Puzzled

[KEN 24T]

  YCL said:

(plonky @ Nov 27 2003, 08:21 AM)

  Quote

There is no substitute for cubic inches?

Like a red flag to a bull.....

You don't even need a hook ...

[KEN 24T]

I'm not very technically minded when it comes to the finer details/workings of the internal combustion engine ... all I know is that my turbo may as well be diamond-shaped and blue in colour.

[Benny]

As usual plonky is right.

Turboing was designed to reduce costs and weight of building a performance engine. As plonky said when forced induction is applied to an engine with big cubes theres even more power to be had.

A fine example is the people that enter the australian horse power heros most of the big contenders are running twin turbo V8's.

I've seen 1200hp plus figures from a GTR 2.6 litre in japan just think of the potential the T has under the bonnet with 4 litres

[plonky]

  Benny said:

As usual plonky is right.

Turboing was designed to reduce costs and weight of building a performance engine. As plonky said when forced induction is applied to an engine with big cubes theres even more power to be had.

A fine example is the people that enter the australian horse power heros most of the big contenders are running twin turbo V8's.

I've seen 1200hp plus figures from a GTR 2.6 litre in japan just think of the potential the T has under the bonnet with 4 litres

Benny you are spot on

I had the same conversation with Kurt Dupriez from SPEED magazine at the pub one day.

He said he can't wait to see what the potential power outputs that the 4 litre twin cam Falcon engine will be putting out, once time and expertise is applied to it.

By the way.....I must admit I do bite when it comes to the old 'hi tech turbo 'v' Dinosaur engine' topic.

[Macktheknife]

Hmmm

Turbo Viagra. :o

The mind boggles.............

HEY DUMBO, forget about the MIND boggling..........................Heh heh

[GlennAUII]

  KEN 24T said:

I'm not very technically minded when it comes to the finer details/workings of the internal combustion engine ... all I know is that my turbo may as well be diamond-shaped and blue in colour.

Just smile and nod ken... smile and nod.

I don't know anything about engines either! I just wanted to know how the turbo made it go faster, and where the hell it actually was!

So don't worry ken, all we need to know is that: turbo=faster

[mickq]

  plonky said:

There is no substitute for cubic inches?

I would have to argue that....especially if the same technology is applied to a larger capacity engine

EG:  A 2.6 litre Nissan six cylinder with twin turbos would not put out at as much power as a 4 litre Ford six cylinder engine with twin turbos if the SAME technology is applied to both cars

Reason being is that the larger capacity engine can be filled with a larger charge of air/fuel mix than a smaller capacity engine

The larger the charge, the bigger the explosion, the more power created

An 800 cid supercharged Chrysler Hemi will put out more HP than a 350 cid Supercharged Chevrolet engine - purely because the capacity mandates more air/fuel mix in each cylinders.

So...There IS NO substitute for cubic inches

Your logic is flawed.

There are LOTS of substitutes for cubic inches.

Your simple argument is based on the condition that the turbo technology remains the same for each. Who says it has to stay the same?

The silly line "there is no substitute for cubic inches" is aimed PURELY at trying to poke fun at anyone who uses smaller engine+technology to beat big engine.

Its your typical narrow-minded V8 wa*ker who thinks in such simple terms.

Its outdated, as are the technologies used in many of the big V8's like the Gen 3 LS1 in the SS and all the other Holdens. They wouldnt dream of putting a turbo or similar on their engines.

You can put nitrous on a small engine and beat a big 5.7 litre.

You can put a supercharger on a small engine and beat a 5.7 litre.

You can put a turbocharger on s small engine and beat a 5.7 litre.

You can run a small engine in a light weight car and beat a 5.7 litre.

You can peripheral port a 1308cc rotary engine and whip just about any 5.7 litre V8 nearby.

These are all examples where various alternatives can easily beat a large engine.

What about motorbikes the world over: 4 Cylinders and less than 1 litre capacity, yet they have 180+hp standard. And that's reliable, driveable horsepower, everyday horsepower. Try to get that output from a 5.7 litre (which would equate to over 1026hp) and it would be a pig: good for 1/4 mile runs only, and be sure to dont plan on driving it to the track.

Oh, and to prove a point using undeniable cold hard physics just in case you still want to stick to your similar technology theme:

you can make a tiny V8 or V10 with a two litre capacity and easily thrash your typical 5.7 litre V8. The simple reason is it revs much faster as it has a much lower rotating mass, meaning more piston strokes per second, meaning more explosions per second, meaning more power from fewer cubic inches. Like a turbo. And a supercharger. And Nitrous. It has the exact same effect as having more cubic inches...without the cubic inches.

Simply put: There ARE substitutes for simply having lots of cubic inches.

And lots of them.

QED.