Some love it.....Some hate it
- Thread starter silverspeed03
- Start date
I
intak3_bLkMs3
we found the replacement for displacement but i still love goats alot.. when im done gettin my business up ms3 might be my daily and ima build a gto
LOL
I love the GTO... its one of the only American cars I would buy (CTS-V is the other)
Don't forget the G8 GT. I'd take one of those over a GTO or a CST-V. Especially when you factor in price.
Silver Ecstasy
Member
- :
- 11 MS3 Sport
LOL
I love the GTO... its one of the only American cars I would buy (CTS-V is the other
I had one, and they were definitely a blast. GOBS of power. But, don't let it be a humid Michigan summer day. Heatsoak robs all the power out of those engines. It almost feels like you went from 400 crank hp to 300 or less.
Same people say nitrous is cheating.
Cheating = ramming someone off the road.
Swampy RUBBIN'S RACIN'!!
- :
- 03 Protege ES 5spd
its really all about what you want out of a car. if i wanted to drag race, i'd buy a gto or mustang, if i wanted to do a track car i'd buy a MS3 or RX8. We care about decent acceleration with great handling, thats why we're on a mazda forum. V8 guys prefer to go straight, generally. Its what gets your human motor running, I4's V8's W12's, whatever. Its not about size, its about enjoyment, lol. I've always wanted a 70 gto, but i also want an RX7 and an Exige, sooo.... 
Honestly the ONLY drawback to the MS3 I could possibly, realistically comment on IS a displacement issue.
I WISH the MS3 had the 'throat/beast' sound of an increased displacement. Other than that I really think I prefer the feel of a turbo. Even if I had a big V8 I'd be looking for a turbo. There is no replacement for displacement, but there is ALSO no replacement for when that turbo kicks in and instantly pushes you into your seat and you hear the car SUCKING air it makes me just want to grind my teeth right now because that feeling is like starting to have sex, the same chemical brain-dump happens in me. I LOVE the turbo.
I WISH the MS3 had the 'throat/beast' sound of an increased displacement. Other than that I really think I prefer the feel of a turbo. Even if I had a big V8 I'd be looking for a turbo. There is no replacement for displacement, but there is ALSO no replacement for when that turbo kicks in and instantly pushes you into your seat and you hear the car SUCKING air it makes me just want to grind my teeth right now because that feeling is like starting to have sex, the same chemical brain-dump happens in me. I LOVE the turbo.
happy and angry
Member
What you have found in a turbo is a way of forcing more air in to the cylinder to burn more fuel. You effectively "simulate" a larger displacement combustion chamber that can hold more air. You haven't replaced displacement, you've just found a way to maximize what you can do with the displacement you have.
Power comes from the burning of fuel, and the more of it you can burn the more power you can create. Consider a faked and drastically simplified situation with easy numbers for the sake of argument (please ignore how simplified this is, it's just to illustrate a point):
Two motors, 2.0L 4cyl and 4.0L 6cyl, 6.0 8cyl, all running 10:1 compression. Total combustion volume for each is 200cc, 400cc, and 600cc respectively. Total combustion volume for each cylinder in the 4cyl is 50cc, in the 6cyl is 66.67cc, and in the 8cyl is 75cc. There is a limit to how much air/fuel mixture you can compress and fit in a 50cc space and still have it gasified enough for effective combustion, and that limit is going to be smaller than in a 66.67cc space or a 75cc space. The volume of the motor is what limits the volume of air you can fit in it, and the volume of air is what limits how much fuel you can burn in it, and the volume of fuel you burn is what produces power.
Our turbocharged 2.3L DISI motor pumps out the same power as a larger motor BECAUSE we cram more air (and then more fuel) into it. When we're on it hard and the turbo is doing its work, we suck in more air like a bigger motor, we can then burn more fuel like a bigger motor, and we produce more power like a bigger motor because of it. But if you go out and force feed a larger displacement engine, it's going to be doing the same things.
You can't replace displacement in terms of power potential. You can just sort of fake it.
Power comes from the burning of fuel, and the more of it you can burn the more power you can create. Consider a faked and drastically simplified situation with easy numbers for the sake of argument (please ignore how simplified this is, it's just to illustrate a point):
Two motors, 2.0L 4cyl and 4.0L 6cyl, 6.0 8cyl, all running 10:1 compression. Total combustion volume for each is 200cc, 400cc, and 600cc respectively. Total combustion volume for each cylinder in the 4cyl is 50cc, in the 6cyl is 66.67cc, and in the 8cyl is 75cc. There is a limit to how much air/fuel mixture you can compress and fit in a 50cc space and still have it gasified enough for effective combustion, and that limit is going to be smaller than in a 66.67cc space or a 75cc space. The volume of the motor is what limits the volume of air you can fit in it, and the volume of air is what limits how much fuel you can burn in it, and the volume of fuel you burn is what produces power.
Our turbocharged 2.3L DISI motor pumps out the same power as a larger motor BECAUSE we cram more air (and then more fuel) into it. When we're on it hard and the turbo is doing its work, we suck in more air like a bigger motor, we can then burn more fuel like a bigger motor, and we produce more power like a bigger motor because of it. But if you go out and force feed a larger displacement engine, it's going to be doing the same things.
You can't replace displacement in terms of power potential. You can just sort of fake it.
bulls***
do I need to find you the FS-DE (yea one of the crappiest motors mazda makes) thats kicking out 600+whp in puerto rico?
yes a 2.0 liter that can do that
my comment was stating that you CAN kick out high horsepower/torque out of low displacement turbocharged cars
how its done is not through putting on a gt9409293542375 turbocharger on it and trying to shove as much air, its done by reviewing compressor maps and finding that perfect balance between pressure and volume per RPM, then getting it in a functional setup on the car
the only upgrade that you need are injectors that can keep up the a/f ratio in a good range of about 12-14:1 and a fuel pump that can get the fuel to those injectors....not by putting the displacement to like 6.0liters, thats pointless....
why just dump a sh*tload of fuel into a cylinder, compress it, and see what happens when you can properly tune a low displacement, low fuel engine to kick out just as much horsepower?
talk about wasted gas...
happy and angry
Member
You know, I've simplified things for a reason, and I'm going to keep things simple for that same reason. So that hopefully you'll get it.
You can find many examples of tuned, built, blown 2.0L motors putting out big numbers. And then you can go find many examples of tuned, built, blown 4.0L motors putting out bigger numbers because, hey, guess what, greater displacement ultimately means you can burn more fuel per cylce at a given RPM range.
I'm sorry you disagree with, uh, science, I guess, but you're arguing an indefensible position.
You can do some pretty neat things with motors these days. If you take two engine blocks, one 2.0L and one 4.0L and you build them up in basically the same way, fully tuned running 15PSI of boost, sufficient fuel, good AF ratio through the entire RPM range, the 4.0L motor is going to be producing more power. Period. We're talking in terms of potential, here. Take two motors, one smaller than the other, and take them both to the bleeding edge of engine technology, and you already know which one is going to be making more power.
There is a reason why there are displacement restrictions in most racing circuits and why 600cc bikes don't race with 1000cc bikes, for example. Care to guess why that might be?
You can find many examples of tuned, built, blown 2.0L motors putting out big numbers. And then you can go find many examples of tuned, built, blown 4.0L motors putting out bigger numbers because, hey, guess what, greater displacement ultimately means you can burn more fuel per cylce at a given RPM range.
I'm sorry you disagree with, uh, science, I guess, but you're arguing an indefensible position.
You can do some pretty neat things with motors these days. If you take two engine blocks, one 2.0L and one 4.0L and you build them up in basically the same way, fully tuned running 15PSI of boost, sufficient fuel, good AF ratio through the entire RPM range, the 4.0L motor is going to be producing more power. Period. We're talking in terms of potential, here. Take two motors, one smaller than the other, and take them both to the bleeding edge of engine technology, and you already know which one is going to be making more power.
There is a reason why there are displacement restrictions in most racing circuits and why 600cc bikes don't race with 1000cc bikes, for example. Care to guess why that might be?
Last edited:
