There is no replacement for displacement

[Captain Muppet]

300bhp/ton said:

In fact on simple fact value there is:

-engine with no displacement
-engine with displacement

Can you via anything make the first one do the same as the second without any displacement?

I can make an electric motor generate any torque curve you want.

I could engineer an entire world without internal combustion of any kind. It'll come at the cost of quite a bit of money and social upheaval, but it's possible.

[Captain Muppet]

xRIEx said:

Captain Muppet said:

To get 40% more power the displacement did not increase by 40%.

There is a replacement for displacement, it's called engineering.

I think the biggest problem with cliches is people misunderstanding what they actually mean (or meant in the first place) and using them out of context.

'Torque/power curve' has already been mentioned in this thread, so I'll leave that.

Of course, good engineering makes a fixed engine capacity produce more power (F1, LMP, etc.). However, working outside of fixed-capacity regulations, anything you can engineer for a {small size} engine you can also engineer for a {large size} engine. Throw £10m at the 3.4l engine to get {impressive number}BHP out of it? Cool. Now throw £10m at the Viper's V10 and let me know what the output is.

So fundamentally/theoretically there is no replacement for displacement - however, real world situations, specific applications and budgets mean there are more suitable real world alternatives.

Captain Muppet said:

this thread is about is what those words actually mean when placed in that order, rather than what that phrase stands for as a philosophy.