Boost! The replacement for displacement!
 

Bend over for turbo lag. Unless you are a supercharger, or quad turbo'd. I dunno why I posted this, cause I'm not even sure that it's true. But I'm really messed up and I wanted to respond!

keep dreaming, boy! THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT! None of the above behave as good as a engine with larger displacement. eg. a Turbo produces more heat in the engine...then there's turbo lag and so on.

well there is some anti-lag systems available, supercharging also heats and theres no lag... how about putting some on your n/a, you'll just be adding to the the displacement... lets say we take hemi 604/640 racing engine producing around 1200....hehehe..... then ya could take a huge blower pro charged that will suck up lets say 700hp just to make it spin BUT... :twisted: now ya got 5000hp :shock: . Now show me a n/a displacement producing that :P if ya really find one, get the weight figures... And theres my point, maybe it`s not a replacement having a turbo or supercharger and all the heat, yes it will wear faster BUT (I'm begining to sound like Tiff) Ya save a hell alot on weight and the final motto is : "weight, speed nemesis" (man that sound even poetic kinda...well, ok, no)

i agrees!
Boost! The replacement for displacement!

watever heat or lag issues can be ironed out!

Dude no ones producing that much power on the street.

but youll never get as much as a V-8

there's no inches like cubic inches ...

Obviously, each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. I personally like forced-induction engines (specially turbocharged ones) because where I live is not uncommon to out-drag a big V8 (a '01 350Hp LS1 Camaro) with a "humble" turbocharged 4-inline like the one my car has (1.8 liter running at 1.35 Bar). The reason is the altitude over sea level, as Mexico City is well over 7,000 Ft above sea-level, remember that a n-a engine is much more sensible to altitude power loss than a turbocharged one. :wink:

Having said that, and if I lived at a low-altitude place, I'd rather drive a car with a good normally-aspirated engine (the BMW M3 straight six comes to mind) than a heavily boosted engine like the one in my own car (Audi TT CQ)... as much as technology has bridged the gap between the old turbos and has eliminated mostly all their quirks (turbo lag, unpredictable and peaky power delivery, reliability issues, etc.) it still can't match the progressiveness and softness of a good n-a engine. (but I'd still have a 996 TT :D )

There is no replacement for displacement peoples.

NA is very special....talk to the guys at BMW about that.

Forced induction is certainly not the replacement for displacement, its more of a boost for more power, not a replacement.

The replacement in the future will be technology, we're constantly getting more hp per liter with the newer cars

Wo Wo! Why are people assuming I am one of those ricer turbo nuts? I'd prefer N/A myself.

NA of course is best.

5000hp? can you even use half of it? drag? :|

A/: CADILLAC SIXTEEN...13 LITER V16, shitty car
A/2: BUGATTI EB110 S....quadturbo....excelent car

displacement makes a car heavier...too much displacement is not too good

for me a v8 6.0l its ok, i like turbocharger cars, its amazing what turbos do to a car

but on the same token a modded v-8 will get more than the 4 Banger.

talk to BMW? u mean the guys who in 1986 made a 1400+hp 1.5L turbo F1 engine? erm..if boost is just for more power, displacement is for what? and have you noticed the steady increase in teh number of cars w/ turbos in the over the last couple of years?