The Displacement Wars

[Slash]

The mentality is wrong though, big engines don't always equal big power. Sure they put out a fair amount of power, but there are several smaller engines that have a significantly better horsepower per liter. Take the Viper, it's an 8.4L V10 that puts out 640hp, which is quite a bit, but it only has a hp/L of 76hp. The GT-R has a hp/L of 143hp, that's nearly double the Viper's with less than half the displacement. For the Viper to have the same hp/L it would need 1,200hp, which is even difficult to achieve with twin turbos.

Nothing against big engines, and like I said I can respect them, but having the mentality that you need a big engine for big power is just wrong. Having a well designed engine will get you way further.

It may be wrong, but that is how it is. There was more than a fair share of large engines produced that overwhelmingly underpowered, namely the late '70s. Regardless of power per liter, 640 horsepower is still 640 horsepower, regardless of displacement. I have seen 7.5L V8's hit 1,200 horsepower N/A. Look at the fastest dragsters of the world, they all use a big block based mountain motor, and they produce an astonishing amount of power. Mind you, they are heavily modified so that really doesn't apply here anyways if we are talking factory stock performance.

You are right in saying that mentality is wrong, but try to tell that to a large population who believes it. The ignorance and arrogance will pop out and you'll get laughed at. That's just how it is, no matter how wrong. I can see why you'd stop going to car shows. Doesn't deter me however.

Car design from every era looks the same. Line up a bunch of cars from the 60's or 70's and they all look similar to other cars from the 60's or 70's. the only reason they stand out now is because they are vast different.

That is true.

 

[Wolfe]

Power is power, but the point is that making it with a bigass engine is kind of an obvious method. It's something to be expected; bigger = more. An LS1 making 350hp is hardly more of an engineering feat than a 2L economy car making about 123hp; it was just built to pump more air. The fact that GM was able to lean on the old SBC for so long speaks for its efficacy, but it also speaks for how little you need to invest into a big engine to get it to make some power. To some people, that's an admirable trait; to others, it's lazy. It's a matter of perspective.

Given that Detroit fans aren't afraid to criticize an "underpowered" engine among their V8 flock, it's a bit hypocritical to shut down specific output as if it doesn't mean squat. There's a happy medium between "my 150hp 1.5L VTEC is the best engine in the world" and "hp/L is completely meaningless ricer trash." I wish more people would meet in the middle.

 

[Zenith]

Horsepower per liter is meaningless. Horsepower per engine weight has meaning. Horsepower per volume has meaning. Horsepower per service life has meaning. People tend to assume that horsepower per liter is directly related to the others when it seldom is.

 

[Slash]

Horsepower per liter is meaningless. Horsepower per engine weight has meaning. Horsepower per volume has meaning. Horsepower per service life has meaning. People tend to assume that horsepower per liter is directly related to the others when it seldom is.

I try to tell people hp/L means nothing. I usually get it in my face.

 

[Zenith]

Hp/L is supposed to be indicative of those characteristics, but with the variety of engine building methods, materials, configurations, etc. it becomes meaningless.

 

[FordMKIVJ5]

Horsepower per liter is meaningless. Horsepower per engine weight has meaning. Horsepower per volume has meaning. Horsepower per service life has meaning. People tend to assume that horsepower per liter is directly related to the others when it seldom is.

Contradiction?

Hp/Litre is a measurement of Hp/Volume.

 

[Joel]

I guess I just don't understand why it needs to be one or the other for so many people. It's not like you're born with an engine displacement orientation and are only attracted to engines above or below a certain displacement.

 

[Slash]

Liter size is a measurement of volume. Cubic inches is also a measurement of volume. I think he meant it more as a generalized statement.

@ Zenith

Exactly. There is way too many variables to take into consideration to make it mean anything.

 

[Joey D]

You are right in saying that mentality is wrong, but try to tell that to a large population who believes it. The ignorance and arrogance will pop out and you'll get laughed at. That's just how it is, no matter how wrong. I can see why you'd stop going to car shows. Doesn't deter me however.

And now you can understand why so many younger people hate muscle cars so much.

Horsepower per liter is meaningless. Horsepower per engine weight has meaning. Horsepower per volume has meaning. Horsepower per service life has meaning. People tend to assume that horsepower per liter is directly related to the others when it seldom is.

It's not really meaningless in a thread that's sole topic is displacement. Yes, there are other things to consider with an engine, but in a thread called "Displacement Wars" I think is serves a purpose to show that you can still make a large amount of horsepower using a small engine. And I think when comparing two OEM, street vehicles it's pretty fair to say their service life is at least decent enough.

 

[Slash]

And now you can understand why so many younger people hate muscle cars so much.

I don't see it. I do, to an extent, but I find a LOT of younger people that adore them. The playing field is pretty level between imports and muscle. If anything, I'd say muscle enthusiasts have the edge in numbers right now.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Granted I have seen it go both ways. I have dealt with a ton of import folks who act just like Joey D mentions for the older domestic folks. I stopped dealing with our local Volvo and Subaru club for that exact reason. Once they found out I own a Mustang beyond the Volvos and Subaru I own it was night and day change on how I was treated.

 

[Joey D]

I don't see it. I do, to an extent, but I find a LOT of younger people that adore them. The playing field is pretty level between imports and muscle. If anything, I'd say muscle enthusiasts have the edge in numbers right now.

It's not imports vs. muscle though, for the most part I don't like imports either and I think their scene is just as bad as the muscle car scene.

I think quite a few younger car guys just like cars and they don't want to deal with the BS that comes from a scene that populated by a bunch of d-bags.

 

[Slash]

Granted I have seen it go both ways. I have dealt with a ton of import folks who act just like Joey D mentions for the older domestic folks. I stopped dealing with our local Volvo and Subaru club for that exact reason. Once they found out I own a Mustang beyond the Volvos and Subaru I own it was night and day change on how I was treated.

That's a shame. 👎

It's not imports vs. muscle though, for the most part I don't like imports either and I think their scene is just as bad as the muscle car scene.

I think quite a few younger car guys just like cars and they don't want to deal with the BS that comes from a scene that populated by a bunch of d-bags.

I think you are onto something there. Then again most drivers aren't enthusiasts and are only looking to get from point A to point B.

 

[Wolfe]

Zenith, while HP/L by itself doesn't necessarily reveal whether an engine is OHV or OHC, what materials it's made of, or what its service life is like, it remains an accurate estimate of several things. What HP/L implies about an engine generally holds true. There is no one statistic that says everything about an engine, so if you want a complete picture, you have to consider a multitude of specifications no matter what.

If you mean to say it won't help you win a race (displacement regulations in sanctioned motorsports aside), that's perfectly fair. But as a descriptor of an engine, HP/L says more than waving naked peak HP figures around as most people do. Least of all, it gives you a shot at guessing the RPM of that peak HP. Whatever you think of it, it's a useful shorthand metric for me.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I think it comes down to a lot of things, and yes, I do think specific output is meaningless. It's at least partially an advertising thing, and in that capacity it goes back a long way - remeber Chevrolet's fuel injected 283 all the way back in 1957, which was rated at 283 hp so they could brag about 1hp/ci. Done right, it just means the engine is more highly stressed and has less potential for additional horsepower via modification. Done wrong, it can mean anything from less refinement (although there are some market segments where I wouldn't really care about that) to actual overheating and reliability issues. Fuel economy may or may not be improved, and in many cases (especially with faster cars), the larger, lower-specific-output engine may actually get better mileage.

But that's not all there is. Some of it has to do with sound. Four-cylinder engines can produce a variety of unappealing noises, from "overtaxed blender" on the low end to "wind-up toy" on the high end. There might be a sweet spot somewhere in there, but the sheer number of engines that don't hit it is amazing.

And some of it is, indeed, down to manliness. If there's one thing Top Gear got right, it's that the elusive "X-factor", or coolness or whatever you want to call it, is an extremely important part of a car. And I can't really think of many small-engined cars that have the X-factor. The best ones are simply blah, the worst have a strong odor of shopping malls and overpriced coffee. It doesn't help that many of them keep putting on ridiculous amounts of weight in the form of comfort & amenities, easily cancelling any weight savings achieved by using a smaller engine. See: Chevrolet Cruze, Dodge Dart.

 

[Doog]

I think it comes down to a lot of things, and yes, I do think specific output is meaningless. It's at least partially an advertising thing, and in that capacity it goes back a long way - remeber Chevrolet's fuel injected 283 all the way back in 1957, which was rated at 283 hp so they could brag about 1hp/ci. Done right, it just means the engine is more highly stressed and has less potential for additional horsepower via modification. Done wrong, it can mean anything from less refinement (although there are some market segments where I wouldn't really care about that) to actual overheating and reliability issues. Fuel economy may or may not be improved, and in many cases (especially with faster cars), the larger, lower-specific-output engine may actually get better mileage.

Everything below this paragraph reeks of BS and ignorance.

 

[Joey D]

But that's not all there is. Some of it has to do with sound. Four-cylinder engines can produce a variety of unappealing noises, from "overtaxed blender" on the low end to "wind-up toy" on the high end. There might be a sweet spot somewhere in there, but the sheer number of engines that don't hit it is amazing.

Sound is very subjective though. You may thing four-cylinders sound bad, but many people thing V8's sound atrocious. Honestly, for me the only thing that sounds worse on the road that a V8 with a lobby cam is a Harley.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Could you maybe be bothered to explain how? EDIT: Both of you, might as well.

 

[Zenith]

Contradiction?

Hp/Litre is a measurement of Hp/Volume.

No, volume refers to the size of the power train in this case.

It's not really meaningless in a thread that's sole topic is displacement. Yes, there are other things to consider with an engine, but in a thread called "Displacement Wars" I think is serves a purpose to show that you can still make a large amount of horsepower using a small engine. And I think when comparing two OEM, street vehicles it's pretty fair to say their service life is at least decent enough.

But small and small displacement are entirely different things, especially when forced induction is applied. My point is that Hp/L denotes nothing about the power train, the other qualities do. Two power trains with all characteristics being equal (weight, size, power output, efficiency, etc.) but with different specific outputs are absolutely the same quality. The Specific output itself has no significance.

Zenith, while HP/L by itself doesn't necessarily reveal whether an engine is OHV or OHC, what materials it's made of, or what its service life is like, it remains an accurate estimate of several things. What HP/L implies about an engine generally holds true. There is no one statistic that says everything about an engine, so if you want a complete picture, you have to consider a multitude of specifications no matter what.

If you mean to say it won't help you win a race (displacement regulations in sanctioned motorsports aside), that's perfectly fair. But as a descriptor of an engine, HP/L says more than waving naked peak HP figures around as most people do. Least of all, it gives you a shot at guessing the RPM of that peak HP. Whatever you think of it, it's a useful shorthand metric for me.

As I said, all of that should be true, but is basically irrelevant due to the many schools of thought applied in powertrain design. You can bring up any meaningful statistic and try to find how Hp/L correlates to it and I'd bet you there will be enough exceptions to render it meaningless.

 

[Joey D]

But small and small displacement are entirely different things, especially when forced induction is applied. My point is that Hp/L denotes nothing about the power train, the other qualities do. Two power trains with all characteristics being equal (weight, size, power output, efficiency, etc.) but with different specific outputs are absolutely the same quality. The Specific output itself has no significance.

But we're talking about displacement, nothing else. All I'm using hp/L for is to show that you don't need a big engine to produce big power numbers. If we were talking about the entire performance package, then such hp/L wouldn't really make a ton of sense.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Sound is very subjective though. You may thing four-cylinders sound bad, but many people thing V8's sound atrocious. Honestly, for me the only thing that sounds worse on the road that a V8 with a lobby cam is a Harley.

Funny I love the way cammed V8s sound but hate they way Harleys sound.

 

[Slash]

But that's not all there is. Some of it has to do with sound. Four-cylinder engines can produce a variety of unappealing noises, from "overtaxed blender" on the low end to "wind-up toy" on the high end. There might be a sweet spot somewhere in there, but the sheer number of engines that don't hit it is amazing.

And some of it is, indeed, down to manliness. If there's one thing Top Gear got right, it's that the elusive "X-factor", or coolness or whatever you want to call it, is an extremely important part of a car. And I can't really think of many small-engined cars that have the X-factor. The best ones are simply blah, the worst have a strong odor of shopping malls and overpriced coffee. It doesn't help that many of them keep putting on ridiculous amounts of weight in the form of comfort & amenities, easily cancelling any weight savings achieved by using a smaller engine. See: Chevrolet Cruze, Dodge Dart.

I have heard 4 cylinders that sound like 2 stroke weed whackers. Nothing appealing about them, at least to me.

Funny I love the way cammed V8s sound but hate they way Harleys sound.

Oddly enough, I prefer a stock or mildly cammed V8, nothing huge, and love Harleys.

 

[Joey D]

Funny I love the way cammed V8s sound but hate they way Harleys sound.

Which proves my point to W&N, sound of an engine is purely subjective.

 

[Zenith]

But we're talking about displacement, nothing else. All I'm using hp/L for is to show that you don't need a big engine to produce big power numbers. If we were talking about the entire performance package, then such hp/L wouldn't really make a ton of sense.

Isn't talking about displacement and only displacement a bit narrow? All of the examples we discuss have been cars. I completely agree if we're going to limit our argument to displacement, but surely the "Displacement Wars" are meant to be set in the realm of passenger cars and performance cars.

 

[Slash]

Isn't talking about displacement and only displacement a bit narrow? All of the examples we discuss have been cars. I completely agree if we're going to limit our argument to displacement, but surely the "Displacement Wars" are meant to be set in the realm of passenger cars and performance cars.

It was meant to expand from the OP. It was just something to start on.

 

[Doog]

Could you maybe be bothered to explain how? EDIT: Both of you, might as well.

But that's not all there is. Some of it has to do with sound. Four-cylinder engines can produce a variety of unappealing noises, from "overtaxed blender" on the low end to "wind-up toy" on the high end. There might be a sweet spot somewhere in there, but the sheer number of engines that don't hit it is amazing.

And some of it is, indeed, down to manliness. If there's one thing Top Gear got right, it's that the elusive "X-factor", or coolness or whatever you want to call it, is an extremely important part of a car. And I can't really think of many small-engined cars that have the X-factor. The best ones are simply blah, the worst have a strong odor of shopping malls and overpriced coffee. It doesn't help that many of them keep putting on ridiculous amounts of weight in the form of comfort & amenities, easily cancelling any weight savings achieved by using a smaller engine. See: Chevrolet Cruze, Dodge Dart.

Are you a broken record? All I've seen you post about is this manliness factor that every car should strive to achieve, upped by V8s and no luxuries and knocked down by comfort and ammenities, which is all your opinion, even though you go around repeating it so much as if that makes it true. None of these are actually valid reasons for why smaller displacement engines may or may not be better than larger displacement engines. If anything, you sound a bit like those old muscle car-driving douchebags that talk down imports, driving younger enthusiasts away from the muscle car scene. Doesn't that conflict with your goal to put everyone in a stripped, classic V8 muscle car with open headers and no heat?

 

[Joey D]

Isn't talking about displacement and only displacement a bit narrow? All of the examples we discuss have been cars. I completely agree if we're going to limit our argument to displacement, but surely the "Displacement Wars" are meant to be set in the realm of passenger cars and performance cars.

I was just limiting my comments to show that you don't need a big engine to make big power and hp/L was just an easy way to show it with numbers. As far as performance goes, then sure, you need to consider all sorts of thing.

 

[Slash]

classic V8 muscle car with open headers and no heat?

You'd actually be surprised. Most came with with stuff you can get today like A/C, heat, AM/FM radio, seat belts etc.

 

[Grand Prix]

Here's your bad-ass 4 cylinder, Locomobile "Old Number 16", winner of the Vanderbilt Cup.

All 17.6 litres of it. 'Merica.

You can also make a tiny displacement engine that sounds absolutely bad-ass. Here is a 1.5 litres supercharged V16. Should sound like a high pitched blender right?

 

[Doog]

You'd actually be surprised. Most came with with stuff you can get today like A/C, heat, AM/FM radio, seat belts etc.

I was exaggerating to make it conform more to W&N's hatred of anything luxurious.