- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: No replacement for displacement: Engines are about to grow again
Posted on 10/14/16 at 7:51 pm to crazycubes
Posted on 10/14/16 at 7:51 pm to crazycubes
quote:
Man, I can't wait to tell all the chicks I drive an Aston Martin.
You could probably buy a loaded BMW 3 series for the same price as that thing
It's actually a Honda iQ that they modified
This post was edited on 10/14/16 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 10/14/16 at 7:53 pm to Street Hawk
Middle class's pocketbook is fricked if they put super stringent pollution control devices on cars.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 7:53 pm to Street Hawk
They obviously weren't paying attention to Ford and the ecoboost engines
Posted on 10/14/16 at 7:54 pm to Street Hawk
I think the largest engine Ferrari has put in a car in the last 40 years is 5.0 liters.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 7:55 pm to blueboy
quote:
I think the largest engine Ferrari has put in a car in the last 40 years is 5.0 liters.
The F12 is 6.3
Posted on 10/14/16 at 7:57 pm to TulaneUVA
quote:
They obviously weren't paying attention to Ford and the ecoboost engines
Had a 2017 Expedition with the 3.5 ecoboost as a rental. I was getting 16-17 mpg. Also had a 2015 Tahoe that got just as good or better mpg
Posted on 10/14/16 at 7:59 pm to upgrayedd
Obviously apples and apples.
What engine did the Tahoe have?
What engine did the Tahoe have?
Posted on 10/14/16 at 8:00 pm to TulaneUVA
quote:
Obviously apples and apples.
What engine did the Tahoe have?
5.3l v8
Posted on 10/14/16 at 8:22 pm to upgrayedd
I knew I should have looked that up.
Well, the F40 was 2.9 and it got by.
Well, the F40 was 2.9 and it got by.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 8:24 pm to blueboy
quote:
I knew I should have looked that up.
Well, the F40 was 2.9 and it got by.
Well, to be fair, it's still a small displacement V12 considering my LS3 V8 is 6.2.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 8:56 pm to upgrayedd
F40 was a V-8, and it had more horsepower 30 years ago than you have now.
And The McLaren P1 is only 3.8.
And The McLaren P1 is only 3.8.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 9:01 pm to blueboy
quote:
F40 was a V-8, and it had more horsepower 30 years ago than you have now.
And it was twin turboed, mine is naturally aspirated.
quote:
And The McLaren P1 is only 3.8.
Also twin turboed and has an electric engine hybrid setup too.
This post was edited on 10/14/16 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 10/14/16 at 9:05 pm to upgrayedd
My only point is that there clearly is a "replacement for displacement."
Posted on 10/14/16 at 9:07 pm to blueboy
quote:
My only point is that there clearly is a "replacement for displacement."
I don't think there's any arguing that, but obviously there's a limit currently in terms of efficiency which is what this thread is about.
Hell, the new Ford GT's are running the 3.5L Ecoboost.
This post was edited on 10/14/16 at 9:10 pm
Posted on 10/14/16 at 9:18 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Had a 2017 Expedition with the 3.5 ecoboost as a rental. I was getting 16-17 mpg. Also had a 2015 Tahoe that got just as good or better mpg
yeah a guy at work has a '16 F-150 with the eccoboost. gets around 18mpg.
i have a '15 sierra with the 5.3 and get close to 21 mpg.
his truck feels any trailer we put behind it.
mine will drag em without a problem.
he'll beat me red light to red light though.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 9:20 pm to Nutriaitch
Yeah, it seems like the cylinder deactivation is more efficient.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 9:24 pm to Street Hawk
I hope this is a move to improve public transportation
Posted on 10/14/16 at 9:35 pm to blueboy
No, there really isn't if we're talking about internal combustion.
Look at the brake specific fuel consumption on a low speed crosshead diesel (really big marsk propulsion shite) vs something like a 4 cylinder turbo car motor (what many people think is efficiency). There is no comparison. The large cylinder volume and very long compression/power stroke do a great job of sucking the power out of every drop of fuel.
So in other words, there's no replacement for displacement. Until you bring size and cost into the picture. We can have efficiency, but nobody wants to pay for it.
Look at the brake specific fuel consumption on a low speed crosshead diesel (really big marsk propulsion shite) vs something like a 4 cylinder turbo car motor (what many people think is efficiency). There is no comparison. The large cylinder volume and very long compression/power stroke do a great job of sucking the power out of every drop of fuel.
So in other words, there's no replacement for displacement. Until you bring size and cost into the picture. We can have efficiency, but nobody wants to pay for it.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 9:43 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Not fair comparing diesel efficiency to gas efficiency
Manufacturers need to start working heavily on forced induction, intake conditions, and optimizing piston head design. Secondary to that, they need to get rid of parasitic drag through the driveline
Manufacturers need to start working heavily on forced induction, intake conditions, and optimizing piston head design. Secondary to that, they need to get rid of parasitic drag through the driveline
This post was edited on 10/14/16 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 10/14/16 at 9:59 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Yeah, it seems like the cylinder deactivation is more efficient
this still baffles me that it actually works, let alone how smooth it does it.
certain screens in my instrument panel tells you how many cylinders you're running on.
you can't feel it switch to 4.
and then if you nail it, it automatically jumps to 8 seamlessly.
Popular
Back to top



0






