The Displacement Wars

[Badasp5.0]

Uh huh, but this is displacement wars, not cylinder and cost wars..

1005 CI 2150HP I win.

 

[Joey D]

Last time I checked, the number of cylinders changes displacement.

No it doesn't.

The 6.3L Ferrari V12 has more cylinders than the 7.0L LS7 V8.

**Actually thought of a better example: the 4.3L Ferrari V8 and the 4.3L Chevy V6.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

Last time I checked, the number of cylinders changes displacement.

Displacement is just the volume that all the cylinders hold in one movement from top to bottom. so You can have few cylinders that are each very big (like a 4L V6), or many small cylinders (like some older Ferrari V8 and Formula 1 V12)

 

[Tornado]

Displacement wars? Ok..

GM LS7. 7l displacement, 505bhp, 640nm
Ferrari 6.3l V12, 730bhp, 690nm.

Let's see how this one will go.

The LS7 is most certainly lighter and undoubtedly smaller, so I'm gonna say it's a push. Because, as already pointed out:

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]

No it doesn't.

The 6.3L Ferrari V12 has more cylinders than the 7.0L LS7 V8.

**Actually thought of a better example: the 4.3L Ferrari V8 and the 4.3L Chevy V6.

To an extent it does though. Add a cylinder, displacement rises. I certainly see your point though.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

There's some very small displacement and tightly packaged higher-cylinder engines. Cylinder count doesn't necessarily change either of those.

 

[Slash]

There's some very small displacement and tightly packaged higher-cylinder engines. Cylinder count doesn't necessarily change either of those.

I'm well aware. I get what you are saying and it's the exact opposite of what I am saying. You aren't understanding what I'm saying. Each cylinder counts for total displacement. That is calculated by bore and stroke. If I had a 302ci V8, which stock has a 4" bore and 3.5" stroke, and tacked on 2 more cylinders, total displacement would rise. Both views result in the same outcome.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

1005 CI 2150HP I win.

It came out of factory like that? Wow.

*continues following the actual discussion*

 

[Joey D]

I'm well aware. I get what you are saying and it's the exact opposite of what I am saying. You aren't understanding what I'm saying. Each cylinder counts for total displacement. That is calculated by bore and stroke. If I had a 302ci V8, which stock has a 4" bore and 3.5" stroke, and tacked on 2 more cylinders, total displacement would rise. Both views result in the same outcome.

Except engine design doesn't really work like that. You can't really tack on two more cylinders and even automakers need to do extensive engineering to modify an existing block to accommodate more or less cylinders.

 

[Slash]

Except engine design doesn't really work like that. You can't really tack on two more cylinders and even automakers need to do extensive engineering to modify an existing block to accommodate more or less cylinders.

I know that would be te case for it to even work, I was just posting that as an example of what I meant.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Except engine design doesn't really work like that. You can't really tack on two more cylinders and even automakers need to do extensive engineering to modify an existing block to accommodate more or less cylinders.

Unless it's a Wankel motor.

 

[Slash]

Case in point....4.6L DOHC (281) left, 5.0L (302) right.

____________________________


Regarding the below, I felt I didn't elaborate enough previously.

No it doesn't.

The 6.3L Ferrari V12 has more cylinders than the 7.0L LS7 V8.

**Actually thought of a better example: the 4.3L Ferrari V8 and the 4.3L Chevy V6.

Coming back to this, I was more so referring that adding a cylinder/deleting will increase or decrease displacement as you go (read on). I see what you mean though. Displacement is based on the bore and stroke of an engine, and a small bore and stroke and more cylinders (like a V12) can still yield a smaller displacement than say a V8 with a large bore and stroke. Now if each engine had the same bore and stroke, adding or removing cylinders would increase/decrease displacement accordingly, which was what I was saying before.

Except engine design doesn't really work like that. You can't really tack on two more cylinders and even automakers need to do extensive engineering to modify an existing block to accommodate more or less cylinders.

It wouldn't be that easy to tack on a few cylinders, without modifying the engine. However, if you use a simple setup you can keep the same design and just add more or less. Perfect example is the Ford GAA engine. V12 in airplanes, V8 in tanks, and yet they are exactly the same, just factory modified to make everything shorter.

 

[Jet Badger]

Well I can say that the main reason why we don't drive overpowered 1mpg cars over here is 2x more expensive fuel and 3x smaller wages. You do the math. And personally I find such excess, while the rest of the car is leaf springs and recirculating ball steering, ridiculous. That's why in the lands where you buy stuff with the money that you actually have, car culture has grown around efficiency (and I'm not just talking about fuel efficiency) and making a sporty car fun through other means than just raw power. And I'm perfectly happy with it. I love and appreciate well-balanced and well-engineered cars much more than a ladder frame with beam axles and a locomotive engine put on it and called a sports car. I'm not saying all high displacement cars are badly engineered, ofcourse not. But I find the usual dispacement extremists "power solves everything" position irrational.

 

[Kent]

A friend once said this to me jokingly and I'll leave it here for you all to consider.

"There's no replacement for displacement but the only thing that beats cubic inches is rectangular dollars."

 

[Cano]

the only thing that beats cubic inches anything is rectangular dollars."

fixed 👍

 

[Badasp5.0]

Well I can say that the main reason why we don't drive overpowered 1mpg cars over here is 2x more expensive fuel and 3x smaller wages. You do the math. And personally I find such excess, while the rest of the car is leaf springs and recirculating ball steering, ridiculous. That's why in the lands where you buy stuff with the money that you actually have, car culture has grown around efficiency (and I'm not just talking about fuel efficiency) and making a sporty car fun through other means than just raw power. And I'm perfectly happy with it. I love and appreciate well-balanced and well-engineered cars much more than a ladder frame with beam axles and a locomotive engine put on it and called a sports car. I'm not saying all high displacement cars are badly engineered, ofcourse not. But I find the usual dispacement extremists "power solves everything" position irrational.

HUH US cars haven't had those in decades. Hell even trucks these days have coil springs and rack and pinion steering.

 

[Slash]

HUH US cars haven't had those in decades. Hell even trucks these days have coil springs and rack and pinion steering.

No. Super duty fords used mono shocks paired with leafs same as the 80s trucks up until a few years ago. In fact some still do. And most trucks have leafs in the rear. Coil overs are used in light duty trucks.

 

[Zenith]

A friend once said this to me jokingly and I'll leave it here for you all to consider.

"There's no replacement for displacement but the only thing that beats cubic inches is rectangular dollars."

That goes for all high power engines. Although I'm sure the long term cost of a thirsty V8 is higher than that of a lower displacement turbocharged car, maintenance and initial cost are factors as well.

LS engines can get mileage into the 20's even with some power modifications.

 

[Kent]

What I said about my friend's comments are simple, in my own words...
You pay to play.

 

[Badasp5.0]

No. Super duty fords used mono shocks paired with leafs same as the 80s trucks up until a few years ago. In fact some still do. And most trucks have leafs in the rear. Coil overs are used in light duty trucks.

Yep I was talking light duty trucks since those are the most common in the market.

 

[Slash]

That goes for all high power engines. Although I'm sure the long term cost of a thirsty V8 is higher than that of a lower displacement turbocharged car, maintenance and initial cost are factors as well.

LS engines can get mileage into the 20's even with some power modifications.

At the same time I've seen Broncos pull up to 32mpg (highest I've ever heard) if the owner knows how to drive and has done a few things (wheel size, gears etc).

Yep I was talking light duty trucks since those are the most common in the market.

Light duty trucks still use leafs in the back though. Control arms and coil overs started in the '80s IIRC. They are more of a pain to work on too, especially on split axles.

 

[Tornado]

LS engines can get mileage into the 20's even with some power modifications.

Few years ago a member here bought my dream car with an LT1 and a 4 speed slushbox and started driving it like a hypermiler just to see what it would do.

He got that a couple times. He more regularly pushed ~27.

 

[Harry6784]

Few years ago a member here bought my dream car with an LT1 and a 4 speed slushbox and started driving it like a hypermiler just to see what it would do.

He got that a couple times. He more regularly pushed ~27.

If you drive it "nicely" my LS1 WS6 will see gas mileage very close to 30mpg. But if you drive it like its supposed to be driven (At least 3 WOT pulls each time you drive it) you will see at least 20+. That's about the same as my friend's E46 M3.