No Replacement for Displacement (myth or fact)

-
Yes, lets also not forget that cureent, more efficient designs are now giving us 300 NET or even RWHP from 3-4 litre V6 motors. That as as much as, or more than many mid-60's big blocks!!!

If you can't see that as a replacement for displacement.....


(...and 30 MPG to boot!)
 
YY1 said:
Yes, lets also not forget that cureent, more efficient designs are now giving us 300 NET or even RWHP from 3-4 litre V6 motors. That as as much as, or more than many mid-60's big blocks!!!

If you can't see that as a replacement for displacement.....


(...and 30 MPG to boot!)
Click to expand...

....and look at the new more efficient v8s, 400-500HP, displacement wins!

This is where the "efficiency" comments ring true,,,but go bigger on cubes and voila,,,more power.
Its just simple truth that more cubes with 100% efficiency is going to create more power then less cubes at 100% efficiency.
I have always been a small block guy, and loved to beat up on the big block chevy guy, but it only happens because I took my small block to a more effecient level then said cheby lover, If he made his big block reach its potential, I'd be screwed.
 
What has NOT been discussed is that the most important factor is intake valve size and that is determined by the cylinder bore size. (Note: for a turbo the exhaust side is more important than the intake but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)
So if a larger displacement allows larger intake valves it will have more torque and power throughout the rpm range. With a 273 the valve size is limited by the small bore.
 
100k in space age engine components and millions in development propelling a space age composite 1400 pound car.

Not similar to comparing a production 1965 engine to another of the same era.

If that F1 engineering effort and ($) were to be applied to a 5 or 6 liter engine and allowed to breath an appropriate air flow, it would surely make double the horse power.

This is how I would explain 2.4 L 800 HP and reliable under the most intense circumstances. :)




Badart said:
Explain a 2.4 liter Naturally Aspirated V8 making over 800 horsepower. I guess when the rev limiter is set at 18,000 rpm it helps. F1 Car in Lincoln Tunnel - Full Edit - YouTube

I can't wait for the race in a couple of weeks. Awesome season, Go Vettel!
Click to expand...
 
...but when you take away the controlled environment of identical build specs and parts designs, you are left with "the real world", where ford 5.0s whip GM 350s and 426 Hemi's whip 454s, 455s, and 460s. (and where a new v6 mustang might just whip your built 360)
 
THE FIRST V8 ENGINE OVER 1000 CU. IN. ENGINE HERE AT SONNY'S! THIS MONSTER MAKES OVER 2150 HP,and over 1550 Ft. Lbs of Torque, AND YES IT'S NATURALLY ASPIRATED !!!! NICKNAMED " THE GODFATHER" Because this is the Big Daddy of all engines, and who else could produce such an Amazing Engine, nobody but Sonny Leonard Himself!

Wow...
 
ab7fh said:
THE FIRST V8 ENGINE OVER 1000 CU. IN. ENGINE HERE AT SONNY'S! THIS MONSTER MAKES OVER 2150 HP,and over 1550 Ft. Lbs of Torque, AND YES IT'S NATURALLY ASPIRATED !!!! NICKNAMED " THE GODFATHER" Because this is the Big Daddy of all engines, and who else could produce such an Amazing Engine, nobody but Sonny Leonard Himself!

Wow...
Click to expand...

Dude that ain't d!ck! I've seen a diesel motor that makes 109,000 HP and puts down over 5.6 million pounds of torque! Ah yeah :twisted:
 
1970Duster said:
Dude that ain't d!ck! I've seen a diesel motor that makes 109,000 HP and puts down over 5.6 million pounds of torque! Ah yeah :twisted:
Click to expand...

What kind of a door slammer will that diesel fit in... The diesel is also turbocharged, not N/A ;)
 
ab7fh said:
What kind of a door slammer will that diesel fit in... The diesel is also turbocharged, not N/A ;)
Click to expand...
Honestly, who in their right mind, would not turbocharge a diesel? I mean the motor just begs for one or two of the little spool demons :D
 
What do you think the main bearing clearance is on this thing? Half an inch???

3263_03.jpg
 
YY1 said:
Yes, lets also not forget that cureent, more efficient designs are now giving us 300 NET or even RWHP from 3-4 litre V6 motors. That as as much as, or more than many mid-60's big blocks!!!

If you can't see that as a replacement for displacement.....


(...and 30 MPG to boot!)
Click to expand...


And V6 have a major disadvantage compared to V8 and its not it size, its total head flow if you have an V8 heads that flows 225cfmX8= 1800cfm so a V6 would need 1800cfm/6=300cfm per port.
 
ab7fh said:
What do you think the main bearing clearance is on this thing? Half an inch???

3263_03.jpg
Click to expand...

Have no idea but until you see one work, you ain't seen nothing yet! All I can say is WOW!!!! You climb into the motor to inspect it, think about that for a second
 
SSVDP said:
What has NOT been discussed is that the most important factor is intake valve size and that is determined by the cylinder bore size.
Click to expand...
Yes Bore size to Valve size is the ultimate limit of how much HP your N/A engine can make but take a stock 4.04 bore and build 2 engines one with stock crank 3.31"=340 and one with a 4"=410 and take both to the mean piston speed limit of say 4800ft/min 340=8700 and 410=7200 which the 340 rev's 21% higher and is 21% smaller than the 410 which would equal them out.

So if a larger displacement allows larger intake valves it will have more torque and power throughout the rpm range. With a 273 the valve size is limited by the small bore.
Click to expand...

Yes my 273 3.625" bore will limit my total N/A HP? Stock 273/318 heads flow 175cfm and ported stock valve 273/318 heads can flow 225+cfm even though those were flowed on 4" bore, Have yet to find flow numbers on a 273 bore but have found 350 1.94-1.5 heads flowed on both a 350 4" bore and 305 3.75" bore which is still bigger than my 273 bore but dodge has better valve placement the 350 head loss 5-10cfm accross the board on the 305 bore. I think ported out RHS heads would let me build 500+hp at 8000rpm if i wanted to take it that far but ported stockers making 400hp at 6600-7000rpm is all I'm looking for.
 
I think that monster crank is probably in a ship.

I was going to say locomotive engines are routinely named for the displacement of ONE cylinder, and 500-700 are common ones, in 8, 10, 12 and 16 cylinder variants.
 
YY1 said:
I was going to say locomotive engines are routinely named for the displacement of ONE cylinder, and 500-700 are common ones, in 8, 10, 12 and 16 cylinder variants.
Click to expand...


Kinda like a Detroit diesel? 6-71 as an example :D
 
YY1 said:
I think that monster crank is probably in a ship.

I was going to say locomotive engines are routinely named for the displacement of ONE cylinder, and 500-700 are common ones, in 8, 10, 12 and 16 cylinder variants.
Click to expand...

Yep that crank/engine belongs to a ship. A really really big F***in ship!
 
ab7fh said:
THE FIRST V8 ENGINE OVER 1000 CU. IN. ENGINE HERE AT SONNY'S! THIS MONSTER MAKES OVER 2150 HP,and over 1550 Ft. Lbs of Torque, AND YES IT'S NATURALLY ASPIRATED !!!! NICKNAMED " THE GODFATHER" Because this is the Big Daddy of all engines, and who else could produce such an Amazing Engine, nobody but Sonny Leonard Himself!

Wow...
Click to expand...

Ya I don't think you could spin my 273 high enough to catch that one :)
 
I seen that sonny Leonard engine and what is it good for.shore it is a 1000CI but what can you do with it.Mantel piece.
ab7fh said:
THE FIRST V8 ENGINE OVER 1000 CU. IN. ENGINE HERE AT SONNY'S! THIS MONSTER MAKES OVER 2150 HP,and over 1550 Ft. Lbs of Torque, AND YES IT'S NATURALLY ASPIRATED !!!! NICKNAMED " THE GODFATHER" Because this is the Big Daddy of all engines, and who else could produce such an Amazing Engine, nobody but Sonny Leonard Himself!

Wow...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top