340 Vs 360
This is the goal. I don't see the downside to this.
I get what you're saying, there are limitations to rpm which increase with displacement.
But I'd rather have more horsepower with less RPM than more RPM with less horsepower.
Because horsepower is performance.
With you so far.
Is there a specific reason why this is a problem?
Besides your personal appreciation for an engine's ability to turn RPM?
Isn't "needing more rpm" the thing that happens when you have a smaller engine, too?
"Who cares?"
About torque?
I think torque is something that lots of people would consider to be relevant when judging an engine's performance.
Not the only thing, but it is relevant.
"Better" seems to be a bit subjective.
I think it would have made less horsepower with the smaller displacement, which is difficult for me to consider as being better.
It's my opinion that it would have taken a "bigger" cam or some other kind of top end optimization to match the hp output of the larger engine.
I have never seen a situation where an increase in displacement didn't pickup at least a few ponies
If they had both made the same 545hp, and the gear ratios were then optimized for each. I respectfully disagree.
I think they'd perform comparably.
But I am open to a discussion as to why 545hp @ 7200rpm is going to provide faster acceleration than 545hp @ 5200rpm in a car of equal weight
I'm not saying you're wrong.
But would you be able to provide an example of a situation where a decrease in displacement resulted in a real world measurable performance gain?
I gave you two examples of smaller engines being quicker and faster even at the same horsepower.
Think about this. I have to make the math easy because I don’t feel like doing a bunch of math today.
Lets say you have 1320 feet to get the job done. But it doesn’t matter because any length of course will work. Or even on the street. That’s why God gave man the brains to make transmissions. Never overlook that fact.
You’ve got 1320 feet. And your car does 10 flat. At let’s say…6000 RPM. That means you have 100 RPM per second. You divide that by two (because the crank has to turn twice to make one cycle) and you get 50 firing cycles per second. You following this?
You make power by firing the cylinder. Even at the same horsepower.
In the above example for a 10 second run you get 500 firing cycles during the run. That’s it. In fact, the crank only turns 1000 times!!!!!! That’s not many times is it.
Now let’s say that we change the engine up so that it makes the exact same HP but it does it at 7500 RPM. That’s 125 RPM/Sec. That’s 25% more RPM/Sec that at 6000 RPM.
That means you have the crank turning 1250 times during a 10 second run. Which is 650 firing cycles during the same run. You have 150 MORE times that the cylinder is making power.
And you say so what? It’s still running 10 flat. Maybe, but the car should go quicker IF you tune the chassis and converter for the higher RPM and more firing cycles.
Thats at the same HP. You can’t take gearing and converter out of it because it matters.
Thats why I can say I could have built the same engine as above with LESS stroke and MORE RPM and gone quicker and faster with less displacement.
Of course, this is somewhat simplified because the RPM used is peak and not the average RPM a going down the track.
Obviously you launch at an RPM lower than 6000 or 7500 RPM, and you have RPM fall back at the gear change. But the fact remains that RPM will INCREASE displacement!!! It sure does.
Every time you fire the cylinder you are displacing 1/8 of your total CID. If you fire the cylinder more times you are effectively increasing the displacement.
It‘s amazing how so many discount or even ignore gearing and gear ratios. It’s a simple concept.
Just like a longer wrench will give you more leverage than a shorter wrench, lower gearing gives you more leverage than a longer stroke will.