Grunt V Boost - Simple poll  

eighty-eight

so you are saying if you had 2 motors, both turbo, one is a 2L and one is a 5L the 2.0 would still have more power.

Stuit

wtf....

WattsyLX

Horsepower is horsepower - regardless of how its made.

You could have a big shiny blower sitting on top of your motor, a turbo hanging off the side, a shot of gas, or good old NA cubic inch grunt.

Turbos, blowers, etc isnt a replacement for displacement.... its just a way of making power. Sure, put a turbo beside your 2 litre and it may keep up with a N/A 5 litre. Whack a turbo beside that the 5L and its game over. Why.... bigger engine!
Then the old saying 'there is no replacement for displacement' rings true.

Im going to leave this, it is obviously a dead argument.

Stuit

you dont seem to understand the whole 'replacement' theory.

ill dumb it down a bit more for you.....

car 1: 2L engined car
car 2: 6L engined car

now car 1 has less DISPLACEMENT than car 2, doesnt it?
car 2 is faster than car 1.

now add a turbo to car 1 and we get:
car 1: 2L Turbo engined car
car 2: 6L engined car

now the turbo car will be able to keep up, but it still has LESS DISPLACEMENT. the advantage that car 2 had over car 1 initially was EXTRA DISPLACEMENT. now with both cars being on basically equal footing performance wise, how did we get it this way? increase the displacement on car 1? no. we added a turbo. we REPLACED the need for the extra displacement by adding a turbo.

eighty-eight

you said like 3 pages ago that a turbo is a replacement for displacement.

I said its not.

then you said

now this is just a stupid comment. Of course a 3L na in a 1500kg car isnt going to be anything spectaular but if your car wasnt turbo it would walk all over you. If the supra was turbo (assuming its a RZ) you would most likely loose because it has BIGGER DISPLACEMNT with forced induction = more power.

then if you had a 6L turbo id bet it would beat the supra, if there was a similar amount of money spend on mods between them.

Stuit

did you not even read what i just wrote?

also, MY01+ wrxs weigh roughly 1500kg as well (1470kg to be exact IIRC), there is barely any weight difference between them and a supra. so why does the extra 1L displacement not keep it in front of mine? because as even you just said, ive got a turbo. look, you said it yourself!!! "but if your car wasnt turbo it would walk all over you" youve basically just said that if they were both n/a that the supra would walk all over me because of its bigger displacement............but since mines turbo, i win - THE TURBO EFFECTIVELY REPLACED THE EXTRA DISPLACEMENT!!!!!! do you see what im getting at here?

eighty-eight

thats what i was trying to say,

game,
set,
match.

Stuit

oh
my
god
.....

you have a 2L. you want it to keep up with a 6L. what do you do? turbo it. by turboing it you effectively REPLACE the extra displacement. yes you could then turbo the 6L and it would win in a race - and it would proabably then keep up with an 8L NA. am i getting through to you at all????????

by turboing a smaller engine you enable it to keep up with a bigger engine. if thats not classed as a replacement for displacement in your theories then you really need to go and look up the word replacement.

sandman_350

What does this have to do anything ??????? you really dont get it , it is TORQUE that accelerates you

Stuit

yes, your point? we're talking about turbo replacing extra displacement....

eighty-eight

lmfao.

i see where your coming from now, and i understand why you not understanding, a turbo may enable the engine to make more top end power equal to a 5L but in a race the 5L would still win (not considering the weight of the car) simply because it has more torqe like sandman350 said.

Im a turbo lover myself but its just a known fact that more engine = more power.

Stuit

well we're not racing engines here are we. cant really just disregard the car the engines in, or it makes for some pretty darn pointless comparisons.

its about time

i do understand though. im well aware of what torque is. im also well aware that a wrx/gtr/evo has no trouble pulling away from 5L+ clubsports. you cant just take out the weight of the car, as having an engine that weighs twice as much as the smaller one tends to create a heavier car, obviously.

tuffZK

Wattsylx, eighty-eight and sandman350. i tried to explain this to struit a few days ago. there is no replacement for displacement. he has alot of trouble understanding that bigger is better and there is no law saying you can't put forced induction on something bigger then a 2 litre pussbox

Stuit

and with that quote right there i dont need to say anything else - it shows that youve read nothing i said, and that you will obviously never accept that technology goes further than 'bigger is better'. well done

HOON69

this could be argued all day
anyone ever watched production GTP races with both boosted and non boosted rides
you got wrx and evo's whom love twisty tight tracks and win hands down thanks to lack of grip by the bigger HP hsv and gtp's

then you have straight line speed and thats where the HP game is won in a straight line the bogan mobiles as some say will always win.

Jimmy

"ill dumb it down a bit more for you.....

car 1: 2L engined car
car 2: 6L engined car

now car 1 has less DISPLACEMENT than car 2, doesnt it?
car 2 is faster than car 1.

now add a turbo to car 1 and we get:
car 1: 2L Turbo engined car
car 2: 6L engined car "
*end quote etc*

sorry stuit i do see what ure getting at, and i admire ure faith in ureself, but in terms of balance between a mathamatical equation ( what u refering to i imagine ) such as a 2L is less powerful than a 6L car (non turbo versions ). you have to do the same to each side of the equation to come to your conclusion, so if you add a turbo to one, u must be fair and add a turbo to the other ( relativity theory or something ) , and so the 6L will always come out on top atleast in terms of powar.
atleast you had a go hey.

DAL32

Who said you can't have torque in a 2 litre turbo? WRC cars have SHITLOADS of torque.

EDIT: But probably not as much as a V8, but still relative to other 2L cars..

MYB16

wouldnt Torque:Weight play much the same factor on a cars performance as Power:Weight?

sick_sr20de

look what you have created 57ING

WattsyLX

Lets look at it in another perspective.

Bob has a 186ci 6 cylinder Holden. Bill has a 202ci Holden 6. Basic maths - the 186 is 16ci smaller than the 202.

Bob then whacks on a few basic bolt on modifications so his 186 can keep with Bill's stock 202, such as a 350 Holley carb and a set of extractors.

By doing these few basic bolt on modifications, is Bob 'replacing' the extra 16ci that Bill has over him?

MYB16

I guess not, Bob is just making the 186 more efficient, thus brining it upto spec with Bill's 202...more power per ci etc etc - are you trying to say there is no advantage driving Bob's modded 186 over Bill's stock 202 and vis versa?

RX4_guy

Funny thing is both sides of the fence on displacement are right

WattsyLX is talking about 'static displacement' and Stuit is talking about 'dynamic displacement' of sorts


Wattsy is saying that a 3L motor is bigger than a 2l which of course he is right.

Stuit is saying that a smaller turbo motor can 'displace' the same amount of air while on boost, which he is right as well.

Congratulations your both right


On topic I would have one of each, both have their good and bad points.

Stuit

its not a mathematical equation. its bringing the performance characteristics of one engine (the smaller one) up to par with another one (the bigger one). you cant get 1=1 by doing the same thing to both sides of the equation if you started with 1=2. in this case we dont have to do the same to each side because we are only adjusting one to make it equal to the other, not trying to do a mathematical proof dont try to argue maths with me, ive done lots of it and i know what im doing.

you are misunderstanding what im saying. im not saying 'add a turbo to both and the 2L will win' as that would be obviously wrong. im saying that by adding a turbo onto the 2L you are effectively negating the 4L displacement advantage of the bigger engine. do you understand? its really not that hard.



finally someone understands what wattsyLX/jimmy/sandman350/tuffzk dont seem to be able to understand is that im NOT saying that 6L isnt bigger than 2L, and that it doesnt produce more power. im not saying that adding a turbo PHYSICALLY increases engine capacity. im simply saying that it can replace the performance of the extra displacement. wouldnt have thought that would take 3 pages before someone else would understand

Jimmy

hmm yer you are correct struit, well not the 1 = 2 thing, we started with 1 < 2 but neway thats just complicating things.
put it this way, if you have 2 containers, one is 2L and the other 4L, now they are both filled to one psi, so 2L < 4L, but if you pump up the 2L to 2 psi, u effectively have twice the air in the 2L container,
making it 2L at 2psi = 4L at one psi ( your replacement theory ),

and simply what wattsyLX/sandman350/tuffzk and myself are trying to explain is that you can always pump the 4L up to 2 psi aswel, and even if you dont, the 4L is under less pressure, and does it easier. id say its more of a substitute rather than a replacement. and you know what samuel says...

p.s relativity theory... what was i thinking, its law of conservation :S

Stuit

i was just using the 1=2 -> 1=1 as an example, not specifically saying they were the numbers we were working with

i know that you can increase the pressure in the bigger engine by turboing as well, ive never disputed that. what people have been doing is saying 'if you turbo the 2L you have to turbo the 6L as well or its not fair'. what they fail to realise is that what im doing is attempting to bring the 2L up to the same level of performance as the 6L, not see which responds to a turbo better.

ps. (from dictionary.com)

re·place ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pls)
tr.v. re·placed, re·plac·ing, re·plac·es
1. To put back into a former position or place.
2. To take or fill the place of.
3. To be or provide a substitute for.
4. To pay back or return; refund.

DAL32

I agree with Stuit. The concept of replacement is, that you replace the 4L deficit with a turbo. You don't have to add a turbo to the 6L to be "fair", of course the 6L is going to respond better to the turbo!!

WattsyLX

Stuit i fully understand you point of view, i even agree with it in some aspects, but by bolting a turbo to the side you are not replacing displacement, you are simply adding modifications to make the engine more efficient.
I know what you are trying to say - that by adding the turbo you are 'replacing the displacement so that you can keep up with a bigger motor.
But my interpretation is that a 2litre motor is always going to be a 2 litre motor, regardless of whether it is naturally aspirated or has a turbo hanging off the side. And a 5 litre motor is, of course, always going to be bigger.

And every engine is individual. Did your 4 cylinder ever lose any displacement that needs to be replaced? No! So you are effectively not replacing anything! All you are doing is adding a bolt on modification to make horsepower... simple.

If you class a turbo as a 'replacement for displacement', then where do we draw the line? Is a bloke, by adding a few bolt ons like a set of triple carbies, set of extractors to his 202 Torana, replacing the lack of displacement that his mate up the road has with a 308 Torana?

And lets get back to the original argument..... 300kw NA vs 200kw turbo. Well.... there really is no argument there..... the first choice has 33% more power!


This is obviously going nowhere...... you have you're interpretations, i have mine. Have a reply to this and lets leave it at that and just agree to disagree.

tuffZK

ahhh now i'm on to it struit, your basically saying that a bigger camshaft, a better set of heads and a better fuel system are a replacement for dispacement. because a 350 small block chev with a big roller camshaft, a nice set of aluminium brodix heads and nice big barry grant carby will kick the shit out of a stock 454 chev.
is this what you are saying?

struit use your brain, a turbo is no different to any other engine mod,
there is no such thing as a replaicement for displacement if it can be done to a little motor it can also be done to a big motor and at the end of the day the big motor will always make bigger power.

Stuit

the turbo acts as a substitute for more displacement, making the engine punch above its weight. therefore it IS replacing displacement.


the way i see it you have 3 main ways to get horsepower - displacement, turbocharge, supercharge. turbocharging and supercharging (to a lesser extent) can be used to make up for a lack of displacement. if a turbo or supercharger is not wanted, then you go and up the displacement. extractors/filters/carbies etc are just bolt ons as you say, they are not the fundamental parts of the engine.

agreed

WattsyLX

Sorry, but i would class a turbo as a 'bolt on' modification, not necessarily the fundamentals of the engine.

But that argument is for another day.... or perhaps another poll!

See ya in the soon to be created (no doubt someone will do it) 'Turbo - Is it a bolt on mod - Yes or No' poll/thread!

Tom Tucker

In some motor racing classes it is possible for (for example) a 2ltr turbo to be in the same class as a 5ltr na. As far as the class system is concerned, forced induction increases the displacement of the 2ltr turbo by a certain factor (in this case 2.5). As Stuit suggests, this does not mean that displacement is physically increased, it simply refers to the equivelant engine air flow characteristics

Stuit

sandman_350

as wattsy and i are trying to both say is on topic ... and that is the aspirated engine in this posted question has 1/3 more power than the turbo unit so you dont have to be a rocket scientist to work out who in this example will come out on top 100kW difference is a substantial power advantage stuit even if you are to ignorant to apreciate that fact

Jimmy

well i think its been summed up pretty well, u have to do alot of work to a 2L, just to keep up with a standard 6L, therefore 300kw NA has far more potential, and is more powerful than a 200kw turbo car which is already trying to make up for a lack of displacement

MYB16

no you dont - stock evo's run quicker times then a 6ltr clubsport R8

I remember reading not too long ago that there is a point and once pasted increasing the size of the engine will no longer result in more power - maybe why Ferrari etc use small cap v8's and 12's - 67hp/ltr from the clubbie's 6ltr is pretty poor when you think about it.