Comments - The Replacement for Displacement

Published: Dec 05, 2012
Description: There's no replacement for displacement. It's an age-old axiom that muscle-car enthusiasts have been espousing for decades, opining that there's no better way to get power out of an eng...
Add Comments 124
Aaron Crisp Dec 11, 2012
As well as those horrid giant batteries that come from China.
David Gomez Dec 08, 2012
Also I think it was figured that EV's were dirtier than internal combustion engines. At least here in the states. To charge vehicles you need power. To get power you need to burn tons of coal. That offsets the "cleanness" of EV's.
David Gomez Dec 08, 2012
Lol, my comment was directed to no pistons, and muscle cars can go round tracks. And civics can drag race.
Richard Nichols Dec 08, 2012
Long live the internal combustion engine. (A big or little one, yes it can be rotary too)!
Richard Nichols Dec 08, 2012
HA, bollocks to that I NEED petrol and a maahoosive turbo!
Richard Nichols Dec 08, 2012
Choked on carbon monoxide being spat out the back of my horrible petrol burning killing machine!
Richard Nichols Dec 08, 2012
From a personal point of view I believe that their is a replacement for displacement. Go electric! Lets all drive Renault tiwzys and Nissan leafs we could save the world, and live happily ever after knowing that no little cute cuddly fury animals
Richard Nichols Dec 08, 2012
Track than say a muscle car, but put those 2 on a drag strip and I'd put my money on the muscle car. So in that respect, displacement I feel has no meaning if the car it is in cant use it.
Richard Nichols Dec 08, 2012
6cyl diesel in say a Honda civic. I spose the answer is that you need to look at the application of the car the engine is in to determine if there needs to be a displacement advantage/disadvantage. A smaller lighter sports car would be quicker round
Richard Nichols Dec 08, 2012
Haha, I was just having a little wind up! I'm not annoyed by any comments! I do however feel that every engine has its own place in its own car. For example as no pistons said you wouldn't find a 4cyl in a big truck and you wouldn't find a big 12ltr
David Gomez Dec 08, 2012
My point was that you still can't just swap large v8 with a rotary and expect your vehicle to do the same job it did with the v8.
David Gomez Dec 08, 2012
A rotary and it's properties of how it works cancels the need for a large displacement engine.
David Gomez Dec 08, 2012
I know exactly how a rotary works, sorry if you are getting annoyed reading my posts. This is a discussion not an argument. You were trying to get your point across as was I. I got your point.
Richard Nichols Dec 08, 2012
So how does a rotary work?
No Pistons Dec 08, 2012
Will still miss the point.
No Pistons Dec 08, 2012
Vagueness and subjectivity. With all do respect David you have NO idea what is actually being discussed. You simply just can't grasp the concept and I am finished here, I could go into full detail of how a rotary works and principle at hand but you
No Pistons Dec 08, 2012
When did I every say it was better!? I said the principles of how the motor works replaces the need for displacement in it. It's as simple as that dude and I've been saying that from the beginning. Doesn't get the job done? Ya that's full of
No Pistons Dec 08, 2012
24 times every two full eshaft rotations.
No Pistons Dec 08, 2012
You really don't understand how a rotary works do you? Again your bringing in personal preference, still irrelevant to the physics at hand. The 13b has two rotors with two plugs per rotor (leading and a trailing) so its actually the plugs go off
David Gomez Dec 08, 2012
Just because a motor makes better hp/liter doesn't mean it is the best either. That just means it uses it's space better.
David Gomez Dec 08, 2012
And yes your volume/power is better than a high displacement pushrod motor, but does that mean it is better overall? A rotary probably could replace a high displacement v8 in motorsports, but on the street, it can't do the job. Power torque wise.
David Gomez Dec 08, 2012
I can get to 60 without going past 1,600 rpm's, nobody cares about revving high off the track. Also your rotary is firing 3 times every rotation, my v8 is firing 4 times every rotation, 6 for 2 rotations on your rotary and 8 for 2 rotations on my v8
David Gomez Dec 08, 2012
So a rotary cranking once (firing 3 times) replaces a higher displacement v8 because of volumetric efficiently? Doesn't that only benefit for motorsports? Nobody wants to drive around the city at 6,000+ rpm's just to speed up.
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 07, 2012
The rotary is a revolutionary design that needs to be explored to its full potential but few are willing to do that (GO MAZDA). I Personally don't know a whole lot about how they work but I would love to pick one up and mess with it someday
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 07, 2012
One main reason for the slow development of the rotary is because it's banned in almost professional racing. Manufacturers aren't going to spend time on something that can't be race proven.
Richard Nichols Dec 07, 2012
Other chap. The 787b won Le Mans in the early 90s.
Richard Nichols Dec 07, 2012
Motoring press that the rx8 was very thirsty on both oil and fuel terms. Which I guess was why the rx8 was dropped and development of the rotary has been slow. If a four stroke engine works why change it. Rotarys sound great though. Oh and to the
Richard Nichols Dec 07, 2012
@ No pistons, You have to wonder why there are no rotary engines on sale now. I agree that the idea of a rotary is a good one. A n/a sub 2ltr engine with over 200 (the rx8 was 1.3 with 240bhp?) is a great idea. But it is documented over here in the
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 07, 2012
Stupid character limit
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 07, 2012
Levels then you have a real monster of a machine on your hands. What I'm trying to say is it's not all about outright performance but there's many factors automakers face when they design new powerplants. This is also completely ignoring any disp tax
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 07, 2012
In comparison a corvette makes 430 hp out of 6.2L but also gets ~26mpg. The s2000 is lighter but it's weight doesn't offset the power advantage of the corvette.
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 07, 2012
What matters isn't displacement what matters is the amount of power and performance produced compared to the the weight of the motor and the amount of fuel consumed. For example an s2000 makes 240hp out of 2L but gets ~26mpg
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
@justin They had a rotary truck actually lol but form follows function, it wasnt built for towing or high weight application, same reason why you wouldnt want a 4 cyl in a big truck
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
The need of displacement
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
All I can say is reread my comments and hopefully you will see the light that I'm NOT talking about the rotary TAKING displacements places I've been arguing that the rotarys design and how it works is a system that is a physical replacement for
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
Wankels replaces older wankels. Well no shit it's called progress. Ford mustang doesn't have the same motor in it that it did in the 60s. In that case I only see v8s replacing older v8s. That statement means nothing.
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
@david Do you have ANY knowledge on what is volumetric efficiency? You again are COMPLETELY missing the point. I'm talking on a physics level of replacement for displacement. It's like talking to a child I'm sorry. You keep setting up straw mans
William Downs Dec 07, 2012
U can argue all u want that's its not true but its been proven.. but then again there are still applications in witch higher displacement engines would be better.. everything has its place
William Downs Dec 07, 2012
Im sure everyone loves a v8 and is sad but displacement isn't the only option for making great power anymore, and car companies prove that by using smaller engines... you don't see car companies putting bigger more ppowerful engines in there cars.. there placing smaller displacement forced induction/ hybrid drive trains most of witch make better power figures without raising fuel consumption
William Downs Dec 07, 2012
Rotary powered vehicles weren't designed for the starting line fight, there built to make great power in the higher rpm range where a car racing around the track generally tends to stay, lotus has proven you don't have to have power to be faster, and ford has don't it also with there 3 cylinder eco boost setting a nurburgring record
William Downs Dec 07, 2012
And David did u ever hear of the 787.. that was powered by a rotary engine and dominated the race track with its smaller engine, torque is great for the bottom but torque doesn't help u all that much one your at speed, that's where horsepower become more important,
William Downs Dec 07, 2012
U all also seem to forget that compared to conventional engine the rotary has had little to no research done on it, people ha e been doing research on conventional engine for decades that's why there so advanced, the rotary engine is still a new technology.. it may be old but there hasn't been much research into it
Justin Routh Dec 07, 2012
I can see where David is coming from. Try putting a rotary in a truck it wont replace displacement
David Gomez Dec 07, 2012
The Le Mans argument was for the argument if Torque and the need to not rev up to 10,000 rpm's, Rotaries AGAIN don't have torque and they must rev high just to compete. Is my point not clear?
David Gomez Dec 07, 2012
And how is it hard to understand that rotaries will only replace older designs of rotaries? I don't see a future with them making street able v8 power with any torque at that.
David Gomez Dec 07, 2012
AGAIN, the aren't a replacement for displacement, they may replace little four cylinder engines, but large displacement v8's, rotaries will never replace them.
David Gomez Dec 07, 2012
My argument was torque on rotaries, they don't make torque, that's a reason they can't replace displacement, they are expensive to rebuild. Again a reason they won't replace displacement, too high if a power band.
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
Whether the motor is in current use or not does NOT change how it works. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Richard Nichols Dec 07, 2012
Anyhow does it actually mater? Surely we are all in this because we have one common love, that is the car. After all, home is where the engine is.......
Richard Nichols Dec 07, 2012
Facepalm! Haha, was it not yourself that said that said rotary was a replacement for displacement!
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
Facepalm......wow that's more irrelevant then bringing in le mans
Richard Nichols Dec 07, 2012
No mainstream manufacture other than Mazda produce/sell a wankel and am I correct in believing that Mazda have now dropped the rx8 and therefore it's Wankel engine? Does that therefore replace displacement? I think not.
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
Choose to post, please reply with something on topic, coherent, and containing objective material. Thank you :)
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
As I said earlier you have a few falsehoods with cost and time. And your use of "I bet" shows you have no knowledge on the subject. you keep bringing in your personal opinion of what you want/think but that's not what is being discussed. If you
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
Not what I say it is? So I'm lying about how a rotary works or where it's powerband is? Why are you bring on le mans? That no where near related to the discussion at hand. Wankels are replacing wankels? That made sense. You misspelt displacement
No Pistons Dec 07, 2012
Haha I'm sorry but you said nothing factual there and still fail to see the point
David Gomez Dec 07, 2012
Plus the cost to rebuild a rotary! I bet the mechanics are far and few in between. $$$
David Gomez Dec 07, 2012
And I don't see wankel replacing anything but the older wankels. So give me higher dicplacment (Greater Torque) any day over a sky high revving bomb. And yes, they are more in maintenance. They have to be rebuilt more often than 4 cycle engines.
David Gomez Dec 07, 2012
Still not convinced the wankel is what you say it is. Torque is always better than 7,000-10,000 power any day. Audi and their Le Mans winning diesel engines. Max power under 6,000 rpm and tons of torque from idle.
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
Rotary produces power every turn of the rotors(full rotation=3 ignition events)face whereas a piston motor generates power every other crank (piston must complete a full "up" and "down" motion) thus displacement is needed to make up for this gap
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
About
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
Will be the deciding factor of what one might choose but REGARDLESS of power generated, gas consumed, etc that does NOT change how a rotary and piston motor work, it's HOW the motor works that effects those listed. Again this is NOT what I am talking
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
But none the less you still aren't getting my original point. Rotary is by its properties a replacement for displacement, I am not talking about the consequences(dependent variables) that come into play after either engine design. Those consequences
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
From 4.5k all the way up to 9 (actually even more power once lifted to 10) that's 4.5k rpms of useable power you are sitting in and stay in under performance driving. Maintenance is higher?It's the same as any other car.
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
Ok some falsehoods here. First of all the rotary passes CALIFORNIA'S emissions test! California is the strictest state, it passed it so it's fine. As i said earlier it makes up for torque with powerband, it's called downshifting. Rx8s power band is
David Gomez Dec 06, 2012
This isn't a power discussion, but it has become one. It started with Power, Torque, Emissions, AND Fuel Economy, and rotaries aren't that well with emissions or torque. They can make great power, but maintenance is higher.
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
You do know the rotary was banned from NHRA competition due to its superior surface to volume efficiency (I.e. replacement for displacement)
Colby Church Dec 06, 2012
Put whatever you want on a smaller displacement engine or a rotary, they will NEVER generate that type of power. That power propels those cars from a dead stop to over 300mph in a mere 4 seconds. That's f@%#$@g ridiculous....
Colby Church Dec 06, 2012
I've got one more comment to say regarding power, displacement and the relation to engine size. Proof that smaller engines cannot match the full potential power of large displacement engines= NHRA Top Fuel Dragsters. 8000hp. End of story.
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 06, 2012
Using that a lighter engine spinning slower has less inertia than a heavier OHC engine spinning faster
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 06, 2012
Also inertia is an objects resistance to a change in motion. Which is determined by the coefficient of friction and the the amount of forces being applied to the object. If an object is spinning faster it has a greater amount of force. F=mass*accel
Justin Routh Dec 06, 2012
@Brian the viper is a V10 its .84L per cylinder
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 06, 2012
@richard. High displacement doesn't always mean high weight especially when you are referring to an OHV aluminum engine. The reason euro car companies try to keep displacement down is because many countries have a tax on displacement
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 06, 2012
@brian Bugatti doesn't claim 16.4L it's 16 cylinde 4 turbos and the whole package is 8L. As for the viper it's a v10 not a v8 so it's actually .84L per cylinder.
Brian Johnston Dec 06, 2012
Richard what about astin martin an bentley. They have some monster v8's.
Brian Johnston Dec 06, 2012
Rotory might as well just go electric. Atleast you will get your torque before 8k rpms.
Brian Johnston Dec 06, 2012
Lol bugatti claims 16.4L. Yes its an 8.0L with turbos included. This just further proves that you need large displacement along with forced induction. Also a liter per cylinder isnt crazy. Viper is 1.05L per cylinder.
Justin Routh Dec 06, 2012
15/26mpg. Pretty close and the 5.0 has 70hp more. The Z06's 7L V8 gets it about the same mileage as the GTR's TT V6. There is a replacement for displacement in economical cars but not really as much in performance cars
Justin Routh Dec 06, 2012
The gas mileage is becoming irrelavant in performance V8's too. The mustang gets about the same mileage as the taurus sho with ecoboost. Yeah the sho is heavier but it also has 55hp less. Same story with the 370z it gets 18/26mpg and the stang gets
Richard Nichols Dec 06, 2012
It. At £1.43 per litre it was kinda expensive! Think I'll stick with my small engined sports car with a lotus badge. That's much more British!
Richard Nichols Dec 06, 2012
You chaps over the pond are lucky enough to have cheap fuel, to us Brits running a big block would make us bankrupt just on start up! I had the opportunity to drive a 1970 mustang with a 5ltr motor. After a short 10 mile drive I put 8ltrs of fuel
Vince DeMasi Dec 06, 2012
@patrick I agree! I've got a buddy with a stock Honda and he's all about the fact that his car can go into high rpm's then I tell him I make max torque at 2500 rpm's and he shuts up
Patrick Schalk Dec 06, 2012
I love the guys that think the higher the engine revs, the more power it makes. It's cute.
David Gomez Dec 06, 2012
High revving motors.
David Gomez Dec 06, 2012
And torque makes all the difference guys from across the 'pond' why do you think Mercedes has a 6.2 L v8 in its (forgot the name) sls amg?? Torque baby. We don't use those engines to squeeze the most power out of them like those small displacement
David Gomez Dec 06, 2012
Yeah you aren't going to get tons of torque from a 500 hp 4 liter v8. And if you didn't rev to 8,000 rpm's you wouldn't make that power. Larger displacement makes safer 500 hp at 5,800 rpm's and has greater low mid to high torque ranges.
Tim Preisinger Dec 06, 2012
My buddy shifts his Nova at around 8k while going down the drag strip.
Oren Blumenstein Dec 06, 2012
@richard v8s can't rev high??? lol look at the new gen ls motors, they can rev up to 7500 and if that's not enough what about all those big block drag cars that rev up to 9000-10000+ rpm
Miguel Jimenez Dec 06, 2012
car *from
Miguel Jimenez Dec 06, 2012
Remind me what country is the car that currently holds the Nurburgring record for fastest product car? And what's the size of its displacement I forgot?
Miguel Jimenez Dec 06, 2012
Europeans will never get it huh?
Aaron Crisp Dec 06, 2012
@Richard I see your point! I gotta say I love both. Exhaust tone is amazing on a high revving Ferrari as well as a high displacement low revving V8 :) and Ferrari 458 is 4.5 liter V8 :) it's in the name. Hope things are going good across the pond!
Richard Nichols Dec 06, 2012
500bhp. I know what I'd have. A 8500rpm redline everytime
Richard Nichols Dec 06, 2012
So what I'm saying is that smaller capacity engines have less inertia so therefore rev higher and faster, which in a sports car can only be a good thing. So smaller capacity, high revving, lighter 8, or big capacity low revving heavier 8, both with
Richard Nichols Dec 06, 2012
Love how you guys over the pond in the good ol' US of A like your displacement. I do like how us Europeans make a V8. Ferrari's 458 is what a 4 maybe 5 litre and throws out 500+ bhp, Audi's V8 is 4.2 litres and runs 400+, both rev to close 8500rpm.
Jack Howard Dec 06, 2012
Woo NO PISTONS!! Showing bitches up that don't know their stuff!!!
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
Basing off the 16x. In the racing world rotaries are also one of the most reliable (excluding the dreaded side seal springs on the rx8 and the horrible stock turbos and stock apex's of the Fds3)
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
Make power lol. What they lack in torque they make up in powerband. For mpgs, rotary is still young in its development, look up liquid piston. If Mazda can incorporate this then we can easily have a 22+ mpg 1.6 liter 300hp+ NA rotary.
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
Fact a replacement for size. How? Volumetric efficiency. It is physically impossible for a piston motor to achieve the levels a rotary is capable due to its design. The 787b was a NA 2.6 liter rotary tuned DOWN to 700hp, yup sounds like they can't
No Pistons Dec 06, 2012
Not practical. It was more so an example that extreme performance can be achieved through tech rather then size. I should have also clarified my point on replacement. I was referring to the actual physical properties of the rotary, it's design IS in
No Pistons Dec 05, 2012
Torn down inspected cleaned then rebuilt, not because they are unreliable it's just even half a hp counts. They are also running at 18,000rpms they could be built down to street car level but those motors alone cost your soul and then some so it's
No Pistons Dec 05, 2012
Wow thanks for putting me in the spotlight haha alrighty got a few points to address here. First of all the f1 motors actually have a strong lifespan it's just at that level of competition, motors need to be in tip top shape every race so they are
Tim Preisinger Dec 05, 2012
I still think there is no replacement for displacement. Sure a smaller liter motor with a turbo can net you some power, but you can always turbo the larger motor too and make even more power
Aaron Crisp Dec 05, 2012
You guys have awoken the sleeping pistonless dragon!
Matt Piccolo Dec 05, 2012
Rotaries may not be the most economical, but damn do they sound good! Especially @ 9000 rpm's :) And they make some pretty impressive ## too!
Johnny Francis Dec 05, 2012
A lot of smaller displacement engines make tons of power. Replace the displacement with turbos :)
Devin Babyn Dec 05, 2012
You can get massive power out of a rotary
David Gomez Dec 05, 2012
I'm not saying they are bad. But good power, torque, mpg's, and emissions. That is one thing a rotary cannot do.
Jordan Smith Dec 05, 2012
No pistons knows his rotaries well. I'm sure he has info to back up his statement.
Jimmy Case Dec 05, 2012
Rotary motors are awful though.
David Gomez Dec 05, 2012
Lol Jordan, true. Also, Rotaries are probably the worst candidates for economy and power.
Jordan Smith Dec 05, 2012
Don't those V8s only last like one race though?
No Pistons Dec 05, 2012
Also you don't need to go bigger, look at the power of f1 motors, v8s under 3 liters making 800hp
No Pistons Dec 05, 2012
Rotary is a replacement for displacement
Will Ridgway Dec 05, 2012
Haha yeah Brian I don't think that there is more than a liter per cylinder in the Bugatti lol.
Jordan Smith Dec 05, 2012
Car buzzer not trolling for once. That's new.
Chaz Gill Dec 05, 2012
Exactly what Colby said
Thibault Leroy Dec 05, 2012
Yeah car buzzer is correct
Car Buzzer Dec 05, 2012
Erm, 16.4 refers to the cylinder and turbocharger count of the veyron, respectively. It's an 8 L.
Clay Williams Dec 05, 2012
The viper has the largest engine in production. So yes it is the king of displacement.
Brian Johnston Dec 05, 2012
Bugatti veyron is 16.4L Dodge Viper is 8.4L. Astin martin one-77 is 7.3L saleen s7 is 7.0L Mercedes SLS AMG is 6.3L. My favorite the shelby ac cobra is 7.0L......... So No there really isnt a replacement for displacement.
Colby Church Dec 05, 2012
And more displacement is still more conventional and also less technical. I can fix a big block in my garage, what about this new technology? Nope, take it to the dealer. That's gay if you ask me.
Colby Church Dec 05, 2012
Corvette.
Jordan Jackson Dec 05, 2012
One word: Viper
Description: Arguably at the forefront of the Replacement for Displacement camp, somewhat ironically, is Ford. We say "ironically" because Ford has long championed big engines, slotting large-displacemen...
Add Comments 13
Mladen Sakotic Dec 13, 2012
@maguel The r34 skyline would blow the has amazing torque. And it didn't need a v8. Just am i6 with a turbo. With a few upgrades it can blow away any mussel car.
Vince DeMasi Dec 06, 2012
@david or how about the trans am, it took the name right from the race
David Gomez Dec 06, 2012
I bet a late 60's muscle car could go round a track better than a same era Japanese car. They were built for trans am racing. Boss 302 and camaro z/28 are greater than any Japanese car in '69.
Oren Blumenstein Dec 06, 2012
everyone says that the japanese were the first to turbocharge cars? are you forgetting the 62' corvair?
Devin Babyn Dec 06, 2012
Ka24. Was good enough to put right into a truck
Jordan Smith Dec 05, 2012
Japanese cars weren't known for their torque the same way 60s muscle cars weren't known for their handling. Both had ups and downs but in the end both were great and remembered, right?
Miguel Jimenez Dec 05, 2012
@Matt name one.
Matt Piccolo Dec 05, 2012
@ David, there're a few 90's jap sports cars that have some pretty good low end torque!
Jesse Andersen Dec 05, 2012
There is no replacement for displacement. Ford was never in the muscle car run in my opinion tho. Look at all the SS Chevys, the 426 Hemis, and all that. I've always hated fords tho so that could be it. Galaxie wasn't muscle either.
David Gomez Dec 05, 2012
I don't think Japanese auto makers ever produced massive cubic inch v8's for power. They never got very much torque from their small turbo engines at low rpm's either. So no they haven't done this.
Jordan Smith Dec 05, 2012
Here comes an argument.
Nodnarb Ydil Dec 05, 2012
That's the American way
John M Weishahn Dec 05, 2012
So Ford's new idea is to do what European and Japanese automakers have been doing for decades?
Joshua Grant Robinson Dec 08, 2012
Build it and ill through my iPhone out in traffic! A phone forget it! I'll get a job in each town I run out of gas in and drive it till the wheels fall off!
Leevi Halén Dec 06, 2012
7:22 at the 'Ring
Tim Preisinger Dec 05, 2012
Lol @ Miguel
Matt Piccolo Dec 05, 2012
Miguel, amazingly, this isn't actually the first! We've agreed on things before!
Josh Banning Dec 05, 2012
It's road legal as well
Miguel Jimenez Dec 05, 2012
Everyone screen shot this, because this will be the last time Matt and Patrick will ever agree on something!
Matt Piccolo Dec 05, 2012
Agreed!
Patrick Schalk Dec 05, 2012
Well this looks fun!
Description: After replacing some of its V8s with a smaller 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6, Ford started downsizing other engines, too. V6s have gradually been replaced by a 2.0-liter EcoBoost inline-four, and after delive...
Add Comments 1
Jack Howard Dec 06, 2012
I like V6...
Description: BMW, for example, is replacing the V8 and V10 in its M3 and M5/M6 models with turbocharged six- and eight-cylinder engines, and power is only increasing. Audi has also dropped the V10 from its RS6...
Add Comments 7
Adam Beiersdorfer Dec 06, 2012
"Tune" yeah auto correct...
Adam Beiersdorfer Dec 06, 2012
Or better yet,ECU flash for an easy 100+ hp gain.Not to mention Torque gains. Turbo's from factory make it sooo much easier and less expensive to time these things up... But that's just it... Some want the end product, not the work to get it there
Aaron Crisp Dec 06, 2012
Or it means you can simply swap out that turbo or up the boost to a safe level! :)
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 06, 2012
Cole if you believe that then you have never heard of a gtr supra 300zx rx7 3000gt wrx or evo
Cole Stovall Dec 05, 2012
A turbocharged factory engine just means less power left for the after-market parts to pull out if it. Which isn't always a good thing.
Jake Knickmeyer Dec 05, 2012
You really don't understand the point of this article, do you Jesse?
Jesse Andersen Dec 05, 2012
Why not turbo a v-8 or 10? Or even supercharge it? Why take the female/less work route and cheat the customer? Old cars over new.
Janak Solanki Dec 07, 2012
I miss that V-10.
Dimitry Mikhailovich Malikov Dec 06, 2012
One of my friends recently changed his E60 M5 to this and for some reason we both like the previous more. Maybe because of the V10.
Isaac Jacob Jimenez Dec 05, 2012
Just came at work
Description: Even Maserati, which just revealed the new engines developed for the latest Quattroporte, has downsized its engines, but increased their output. While the outgoing QP was launched with a 4.2-liter V8 ...
Add Comments 17
Blake Latson Dec 08, 2012
"...goes the way of the dinosaurs whose fossils it burns." Perhaps the most geologically ignorant statement ever printed.
Jack Howard Dec 06, 2012
I like to think I have fossils in my tank... AND GO HYDROGEN!!!
Miguel Jimenez Dec 05, 2012
@John not everything they put on the internet is true...
Shelby Cassandra Dec 05, 2012
It comes from organic substances. This includes plants, microorganisms, dinosaurs, etc.
John Diller Dec 05, 2012
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurcontroversies/a/Does-Oil-Come-From-Dinosaurs.htm
John Diller Dec 05, 2012
Oh whatever do some research
Jesse Andersen Dec 05, 2012
Yup. John gets the uneducated award of the night. Too bad he thinks he is, makes it funnier for me tho.
John Diller Dec 05, 2012
It's the decomposition of plant life over millions of years, please don't tell me you believe your pumping a T. rex into your cars
David Justice Dec 05, 2012
Hydrogen powers rockets and byproduct is only water. Win/win! Ha
Jordan Smith Dec 05, 2012
Hydrogen and natural gas ftmfw.
Ben Norton Dec 05, 2012
John they call them fossil fuels for a reason. All the plants and animals that died millions of years ago
Rueben J Yslas Dec 05, 2012
I hope John diller is jokin.
David Justice Dec 05, 2012
I'm hoping for hydrogen.
Devin Babyn Dec 05, 2012
Look Miguel it happened again
Matt Piccolo Dec 05, 2012
Very true pat!
Patrick Schalk Dec 05, 2012
Natural gas will be a big contender soon. We have tons of it.
John Diller Dec 05, 2012
Fossil fuels aren't from dinosaurs....
Description: Of course there will always be some enthusiasts for whom there will never be any replacement for displacement, and automakers will continue building cars to suit them for as long as regulations and pu...
Add Comments 12
Antonio Falsetti Dec 08, 2012
We have a name for those people. It's stubborn. You can buy a car with a turbo 4 making more power and better fuel efficiency then a na v6. You can tune that same turbo 4 to make more power then a na v8.
Vince DeMasi Dec 06, 2012
I couldn't have said it better Colby, people don't buy a vette to save gas they want the full package of speed and looks
Cole Stovall Dec 05, 2012
The "times" hurt my mustang purist heart.
Colby Church Dec 05, 2012
Here I am :) I don't foresee a V6. People like the V8 for various reasons, and a TT V6 will never have that raw, evil, spine tingling sound like a V8, even of displacement can ever be matched. We love the V8. If you want a V6, buy something else.
Jordan Smith Dec 05, 2012
Where's Colby? I am 100% sure that the C7 won't be getting a V6. If the Corvette does get a V6 later on, it would never be placed above a V8. The V6 would be the base model.
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 05, 2012
People have been saying the corvette will be mid engined and have a six cylinder since before the launch of the c5.
Nodnarb Ydil Dec 05, 2012
From what I've read, the (possible) V6TT would sit just above the base v8 in the corvette. An I6 would be interesting choice for the Vette too
Thibault Leroy Dec 05, 2012
No one wanrs a 6 in a vette
Eli Bonner Dec 05, 2012
Why not just scrap the V8 and make the 6 the top engine?
Dylan Bruder Dec 05, 2012
It's unlikely one will appear in the c7 it's hinted possible for c8 I just hope it's a no go
Devin Babyn Dec 05, 2012
They already announced the base engine for the Vette so where would they slot in a TT v6. And Fords stated it's going to be a T 4 banger
Dylan Bruder Dec 05, 2012
I know the i6 was in the vette in 53-54 but I hope they don't go back to them it doesn't seem right anymore
Jordan Smith Dec 05, 2012
I love Audis. They can look a little bland in some places, but they're so sleek and smooth.
Matt Piccolo Dec 05, 2012
Mmmmm, sexy Audi!!!! Mmmmm
Chris Huff Dec 05, 2012
Well....this car looks familier
Troy Kessler Dec 05, 2012
Rs6 avant ..want
Walter Alexander Thomas Dec 06, 2012
You guys. No one copy Hyundai. It is clear that Hyundai and Kia is copying other car companies. Their vehicles looks nice but they r really copying others.
Aaron Crisp Dec 06, 2012
Is this the new C7?
Paul Dickey Dec 05, 2012
Thanks for clearing that up Ian. Couldn't tell from the big Maserati emblem on the grille there.
Ian Demroff Dec 05, 2012
This is a maserati ppl
Mohammed Shamma Dec 05, 2012
This car is growing on me
Matt Piccolo Dec 05, 2012
Yea where did u see a Hyundai that looks like this lol? If there was one, there might actually be a Hyundai I'd buy :)
Paul Dickey Dec 05, 2012
Damn where do you live that hyundais look like that!?
Alex Santaspirt Dec 05, 2012
Looks way too much like a Hyundai
Eric Burns Dec 05, 2012
This looks like it packs a punch
John M Weishahn Dec 05, 2012
*drool*
Ikram Yunus Dec 06, 2012
Its like E46 tail light but smaller n sharper
Stephen Tyler Learn Dec 06, 2012
I can't tell the difference
Dimitry Mikhailovich Malikov Dec 06, 2012
Am I the only one who doesn't like the facelift?