or not. I know that was not really a good comparison. The point I was trying to make is basically that the camaro may come out on top at first, but then he has to shift and then the S2000 gains that ground back as it has still got a good ways to go till it has to shift. I am not biosed. Sorry if it sounded as if I were flamming domestics.

Oh and the S2000 has 240 Horsepower not 170

High end is really determined by horsepower and your gearing. I wouldn't really be able to say which would win in that case.

[Steel]

Im more of a muscle-car guy myself. It's always nice to have gobs and gobs of gas guzzling power when you just touch that gas pedal.

[91HBSi]

Originally posted by Polygon


High end is really determined by horsepower and your gearing. I wouldn't really be able to say which would win in that case.

What do you mean by "high end"? Are you speaking of top speed? I agree that that is determined by gearing and the measure of power the car has.

Note, the Banzia Rx-7...
Top speed: 240 mph
Quarter mile: 11.4 sec

out of a 5 spd tranny

[Polygon]

Yep, that is exactly what I meant.

[Septiem]

You make some mistakes with your argument. First, the rotory engine is calculates displacement the same way that the reciprocating engine does, but the reality is that it pushes more air, about three times the amount. So a 1.3-liter rotory is actually closer in displacement to a 3.9 liter reciprocating engine. If you look at racing, the usually use a multiplier to figure out the true displacement of the rotory. (2 to 3 time actual displacement).
As for turbos, that is the same ass adding cubic inches. Bigger engine means more air and fuel. Turbo means more air and fuel. Again in racing, turbos usually get measured as displacement times 2.
Last but not least, the S2000 has no torque, (153 ft/lbs) vs. the camaro (310 ft/lbs). So it needs to rev really high to make its power because HP = (Torque x Rpm)/5250.
The fact that is can rev high, means you can use much shorter gearing to multiply the torque you do have. An advantage the camaro does not have. In the end they will probably shift at the same speed. (Actually I think the camaro can shift at a higher speed because its gearing is so much taller)
All in all, as long as it is fun to drive, who cares?

PS There is only 1 substitute for cubic inches – cubic money