Is there a replacement for displacement???

Discussion in '2000 Honda S2000' started by skylineman123, Apr 22, 2003.

  1. The lifelong question, is there a replacement for diplacement?
    Or, is there a happy medium needed to be reached depending on the type of driving done by the car and the weight of the car?


    Personally, I like smaller, lighter sports cars. Bigger engine=more weight=less fun. Smaller engines in theory would be better, but can you "replace" displacement? I think that in some cases you can. For instance, the S2000 is amazing on the track, but it pretty much sucks for normal driving. (Who wants to downshift into third gear on the highway to pass someone???) Also, consider the N1 Inline-6 on the Nissan Skyline which produces 280 hp and 289 ft lbs of torque at only a 2.6 L engine, and this engine is restricted, able to put out well over 400 hp otherwise. Also, consider turbos vs. more displacement(turbo lag, less weight, bulk with smaller engine and turbo). In some cases, I believe there is a replacement for displacement. In most cases, though, I'm sorry to say that there is currently not. Otherwise, you would see more 3L and less engines in $100,000+ cars. How many do you see now? What do you think about this?
     
  2. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    Yes there is a replacement for displacement....its called technology or even better power to weight ratio
     
  3. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    Just because the car has a larger displacement does not mean its gonna be very heavy.

    That would be the case if the engine is DOHC, however on SOHC or OHV engines like the Corvette, you can use a larger displacement and still have a very light car.

    Just compare the weight of the Vette to the NSX.
     
  4. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    “There’s no replacement for displacement” DOES NOT mean that displacement is the only way to increase horsepower, torque or any other measure of performance. Instead it is a physical property, because a larger engine pulls in more air/fuel mixture per cycle.

    Here’s an example:

    A Subaru WRX has a 2.0L boxer 4, fed 14psi of boost to make 227hp

    I have a GMC Typhoon which has a 4.3L V6 also fed 14psi of boost, however it makes 280hp, only by virtue of more displacement. (it has no other major performance mods)

    The Typhoon is ten years old and I’m sure lacks some more “modern” features of the WRX, so clearly it isn’t decided by technology or engineering.
     
  5. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    There are many ways to increase hp. Basically, there are 3 types.

    1.) More displacement

    2.) Aspiration (Turbo, Supercharge)

    3.) High rpm

    Let me show u an analogy here. Imagine u have a big box. Ur supposed to fill it up with peanuts. What are some ways that u can do to speed up the process? Well, u can grab a lot of peanuts at a time and fill up the box. Which is similar to having more displacement for an engine. Another way would be compressing the peanuts. Which is like asipiration The third way is to grab teh same amount of peanuts as usual, but u do it faster by running to the box instead of walking, so teh frequency would be higher. Again, this would speed up the process. Just like haviung a higher redline.
     
  6. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    Good analogy, just don’t mistake forced induction and Rpm as Displacement replacements.
     
  7. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    True, but a great sports car has to be balance.
     
  8. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    "Technology is the only substitute for cubic inches"
     
  9. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    So true
     
  10. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    in a normal car (not a sports/supercar) i think that a high displacement low output engine is a good idea
    its more reliable than a smaller engine pushing the same power
    and not too much thirstier

    however in a sports car i say do whatever you can to replace displacement and reduce weight and create balance

    the only way i see a supercar with a large displacement engine is if it was midengined
     
  11. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    true
     
  12. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    THats a pretty vague comment
     
  13. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    I agree with the happy medium, however ive always been a muscle car guy, thats just me, i love the sound of ground pounding fury. However in general, any car can be better than a car with more horepower... with excellent design, and power to weight ratio, it just all depends on a lot of things. You cant exactly compare cars by horsepower. THIS is a great car, i like the S2000, probably my favorite honda (even though im not a honda person, much less japan). Its a very well designed sports car, saw a brocure, push button start etc, its cool. Plus to my knowledge its capable of very fast speeds, 200+ or at least thats what the speedo goes to?? Not sure really. But if you wanna discuss power to weight, if this car only has a 4 cylinder, and is still capable of very high speeds, well there u go, this is a very well designed car, with a great power/weight ratio.
     
  14. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    Again, it is a matter of preference. The way you like to drive will most likely dictate what form your power enhancement will take. All are viable options, I tend to prefer the sound and feel of a V8.
     
  15. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    yeah me too
     
  16. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    The Vette weighs about 500lbs more than the NSX (base NSX approx. 2800lbs, base Vette approx. 3300). So what's your point?
     
  17. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    I'll start out without all-caps to point out that my shift key was not stuck. That said:

    THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT!!!! NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT, IT CAN ALWAYS BE COUNTERED WITH, "WILL IT PRODUCE MORE POWER WITH ONE MORE CI?" OF COURSE IT WILL!!!

    Now that that's out of my system, I prefer small, high output motors. S2000's my fav so far, followed by the B16A3. (hmm...see a pattern?)

    Why was this question even posted? The question should have been, "which is better: Tech or Displacement?" I like both...Enzo, maybe?
     
  18. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    In truth no. Technology can replace some aspects of it but in the end, the more volumetric area you have the more power can be produced. Displacement has been the ultimate equalizer when it comes to making more power. By that I mean the following: The S2000 is a great vehicle. I agree with 2006 Charger. I like American muscle to Japanese technology. Just my preference. With the S2000 making 250HP but only 153TQ, impressive numbers for a four cylinder. I don't think many companies can lay claim to something like that short of Oppenhauser. But in this example I'll use my Firebird's LT1 and the S2000's 2.2L. Remember this is an EXAMPLE. These two cars are in different classes, I know that. It's just to prove a point. Sorry but after reading some of the other forums I think I should cover all the bases.

    Now take both of these engines as they are 122c.i. and 350c.i. Purchase two identical superchargers. Say an S-trim with 8psi of boost. Install them and record the results. Remember this is in stock to stock trim. The Firebird's 350c.i. will produce more power because it is pushing four extra cylinders and a larger volumetric area. The 122c.i. will not take as much advantage of the extra air being forced into the combustion chambers. Although it will pick up a significant amount of power and with Honda's VTEC technology it will increase a great deal in torque production is still will not produce the same amount of power the 350c.i. will.

    As I said, this is not meant to bash Japanese cars at all. Just pointing out that the more displacement one has the more power can be produced. Wicked idea: Take the NSX 3.0L and drop it in the S2000. Yeah the weight differential would be off the scale but talk about monster aceeleration. Back to reality. Soldier on fellow car enthusiasts because I don't think this debate will ever be over. It's like fuel injection or carbeuration. I know people who swear by each one. I guess it's all in your preference.

    Enjoy.
     
  19. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    It is true that the more displace u have, the more power, both torque and horsepower (torque, especially) u would get.

    However, provided that u have nice materials and superb engineering, u would be able to achieve high rpm, which in turn, would give u hp. THis is the case for many exotic, sports cars,and race cars, such as most Ferraris, some Porsches (911 GT3, Carrera GT), S2000, NSX, NASCARS, Forumla 1 cars, etc.

    Notice that most of the aforementioned cars are pure sports cars or race cars. Why do these manufacturers try to achieve high rpm and high hp? WHy don't they make engines with large displacement and immense amount of torque at low rpm? SImply, when u race, u would most often keep the rpm high, i mean, u wouldn't shift to a higher gear at 3000rpm when the redline is at 6000, rite? Also having a high rpm engine with high hp usually means that the peak torque is at a higher rpm. Try using the torque/rpm/hp forumla, and u would see that if the torque is located at a higer rpm, u would get more hp. In order to have access to this power, u need close-ratio gearbox, that's why u always see a 6-speeder in a s2000 and 360 modena.

    Another point is, not just low displacement cars can have high rpm, but big displacement cars can do that too. One of the factors that affects the maximum rpm is the bore and stroke. Usually, the shorter the stroke, the higher rpm u can get, but also less torque. At the end, the hp would still be pretty much the same.

    Having high rpm, high hp, low torque, or low rpm, high rpm, high torque, is just a matter of preferences. Just choose the one u like and as long as u enjoy, then stick with it.

    Sorry, but english isn't my first languages, thus, please bare with the mistakes i've made.
     
  20. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    " i mean, u wouldn't shift to a higher gear at 3000rpm when the redline is at 6000, rite?"

    The sad truth is, a lot of people do. Hell, in the owner's manual for my Civic it reccommends shifting up at 3000rpm, and shifting down at 2000rpm (it redlines at 6500rpm). Since that's stupid though, I don't think I've ever shifted up at 3000rpm (except for once, when I had to make it 150km running on fumes - the needle had already hit empty 50km earlier, and the car was running like it does when it runs on fumes by the time I began that 150km traverse).
     
  21. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    well....i mean when ur racing....lol...not city driving.....
     
  22. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    Oh, well in that case, yes, you're right, at least for a driver who's not an idiot anyway.
     
  23. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    haha!
     
  24. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    In terms of fun both the high-displacement/high-torque and high-revving engines have their advantages. Nothing gets the blood pumping like shifting at nearly 9 grand, just like nothing is like shifting out of fourth and feeling it. Two ways of achieving the same thing, both awesome beyond comprehension. If two cars performed EXACTLY alike, but one revved higher than the other, I would take the one that revved higher.
     
  25. Re: Is there a replacement for displacement???

    I respect the s2000 for the engineering it has, but I think this approach to performance is better left for the race track. Having this much power from a small enging is good but for street performance it is better to have the power available earlier. No one drives like they're racing all the time and it is nice when you are caught with your tach at 3000rpm and you need to accelerate to just be able to step on the gas and not have to downshift. Everyone keeps arguing that the engineering in the s2000 is so great and that it is better to produce a car like this with low displacement and a high rpm. If this is true, then why did Honda increase the displacement of the engine knowing that they couldn't keep the hp/L the same because the pistons couldn't travel the longer distance and keep up the speed. They knew that it would be a better car as a 2.2L with a lower redline with the same power because the power would be available sooner. You cannot argue over the approach a company uses to create a performance vehicle, you can only observe the end resault.
     

Share This Page