The Displacement Wars

[Slash]

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

Gotcha 👍



I think displacement does have a big effect on overall exhaust note however. There is a video on YouTube of a guy that built a Ford 302, 1/3 the size of a real 302 using factory blueprints from when he worked there in the '80s. It sounds kind of like the V8 but not really similar at all. It's exactly the same, but shrunken.


For comparison.

 

[Wolfe]

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.

I don't think the schools of thought are so terribly different that HP/L can't be used as a placeholder for a more detailed picture. It's certainly a mistake to pass judgment on all engines from a single scale, but it's not too difficult to move that scale around if you know a thing or two. For example, I find the LS7's ~72hp/L rather impressive for a naturally-aspirated OHV V8, while 100hp/L is pretty "meh" when a turbocharger is involved. Like I said earlier, you need more information for a more complete picture, but if you have that information, that means you can compare like-for-like when it comes to those "schools of thought."

I don't advocate the way HP/L is typically celebrated, but if you apply some wisdom to it I stand by my belief that it's a useful thing.

 

[White & Nerdy]

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.

It's not so much that I hate all luxuries. I don't. I just think manufacturers are going way too far with them, and buyers are going way too far in asking for more. People think there is such a thing as enough power, but never such a thing as enough luxury - which as far as I'm concerned is exactly backwards.

Case in point: my Sunbird actually has most of the options - only missing the sunroof/moonroof, the CD player (but it has a tape player, which can be treated as a CD player for the purposes of this discussion), and the power seats (if any were available). And maybe some theoretically higher-grade wheels, but I think the ones that are on it look better anyway. Yet I get the feeling that some people would actually call it underequipped. And the interior, with its cloth upholstery and hard touch plastic, would barely be acceptable in a base model, let alone an upgrade.

Now the consequences of that line of thinking: My old Sunbird, iron V6 and all, probably weighs about 2,550 lbs sans driver. A new Cruze, with its modern, sophisticated 83 ci turbo four, weighs over 3000 lbs. And for what? You can't honestly say that safety improvements are responsible for the entire increase.

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?

I'll admit, that was a bit of an aside, but it's still sort of related. People see no problem with these tiny engines, even as they demand more and more (weight-increasing) extras piled on to cars that often aren't very fast to begin with. While simultaneously worrying about fuel economy. I say, if you want better fuel economy, don't downsize the engine, strip out the gadgets! Isn't it just slightly unmanly to go straight for a smaller engine when you need better gas mileage instead of reducing the amount of (heavy) features and luxuries on the car?

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Isn't it just slightly unmanly to go straight for a smaller engine when you need better gas mileage instead of reducing the amount of (heavy) features and luxuries on the car?

It's what is known as intelligence. Most people realise that how fast your car is has absolutely no bearing on how 'manly' you are, and that fuel economy and luxuries are nice things to have when you are driving a vehicle any distance at all.

It's kind of funny seeing you talk about how certain things make you manly, when you obsess over cartoon ponies and how manly other men are. You are coming across in a similar manner to the way a close friend of mine did, shortly before he admitted he was gay.

 

[Doog]

It's not so much that I hate all luxuries. I don't. I just think manufacturers are going way too far with them, and buyers are going way too far in asking for more. People think there is such a thing as enough power, but never such a thing as enough luxury - which as far as I'm concerned is exactly backwards.

It's not that they think there is such a thing as enough power; everyone likes power. The issue is that unless you're replacing an outdated, inefficient motor with something modern, more power almost always means worse gas mileage, and ever since gas prices hit $4.00 a gallon, pretty much everyone (the average motorist) cares about gas mileage.

Case in point: my Sunbird actually has most of the options - only missing the sunroof/moonroof, the CD player (but it has a tape player, which can be treated as a CD player for the purposes of this discussion), and the power seats (if any were available). And maybe some theoretically higher-grade wheels, but I think the ones that are on it look better anyway. Yet I get the feeling that some people would actually call it underequipped. And the interior, with its cloth upholstery and hard touch plastic, would barely be acceptable in a base model, let alone an upgrade.

Your Sunbird's a twenty year old car, though. Tastes change, and historically, cars have always bulked up on equipment with each iteration.

Now the consequences of that line of thinking: My old Sunbird, iron V6 and all, probably weighs about 2,550 lbs sans driver. A new Cruze, with its modern, sophisticated 83 ci turbo four, weighs over 3000 lbs. And for what? You can't honestly say that safety improvements are responsible for the entire increase.

There's also increased sound deadening as more and more people demand a more isolated driving experience. In addition to safety equipment there's also ABS and traction control and all the computers those add to the car. There's also more aerodynamic pieces (grille shutters, for one) on cars than ever before. Other than that, you're right, all the extra content that cars come with today makes up for the rest of the difference in weight.

I'll admit, that was a bit of an aside, but it's still sort of related. People see no problem with these tiny engines, even as they demand more and more (weight-increasing) extras piled on to cars that often aren't very fast to begin with. While simultaneously worrying about fuel economy. I say, if you want better fuel economy, don't downsize the engine, strip out the gadgets! Isn't it just slightly unmanly to go straight for a smaller engine when you need better gas mileage instead of reducing the amount of (heavy) features and luxuries on the car?

People want cars to be comfortable, well-equipped and fuel efficient, and they'll throw their money at whatever manufacturer comes out with the right car for that. While it would certainly yield immediate results, stripping cars of the luxuries present-day consumers have come to expect won't be popular with said consumers. Sure, it'd receive approval from enthusiasts, but enthusiasts rarely vote with their wallets, and when they do, they buy used because they know better. Instead, manufacturers (let's use Honda as an example) are taking a more prudent, consumer-minded approach to weight-savings. They're making cars a bit shorter (the most recent Accord lost about 3 inches in length), but keeping the wheelbases more or less the same (it only lost 0.9 inches of its wheelbase) to keep room inside the car, where it matters, the same. This downsizing, as well as smart weight-savings elsewhere have reduced curb weight by around 25-50 lbs, depending upon the model.
This weight-shedding could have been a little more drastic, but Honda opted to respond to previous complaints of road noise by adding more sound deadening. Rather than going the still not quite proven turbo route, Honda's instead offering a revised four cylinder that offers a bit more power and torque, but more importantly offers peak power and torque lower in the RPM band, where it's more useable, which improves fuel efficiency a bit. On the manual model they've offered another gear, which always improves gas mileage, and they've done away with the automatic in favor a CVT that mimicks the gears in an automatic, and is supposedly pretty good.
Basically what I'm trying to put into words is that manufacturers will try to meet consumer demands for fuel efficiency to the best of their abilities, without creating a compromised (noisy, sluggish or spartan) product. If they took a weight-savings at all costs approach, the end product would be something very unappealing to most of the market, and there's no money to be found in that. It may not satisfy hardcore enthusiasts, but it satisfies the millions of people who do buy these cars each year.

 

[McLaren]

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

Can you? Not once have you ever explained on how 4 cylinders sound "terrible" beyond, "OMG, they sound like blenders".

 

[White & Nerdy]

It's what is known as intelligence. Most people realise that how fast your car is has absolutely no bearing on how 'manly' you are, and that fuel economy and luxuries are nice things to have when you are driving a vehicle any distance at all.

Speed is only one part of the overall package. A car's sound, appearance, sport/luxury balance, and of course displacement (which is the subject of this thread) also have an effect, which is what I've been saying. A lot of new cars do very badly on every one of those, unfortunately.

As for luxuries, those are nice, but tend to come at a price. It might be nice not to hear your car when you're just cruising on the freeway, but if it's still overly quiet when you want more noise, is it really worth it? What if the several hundred pounds of leather and gadgets causes understeer and body roll in quick cornering - or perhaps more relevant, when trying to dodge an animal, a developing accident, or something else dangerous that's too close to stop short of? Speaking of stopping short, what's the effect on braking distances? Surely it can't be positive.

It's kind of funny seeing you talk about how certain things make you manly, when you obsess over cartoon ponies and how manly other men are. You are coming across in a similar manner to the way a close friend of mine did, shortly before he admitted he was gay.

It's probably because I pay too much attention to politics, and have been paying too much attention for about 5 years now. As a result, my mind is constantly adjusting an internal scale of how "bad" the general situation in the U.S. is becoming, and as a result, I tend to worry about pretty much everything.

It's not that they think there is such a thing as enough power; everyone likes power. The issue is that unless you're replacing an outdated, inefficient motor with something modern, more power almost always means worse gas mileage, and ever since gas prices hit $4.00 a gallon, pretty much everyone (the average motorist) cares about gas mileage.

Perhaps not that much worse, if at all. In an equal state of tune, a larger engine's greater power output means it can achieve the same forward motion with less effort - which means less wear & tear, as well. If it's in a lower state of tune and putting out about the same horsepower, it probably has a broader, more useful powerband and a lower power peak, which once again translates to less effort for about the same acceleration. It also means you're less likely to have to downshift for passing, merging, and climbing hills. That's useful even with an auto, since some automatic transmissions are still very slow in responding to requests for additional speed.

Your Sunbird's a twenty year old car, though. Tastes change, and historically, cars have always bulked up on equipment with each iteration.

That's my question, though - should they? Surely the principle of "good enough" applies here. Especially when the computerized stuff that's so hot right now is often anti-ergonomic, and facilitates further complication (without computer interfaces, it would be hard to give a car 12 transmission settings, 5 suspension settings, 3 engine settings, and 8 seat massage settings).

There's also increased sound deadening as more and more people demand a more isolated driving experience. In addition to safety equipment there's also ABS and traction control and all the computers those add to the car.

My point exactly, and those things are very prone to nickel & diming a car. "Let's just add more Dynamat, it's only a few pounds! Here, we can replace the buttons on the console with a touch screen and give it GPS and onboard Wi-Fi in the process! That computer hardware doesn't really weigh *that* much. Hey, the federal government says we need stability control. No, don't bother adding a button to turn it or the traction control all the way off, obviously no one ever gets stuck in snow or just wants to have some fun. Oooh, voice activated electronics are in! Hey, is that plastic hard touch? And is this cloth upholstery? Make it soft touch and leather, respectively..." and soon you have a 3000+ pound "compact" car that actively attempts to prevent fun.

There's also more aerodynamic pieces (grille shutters, for one) on cars than ever before. Other than that, you're right, all the extra content that cars come with today makes up for the rest of the difference in weight.

More nickels & dimes, I assume. Even active shutters couldn't actually weigh much more than a few pounds.

But that's my point. It's everything added together. A few pounds for more insulation here, a few pounds for some computer stuff there, and soon you've tacked on a lot more than a few pounds.

People want cars to be comfortable, well-equipped and fuel efficient, and they'll throw their money at whatever manufacturer comes out with the right car for that. While it would certainly yield immediate results, stripping cars of the luxuries present-day consumers have come to expect won't be popular with said consumers.

And the mods probably won't let me say what I think about that. So Ill just say, I'm perfectly happy with the level of equipment on my current car. Any further extras are just that - extras - and would be evaluated with a critical eye to their performance effects.

Sure, it'd receive approval from enthusiasts, but enthusiasts rarely vote with their wallets, and when they do, they buy used because they know better.

And why is that, I wonder?

Oh yeah, it's because no one makes an enthusiast-oriented car for less than about $30K right now. And they're all too complicated to modify significantly anyway. So the cycle perpetuates itself - new cars are expensive, hard to work on, and full of unnecessary stuff, so "car people" confine their search to the used car market. Car companies, realizing that no one who likes driving for its own sake is looking at new cars (unless they have several hundred thousand, in which case they're mainly looking at Lamborghini and its ilk), begin to build their entire product line for people who think of cars as appliances, which means even more feature-bloated and hard to work on, which in turn reinforces the enthusiast collective's determination to stay away from showrooms, and so on and so forth. Fine for now, I guess, but what happens when all the good used cars are wrecked, or owned by people who plan to keep them until they die (or until they can pull a mega profit on them)?

Instead, manufacturers (let's use Honda as an example) are taking a more prudent, consumer-minded approach to weight-savings. They're making cars a bit shorter (the most recent Accord lost about 3 inches in length), but keeping the wheelbases more or less the same (it only lost 0.9 inches of its wheelbase) to keep room inside the car, where it matters, the same. This downsizing, as well as smart weight-savings elsewhere have reduced curb weight by around 25-50 lbs, depending upon the model.
This weight-shedding could have been a little more drastic, but Honda opted to respond to previous complaints of road noise by adding more sound deadening. Rather than going the still not quite proven turbo route, Honda's instead offering a revised four cylinder that offers a bit more power and torque, but more importantly offers peak power and torque lower in the RPM band, where it's more useable, which improves fuel efficiency a bit. On the manual model they've offered another gear, which always improves gas mileage, and they've done away with the automatic in favor a CVT that mimicks the gears in an automatic, and is supposedly pretty good.
Basically what I'm trying to put into words is that manufacturers will try to meet consumer demands for fuel efficiency to the best of their abilities, without creating a compromised (noisy, sluggish or spartan) product. If they took a weight-savings at all costs approach, the end product would be something very unappealing to most of the market, and there's no money to be found in that. It may not satisfy hardcore enthusiasts, but it satisfies the millions of people who do buy these cars each year.

Eh, OK.

Can you? Not once have you ever explained on how 4 cylinders sound "terrible" beyond, "OMG, they sound like blenders".

OK, I'll give that a shot. There's two different ways an I4 can sound bad. If it's stock, "overtaxed blender" is actually a very good description of it - especially at low RPM. If it's extremely well muffled, it's just boring. If it's louder, it just screams "hey everyone, I'm slow!" in a way few other engines - even the hated GM 60 deg V6 - can match.

If the engine has been heavily tuned, you end up with a situation where it sounds like it's definitely modified and definitely spinning fast, but not really that powerful. Even if it puts out 500+ HP it still just sounds weak somehow. It lacks that deep, throaty tone that other engine setups can achieve easily.

Like I said, there's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, but not many passenger cars hit it.

 

[Grand Prix]

Fine. Have a beefy 4 cylinder. It carries at least one passenger in this video.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Sorry to break it to you, but that actually doesn't sound very good. Maybe if the car was being driven harder, it's sound decent, but that car is too old and valuable to be run hard. As it was, it got drowned out and upstaged by the other cars.

 

[arora]

Does anything ever sound good on yt?

 

[White & Nerdy]

I know the Audi Quatto group B car does (I think they had I5s, not sure though). I found a video that included several, and they sound like Lamborghini V10s!

 

[Wolfe]

W&N, it's incredible how you can take a decent point (cutting weight and gadgetry is something I wholeheartedly agree with), then overblow and exaggerate it into a bloody pulp.

What if the several hundred pounds of leather and gadgets causes understeer and body roll in quick cornering - or perhaps more relevant, when trying to dodge an animal, a developing accident, or something else dangerous that's too close to stop short of?

Too bad that on the whole, cars in all segments handle better than they ever have before. Body control by suspension tuning (and new technologies) has come a long way. But "several hundred pounds of leather" conjures an amusing mental image, thanks for that.

..."words words words words words words" and soon you have a 3000+ pound "compact" car that actively attempts to prevent fun.

The EPA defines Compact by physical dimensions, not weight. And the bold bit is not only an amusingly juvenile statement in the context you provided but also basically defined by stability control alone.

...no one makes an enthusiast-oriented car for less than about $30K right now. And they're all too complicated to modify significantly anyway.

Do you read anything about the industry, or just rant about whatever pops into your imagination?

So the cycle perpetuates itself - new cars are expensive, hard to work on, and full of unnecessary stuff, so "car people" confine their search to the used car market.

I would think you misspelled "poor people," but I know you believe being an enthusiast and making a good income are mutually exclusive by some form of black magic.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

What if the several hundred pounds of leather and gadgets causes understeer and body roll in quick cornering - or perhaps more relevant, when trying to dodge an animal, a developing accident, or something else dangerous that's too close to stop short of? Speaking of stopping short, what's the effect on braking distances? Surely it can't be positive.

Hey, you know what's also pretty pertinent in such a discussion? Not keeping your car road-worthy, and letting it develop numerous problems while still driving it regularly on the road. Go on, tell me how GPS or the added weight of sound deadening is dangerous compared to some guy who'd rather spend money fighting cartoon ponies than making sure his car isn't a potential danger to every other person on the road.

And the mods probably won't let me say what I think about that. So Ill just say, I'm perfectly happy with the level of equipment on my current car. Any further extras are just that - extras - and would be evaluated with a critical eye to their performance effects.

You're right, we don't want you broadly painting entire groups of people with insults because they don't think exactly like you. Certainly that's a draconian limitation.

Oh yeah, it's because no one makes an enthusiast-oriented car for less than about $30K right now.

Wrong.

Eh, OK.

It's unsurprising this is all the non-response you provide to a valid counterpoint.

OK, I'll give that a shot. There's two different ways an I4 can sound bad. If it's stock, "overtaxed blender" is actually a very good description of it - especially at low RPM. If it's extremely well muffled, it's just boring. If it's louder, it just screams "hey everyone, I'm slow!" in a way few other engines - even the hated GM 60 deg V6 - can match.

If the engine has been heavily tuned, you end up with a situation where it sounds like it's definitely modified and definitely spinning fast, but not really that powerful. Even if it puts out 500+ HP it still just sounds weak somehow. It lacks that deep, throaty tone that other engine setups can achieve easily.

Like I said, there's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, but not many passenger cars hit it.

So, still nothing concrete or close to "evidence" then, just personal preference. Figures.

 

[TheCracker]

OK, I'll give that a shot. There's two different ways an I4 can sound bad. If it's stock, "overtaxed blender" is actually a very good description of it - especially at low RPM. If it's extremely well muffled, it's just boring. If it's louder, it just screams "hey everyone, I'm slow!" in a way few other engines - even the hated GM 60 deg V6 - can match.

If the engine has been heavily tuned, you end up with a situation where it sounds like it's definitely modified and definitely spinning fast, but not really that powerful. Even if it puts out 500+ HP it still just sounds weak somehow. It lacks that deep, throaty tone that other engine setups can achieve easily.

Like I said, there's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, but not many passenger cars hit it.

99.9% of consumers don't care what their engine sounds like. I'd imagine that a high proportion of people who class themselves as car enthusiasts value 'engine sound' a lot lower on what they look for in a car as they do (in no particular order) performance, looks, reliability, handling, re-sale value, comfort and economy.

It's not worth it for manufacturers to bother with, especially when smaller capacity turbo engines can create the same power, achieve better economy and better emissions with these smaller engines.

 

[Third Reign]

I would think you misspelled "poor people," but I know you believe being an enthusiast and making a good income are mutually exclusive by some form of black magic.

Well I doubt most people spend more than a year's worth salary on a car purchase. I love cars, if I could afford one I would take it out to the track every chance psooible, and I have what many considder the best track in the world just around the corner. Sadly I'm a physics grad student, am piss poor, and all I could afford is a nice little motorcyle (Kawa ER6-F/Ninja650). Sure I take her to the Ring, but I'm not suicidal on it, I would push any car harder.

Even if I had a regular income, I would be able to afford anything sportier than a GT86 (I will own you!!!).

Visiting the IAA recently ignited my passion, with all these nice sports cars being presented. Sadly most of the cars will never be owned by me as the price is in the order of a decent home (SLS black edition 260k € or leasing at 2k a month)...

I think that the argument of price and sports cars are relevant. Most people that can afford a Porsche GT3 (my absolute dream) or any other super sports car would most likely not have as much passion as I do about using it (or at least I assume so, I know its likely wrong but my brain tells me so). I cry every time a sportscar gets "pimped" by the current rapper of the month.

 

[Joey D]

Oh yeah, it's because no one makes an enthusiast-oriented car for less than about $30K right now.

Ford makes the ST versions of both the Focus and Fiesta along with the Mustang, Toyota makes that FR-S thing, Mazda makes the Miata, Hyundai makes the Genesis, Chevy makes the Camaro, MINI makes an entire range of vehicles, and Subaru makes the WRX. That's only off the top of my head, but those all can be had south of $30k decently equipped.

Well I doubt most people spend more than a year's worth salary on a car purchase. .

I think this is a matter of where you live, people in the states can easily buy a car that costs more than a year's salary. I'm not sure what the German market is like, but I assume it's insanely expensive to own a car compared to the US.

 

[Cano]

Man, this thread has turned into a goldmine.

 

[Slash]

Does anything ever sound good on yt?

I have to look for a while to find anything suitable.

 

[Bopop4]

Does anything ever sound good on yt?

Inline-4^

 

[White & Nerdy]

W&N, it's incredible how you can take a decent point (cutting weight and gadgetry is something I wholeheartedly agree with), then overblow and exaggerate it into a bloody pulp.

Too bad that on the whole, cars in all segments handle better than they ever have before. Body control by suspension tuning (and new technologies) has come a long way. But "several hundred pounds of leather" conjures an amusing mental image, thanks for that.

Just think how much better they could be if they weren't full of things people didn't even know they wanted until manufacturers started adding them.

The EPA defines Compact by physical dimensions, not weight. And the bold bit is not only an amusingly juvenile statement in the context you provided but also basically defined by stability control alone.

It's more an overall philosophy. Electronic nannies that can't quite be turned off, super thick sound insulation and silent mufflers to cloak the sound of the car's operation, and so forth. Come on people, driving is not a chore and cars are not just appliances!

Do you read anything about the industry, or just rant about whatever pops into your imagination?

It probably has more to do with criteria you'd probably consider strange. Anything FWD is immediately disqualified, as is any non-V8 muscle car (I don't care how fast they go now, they still have an odor of "fake muscle car" hanging about them and they always will). And not everyone is going to be interested in a Miata. Also, I said "about 30K", so as far as I'm concerned $27-$28K is still expensive. So that leaves... the BRZ/FR-S. And it's still a four, albeit a flat four, which is better. (sounds better, lower c.g., better suited to RWD applications)

I would think you misspelled "poor people," but I know you believe being an enthusiast and making a good income are mutually exclusive by some form of black magic.

Not quite. But I suppose you've hit on the real reason cheap, fast, large-displacement cars aren't being built: not everyone can afford a brand-new car just to hoon around on weekends. If someone can, they've probably got pretty deep pockets and want a car that feels expensive inside. The muscle car ideal is pretty much gone forever, in that case.

Hey, you know what's also pretty pertinent in such a discussion? Not keeping your car road-worthy, and letting it develop numerous problems while still driving it regularly on the road. Go on, tell me how GPS or the added weight of sound deadening is dangerous compared to some guy who'd rather spend money fighting cartoon ponies than making sure his car isn't a potential danger to every other person on the road.

As far as I know, defects stemming from neglect were never a part of this discussion. My comment was about potential issues introduced by the design of the car itself, specifically a lack of attention paid to controlling weight.

You're right, we don't want you broadly painting entire groups of people with insults because they don't think exactly like you. Certainly that's a draconian limitation.

If it helps, I wasn't talking about GTP members specifically. I was talking about the vast majority of car buyers both on and off GTP.

Wrong.

I said "about", not "exactly", and I don't consider the Miata "decent". I have a feeling you know why, and as far as I know it's a problem inherent to the very idea of a mainstream, mass-produced British-type roadster. I hope that's not offensive.

It's unsurprising this is all the non-response you provide to a valid counterpoint.

I could have said a lot more, like "wow, a whole 25-50 lbs!", but I know that'd just go nowhere. Honda could have saved more weight, but once a customer becomes used to an extra feature or comfort, they will never give it up. And thus all those little bits of weight begin to add up. I sometimes wonder when it'll end.

So, still nothing concrete or close to "evidence" then, just personal preference. Figures.

I guess it would be pretty difficult to find evidence for the sound merits of an engine type, though you do have to admit I4s in particular do tend to sound pretty weak. The best explanation I can come up with is that it's a somewhat flat and, as car engines go, high-pitched sound (at least on more performance-oriented cars), without much depth or bass. As far as "deeper-sounding" I4s, that's just pure personal prefence. I tend to think of it as a very "low-performance" sound and TBH I'm not quite sure how anyone comes to a different conclusion, but if anyone would like to explain it I'm listening.

99.9% of consumers don't care what their engine sounds like. I'd imagine that a high proportion of people who class themselves as car enthusiasts value 'engine sound' a lot lower on what they look for in a car as they do (in no particular order) performance, looks, reliability, handling, re-sale value, comfort and economy.

It's not worth it for manufacturers to bother with, especially when smaller capacity turbo engines can create the same power, achieve better economy and better emissions with these smaller engines.

I always figured the noise was an integral part of the driving experience. If a car is too quiet, or if it sounds wrong, it becomes significantly harder to enjoy driving.

Ford makes the ST versions of both the Focus and Fiesta

Both FWD, and again you probably don't want to know what I think of the Fiesta.

along with the Mustang,

Can you get a V8 version for significantly less than 30 grand?

Toyota makes that FR-S thing,

OK, that works I guess.

Mazda makes the Miata,

Though whether you'd be willing to actually buy one depends on several things.

Hyundai makes the Genesis,

Are you talking about the V6 or the 2.0T.

Chevy makes the Camaro,

See my comment on the Mustang.

MINI makes an entire range of vehicles,

FWD, and see Miata comment.

and Subaru makes the WRX.

I guess that works.

That's only off the top of my head, but those all can be had south of $30k decently equipped.

As I said in several cases, does "decently equipped" include the hot engines, or are these optioned-up base models?

I think this is a matter of where you live, people in the states can easily buy a car that costs more than a year's salary. I'm not sure what the German market is like, but I assume it's insanely expensive to own a car compared to the US.

It depends on what a year's salary is for you. Considering all the other expenditures involved in life, that's probably not so accurate.

In any case, I apologize for dragging us off-topic.

 

[Famine]

Terrible 4-pot. Terrible.



Awful.

 

[Joey D]

As I said in several cases, does "decently equipped" include the hot engines, or are these optioned-up base models?

Enthusiast cars don't need the "hot engine" they need to be a well put together package, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

The Fiesta ST has been regarded as one of the best modern hot hatches made. The MINI Cooper S is insanely fun to drive, even the base Cooper is really good and I enjoyed mine immensely. The Miata is pretty much the quintessential enthusiast car. All I really see coming out in your comments is the you're really insecure with your sexuality and thing that somehow driving a MINI Cooper or a Miata makes you homosexual because of whatever reason you make up.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

As far as I know, defects stemming from neglect were never a part of this discussion. My comment was about potential issues introduced by the design of the car itself, specifically a lack of attention paid to controlling weight.

And my point is it's more than a bit rich to hear someone comment on the safety of modern cars when they don't even take care of their own.

You also seem to think automakers don't pay attention to controlling weight. They do; but the general buying public want the features.

If it helps, I wasn't talking about GTP members specifically. I was talking about the vast majority of car buyers both on and off GTP.

It doesn't.

I said "about", not "exactly", and I don't consider the Miata "decent". I have a feeling you know why, and as far as I know it's a problem inherent to the very idea of a mainstream, mass-produced British-type roadster. I hope that's not offensive.

You don't consider a car that's widely regarded as the de facto entry into automobile enthusiasm for the last 20 years decent. You valiantly defend an ancient J-body.

I have a sneaking suspicion as to why, but it's a very different answer than what you think.

I could have said a lot more, like "wow, a whole 25-50 lbs!", but I know that'd just go nowhere. Honda could have saved more weight, but once a customer becomes used to an extra feature or comfort, they will never give it up. And thus all those little bits of weight begin to add up. I sometimes wonder when it'll end.

Every company could hack off a few hundred pounds, sure; it'd come at the expense of safety and features. You know what doesn't save weight? A massively oversized (for it's power output) iron-block engine.

I guess it would be pretty difficult to find evidence for the sound merits of an engine type, though you do have to admit I4s in particular do tend to sound pretty weak.

No. And this is where your incredible density rises to the top again; you can't prove opinion. I've heard an F20C at 9500 rpm and it's utterly savage. Another Honda engine, the ITR's B18, also sounds angry. I've heard old Alfa four-pots, and that's a sweet note. Renault's old nat-asp RS engines in the Clio (even the Williams) get a lot of comments on their sound, as do old Pugs. What's so hard to understand?

that's just pure personal prefence.

Oh, right. You keep using this and pretending it's fact.

TBH I'm not quite sure how anyone comes to a different conclusion, but if anyone would like to explain it I'm listening.

Taste.

I always figured the noise was an integral part of the driving experience. If a car is too quiet, or if it sounds wrong, it becomes significantly harder to enjoy driving.

It sure does... if you're an enthusiast who needs the sound. For those who do see cars as a method of transportation and little else; nope. For those who want a luxury car; nope.

Both FWD, and again you probably don't want to know what I think of the Fiesta.

I'm sure it's steeped in fact like the rest of your inane diatribes. Like the idea FWD cars can't be enthusiast models.

Can you get a V8 version for significantly less than 30 grand?

Less than $1000 more than $30k puts you in the GT. Not that that should matter, since you're just now adding extra qualifiers - the V6 can be had with the Performance package, and a 305hp V6 Mustang so equipped would likely be faster around a track than the V8 models of only 5 years ago.

Mazda makes the Miata,

Though whether you'd be willing to actually buy one depends on several things.

Yep; what colour, and which type of roof.

Hyundai makes the Genesis,

Are you talking about the V6 or the 2.0T.

It doesn't matter.

Chevy makes the Camaro,

See my comment on the Mustang.

Ditto.

MINI makes an entire range of vehicles,

FWD, and see Miata comment.

You're right; there's so many more personalization options for the MINI!

As I said in several cases, does "decently equipped" include the hot engines, or are these optioned-up base models?

When a base model is putting out as much power as the hot engines of last decade, does that matter? Or, again, are you just adding qualifiers onto the original question after being proven wrong?

And, tying into that (and the topic); these "base" engines not only put out as much power as before, but in the case of the Mustang, is lighter and provides better fuel economy than the old 4.6L V8. Or in the case of the Genny, the 2.0L provides a massive tuning base.

 

[White & Nerdy]

If you're considering a muscle car, the hot engine is pretty much mandatory. It doesn't matter how fast the V6 is. It's a principle thing.

Other than that, I just have a hard time believing it wouldn't be incredibly disappointing to have a performance car with the slowest of multiple engine choices.

But I admit, this discussion has very little to do with engine displacement, though I do consider "manliness" an advantage of larger engines. It is just one of many, however.

 

[Liquid]

The fact that you not only consider 'manliness' a tangible, measurable trait in cars but also a critically important one speaks volumes. And I'm not the only person to point it out. Two others have noted it in this thread alone.

It's either ^this or you're just incredibly stupid.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Really, I don't see why it's either.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

All I have to say is that there's no replacement for displacement, as there's only so much power that can be produced at a given stress level.

And that CVTs and camless valvetrains will make that even more obvious as they become more viable.

 

[Imari]

Really, I don't see why it's either.

I don't think anybody really expects you to understand. It is a very enjoyable thread though, watching you try to justify why engines need to be penis extensions.

"But my engine isn't as big as his engine!"

Hilarious.

You may now feel free to mock me as a Miata/MX5 driver if you wish. I enjoy my car immensely.

 

[RDF97]

It's a respect thing. For example, I one day want to own a Supra (non turbo). Cool car but I wouldn't get as much respect in fact I'm probably going to be criticised for it.

Sticking to the displacement idea. Yeah it's again all about respect. My uncle owns a VE SS Commodore; massive Corvette 6.0L V8. In one of normal large family cars. I have massive respect for him and I have massive respect for his car. I would respect him regardless but if he came round in a Toyota Corolla, would I respect the car. Hell no!

Basically, the car is everything.

 

[Imari]

It's a respect thing. For example, I one day want to own a Supra (non turbo). Cool car but I wouldn't get as much respect in fact I'm probably going to be criticised for it.

Sticking to the displacement idea. Yeah it's again all about respect. My uncle owns a VE SS Commodore; massive Corvette 6.0L V8. In one of normal large family cars. I have massive respect for him and I have massive respect for his car. I would respect him regardless but if he came round in a Toyota Corolla, would I respect the car. Hell no!

Basically, the car is everything.

But is displacement everything?

Say you have two friends.
The first has a V8 Commodore. He's a keen driver, but he uses it every day so it's basically stock.
The second has a supercharged V6. It's his weekend car, so he's worked the suspension, taken a lot of the sound deadening out, put an aftermarket exhaust on, worked the engine all the way through and had it tuned, and various other things. It's streetable, but it's not that pleasant on a long trip.

Is one really more impressive than the other?

The V8 is cool, and it's fine that the guy keeps it stock because that's the way he needs to use it. It's a nice car, and one that most people would be happy to own.

The supercharged V6 is going to be faster both in a straight line and through the corners through all the work that's been done to it, and a better drivers car in almost every way except user friendliness. Displacement aside, it's a better car, and anyone who has even the first idea about cars will know that.

And regarding the sound thing, I had the pleasure of hearing a supercharged SV6 at a track day I went to at Sandown. One of the most amazing sounds I've ever heard.

If you want your car to generate respect, you just need a good car. I think the assumption is that a car with a bigger engine is always better, and that's just not true at all. A guy I used to work with had an absolutely mint R34 Skyline GTR V-Spec II Nur. That's not the biggest engine in the world, but a hugely impressive car to any car nerds due to the care he took with every upgrade he did to it and the sheer rarity of the thing.

Don't get me wrong, a V8 Commodore or Falcon is a lovely car and I'd love to have one (in manual please). But you pay a price for that huge lump up the front, and serious drivers are aware of that. An SS Commodore just isn't that impressive against any real sports car, big engine or not.