But when you add those options to the large displacment engines you get even more power. This is the point they are trying to make.Originally Posted by ray_sir_6
Except for turbos and other power adders.My grammy taught me as a wee babe... "There's no replacement for displacement."
Wealth, power, and experience are apparently not enough to save us from social influences. Groupthink, as described by I.L.Janis, is the tendency for group members to reach a consensus opinion, even if that decision is downright stupid (Janis 1982).
But when you add those options to the large displacment engines you get even more power. This is the point they are trying to make.
Any plans to reply to my last post, or is it too rational for you to wrap your head around?
When a turbo is added to a larger displacement motor, it will displace less volume with the addition of compressed air, therefore negating any benefit. This is FI 101.
I got my popcorn ready!
Blah blah blah!
WTF you smoking? The whole purpose of forced induction is to get more oxygen into the cylinder so you can burn more gas. The higher the intake preassure the more O2 in the charge per unit volume(displacement). So at the same pressure with the the same set up the larger displacement engine will be able to burn more fuel and make more power.When a turbo is added to a larger displacement motor, it will displace less volume with the addition of compressed air, therefore negating any benefit. This is FI 101.
BTW: Displacement of an engine is fixed by the choice of bore and stroke when it is assembled. Changing the charge density does not change the displacement of the engine. It just changes the cylinder preasure when the gas/air mixture is compressed.
Last edited by HudsonHawk; 08-03-2009 at 12:37 PM.
I'm going on Ray logic here.
Sorry did not catch the sarcasm.
I'm that good.
Dammit, reading comprehension fail. I assumed the 1.6L dyno Ray posted was the first one in red, oh well. I forgot Ray lives in a magical word where his turbo makes more power per psi than any other turbo miata on the planet.
All my content is still valid, I just would have went at this a different way.
Last edited by Braineack; 08-03-2009 at 01:12 PM.
Please... make it STOP
--
Dave"Opinions are like
..."
+1 all things being = a larger motor will make more power than a smaller motor.
I have 900 cubic inches at 20:1 CR running 42 psi of boost, does that count? You guys are fun.
Stripe Das Sape
We are leading the world to democracy by example.
Dyno?
Chris
91 Miata (#3), Rattle Can Grey(previous owner), Greddy Turbo @7 PSI and Manifold (Only items remaining from the kit), TDR I/C, Godspeed Radiator, RM DP, 2.5 Enthuza Bipes, BEGI AFPR, ACT, Lightened Stock Flywheel, Yellow Konis, FCM on Stock Springs, HDM2S, MOMO Wheel, Ratsback Front CF Lip, Black Rota's on EcstaXS, Corrado Rotors & XP8's on Front w/ 1.8 rears.
http://austinmiata.com/
Wishlist: Megasquirt to run 12-13 PSI, White non-spray paint job, 8" 6UL's, RX7 LSD, Evans Waterless Coolant
It's a waste of money! If you had a meth kit and a 1.6 you'd be making more power since the boost would make more displacement...
I have 900 cubic inches at 20:1 CR running 42 psi of boost, does that count? You guys are fun.
'94 Black & Black & Tan
'99 head swap, JR header, TDR intake & header blanket, MegaSquirt, RB hollow bar, Tein Flex, 15x8 6ULs, HD M2 Sport, FM cat, Borla cat-back, black '95M interior, MOMO Zebrano, IL Motorsport console...
Dyno Days
8/16/08 (bone stock): 103.1 hp/99.0 lb-ft - Dynojet
8/23/08 (Borla cat-back): 108.2 hp/104.1 lb-ft - Dynojet
8/13/11 (more stuff...): 126 hp/116 lb-ft - Mustang dyno
Roger Moore: the Danny White of James Bonds
And the guy would be spending more for his build than the 1.6l. The 1.6l could get some cams and then have even more top-end power. Too bad they don't have any good cams for a 1.8l, right? So I guess as far as preferred heads goes, a 1.6l would be the way to go if you wanted to get lots of lift and flow, even compared to a 99 head.
You want a great example for CR, boost, and power?
4G63 6-bolt – 7.8:1CR Stock 8psi
Rated power – 195hp
4G63 7-bolt – 8.5:1CR Stock 10psi
Rated power – 210hp
Is that a good enough comparison for compression ratios? And the 2G has a SMALLER turbo than the 1G.
Wealth, power, and experience are apparently not enough to save us from social influences. Groupthink, as described by I.L.Janis, is the tendency for group members to reach a consensus opinion, even if that decision is downright stupid (Janis 1982).
I have mine governed at 1450 rpm so it's only making 550 Hp at 1450 with peak torque of 2050 fp at 1250 rpm. That was done to prevent the mileage from dropping below 3mpg while climbing a hill at 60 mph.
Stripe Das Sape
We are leading the world to democracy by example.
So what's the fuel pressure set at?
My little 2254cc had 22.5:1 CR N.A. with ~2500psi off the fuel injectors. I hear they have gone way up on fuel pressure since then. I sold it at 290k.
Chevy LUV
05 MX-5 Mazdaspeed #1024 Titanium Gray Mica
You want a great example for CR, boost, and power?
4G63 6-bolt – 7.8:1CR Stock 8psi
Rated power – 195hp
4G63 7-bolt – 8.5:1CR Stock 10psi
Rated power – 210hp
Is that a good enough comparison for compression ratios? And the 2G has a SMALLER turbo than the 1G.[/QUOTE]
No suprise the one with higher CR and more boost is making more power. What's your point?
Posting Permissions
