Which would you choose - physical or effective displacement?

[300bhp/ton]

Assuming you were to be given or were going to by 'x' car. Something that maybe looks like this:


or this:


or even this:



Now lets assume power, torque, weight, C of G, weight distribution are all pretty much equal. Which would you prefer and why?


Larger displacement n/a V8

or

Smaller displacement turbo 4 cylinder




EDIT: I know some of you will have other preferences in engine configuration and type. But just trying to see what the general PH consensus is on this market shift from n/a large displacement engines (often specialist) to much smaller highly tuned forced induction everyday engines.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 24th February 15:43

[kambites]

Where's the option for "I couldn't care less"?

Although I'd imagine given those rather weighted criteria, everyone would take the V8.

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

Where's the option for "I couldn't care less"?

Think you already clicked on it

ie - don't vote

[soad]

Option A for the sheer noise

[lazyitus]

Gotta be a thumping V8, Surely ?

Sound alone wins this argument.

[kambites]

300bhp/ton said:

Think you already clicked on it

ie - don't vote

Oh no, I'd take the V8 given those criteria.

[Meoricin]

On a pure comparison of engines, it'd be the larger one every time. However, when it comes to choosing cars in the real world I would usually prefer the smaller turbo option, due to the kind of cars they tend to be offered on.

[edo]

V8. before Brussels/Veggies spoil all the fun.

[kambites]

[redacted]

[v8will]

Large displacement V8 and the turbo the bh!

[300bhp/ton]

[redacted]

[LeighW]

Hmm, difficult. I love the noise of a V8, but I also love the shove in the back you get when a turbo comes on boost. So, I'll have a turbocharged V8 please...

[petrolsniffer]

Physical everytime

As they say 'Theres no replacement for displacement'

[ZOLLAR]

petrolsniffer said:

Physical everytime

As they say 'Theres no replacement for displacement'

Beat me too it, V8 all the way.

[RobM77]

Well, I like lightweight cars, but above all I like throttle response, and most turbocharged engines that I've driven have awful throttle response (135, 335i etc). Also, turbocharged engines can be unpredictable and difficult mid corner and on corner exit (Noble M400 for example). So I've voted for the normally aspirated engine.

[robsco]

If I was going to be pedantic, I'd prefer a highly strung six-cylinder unit over both. But for the purposes of this thread, I chose the V8 option, for the noise alone.

[vixen1700]

V8 for the noise of the thing, when revving or just burbling along the high street.

I remember having an arguement with my cousain in Cananda in the mid '80s about just how much better something like a Renault 5 Turbo was compared to his mate's Plymouth 'Cuda.

What a young naive fool I was then.

[Alfanatic]

Your OP robs the 4 cylinder engine of all the advantages it would otherwise have except fuel consumption (if you don't cane it), so, on the basis that the V8 would win even without that help, it's going to win emphatically under the conditions of the OP.

[Diablos-666]

V8 for me please brummmmmm brummmmmmm brummmmmmmm

[300bhp/ton]

Alfanatic said:

Your OP robs the 4 cylinder engine of all the advantages it would otherwise have except fuel consumption (if you don't cane it), so, on the basis that the V8 would win even without that help, it's going to win emphatically under the conditions of the OP.

I don't agree.

The added weight of all the turbo gubbins could easily make the total dressed engine weights a lot closer than many would like.

Even more so if the I4 is a cast iron block as often used in high boost applications.

I admit their is a possible weight advantage, but I'd be amazed if it was more than 50kg all in. And a V8 would probably still have the better C of G.

As for fuel consumption, not convinced on that one either - having run both setups.




EDIT:

Quick Google suggests an Evo 4G63 engine weighs about 300lbs/136kg. But I don't think that's fully dressed or with fluids or including turbo, manifold, intercooler, pipe work, oil feed and anything else used to make it a turbocharged.


I think an LS1 weighs about 385lbs/175kg with oil and 430lbs/195kg dressed according to Google. I'm lead to believe a Jaguar AJV8 weighs very similar.

So if you factor in the extra bits for a turbo 4, I suspect total weight difference is likely to be 40-90kg range +-