Is a car with a 2.0 l engine faster than a car with a 1.5 l engine? Is that how it works? Sorry
>>28117583uhm ackschually it depends
>>28117583Horsepower is literally the only thing that matters and don't let any commie fags tell you otherwise.More power = more better
>>28117585Oh ok
>>28117588Does engine size determine horsepower?
>>28117583i think usually a 2 litre engine will be faster than a 1.5 litre yes>>28117588i have a Audi a4 2021 which google says has 261 horsepower and i still got gapped by a ford fiesta last night so clearly not the only thing that matters
>>28117591>no replacement for displacementIts the truest saying there is when it comes to cars for one reason. More air = more power. Thats really all its about.A engine with more displacement will always have the advantage when it comes to power. Sure you can Turbo / SC a smaller engine to equal or surpass the power of a larger engine, but all you're doing is effectively adding more air (i.e. displacement) and at some point, you're going to run out of power you can make at X displacement. So a smaller engine with a Turbo isn't truly a 2.0L or 1.5L or what have you engine.I mean its no surprise that all things being equal, a larger N/A engine will make more power than a N/A small engine. Or a larger Supercharged engine makes more power than a small turbocharged one in most cases.The saying is from a time where Turbos and Superchargers weren't as reliable, as cheap or as effective as they are now so the best way to make power was just to cram as much displacement as you could into an engine.
>>28117608Thank you I appreciate the explanation:)
>>28117583assuming that the tires, center of gravity, chassis and traction are identicalon a straight line: power per weightin a corner: weight
>>28117655*until a speed where drag is the main force, than power becomes more important since you fight against the drag onlyalso if you have more downforce it will change conditions of cornering but lower weight here still increases cornering speed.
>>28117597Those boyracers have nice torque. Also most likely chiptuned.
>>28117588>Horsepower is literally the only thing that matters>1987 Mustang - 225hp - 13.9s @98.8mph 1/4>2015 Challenger - 305hp - 14.7s @97mph 1/4Explain?
>>28117729gears
>>28117729jews
>>281177375spd, 2.73 or 3.08 diff. Vs8spd, 2.65 or 3.06 diff Seems wrong, try again.
>>28117729the mustang is 1300kg while the challenger is 2000kg
>>28117747shifting is not a factor since the zf shifts really fast so it must be the weight of the car
>>28117737>T5>1st-3.35, 2nd-1.93, 3rd-1.26, 4th-1.00, 5th-.68Vs>ZF8HP45>1st-4.71, 2nd-3.14, 3rd-2.11, 4th-1.67, 5th-1.29, 6th-1.00, 7th-0.84, 8th-0.67Like>>28117747 mentioned, the diff options are similar. So the Challenger has a pretty significant gearing advantage and is still slower. Where did all the extra power go?>>28117793>>28117796>3080lbsVs>3950lbsNow we're getting somewhere. Don't forget 300lb-ft vs 260lb-ft as well. It's almost as if BHP alone isn't the arbiter of performance.
>>28117588have u heard about weight ?
>>28117857>It's almost as if BHP alone isn't the arbiter of performance.no shit, power to weight ratio is a thing
>>28117920See>>28117588Then take a moment to read through the thread realize why your response so stupid.
>>28117924250bhp in a 1 tonne car is going to be a hell of a lot faster than 500bhp in a 10 tonne car
>>28117935>doubling down on being retarded instead of reading
>>28117938>weight is not a factor
have more weight?add more power!
>>28117969classic american thinking . Try this strategy in corner and get rekt
>>28117583Google it you septuple nigger
>>28117941That's not what he said retard.
>>28117935>250bhp in a 1 tonne car is going to be a hell of a lot faster than 500bhp in a 10 tonne caraccelerates faster initially, but top speed wise, no.
>>28117583>muh power to weightFunny way to admit you couldn't afford or handle a proper engine.slowfags eat dust
>>28117588Umm sweaty actually the real metric is average power over rpm sweep divided by mass
>>28117971>it's not fast.. it's quick!oh no
>>28117890so u ride a motorcycle ?
>>28118108morons from bmw also did think like this . Let's give a sausage factory wheels and make it fast . And look what did happen with BMW XM in pikes peak .
>>28117583>s a car with a 2.0 l engine faster than a car with a 1.5 l engine? Is that how it works? SorryNo
>>28118216Then why is a 2.0L Focus ST faster than a 1.5L Fiesta ST?
>>28118225So you're saying any 2.0L car is faster than every 1.5L car ever made?
>>28118225Turbos and superchargers, uprated injectors are all ways to make cars faster, you know this too, but you're some kind of pedo
>>28118094you didn't say anything u turbo nigger, all you did was quote this guy >>28117924and therefore this>>28117941is valid
>>28117729first of all those 302 mustangs did not fucking get 13smine will probably just crack 14s with aluminum headed 6.7 sbfsecond is that the foxbody probably doesnt weigh a handfull of cunt-hair over 3klbs
>>28118099then why does a 1500bhp leopard 2 tank have a top speed of 43mph? while a 10bhp yamaha ys125 bike have a top speed of 70mph?
>>28118248>asking about a specific comparison =/= a broad reaching statement>>28118276>Turbos and superchargersThey're both turbocharged>uprated injectorsWe're talking about stock cars, were you going to make a point? Nah, you're too busy projecting about being a pedo.
>>28118291>mine will probably just crack 14s with aluminum headed 6.7 sbfAre you the worlds shittiest driver?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JGk8tYoOE&list=PLrgl5WuZ1keoaBI5zQ8v8_jxwm8d1Pv9Z
>>28117583No, the car that makes good torque with lower RPM that transitions to horsepower in the higher RPM is the better car, I.E. powerband
>>28118105>Umm sweaty actually the real metric is average power over rpm sweep divided by massI'd do the integral of the curve over the range you rev through multiplied by the gear and diff ratios and a coefficient of some kind to deal with weight.
>>28118311>asking about a specific comparison =/= a broad reaching statementCorrect, and OP asked for a specific comparison.They asked, and I quote, is a 2.0L car more powerful than a 1.5L.And no, they are not.Problem?You're the fucking pedo, why else would being wrong upset you so much?
>>28118449And yeah, not acknowledging "car" as anything but being an arbitrary thing just to dismiss your examples of real world cars is absolutely acceptable.
>>28118449>and OP asked for a specific comparison.Of what 2 cars or what 2 engines?>and I quote, is a 2.0L car more powerful than a 1.5L.So no direct comparison?>>28118449>And no, they are not.So again, then why is a 2.0L Focus ST faster and more powerful than a 1.5L Fiesta ST? They're both turbo charged inline 4s of similar design made by the same manufacturer, the only main difference is the displacement. >still more pedo projectingOn a scale of 11-10 just how big of a pedo are you Anon? >>28118457Are you able you arrange your words so they have meaning?
>>28118476I swear to god, I will be so happy when they shut down this website and people like you will have nowhere else to go.
>>28118481So you still can't explain why a 2.0L ecoboost makes more power than a 1.5L ecoboost? I thought you were supposed to be smart.
>>28118485>get a dogshit 2.0L minivan that weighs 3,500 kg from 2005>put it vs a 1.4L electric car from 2021 which comes with a turbo and weights less than half as muchYou think it was wrong to say "no" to a question that cannot be ever answered yes? For what purpose? You just waste peoples fucking time.
>>28118485Are you so fucking dumb you don't know why engine size isn't the only factor contributing to speed?
>>28118491>if you compare cars from different decades and classes the smaller engine CAN be more powerfulSo it's not just "no'? What if you want a relative comparison other than displacement? >>28118497>this post contributes literally anythingHoly fuck, talk about retarded.
>>28118509>Holy fuck, talk about retarded.Cry me a fucking river, you do what exactly, sit on the sidelines waiting for somebody to take an opportunity to help a person, just to attack them because you're a fucking loser? Wow, I'd take being retarded over being a fucking bitch.
>>28118513Yet here you are being both retarded and a bitch. And still can't explain why a 2.0L car IS more powerful than a 1.5L car. It's very simple, do you need help?
>>28118294Because of air resistance and gearing lol. You have to assume those factors are equal.
>>28118529How about you pick out every single post that didn't help OP instead of me, you're not going to win when you're calling the only honest person in the thread a bitch.Fuck you.
>>28118531so there's more to it than outright power? who knew?
>>28118336not on sticky track and the car wont hook it spins tires every time
>>28118825>>28118336I have not done alot of actual data logging on the car and i kindof question the accuracy of gps shit but im pretty sure that what's really hurting it's ET is that I can't make it launch on smoked 225/70R14s
>>28118825>>28118838Have you tried basically idling off the line and rolling into it? Spinning ain't winning. Also, what app is that?
>>28118848no because it seems faster to just ease the wheelspeed off asap than to do anything elsedragger on the left and speedometer-2 on the right because i have no speedo cable
>>28117743I didn't know they sold that shit in Australia
>>28118892It's definitely quicker to not spin, or spin as little as possible without bogging. I can cut a mid 5s 0-60 and even with this bad launch and lifting up top I still ran a low 14 with a stock little 281 on the street.
>>28119030
