: Replacement for displacement?



BeelzeBob
03-31-03, 04:14 PM
Okay. I can't find Kevin's post about technology being a replacement for displacement... My question is - is technology really a replacement? What about displacement with technology?

Whatever technology is creating 4cyl motors that are stronger than v8 motors can easily be used on v8 motors. No?

elwesso
03-31-03, 05:02 PM
I remember him talking about that too. Its weird, I was looking for a post not too long ago about something and it simply wasnt there!!!! I had to do a search, and I found it. Another thing..... It doesnt let you search for something under 4 letters, and I was searching for a thread on WAX!! DOH

Brett
03-31-03, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Sal Collaziano
Okay. I can't find Kevin's post about technology being a replacement for displacement... My question is - is technology really a replacement? What about displacement with technology?

Whatever technology is creating 4cyl motors that are stronger than v8 motors can easily be used on v8 motors. No?

just take a look at some of the high-end engines at BMW and MB, they have technology and displacment and a load of power, and gobs of torque

Mad'lac
03-31-03, 06:29 PM
Look at the LS-1

BUILDINGCTSAMG
03-31-03, 09:37 PM
Can i point out the awesomeness of the w motors and the fact that technology alone allows me to have a 1.8t VW with 20 v!

Katshot
03-31-03, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Sal Collaziano

Whatever technology is creating 4cyl motors that are stronger than v8 motors can easily be used on v8 motors. No?
Yeah they could but the weight would be a problem in the small cars for sure. Plus the cost factor would tend to keep them only in HIGH-END cars.
The point is that back in the "old days", there was no replacement for displacement. These days, that's simply NOT true anymore.

Brett
03-31-03, 09:51 PM
yeah, the old guys try to hang on, forgetting that some of their "fast" cars were pullin 0-60 in the high sixes. which now is commonplace for cars that arent even performance oriented, oh yeah plus cleaner, safer,more efficient, lots more expensive :D

Ralph
04-01-03, 12:19 AM
LS-6, HAIL TO THE KING, BABY! Rated at 450hp, underrated, more like 600---stock.

Brett
04-01-03, 09:09 AM
Per Motor Trend: '70 Chevrolet Chevelle SS454 LS-6 454-ci V-8/450 hp, 0-60 6.0, 1/4 mile 13.8/97.5...maybe the king of 1970, but i owned a Buick GN for a few years and car and driver rated that at 4.9 0-60, that may have been generous, but either way it was in the 5's. So imo displacment has been replaced by technology for a LONG time.

scourge
04-01-03, 09:37 AM
It depends on the particular car in question - NOT just the motor. Engine dynos mean squat in the real world. If all you like is "Uh drag racin....YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAA!" then all you need to concern yourself is with the size of the engine and a decent rail set up.

Now, if you are into cars in the real world, then other factors come into play. What car is it? What will it do? I think the "Dumbmestic" only guys are funny when they drone on and on about such and such engine makes 4000hp. Yeah, put that in an EVO Lancer and run a rally race and see how far it goes.

Or, the ricer with the attitude that V-tek is new technology invented by Honduh :rolleyes: and that you need an engine with high revs to make power...but thats another issue entirely.

Mad power can be made from smaller engines these days due to better designs. Sure, some engines can make more power on the dyno...but is it USEABLE power?

"No replacement for displacement" is an empty statement with no meaning in the real world. Other factors come into play when you are building a race car. Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again - fast is fast no matter how you make. V8 or I4*. It doesn't matter.
_______

*1000hp 2.2liter I4 GM Ecotec engine

http://www.lingenfelter.com/

http://www.lingenfelter.com/ebay/modcar.htm

BeelzeBob
04-01-03, 09:43 AM
The 2005 Z06 will be displacement with new technology. Let's see how that Vette does... How do you think the Lancer will hold up against it?

Brett
04-01-03, 10:08 AM
the 2005 Z06 is rumored to have 500hp, therefore im sure it would crush the EVO in all categories sans price and passenger seating. but if you did want to run a rally the EVO would be a better choice than a vette

Katshot
04-01-03, 11:13 AM
Screw the EVO, the STi is the HOT setup. And it WILL run the wheels off a new Vette in virtually ANY race, AND in ANY weather ;) The Corvette, like all other RWD performance cars will have to come to terms with their performance limits, especially when competeing with 4WD and AWD cars.
As for the statement that Dyno figures mean nothing in the "real world", I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. Dyno tuning will ABSOLUTELY improve the usability of an engine in ALL respects. They also produce "verifiable" evidence of what a particular engine is capable of. They allow far more accurate "matching" of trans and diff gearing to the engine's particular performance profile, allowing the finished vehicle to perform better in a wide variety of instances.
If you don't think dyno figures "prove" anything, or have any use in the "real" world, I would say that you need to have someone show you how to "properly" interpret the data so that you can understand it better.

Brett
04-01-03, 11:50 AM
the question was 2005 Z06 vs. EVO, if the 2005 z06 has 500 hp as rumored, it will run circles around the EVO and the STI. if you are talking current vettes, then i would agree the sti looks to be as fast or faster to 60, probably not to 100 though. and as far as awd, im not buying. Other than WRC no major race sanctioning body uses it, because in the end it is NOT better than rwd. In the real world on snow and ice, it may be a hell of alot better. Also, rwd doesnt seem overly limiting, when you look and find out that at least the top 10, 20 or 30 fastest production cars are rear wheel drive. which do you think will be faster the SRX with awd or the SRX with rwd? Audi and Jag are being forced to build their new flagship sedans out of aluminium just to keep weight reasonable...why?...awd. why is an audi a6 slower to 60 than all other comparable german sedans?....lemme guess....Answer: its the awd

Katshot
04-01-03, 12:55 PM
Stop comparing apples to oranges. The point is pure common sense. You can give a Vette or any other RWD car 1000hp right now and it won't be "proportionately" faster due to traction limitations. How much power a car has means NOTHING if you can't get that power to the ground. This is where AWD has the advantage. If you were to take your SLS and give it another 300HP, it wouldn't be able to actually USE the power because it couldn't properly translate the power into acceleration due to lack of traction (which of course is due to many factors on a FWD).
The same goes for a RWD car, If I were to put an extra 300HP in my car, although I'd LOVE to have it, I couldn't possibly get enough tire on the car to use it.
Sure AWD componentry means extra weight, but it also allows for more power.
IMO, anyone who thinks RWD is a superior setup to AWD, has never driven high performance cars with BOTH drivetrains.

Mad'lac
04-01-03, 12:57 PM
Here where it all matters........the getting laid ratio

Vette favored by 3 to 1

Brett
04-01-03, 01:15 PM
Why is the Porsche C4 slower than the C2...same horsepower right? shouldnt c4 be faster, why is the diablo SV faster than the VT?...these comparisons can go and and on, show me an apples to apples comparison where the awd is faster.

Brett
04-01-03, 01:35 PM
i saw an eclipse do a 4 tire burnout so the same goes for awd, he couldnt get the power to the ground. moments later he also lost to my stock vette, not off the line(ill give you that) but he lost the race. if all your races are 0-30 then awd is the way to go.

BeelzeBob
04-01-03, 02:00 PM
The best numbers of the Z06 stock are 11.6 in the quarter mile. Adding another 100 or so horsepower is expected to get it around 11.2 or so.. So it's right to assume that more horsepower doesn't always get you much better numbers.

And yes, the STi is going to be all the rave this year. Still, the Z06 is designed for the race track. The STi isn't going to out power it or out handle it. For the money, it's an impressive car...

On slippery surfaces, AWD is best. And for great launches, AWD is best. All true... But when all is said and done, I still think our American cars are ahead of the game. Our two best cars - Viper and Z06 - are no less than incredible... The Viper should be coming down to around the same price as the Vette..

ANYWAY.. We all know what displacement AND technology creates. The Lingenfelter TT Vette.. Doesn't that car do 0-60 in around 2 seconds? AND it's a daily driver? I forget what the quarter mile was but it's insane...

I guess technology can replace displacement. But there's no replacement for technology WITH displacement. :D

Brett
04-01-03, 02:07 PM
yeah but lingenfelter had to switch over to awd on the vette to get it to go that fast, the engineering cost alone must have been astronomical.....oh wait a minute.....thats right it was rwd... weird;)

Katshot
04-01-03, 02:18 PM
OBVIOUSLY, adding a couple hundred pounds to a car will slow it down. OBVIOUSLY, adding extra drivetrain components will increase power loss.
The point was, that on ANY given vehicle, the upper limit of "useable" power, will be higher WITH AWD.

Brett
04-01-03, 02:32 PM
i guess im not gonna win this one, i said z06 beats EVO, i was scolded for comparing apples to oranges. I give you same-model comparisons and im wrong, because OBVIOUSLY everyone knows this stuff....i gotta say kev im stumped, i dont know what you are talking about. the c4 is slower than the c2 from 0-60, 0-100, 50-70. the only thing i can think of is that the c4 would probably have better laptimes around a road-course, but im not even so sure of that, the GTS class Prosches in the ALMS are rwd. the only type of race where awd is relevant is in a rally, and surprise surprise the EVO and STI are rally cars. this doesnt mean they dont kick ass on the street(because they do).

Elvis
04-01-03, 02:41 PM
VTEC, not V-Tek.

By Honda, not Hyundai.

;)

Katshot
04-01-03, 03:05 PM
I can't guarantee that the ZO6 would smoke an EVO, personally I don't really like that car anyway. But it might be a closer race than you seem to think.
Like I said, all I was trying to do was put a little "spin" on the conversation and point out how AWD gives the OEM's engineers the ability to put more power in any given car, and how AWD gives the car the ability to utilize a higher percentage of it's power through a greater ability to transfer it to the pavement.
That was all.

Brett
04-01-03, 03:14 PM
i havent seen the evo tested so i cant say much as to what a z06 would do against it either, i was referring to the theoretic 2005 z06 that sal brought up...i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. if awd allows engineers to put more power in a given car then they havent been doing it, but apples to apples awd is slower, unless its raining :)

Katshot
04-01-03, 03:33 PM
It goes without saying that if the OEM "chooses" to stick AWD on a car, and NOT boost the power of the engine to make up for the losses, the resulting car will just be a heavier, slower, more expensive version of that car. My point was just that "suppose" the OEM were to boost the output of the engine enough to give it at least the same power "at the wheels" as the RWD version.

Another point I just have to tell you is that recently I was at the track for an Import vs. Domestic shoot-out. It was VERY interesting seeing the WRX's SMOKING so many other more powerful cars just because they were more efficient at getting the power to the ground.

BeelzeBob
04-01-03, 03:39 PM
We're way off topic here... Maybe this needs to be split... I was wondering if there was a real replacement for displacement.. Considering you can have a huge engine in a car that handles well with superchargers or turbos and AWD - and all the technology that goes with it - is there a replacement for displacement that doesn't use horse and carriage technology?

elwesso
04-01-03, 03:42 PM
This is one thats hard to split, so lets try and get back on topic, unless of course you want me to split it!!

Katshot
04-01-03, 03:45 PM
I lost you on that one Sal.
The point I was making was that Technology is the replacement for displacement.
Old school = ZO6
New school = WRX
They are virtually the same weight, the WRX has HALF the power yet comparable performance across the board.

BeelzeBob
04-01-03, 03:47 PM
Wait until the new Z06 comes out before saying the new WRX has almost got the same performance.. I go about nose to nose vs every '02 WRX I race and my Vette is only a 1987 - stock. Not even a K&N!

Last time I raced a Z06 I didn't stand a chance...

If new technology has allowed the '04 WRX STi to do a certain thing - wait until the large displaced Z06 brings on IT'S new technology next year to do a comparison...

Brett
04-01-03, 04:02 PM
hey kat as a former turbo buick owner i can say one thing about turbos , mods are easy, hard to identify , and brutally effective. so wrx's cleaning house may not be because they were awd, but because they were just plain damn fast. no need to split the thread i think we both made our points,although mine was better :) , but i agree with kat the replacement for displacement is all around you, fuel injection, computer control, reliable forced induction, 6 speed auto trans, sequential manuals

BeelzeBob
04-01-03, 04:12 PM
Right. I agree.. So I'm officially changing the "saying" to... There's no replacement for displacement with current technology. :D Okay, so it doesn't sound as good...

Katshot
04-01-03, 10:28 PM
I'll NEVER say you have a way with words Sal ;)
And I wasn't talking about the "new" WRX (assuming you mean the STi), I was talking about the "standard" WRX. And I've seen them (the ZO6 and WRX) racing together at the same track, at the same time and I'll tell you there's NO clear winner. As the STi raises the bar, the new Vette may too. The difference is the STi is here now and the new Vette is only speculation at this point.
If you were to compare the "standard" Vette to the "standard" WRX, I think you'd have a hard time with voting for "old school" technology. Bang for the buck is what the Vette does best and these "New Generation" sports cars are managing to give even MORE bang for the buck.
Brett,
I know what you mean about how easy the mods are and how easily hidden they can be. But even the industry pubs prove out the same thing I'm seeing at the tracks, and on the street.
Also, don't confuse this with me doing some Vette-bashing, you guys brought the Vette into it. If you'll remember, I put the new Vette on my "dream list" of cars.

Ralph
04-01-03, 11:24 PM
Brett, my friend in 1987 had a new Grand National, wasn't the stock hp only 240 or something? That was a heavy car, he used to get waxed by 5 litre Mustangs all the time. The GN did not have the brute torque off the line and the Mustang would be gone by that time. He would almost catch-up, but definitely, lite-is-right for certain situations.

Jinx
04-02-03, 01:56 AM
AWD isn't more common in racing because the two key objectives of most race sanctioning bodies are (1) parity and (2) cost-containment.

WRC has a lot of technology that's not seen elsewhere in racing (or production). Now if only they went back to long stages, it might be relevent. Who cares if a high-strung 4x4 can sprint and get rebuilt? Give me rallys that reward vehicles built to last.

I'm sure STi will be plenty quick and a good value, and will embarass some ham-fisted/sleeping Corvette drivers.

But there's no way I'm trading my big-displacement, big-torque Corvette for an STi. If you need more fun than a modern Corvette can deliver on public roads, you've got a death-wish.

.Jinx

BeelzeBob
04-02-03, 05:53 AM
A stock Z06 vs a stock WRX is a close race? Or do you mean a stock Z06 vs a modded WRX is a close race? Like I mentioned before, I'm nose to nose with the WRX in my '87 Vette. I've raced a Z06 and was several cars back in seconds..

Either you're seeing a regular Vette with a bad driver and Z06 emblems or a Z06 with no driver... If you're talking about a modded WRX, then of course - all bets are off. Mods are mods...

Katshot
04-02-03, 08:23 AM
Ralph, I can only say one thing about ANYBODY with a "intercooled" GN that gets smoked by even a mildly modded Mustang, SELL IT TO SOMEONE THAT CAN DRIVE YOU WIMP!
The GN was well-known to be under-rated as far as it's HP figures. The car was WAY AHEAD of it's time. A STOCK one is good for 13.0's ALL DAY with little trouble.
And Sal, as for the good or bad drivers, refer to Ralph's last post and tell me again about how you feel what you see on the street in anyway tells a true story about a car's true capability.
At the track a couple weeks ago, there were several WRX's running and ALL were posting times in ZO6 territory. Not bad for a car that weighs the same, has HALF the power, gets at least 50% better MPG, AND costs about half as much.
THAT's your example of how technology replaced displacement. If you don't buy that, at least consider the GN we just spoke of. It's another exampl of how technology replaced displacement, and that was 18 years ago!

Brett
04-02-03, 09:09 AM
Ralph if your friend lost to a mustang in a GN, he must have been wasted. I owned mine from 93-97 and it outclassed everything then. in 87 it was the fastest production car in the world. Also for around 2k you could get the thing in the 12's easily

Brett
04-02-03, 09:14 AM
oh and the stock torque on an 87 GN was 345 lb/ft, you've gotta consider that "brute torque" especially in '87. most performance cars only caught up a few years ago, if then

kcnewell
04-02-03, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Ralph
Brett, my friend in 1987 had a new Grand National, wasn't the stock hp only 240 or something? That was a heavy car, he used to get waxed by 5 litre Mustangs all the time. The GN did not have the brute torque off the line and the Mustang would be gone by that time. He would almost catch-up, but definitely, lite-is-right for certain situations.

Ralph! My brother in law has an '87 Grand National With 20,000 miles on it and has just recently rediscovered it! This thing HAULS ASS! You ain't beatin' it with a Mustang! Stock for stock....No way!
I'm not a fan of the things 'cause I like the sound and feel of a V8...But I won't try to tell you that it's not a damned fast car!
Besides.....Mustangs SUCK!

Katshot
04-02-03, 09:33 AM
Brett, I gotta ask you. WHY did you get rid of the GN?
In '85 I wanted one SO BAD but couldn't work a deal with the dealer since they were so new. I ended up getting a loaded Grand Prix instead. I always regretted not being able to afford the GN :(
Other than the rather BLAH interior, I loved that car. After driving one, you just had to have one ;) I just wish GM would do those kind of things (set the automotive world on it's collective ear with a car like that) more often.

Brett
04-02-03, 10:21 AM
Well Kevin, its the age old problem MONEY. At the time i had the GN and a Chevy Blazer, couldnt afford both. My particular GN had quite a few mods and wasnt very fun to drive daily, so it had to go. In retrospect i wish i still had it. It put turbos in my blood though, i love a v-8 as much as the next guy, but give me a turbo car i can fit in, and ill buy it in a second. as much as i argued with you about the EVO and WRX, theres not a doubt in my mind that if they were just a little bigger, i might buy one of each.

BeelzeBob
04-02-03, 10:54 AM
So these WRX's are running high 11's and low 12's? If so, then I'm pressed..

Jinx
04-02-03, 11:13 AM
At the track a couple weeks ago, there were several WRX's running and ALL were posting times in ZO6 territory.

On what track are stock WRXs running with Z06s?

Revrend
04-02-03, 11:21 AM
Hrm...I have to agree to the "why are we comparing these two cars?" I think this is the only place I have seem a "shot out" between a WRX and a Vette. They cars aren't even meant for the same things! I have literally hundreds of pictures of brand new WRX's owners out "tearing up" their cars in dirt, mud, and grass. Never even seen a Vette go off road...the cars have different heritages, different breeds, and different meanings.

As to the get laid factor...I would rather get laid by a woman who understands what a WRX is, more then someone who just sees a vette. Sorry, but a woman that knows WRC turns me on...luckily I know several of these women. And even more importantly, have taught mine to understand.

Wanting to see a WRC car last more then a race without being rebuilt? Yea, I would too ( = Too bad that won't happen. A lot of WRC is aboot pushing the limits of the car, and the driver. Look at those drivers out there, switching teams each year, if it was all car, I doubt they would all flip flop around like that.

That being said and done...is there a replacement for displacement? Depends on what you want. In my eyes...no. There are several different feelings and attitudes that surround motor sports, and cars in general. I will just address two of them. The first is the guy that loves his car, and what his car can do. He doesn't care if he car looses, he just wants to put up a good fight, and enjoy his car. Maybe this guy loves turbos, maybe he loves superchargers, or maybe just loves the pure and lopey sound of his big block with an aggressive cam. If you are in love with that sound, and that feeling... _YOU_ won't ever be able to replace that with supercharged engine. Even if it gives you the same HP, the same 0-60, and all that jazz...it isn't YOUR BIG BLOCK. The other is the guy that just wants to be the fastest. At that point...there isn't really a replacement for displacement...but maybe an alternative. If he just wants the faster 0-60, it can certainly be done on a smaller engine, with forced induction.

~shrugs~ It all depends on what you want. For me and my daily driver, comfort is the most important feature to me. If I were to get a second car, I would be concerned with handling first, power last

kcnewell
04-02-03, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Jinx
On what track are stock WRXs running with Z06s?

You need to READ THE POST! Or should I say Comprehend it? He said that they were running at the same track and posting times in Z06 Territory....

Jinx
04-02-03, 11:46 AM
I READ THE POST. What track?

Katshot
04-02-03, 12:11 PM
KC's right. If you go to the track, you'll see that there is no "specific" time for any car. You'll go and see for example, C5 Vettes running within a 1 second frame. You'll see new Cobras running within a similar frame. You'll rarely see two or more of any one car type running virtually identical times. There are just too many factors involved that can affect the ET's. Hell, I usually see guys times varying by several 10th's on the same day, with the same car/driver. Track prep, temps, etc all help times move around.
Anyway, the last day I was there I saw several WRX's and a few C5 Vettes (2 ZO6's) running over the span of maybe 5hrs. During that time, there was a stand-out ZO6 run but that was the exeption, not the rule. The WRX's ran fairly consistent with the exception of one guy that obviously had no clue how to drive a manual on a track. Overall, the WRX's were running fairly close to the Vettes. Better than some, worse than some. But the point was that there was no CLEAR-CUT victor by any wide margin. I feel this said a lot about both cars and I was pretty impressed that the WRX's did as well as they did, especially knowing that they are MUCH less powerful, and MUCH less expensive. I also feel that the AWD in the WRX's made launching them MUCH easier and DEFINATELY contributed to their low ET's.
BTW, I was at Raceway Park, Englishtown, NJ.

kcnewell
04-02-03, 12:13 PM
It's Called Drag Racing!

Jinx
04-02-03, 12:26 PM
Thank you. That wasn't so hard. It wasn't clear from earlier posts whether you were even talking about 1/4mi or road courses. It's no surprise that WRXs are close to C5s at the dragstrip. AWD turbos make good 1/4mi cars (if they're tough enough).

Katshot
04-02-03, 12:46 PM
Just in case anyone might wonder.....
The main reason I dwell on "drag racing" in this thread is that I feel that the whole "no replacement for displacement" issue is really more limited to drag racing than any other forum due to the fact that it is the only auto racing that large displacement engines have historically dominated. Plus, the OEM has traditionally put more emphasis on 1/4 mile and 0-60 times than any other performance yardstick.
Just an FYI:
Did you know that most (if not all) OEMs traditionally set the transmission and final drive ratio to optimize 0-60 times? It's true, they all realize the value of a good 0-60 time and make sure their cars (especially the performance market cars) are able to post a good 0-60 that they can then promote in their ads.
Plus, like it or not, that's where most drivers spend most of their time (between the speeds of 0 and 60).
Like it or not, years ago, the only way to have a car have REAL SERIOUS power all through the rev range was to give it a BIG engine. Nowadays, that's simply NOT the case. Technology has given us the tools to build small displacement engines that not only pull strong up in the high revs, but also pull strong down low. The bonus in better MPG and emissions, the down-side is increased complexity and usually cost.

Brett
04-02-03, 12:50 PM
i gotta say kev im a little skeptical about those WRX numbers, i thought we were talking about the upcoming 300hp STI. Even with bad driving the ZO6 is in the 12's, maybe low 13's and the WRX is a low 14 sec car. this has been documented by numerous sources, methinks the Subaru's were modified.

Katshot
04-02-03, 12:59 PM
They were ALL doing 12's and 13's that day. The Vettes were doing 12's and 13's (ZO6's were 11's and 12's). There were some Vettes posting higher ET's than SOME WRX's. The point was they weren't SMOKIN' the WRX's, and some were loosing to the WRX's.
It was actually quite comical to watch at times as some young kid would come up and beat a Vette. It just doesn't seem to be what you'd expect.
I WILL tell you that the track literally SUCKED for the first half of the day as was evidenced by ALL the big RWD cars scrapping for traction and generally having terrible 60's.

BeelzeBob
04-02-03, 01:01 PM
Yeah, I don't get it either. But I give up. I don't know how a car that's capable of running an 11.6 second quarter mile out of the box can be compared to a low 14 second car out of the box...

Brett
04-02-03, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Sal Collaziano
Yeah, I don't get it either. But I give up. I don't know how a car that's capable of running an 11.6 second quarter mile out of the box can be compared to a low 14 second car out of the box...


because imo they have been modified, but i think kev would argue, that on any given day, with any given driver, you can have a number of outcomes. to that i would agree, but stock to stock, same driver, the WRX doesnt have a chance. that being said we really shouldnt be comparing these cars anyway, but everyone(myself included) keeps getting drawn back in to the comparison. they are both great cars and both would be fun to own. :D

BeelzeBob
04-02-03, 01:17 PM
Agreed...

kcnewell
04-02-03, 01:45 PM
If a guy could get in it! Kinda small!

Brett
04-02-03, 01:56 PM
thats the funny part...i fit alot better in my vette, than i did in a buddies Impreza

Katshot
04-02-03, 02:46 PM
Stock vs. Stock, same driver back to back on the same track. The ZO6 SHOULD walk the WRX and usually will. How about the "standard" Vette though?

*just love to be a trouble-maker ;)

Night Wolf
04-02-03, 03:40 PM
I'll just throw my 2cents in and answer the origanal question:

IMO technology can *substitute* displacment. Think back in the 30's, Cadillac was on thier own, and they were building the V12 and V16 (also a smaller V8) Now the V12 believe it or not was producing a whopping 35hp@3grand. wow, 35hp, my lawn tractor almost meets that (ok, so it's 11hp :D ) BUT the tourqe was 210ft. lbs. (that's alot for this time) move up 25 years and Caddy made the 390-345, the 390ci. V8 in the '59 Eldorado (just happens to be my dream car) which was pushing 345hp. So just in those 25 years technology replaced displacement. Go even further, and the first 4bangers were junky, not even 100hp (I am talking about the 1.6L in Chevettes and stuff like that) but they did their job. Now the Quad4, as in my Grand Am was roablly one of the first real successful 4bangers designed for performance- GM wanted a engine to repalce big V8's for the new decade (90's) but better millage, cheap to run etc... So Oldsmobile made the Quad4. in HO form it could make 180hp and 170ft, lbs, tourqe.... not too bad for a 2.3L DOHC 4banger (the rare W41 version was pushing 190hp, while the stander version, like mine was 160hp.....all had 165-170ft. lbs. tourqe) So here we have a 4banger (that was designed in the early-mid 80's) with 180hp/170ft. lbs. not too bad.... put that in a car that weighs 2500lbs. and it's even better (the Oldsmobile Cutless Caslis (sp) with the W41 package could do 0-60 in about 7seconds and the 1/4 in 14.5- stock, on a FWD car- weighing about 2500lbs. (had a 5-speed) and was cheaper then the Mustangs and other cars of the time. Then there is the Olds 307 (in my moms '89 Brougham) the engine, although reliable and lasts forever was desined with performance being the last thing in mind. With a earth shaking 140hp the thing is slow, BUT to make up for that horrible rating, there is 255ft. lbs. of tourqe (it has a computer-contolled carb.) and both of those ratings are around 3grand, so it has low end power. But 307+ 3speed auto + 4400lbs car= sloooooowwwwww.

So it can work both ways, notice in the begining I did not say technology is replacing displacement, but it is a substitute, becuase with new technology we can get the higher powered 4bangers (and my Quad4 was a example- the newer 4bangers are designed with even more technology) BUT on the same note, my father was shoing me some guy that had a '68 GTO rag top (like he does) that made the engine updated, with fuel injection and just got the whoel thing overhauled, It was in a HP Pontiac a long time ago, and the guy said the thing was just crazy. So I also think if you compare apples to apples and take a 4banger that has been covered in technology and then take a big V8 and put that same technology in it, you still have the no replacement for displacement theory going.

Wow, that was long.

Katshot
04-02-03, 06:36 PM
Good post Rick. I can't say that your conclusion backed your arguement or vice-versa, but it was still a good post.

elwesso
04-02-03, 06:57 PM
Yeah you dont post here a ton, but when you do its a lot of reading!!

I think we were talking more currently for replacement for displacement. Personally, its going to take me a while to get used to a STOCK 300hp 4banger. There is just something about a V8 that you like.

kcnewell
04-02-03, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Katshot
Good post Rick. I can't say that your conclusion backed your arguement or vice-versa, but it was still a good post.

It was a great post! And he was dead on right!

elwesso
04-02-03, 09:16 PM
Yes great post.

Ralph
04-03-03, 01:12 AM
OK Katshot, you're not getting off so easy MR. EXPERT. You said in a post a few pages back, about drag racing, and I quote; "Drag racing is the only auto racing that large displacement engines have historically dominated!" I couldn't agree more, but the problem is that you unknowingly contradicted yourself (you call me a WIMP, but I am not stupid) Gee, I think a 5.0 is LARGER than a 3.8. Most guys by 1990, in my drag raging hometown (with quarter mile markers and all) had modified Mustangs. Are you gonna tell me THEY are slow! I said nothing about the 'stang being stock. The GN was stock at that time, and from what I remember there was much controversey over which was faster. In many mag articles I still have, both were heavily modified and were within milliseconds of each other through the traps. It is well documented that the 5.0 has more performance parts available for it than any other engine in history. With all the parts available, you are gonna tell me that a modified FORD would NEVER beat a GN. I don't know bud. It takes a big man to admit that from time to time, that one of our beloved GM cars actually CAN and MAY get beat by another. PS have you EVER lost a race?

Katshot
04-03-03, 08:09 AM
Ralph,
Try DE-caff in the cappuccino next time ;)
As I recall, I was calling the guy who got smoked by the Mustangs "all the time" in his GN a wimp. Was that guy YOU?
Once you start modding a car, Mustang or any other, it can no longer REALLY be called a Mustang when comparing it to another car. It is now a product of the the modifications done to it and therefore would not "properly" be able to be called "representative" of the original model in any way.
That said, If you READ the post I made, I said that a "stock" GN would beat an even mildly modified Mustang. That does not translate into "a stock GN will beat ANY Mustang no matter what".
And as for my being able to admit when I'm wrong, If you read my posts I generally tend to start my posts with statements like; "I believe", or "as I recall", or similar. Nobody here is ALWAYS right, though Lord knows some of us are close ;)
And to answer your final question, "have you ever lost a race?"
Yes I have. Matter of fact, the last two times at the track I lost to more than I beat. I HAVE posted the results on those races in the past just in case you would like to review them.
A quick recap:
1. FTS vs. Viper GTS (loss)
2. FTS vs. Twin-Turbo Supra (loss)
3. FTS vs. '70 442 (win)
4. FTS vs. Honda Civic on Nitrous (loss)
5. FTS vs. Pontiac SLP Firehawk (loss)
6. FTS vs. Pontiac GTP (win)
7. FTS vs. Chevy Impala SS (win)
8. FTS vs. Chevy Caprice w/engine mods (loss)
9. FTS vs. Chevy Impala SS (win)

I hope this calms you down.
BTW, before you start going off on me or anyone else here, I would request that you do a couple things:

1. Get you facts straight
2. REALLY READ the posts that you intend to comment on
3. Don't run-off at the mouth about things you OBVIOUSLY have very little or no experience with.

Brett
04-03-03, 09:27 AM
Ralph, you also said this was a NEW GN in '87, the 5.0 market was definitely not as developed then as it was in the early nineties. so if your friend was getting waxed, then he was driving poorly or only racing from 0-20.

Katshot
04-03-03, 09:36 AM
I knew there was something else I wanted to say about Ralph's post.
I don't claim to know this for a fact but, I would argue the point about the 5.0 Ford engine having more performance parts available for it than any "other engine in history". You claim that this point is "well documented", I'd like to know where this documentation is. I would tend to believe that there are "probably" more parts available for the Chevy Small-Block.

kcnewell
04-03-03, 11:06 AM
YEAH!.....MR. EXPERT!!!!! That's great! I LOVE IT! I gotta give it to you though Kevin, Chevy small block.....Big time! Way more aftermarket.

Oh Yeah.....Lookin at you're race list, WHAT A LOSER!:D

Jinx
04-03-03, 12:04 PM
"If you can fit in it!" I sat in a WRX a couple months back and it felt cavernous compared to my C5. Yes, it lacked outer elbow room (as does everything but a DeVille or an Impala SS compared to a C5) but it had plenty of legroom and enough headroom to wear a silly hat. My SS-driving brother who hates small cars was impressed enough to consider buying. He is of course waiting for the STi.

"Drag racing is the only auto racing that large displacement engines have historically dominated!" Most other modern forms of racing are classed or restricted by engine displacement, aren't they?

Man, you guys dragged this topic all over the place. Fun read.

"There's no replacement for displacement" is a preference, not an absolute law. I grew up on excitable "performance" four-bangers and I still long for their sound and fury, but the brutal mechanical simplicity of a big-torque good-breathing V8 in a sporting chassis is a pleasure all its own.

As for whether a GN is faster than a Mustang or vice-versa, who cares? I'd rather drive a Cadillac. Wouldn't you?

.Jinx

Mad'lac
04-03-03, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Jinx
[B
As for whether a GN is faster than a Mustang or vice-versa, who cares? I'd rather drive a Cadillac. Wouldn't you?

.Jinx [/B]


Very well said :thumbsup:

kcnewell
04-03-03, 12:17 PM
I gotta agree with Jinx here......Cadillac! Is what it's all about.
As far as a WRX anything.....It's still just RICE, So who cares anyway? I wouldn't want to be seen in one!

Katshot
04-03-03, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by kcnewell
YEAH!.....MR. EXPERT!!!!! That's great! I LOVE IT! I gotta give it to you though Kevin, Chevy small block.....Big time! Way more aftermarket.

Oh Yeah.....Lookin at you're race list, WHAT A LOSER!:D

Damn KC, now I'm getting insecure ;)

kcnewell
04-03-03, 12:22 PM
Yeah, I'm just messein' with you! You shoulda seen me grinnin' when I was typing the post....Just thinkin' about the look on your face when you read it!

Katshot
04-03-03, 12:35 PM
I KNOW, that's why I used the smiley.
I must admit I DID feel like a big loser after the first night. That was the Viper, Supra, Civic, and 442 night. It was the first time at the track in years for me and I was trying to get my s%#t together AND do some tuning on the car. All that and getting the luck to end up running the cars I did sucked!
The second night was MUCH better. That's also the night that I logged my best ET to date (14.5) so even though overall my car was OBVIOUSLY not one of the quicker cars there that night, I was VERY happy because I was REALLY just running against myself.

Ralph
04-04-03, 12:42 AM
I'll respond to anyone who is directly or indirectly calling me a liar and/or a wimp. Any drag racing I or my close friends did was unofficial on the street (down and dirty, many times we ran from the cops). I am talking about a small town with 15,000 people. Just because we did not have sanctioned or legal racing, does not change the fact we lost that night, hell it was one of the few things we lived for as teenagers who had some money to spend on a car that I remember. Small block Ford, small block Chevy, whatever, I've seen a lot more for the Ford, there is lots for the Chevy also, and I'll find the quote for you when I go back to my hometown and go through all my old car mags. And while we are on the subject that I know nothing about, anyone up here that drags with an automatic transmission was called a wimp. I thought it was an educated driver that could shift manually, find the right RPM for a proper launch w/o losing traction, etc that knew what he was doing. You can dish it out, you can take it, so can I. Personally, I would never butcher-up a nice luxury automobile like a Cadillac for drag racing, but hey, I can respect that, don't disrespect my opinion that happened to be FACT in 1990. Not like I give a s*** anymore, but yea, there was a tonne of performance parts in the late '80's for a 5.0. One of my earliest memories is putting a performance camshaft, etc in an old MACH 1 in my dad's service station, hell that must have been 1975 or so. Mopar had Direct Connection for all the little 2.2 liters, go back even further to when they made Chargers and Challengers, they had lots of performance parts available. I'll never forget my friend Tyrone who had a black 455 converted 1980 Trans Am, he lost to a 1988 Escort GT! Hows that for a shocker, the Trans AM had an AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION! Can you live with that or will you challenge me?

Ralph
04-04-03, 01:03 AM
Originally, I was just giving my 2 cents worth of something that happened to me, just to get your opinion, just don't jump all over my ass, eh.

Jinx
04-04-03, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by kcnewell
As far as a WRX anything.....It's still just RICE, So who cares anyway? I wouldn't want to be seen in one!

Driving a hot import is like riding a Harley or boinking a fat chick -- lots of fun, but I wouldn't want my friends to catch me in the act.

.Jinx

kcnewell
04-04-03, 04:34 AM
OH NO! He made a mean comment about Harleys......I think I'm gonna get mad or go nuts or.......Consider the source and forget about it.:D

Katshot
04-04-03, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by kcnewell
OH NO! He made a mean comment about Harleys......I think I'm gonna get mad or go nuts or.......Consider the source and forget about it.:D

It's ok KC, he doesn't know what he's saying (not that I don't agree with him) ;)

Ralph,
I wish I knew what to say to you. NOW you have dragged this conversation into the realm of attacking me and my car. I don't need to continue arguing with you about subjects that you OBVIOUSLY have little or no practical knowledge about.
If you want to get into a discussion about "stick vs. automatic", I'm afraid you'll need to get a little more educated on the subject.
Everytime you open your mouth in this thread, you just make yourself look like more of a goof. Preserve what dignity you have, and stick to subjects you KNOW about. You should be using forums like this to "learn", not spout senseless crap about your hometown and the other dorks you use to street race with. Sorry but you come off like a serious wannabe here.

As a final statement to you, I have to point out that at least I know how to spell "Cadillac".

kcnewell
04-04-03, 11:47 AM
This is a funny thread.......But it is gettin' seriously weird! But please keep it up. It's fun!

BeelzeBob
04-04-03, 01:07 PM
Maybe we should have a Ranting and Raving section. Soughta like www.masterdebating.com

kcnewell
04-04-03, 01:22 PM
That's kinda what this section is, Isn't it? Just change the name to general chit chat and lunatic ravings!

BeelzeBob
04-04-03, 02:15 PM
Well. Since sometimes these things can get out of hand, it may be better to keep out of the most popular forum. Sometimes heated debates will scare people away...

Brett
04-04-03, 02:27 PM
the beauty of this forum is that the patients are running the asylum..KC, Kat, et al :hammer:

Katshot
04-04-03, 04:12 PM
I wish I could figure out how to express a good Dr. Evil laugh here ;)

Katshot
04-04-03, 04:28 PM
Alright guys,
Check out this video. And while you're at it, check out the site and you'll see plenty of other videos showing V8 muscle getting SMOKED by technologically superior cars.
http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=224&p=4

Mad'lac
04-04-03, 04:38 PM
Regardless of who likes what...we all got one thing in common....
the love of modding our cars to make them faster, handle better,look better, and make the car more your car than a cookie cutter.My $.02

Brett
04-04-03, 04:46 PM
I thought we settled this. Kat you need to accept a few things

A WRX is a low 14 sec car
A Z28 is a 13 sec car
A Z06 is a low 12 sec car


We dont know to what extent a car at the track has been modified from its original form, therefore it is a bad place to make assumptions about a stock vs. stock encounter. maybe you dont care about a stock vs. stock encounter(which is fine), but that is how this all got started.

Sal says: How do you think the Lancer will hold up against it?
and this got twisted into some WRX vs. the world thread. Well heres the bottom line the WRX being a low 14 sec car would lose to a whole S***load of cars in a race. However, properly modified it can blow away alot of that S***load. And whats even funnier is the AWD that you love, if replaced with rwd would probably shave a half second of the ET and it could beat the Camaro stock vs. stock. Essentially, you embrace as superior what makes the car inferior in a quarter mile race

Brett
04-04-03, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Mad'lac
Regardless of who likes what...we all got one thing in common....
the love of modding our cars to make them faster, handle better,look better, and make the car more your car than a cookie cutter.My $.02


actually, i havent modded a car since 1997

Katshot
04-04-03, 05:36 PM
Brett,
I was just posting link for fun. Don't get your panties in a bunch ;)
But if you think the AWD is a BAD thing at a drag strip, you're nuts. I think everyone's in agreement that AWD is DEFINATELY superior in short races.
One tiny, cheap mod on the WRX called a boost controller is all that's need to have it SMOKING FAST.

Brett
04-04-03, 05:45 PM
Kat, This will be my last post on this thread because its redundant and you choose not to accept facts. AWD is not a benefit. Throughout this thread i have given you several examples of cars that come in both AWD and RWD and the AWD is always slower. you on the other hand have not given any facts that show AWD to be superior. Do you think the guy in his 911 C4 that just lost to a 911 C2 sees AWD as a benefit. Of course he doesnt. He just lost. AWD has a place, but not at a dragstrip. Your example is a guy takes an AWD car modifies it then beats a Camaro, and then you give credit to the AWD. It makes no sense. if you think everyones is in agreement that awd is superior, then you should go back and re-read this thread, because from what i see nobody has taken a stand on it either way. Obviously, they saw my overwhelming facts and instead of just sticking it to you they chose to remain silent :)

kcnewell
04-04-03, 06:22 PM
I remained silent 'cause I'm really only interestad in Cadillacs when it comes to cars. I.M.O. everything else is just something else that I'm not interested in!

ljklaiber
04-04-03, 07:21 PM
Yeah!

I agree KC!

With mnior mods to intake ........and blowin down the heavy exhaust, ...........I have fun Bustin Lexus ass from roll ons....45 to whatever.... 95sls. Must have broke the chip..this kitty will shake the wheels at 125. Shift at 6600!

Just Caddy! ljk

kcnewell
04-04-03, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by ljklaiber
Yeah!

I agree KC!

With mnior mods to intake ........and blowin down the heavy exhaust, ...........I have fun Bustin Lexus ass from roll ons....45 to whatever.... 95sls. Must have broke the chip..this kitty will shake the wheels at 125. Shift at 6600!

Just Caddy! ljk

THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!!!:D

Ralph
04-04-03, 10:13 PM
I would have thought the little story about my buddies 455 gettin' smoked by a Escort would support your technology theory Kat? I'll lay off now cause no matter what I relate to you, you just don't believe in anything or anybody but yourself. I spell Cadillac "Cadillac", and I cannot find it. I would love to give you a smiley, but I just don't know how yet, what can I say, I'm an educated Hic.

elwesso
04-04-03, 11:33 PM
My last post was like 3 pages ago.... All I know is cadillacs and rice. Ralph, you will learn to keep certain things to yourself, but obviously not yet. Best yet, I dont understand half of what yall are saying, and THATS IS WHY I DIDNT POST!! If you dont know what your talking about, dont make up stuff and pretend you do, because you will be found out sooner or later (no, i dont have much room to talk :D )

Katshot
04-05-03, 12:03 AM
Brett,
I'm not sure what your "overwhelming facts" are other than you "claiming" that a C2 is quicker than a C4. How 'bout these facts pal as/per Porsche:

2002 9114S
0-60 = 5.1sec.
Top speed = 174mph
Weight = 3240lbs.

2002 911 Targa
0-60 = 5.2sec.
Top speed = 171mph
Weight = 3114lbs.

I used these two cars as a comparison because:
#1 They are the newest from Porsche
#2 They have IDENTICAL engines

In MY book, that data rather adequately spells out to me that AWD vs. RWD on two virtually indentical cars translated into quicker 0-60 times and a higher top speed even though the car was saddled with an extra 126 pounds.

So there, you want facts? You got FACTS. I even used Porsche's. I can also give you several articles about these cars where the journalists explained how the 4S had superior handling and acceleration BECAUSE of the AWD.

The biggest advantage AWD has over FWD or RWD other than overall chassis stability is the ease by which it can be "launched".
It's almost a no-brainer when it comes to launching an AWD car, whereas the RWD and FWD cars will require more skill and a properly prepared track to get their best times.
And one more thing, I notice that many people (yourself included) like to compare cars via OEM and magazine test data. You like to say:
The WRX is a low 14 sec car
The Z28 is a 13 sec car
The ZO6 is a low 12 sec car
Where are you getting THOSE numbers? Have you ever seen these cars run at the track? The reason I ask is this; although I might agree that OEM and magazine test data is FAIRLY reliable, you have to remember that those numbers are compiled by professional drivers and they DO correct the data. The numbers you read are NOT always the ACTUAL numbers that the cars ran.
And finally, understand that a ZO6 may be a faster car in the hands of a professional but MOST people out there are NOT professionals so you USUALLY don't see cars like ZO6's pulling the same times at the track as you see in print. On the other hand, AWD cars are relatively easy for the novice driver to get maximum acceleration runs out of. And THAT's why you may be surprised to see a car like a WRX actually beat a supposedly faster car like a ZO6.
I realize that this thread has gotten WAY off base in some ways but I feel that REAL-WORLD experience is ALWAYS preferable to just reading numbers from a magazine and quite often people in these forums tend to get involved in debates like these even though they have little or no ACTUAL first-hand experience to back-up their statements.
So just to reitterate my "original" statement:

The "replacement" for displacement is "technology". If you choose to deny this as fact, you're only endulging yourself in FANTASY.

Ralph
04-05-03, 12:56 AM
Elwesso, dude, I've got no reason to lie. I remember it happening. The Escort GT bit in better and beat the Firebird. It was wet that night, and my buddy got pedal happy, and lost traction. It can happen ...

kcnewell
04-05-03, 02:13 AM
I'm gettin' a headache!

BeelzeBob
04-05-03, 09:03 AM
Ya know.. I don't know shit about AWD vehicles. But I run a site called www.deerparkavenue.com - it's pretty much all about drag racing. Last Summer I went to the track with all these kids every weekend. The WRX was a very popular car and I saw lots and lots of races. I know it must be easier to launch with AWD but it doesn't make things fool proof. The stock WRX guys were losing to the stock Mustang fox-body 5.0 guys for quite a long time before they got used to launching with their cars. Even though it's AWD, it still takes some skill... Eventually, as the weeks went by, the WRX's were catching up to the Mustangs and eventually beat them. The best numbers were high 13's...

They NEVER beat ANY of the LS1 Camaro SS's or Trans Ams which ran from the low to mid 13s all day long - and sometimes even a freak high 12..

Two brand new Z06's raced frequently and never posted numbers higher than 12's - and these weren't professional race car drivers. They were the typical baggy pants kids that got their car from their parents for graduating high school.

I don't know where on the planet or why we're comparing WRX's to Z06 Vettes but I think it's safe to say it's only happening right here at www.cadillacforums.com. Even the guys with the WRX's at Deer Park Avenue never brag about beating Vettes - except mine. My old '87 250hp C4...

Please answer this question. What are the best stock numbers the WRX is pulling? The best stock numbers on Z06's are 11.6's...

Katshot
04-05-03, 02:45 PM
Where did you see "stock" ZO6's running 11.6's? I've never seen a stock one do better than low 12's.
As for comparing the two cars (WRX and ZO6), it IS getting tiresome I must admit. There's nothing to be gained here. We're just going over the same old ground now.

Jinx
04-05-03, 03:03 PM
This just in: there's still no replacement for displacement.

Brett
04-05-03, 05:59 PM
Alright alright so i said i would never post on this thread again...turns out i lied. Heres my olive branch. Kat, clever facts using the 911 Targa, when i'm sure you saw on porsche site that the regular 911 coupe is actually FASTER than the C4. I didnt know there was a 911 Targa, so oh well. BUT to end this(hopefully) once and for all ill say this. if you were able to add awd to a given car, without also adding weight, i will agree that car should be faster than the car as a rwd. so in that way awd is superior. problem is it does adds weight and slows the car down in the real world. This kind of goes back to what you said awhile ago about usable horsepower. as far as me using times from a magazine, i know they can be flawed, but its really the only benchmark that maintains somewhat of a constant. Since they use same equipment, adjust for elevation, etc., its not perfect.ok now i wont post anymore on this thread, startinGGGGGGGG NOW

Katshot
04-06-03, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Jinx
This just in: there's still no replacement for displacement.

You're just a trouble-maker ;)

Katshot
04-06-03, 10:29 AM
*Now what can I do to get Brett fired-up enough to get him to post again?*

Oh yeah...we haven't even touched on TIRE SIZES!!!!
Now what would happen if.............;)

BeelzeBob
04-06-03, 10:45 AM
I see stock Z06's doing 11.6 under outstanding weather circumstances at West Hampton Dragway. Go to www.corvetteforum.com and start asking questions. There are very reputable people there who will back that up. It happens. The WRX never comes close to that. So what's the best number they're producing? Mid to high 13's? That's ridiculous. It's nice - but it's not a Z06.

If you're seeing people in stock WRX's getting similar times as people in stock Z06's - then they're just C4's with C5 body-kits and Z06 emblems... Ala www.c5west.com

Sal

kcnewell
04-06-03, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Katshot
*Now what can I do to get Brett fired-up enough to get him to post again?

Just get Scourge to start spouting his NONSENSE here!:D

Jinx
04-06-03, 02:34 PM
I gotta say I'm surprised that there wasn't more discussion of Northstar and 500cid in a "replacement for displacement" discussion on a Cadillac forum.

elwesso
04-06-03, 03:26 PM
If I had to pick one thing to be a replacement for displacement, the only thing that would give noticeable results would be a supercharger/turbos. But other than that, with the technology we have, there isnt anything to replace displacement.

Brett
04-06-03, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Jinx
I gotta say I'm surprised that there wasn't more discussion of Northstar and 500cid in a "replacement for displacement" discussion on a Cadillac forum.

Yes, well we are easily driven off on tangents, dammit posted again, ok no more, NOW.

HotRodSaint
04-06-03, 04:56 PM
I haven't been following this thread. But I will chime in about the AWD thing.

I bet if some WRX owner was smart enough to figure out how to make his car RWD, he'd be running better times.

But then you guys with traction control already knew that one!:D

Katshot
04-06-03, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Jinx
I gotta say I'm surprised that there wasn't more discussion of Northstar and 500cid in a "replacement for displacement" discussion on a Cadillac forum.
You raise a VERY GOOD point. The Northstar is roughly HALF the displacement of the LEGENDARY 500 cid Cadillac V8. If THAT doesn't support my theory, what does?

elwesso
04-06-03, 06:03 PM
But, you could also extract more horsepower from that 500 with a DOHC and all the other engine management devices the northstar has.

How much HP does the 500 have??

Jinx
04-06-03, 06:40 PM
http://www.500cid.com/

From the FAQ there:

Q: Why would I want to use a Cadillac engine ?
A: Only a handful of hot rodders have realized the advantages of the 472/500 big block Cadillac engines. It's large displacement "the largest regular production 8 cylinder ever made" lighter weight, greater torque and rugged reliability make it the ideal Engine. It has more torque in its stock form than the legendary 454. With a aluminum intake manifold it weighs only about 45 lbs more than a chevy 350 small block. It can be built to produce 500 hp on pump gas at a reasonable cost. For 600 hp or less I can build it cheaper than any "other" brand of engine. Last but by no means least is the sneak factor. Never mind you're packing up to 600 hp or close to 700 ft lb. of torque in your 540 cid stroker Cad motor. It's still a Cadillac and everyone knows they're boat anchors. You will get no respect. Because of that you will get to spank a lot of people hard. YOU WILL go home with their money after the race. You just won't be a popular guy with a popular engine under his hood.

---
This is applying hop-up tuning tricks to a thirty-year-old motor. How much will you get out of stroking and tuning a Northstar?

Compare Northstar to LS6. Now extrapolate LS6 from 346cid to 500cid and imagine the monster you get.

Your point is understood, but once you get out of the rut of comparing modern engines to pre-smog pre-computer-modeling dinosaurs, I still say, there is no replacement for displacement. :-)

.Jinx

Katshot
04-06-03, 06:51 PM
The point isn't which have the most potential. It's just comparing stock to stock. Back in the old days, nobody would've thought to build a high-output small displacement engine because there was no reason to do so. Cars were big, engines were big, fuel was cheap.

HotRodSaint
04-06-03, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Katshot
The point isn't which have the most potential. It's just comparing stock to stock. Back in the old days, nobody would've thought to build a high-output small displacement engine because there was no reason to do so. Cars were big, engines were big, fuel was cheap.

I hate to always disagree with you. And it seems you guys are talking drag racing. But...

Porsche built their reputation racing small displacement cars.

It's the power to weight ratio that is most important in all forms of racing.

Jinx
04-06-03, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Katshot
The point isn't which have the most potential. It's just comparing stock to stock.

Okay, compare Northstar to LS6. Compare size, mass, cost, complexity, and output. Still no replacement for displacement. :-)

BeelzeBob
04-06-03, 11:35 PM
I think we can all agree that there are alternatives to displacement - but not a replacement. Because what we're talking about replacing displacement with is the same thing that we can use to enhance displacement as well...

If that doesn't say it all...

Katshot
04-07-03, 07:49 AM
It doesn't seem that any statement CAN say it all.
Though we all keep trying. Here goes another shot.
The whole argument is always based on the opinion that only displacement holds the true answer to the ultimate engine.
Question: What is so special about "displacement" anyway?
Answer: For years, displacement was the only answer to several questions; How can we build a more powerful engine? How can we build a more reliable engine? The answer was always the same, make it bigger!
That is no longer the only solution. Through the use of technology, engines are much more reliable AND more powerful. You no longer need to make an engine bigger to make it more powerful, you can add a forced induction system. Years ago, small engines that had been built for high output were high-revving, short lifespan beasties at best. Today through the use of technology, we are seeing small displacement engines with high peak power AND broad powerbands.
There is just very little need to produce high displacement engines other than to produce "cheap" horsepower/torque.

Katshot
04-07-03, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by HotRodSaint
I hate to always disagree with you. And it seems you guys are talking drag racing. But...

Porsche built their reputation racing small displacement cars.

It's the power to weight ratio that is most important in all forms of racing.

I was mainly addressing the comment made about the Cadillac 500 cid engine and it's place in the "overall" market. While it's true that there have always been small companies making small engines, years ago they were a tiny percentage of the overall picture. Even today, Porsche is still a tiny percentage of the overall automotive scene eventhough it is a well respected and important manufacturer.

BeelzeBob
04-07-03, 08:02 AM
I can agree with that. :D

Jinx
04-07-03, 11:20 AM
And yet bigger displacement remains simpler, cheaper, and more reliable than the alternatives. While there may be other answers to the power question, larger replacement remains the best answer. In fact, as the basic technology of the internal combustion engine has advanced, the inefficiencies of large displacement engines at light load have decreased, making larger displacement an even BETTER answer than it has been in the past.

There is just very little need to produce high displacement engines other than to produce "cheap" horsepower/torque. What the heck other kind of horsepower/torque could one possibly want? "Oh no, don't make it cost less and last longer. I want an engine that's more expensive to maintain with more parts, more plumbing, more weight, and more stress."

Is an inefficient, low-tech, dirty, unoptimized big-inch engine better than a modern well-designed smaller powerplant? No. But given two engines of current vintage I'll take the bigger one, thanks. And so will anyone else with any sense.

.Jinx

BeelzeBob
04-07-03, 11:47 AM
Can't argue with that either... hehe

Katshot
04-07-03, 12:14 PM
Jinx,
You made my point for me dude.
The reason you have to use the small engine is because they are smaller, lighter, and more efficient. I mean I'd love to tell you that we don't NEED the smaller engines AND their modern attributes but I can't.
The bigger engines would cause the car they are put in to be much larger JUST to accomodate the engines. The suspensions would have to be totally different to accomodate the added weight. The whole chassis dynamics would be totally out of whack due to so much extra bulk and weight all in one part of the car.
No, sorry in this market, when cars are getting smaller and NEED to be more efficient, engines MUST be able to get smaller too and still be able to provide the power that the enthusiast market wants.

BeelzeBob
04-07-03, 02:15 PM
We'll have to see what happens with the new Vette. It's supposed to have a bigger engine and weigh less. A few hundred pounds lighter and a possible 6 liter or 6.6 liter engine...

Jinx
04-09-03, 10:04 PM
Katshot,
You made my point for me dude.
The reason you have to use the right-sized engine is because it's smaller, lighter, and more efficient. Starting with too little displacement and then adding a big DOHC head and forced induction adds mass, size, cost, stress, and complexity. It is a compromise, and falls short of a simpler naturally-aspirated engine of the right displacement for the desired power. A larger-displacement engine is not necessarily bigger and heavier than its buzzy & blown smaller-displacement counterparts.

We need only look at the LS6. What other engine would you drop in the Corvette's engine bay that will produce the same area under the power curve?

It's unfortunate that people confuse componentry with technology. It's unfortunate that the market obssesses over line items on spec sheets, ticking off buzzwords to determine the better solution by the higher count.

Because there's still no replacement for displacement.

.Jinx

elwesso
04-09-03, 10:28 PM
And I dont think there ever will be with a piston engine.

I think more HP in a smaller package would be the rotary. Mazdas RX7, and it is nat. aspirated, and produces 250hp, and it is about 2l (not exactly sure)

Katshot
04-10-03, 07:49 AM
From Jinx: "We need only look at the LS6. What other engine would you drop in the Corvette's engine bay that will produce the same area under the power curve?"

How 'bout a Northstar with full variable valve timing, and maybe even a variable intake. If that doesn't outperform an LS6, drop a blower on it and then it SURELY would.

Mad'lac
04-10-03, 01:29 PM
Well yeah with a blower it would outperform the LS6,but drop one in the LS6 and you're back to square one.

Katshot
04-10-03, 09:28 PM
You know Jinx, I was just thinking, again you made my point without even knowing it.
The current LS6 IS a GREAT engine. 405HP out of a 5.7 small block. It's amazing how technology managed to make a Chevy 5.7 SMALL BLOCK superior to the original LS6, which happened to be a 454 BIG BLOCK ;)
So again it sounds like TECHNOLOGY REPLACES DISPLACEMENT :D

BeelzeBob
04-11-03, 08:10 AM
No, because a 454 with technology would replace the 5.7 with technology. The advantages of the 454 with technology (power) would outweigh the disadvantages (weight). What if one were to place this 454 with technology and gobs and gobs of torque and horsepower into a mid engine car? How would the 5.7 with technology be of an advantage or a replacement to the 454 with technology?

So basically:

Technology replaces displacement only if displacement doesn't use technology. That's silly...

How about:

Latest technology replaces displacement ONLY if displacement uses OLD technology... That's silly too...

Brett
04-11-03, 09:13 AM
they are interchangeable in many ways...technology OR displacement can create power. some people like vanilla and some like chocolate

Jinx
04-11-03, 12:54 PM
How 'bout a Northstar with full variable valve timing, and maybe even a variable intake. If that doesn't outperform an LS6, drop a blower on it and then it SURELY would.

Are you high? That Northstar gets you 320hp and 320ftlbs torque. BTW, it's a taller and heavier engine. Hey, let's make it even taller and even heavier by throwing a blower on it. Then surely it would be almost as good as the LS6. Of course, by the time we see that motor we'll also have LS7. Thanks for playing.

It's amazing how technology managed to make a Chevy 5.7 SMALL BLOCK superior to the original LS6, which happened to be a 454 BIG BLOCK.

This is exactly what I'm talking about -- the difference between technological advancement and additional componentry. The modern LS6 is a high-tech engine, but most of the technology is optimization of the same basic elements found in that old big block, not extra parts. There's no DOHC, no VTEC, no forced induction. Its titanium intake valves and sodium-filled
exhaust valves reduce weight and don't increase component count or add a new function. Our only new mechanical complexity is the coil-per-cylinder.

Apply the same knowledge and experience to optimizing a big-cube V8 and you will get even more power. Throw more parts at the problem and what you get are additional size, mass, stress, and complexity.

Look, forced induction and DOHC are not high-tech. They have been around since the 1930s. They SUCK as alternatives for displacement. (Actually one of them sucks, the other one blows.)

Up-and-coming technology like displacement on demand, variable intake, and variable valve timing simplify as much as complicate, and they justify their addition to the basic internal combustion engine. Variable intake will replace the throttle. Variable valve timing adds little to the block and can obviate DOHC because it too improves breathing efficiency over the rev range. And if DOD doesn't clue you in that there's no replacement for displacement, nothing will. Displacement on Demand. Can it get any clearer?

.Jinx

Katshot
04-11-03, 05:40 PM
God I wish someone would close this thread (Wes).
We just keep going over the same old S%@T. No matter how I try to put it, you guys just don't get it. I think I'm calling it quits here. It's just that being a hard-headed Irishman, I have a hard time walking away from anything. But in this case.........

Jinx
04-11-03, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Katshot
We just keep going over the same old S%@T. No matter how I try to put it, you guys just don't get it.

I know exactly how you feel.

It's been fun, though.

.Jinx

BeelzeBob
04-11-03, 09:55 PM
I guess it's just a matter of opinion. Atleast that's how it will end up here.. Closed...