yeah nah!
Boost is technology. Turbos are the future.Yes, compare a n/a to a FI motor. How does that motor do without boost? The 3.5 Duratec is a better apples to apples comparison. At 290 horsepower, it's making less per liter than the Coyote.
Now let's boost the Coyote. The GT runs at 30psi, which is ridiculous. How about we bring things down to a more reasonable level:
https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/my-2018-hellion-street-sleeper-dyno-results.109086/
800HP on 91 octane at a very reasonable 9.5 psi. Ain't no replacement for displacement.
I'm also amazed that people are still taking my comment at face value, but I'll argue this all day. A bigger engine with a more efficient configuration is going to make more power and take to turbocharging more readily. That being said, the Barra kicks ass and I'd totally buy an s650/750 with a turbo version. The Coyote still has more power potential
That, and our validation requirements are a minimum of 36k miles in the most extreme conditions without failure. These boosted 800hp coyotes wouldn't even pass an air to boil test. From a fuel system standpoint, we monitor past 100k miles.
They already boost a V8. See: GT500
No replacement for displacement is still a thing. If you put the same tech on two engines, the larger displacement engine will always make more power. And a V8 will sound better than a 4 cylinder.
Small engines are great for passenger cars that have the purpose of being safe, best possible fuel economy and transporting a family.
This is such a circular argument. If you constrain to the “same tech” and only allow the displacement to change, then of course displacement wins. Duh! If I constrain to the same displacement but allow forced induction then boost wins. So whether you allow more displacement or more boost, the one with more wins. Hence, once can replace the other.
Exactly. And speaking from the view of the industry, we are looking to make the most power in the most efficient manor possible. We aren't developing bigger engines to make more hp. We are advancing the tech in smaller engines.
Weight, emissions, fuel economy, packaging size, pretty much everything we need to consider when developing a vehicle. Remember, the OP is about having an option you can buy from Ford, not creating the ultimate drag car.
As engineermike said, this is circular logic. Of course you can make more power when applying tech to the larger engine. However, we don't need to. They can achieve the power goals using smaller engines. This gives the benefit of reduced emissions, weight reduction, and simpler packaging. The Coyote exists thanks to this concept. Technology has been the replacement for displacement in commercial vehicles for decades. I think too many on here want to debate over fantasy racers, not realistic production vehicles.
To you. To someone else, it may be about making the fastest and most nimble car. Personally, while I like the V8 sound, I also appreciate the sound from an inline 6. If that sound came with a car that could take on VIR faster than any other vehicle in the price range, I think my experience would be wonderful.
The gas guzzler tax will never go away. Nor will emissions standards. Even China is on board with these things. We aren't going to develop cars and engines just for specific states in the USA. I wouldn't buy a Mustang that only got 15mpg on 93oct, nor would I pay a gas guzzler tax for it. Many on this forum who use the car as a daily driver would avoid it as well. The Mustang hasn't been an inexpensive car for some time. It is Ford's sports car, with many flavors to appeal to different drivers. Small engines will be the only thing that save the car from extinction in the future.
You went from a circular argument to a straw man argument. No one is saying that boost plus displacement won’t perform better than boost alone. No one is saying that displacement won’t increase power and torque all other things being equal. The argument is boost/tech versus displacement and the result of more torque and power is the same. Ergo, one can replace the other.
