Are you a displacement snob?

[Paolino]

With the switch to much smaller turbocharged engines, how many here are displacement snobs?  I admit, I am a bit of one.  I rather drive a DI 3.6L V6 than a turbo 4, even if the 4 had slightly better fuel economy and equal power.

[Robert Hall]

At one time I was. Now it has no meaning to me, reliability is everything...I've had a 5.0 V8, 2.9 v6, 3.2 6 in the past, and a 4.0 6 for the last 15 years...my sister had cars w a 5.0v8, 3.0 6, and a 4.6 V8...all unreliable money pits of pain and frustration, all gone--replaced w a car w a 1.6 turbo 4....pragmatism.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[cp-the-nerd]

I'm between displacement snob and "it depends." I have driven a number of 2.0T sedans that are supposed to replace N/A V6s, and I always come running back to my 7000 rpm 3.6L V6. Between the sound and power delivery, I can't help but find bigger N/A engines vastly superior. At the same time, I'm opposed to trading 2.4L and 2.5L N/A engines for even SMALLER 1.5-1.8L turbos making 170-180 hp.

 

My basic conclusion is if an engine displacement can't comfortably move a car off boost, it's detracting from the car's driving experience every time the turbine has to catch up to your throttle input. Conversely, that also explains why other engines like the 2.7L and 3.5L ecoboost V6s as well as the GM 3.6T and other 3.0T engines from the Germans can work so well. Off boost, they're still making over 200 hp/tq, so turbo lag be damned. I lust over the ATS-V despite the lack of V8.

Edited October 20, 2015 by cp-the-nerd

[El Kabong]

I'm not so much a displacement snob as a cylinder-count snob. I like my drivetrains smooth and torquey, and the last two cars I've owned packed LS3s. Right now I'm in between fun rides and have a turbo V6... diesel. Three whole litres of it.

Still, torque

[Drew Dowdell]

Turbos help, but they still aren't up to granting instant torque at low rpm like a larger displacement does. 

[Paolino]

Well, one thing I wish my V6 had was good power at a lower RPM... my peak horsepower is at 6800 rpms, and I just don't floor it often.

 

El Kabong you have a point.. I am a cylinder snob... You can't make a 4-cylinder engine sound smooth in my opinion.  It can be refined, for a four-cylinder engine... but not the same quality of a V6 or V8.

[balthazar]

Most of what I've owned has been vintage American, or in other words; displacement heavy. Current own 4 V8s: a "tiny" 3.9L, 6.5L, 6.6L and 7.4L.

 

Everything else being equal yes; I'd chose a 'large' displacement engine over a smaller, artificially boosted one (tho my 6.6L is boosted )

I actually have liked all the turbo cars I've driven just fine, but conceptually the idea of a TRQ-heavy big CI motor just loafing at cruising speed is a bigger draw.

[Cory Wolfe]

I would say that I'm a sound snob. I don't really care about the number of cylinders or how its fed air, as long as the sound is there. There are very few turbocharged 4-cylinders that sound good. My GTI is a good example. It sounds... alright. Has a neat pop under boost when the DSG flicks off upshifts, but it's mostly nondescript otherwise. My old Legacy was a bit of exception, however, with its flat-4 burble. 

[Drew Dowdell]

I would say that I'm a sound snob. I don't really care about the number of cylinders or how its fed air, as long as the sound is there. There are very few turbocharged 4-cylinders that sound good. My GTI is a good example. It sounds... alright. Has a neat pop under boost when the DSG flicks off upshifts, but it's mostly nondescript otherwise. My old Legacy was a bit of exception, however, with its flat-4 burble. 

 

I do like the flat-4 sound

[oldshurst442]

It depends.

 

Classic Muscle Cars and its all 440 Six Packs, SD 455s and 455 Rocket V8s for me! With a hint of Chevy 427s and 396s and Poncho 400s. And let us not forget about 426 Hemis and 427 and 428 Fords. ETC...

 

In the modern times. I prefer at the very least a natural aspirated V6 for daily driving.  So that would make me a cylinder count snob. If gas prices were not as high in Quebec...Id prefer a V8. But...I would NEVER say no to a superchraged Buick V6 or a TTV6 from Ford or Cadillac.

So...technically, a V8 need not apply with a TTV6...so...replacement by forced induction displacement on a V6 instead of a V8 is passable.

On a Camaro...I would want a V8...but an ATS-V TTV6 is OK in my books too...But in a CTS...a V-Sport TTV6 will NEVER replace the "V" Series' V8...

 

On a 4 cylinder...well the Fusion that my wife has is the 1.6 ecoboost. It feels like a GM value V6 3.1/3.4 SFI  engine....Although a nice engine that 1.6 ecoboost is...Id rather Ford's old Duratec V6 from the previous generation Fusion at the very least or the 3.7LV6 that is in the Lincoln MKZ, or even GM's 3.1/3.4 under the hood... Even better would be the rumored 2.7 TTV6 Fusion ST....So in this instance...there is no replacement for displacement AND cylinder snob.

Edited October 21, 2015 by oldshurst442

[loki]

said depends.. but just to be a real snob... gotta handle like it's on rails and have 30+Liters.

[G. David Felt]

Depends as with small auto's I have no problem with small engines, still not won over for turbo petro except for Turbo Diesels, my experience with turbo petro auto's shows they still will not go the distance in comparison to larger V6 or V8 engines.

 

For trucks and full / mid size SUV's only V8. Nothing smaller has won me over for longevity of life and towing or a Diesel. I still see far more people complain about how the V6 in the trucks does NOT deliver MPG unless you baby it while driving. 

 

Real world testing of MPG needs to happen on all auto's rather than computer simulation or estimation based on select formulas.

Depends as with small auto's I have no problem with small engines, still not won over for turbo petro except for Turbo Diesels, my experience with turbo petro auto's shows they still will not go the distance in comparison to larger V6 or V8 engines.

 

For trucks and full / mid size SUV's only V8. Nothing smaller has won me over for longevity of life and towing or a Diesel. I still see far more people complain about how the V6 in the trucks does NOT deliver MPG unless you baby it while driving. 

 

Real world testing of MPG needs to happen on all auto's rather than computer simulation or estimation based on select formulas.

[loki]

 

Real world testing of MPG needs to happen on all auto's rather than computer simulation or estimation based on select formulas.

why not just have a chart of MPG with "city, and hwy", but also 5 mile avgs at every 10 mph up to 80? this would be flat and no wind.

[Drew Dowdell]

said depends.. but just to be a real snob... gotta handle like it's on rails and have 30+Liters.

 

Here ya go:

 

[ccap41]

I would say that I'm a sound snob. I don't really care about the number of cylinders or how its fed air, as long as the sound is there. There are very few turbocharged 4-cylinders that sound good. My GTI is a good example. It sounds... alright. Has a neat pop under boost when the DSG flicks off upshifts, but it's mostly nondescript otherwise. My old Legacy was a bit of exception, however, with its flat-4 burble. 

I'm more in the sound-snob bunch. Between sound and how the power actually feels while driving make a good engine to me. To what blackviper8891 said, the only real 4cyl that has sounded good to me is those flat 4's. Burble is about the best description to me, they burble with aftermarket exhaust. Now there are SOME 4cyls that don't sound bad but that doesn't mean they sound good. A lot of Ford's 4cyl that I've heard sound like crap to me. The new RS sounds pretty good though(from the one video I've hears/saw). But the high end 4cyl do tend to sound a little better, like the CLA AMG. That's another one that sounds pretty good..for a 4cyl..

 

Also, I'm completely in love with the 4.6 in the Mustangs. Be it 2, 3, or 4V they all souns wonderful to my hears. Yet, none of them really have a lot of the low end, daily driving balls that I prefer in an engine. My current 2.0T doesn't have the top end but plenty of low end tq that I use on a dialy basis. I love the powerband in my 2.0T.

 

As for displacement.. the number shouldn't mean anything if it isn't delievered correctly. For me, I want a lot of low end and mid range. Rarely is my foot on the floor for anything I'm driving daily. So, for instance, if I had some beefy 454 under the hood but(go with me here) it revved like the new 5.2 Ford and had nothing below 3200rpm..then I don't care for it nearly as much as a little 2000cc producing instant torque at 1500rpm. But sound-wise.. V8 no doubt about it.

[ccap41]

Depends as with small auto's I have no problem with small engines, still not won over for turbo petro except for Turbo Diesels, my experience with turbo petro auto's shows they still will not go the distance in comparison to larger V6 or V8 engines.

 

For trucks and full / mid size SUV's only V8. Nothing smaller has won me over for longevity of life and towing or a Diesel. I still see far more people complain about how the V6 in the trucks does NOT deliver MPG unless you baby it while driving. 

 

Real world testing of MPG needs to happen on all auto's rather than computer simulation or estimation based on select formulas.

It's just WAAAAAY to time intensive of work to try and real-world test everything. Plus, there would be no consistancy. Too many factors effect fuel mileage.

[smk4565]

I am a cylinder snob. I would rather have a 3.2 liter V8 than a 3.5 liter V6. I think you can't replace that V8 sound. There are a lot of 1.5-1.8 liter four cylinder engine hitting the market, double that up and you have a 3.0-3.6 liter V8 that would be some good stuff.

[loki]

 

said depends.. but just to be a real snob... gotta handle like it's on rails and have 30+Liters.

 

Here ya go:

 

UnionPacific6922.jpg

 

nice.  maybe a tad too big.

how about one from NRE...

 

[ocnblu]

This is why I got the 3.6.  Although it has a very reedy exhaust note on the rare occasion.

[regfootball]

I want a turbo 6

[Frisky Dingo]

I'm not a displacement snob, but there are certain segments/kinds of vehicles where I prefer a larger N/A engine.

 

On the whole, it just depends. I care more about how the engine performs, feels, sounds, and responds to mods than about whether or not it's large or small displacement, FI or N/A. I've driven cars where where I liked the boosted I4 more than it's larger, N/A predecessor or competitor- for instance F30 328i compared to E90 328i. There are other examples that are the opposite- for example, I prefer the Camcord V6 to the turbo I4 rivals.

[67impss]

I would say that I'm a sound snob. I don't really care about the number of cylinders or how its fed air, as long as the sound is there. There are very few turbocharged 4-cylinders that sound good. My GTI is a good example. It sounds... alright. Has a neat pop under boost when the DSG flicks off upshifts, but it's mostly nondescript otherwise. My old Legacy was a bit of exception, however, with its flat-4 burble.

 

I do like the flat-4 sound

I to like a flat 4 or 6 and prefer an engine be tuned for torque vs. horsepower as balthzy says the low rumble of American iron. Just give me those GM tunes of 90% power off idle to red line I don't want an anemic engine no matter what size it is.

[Suaviloquent]

I absolutely, totally, all day,every day a displacement snob. But, I can live with lower displacement as long as it gives power. Like some EcoBoosts - screw the Eco, I don't care if it is or not, just gimme the damn boost. 

 

And like El, I am also a cylinder count snob as well as drive-train configuration snob.

 

For me, an engine that I feel should be everywhere, like in everything GM makes, is GM's smallblock 4.3 V6. It's Cadillac good, and it has all the features that only now the LGX is getting.

 

Spark SS? 4.3

Base engine for a RWD Omega Impala? 4.3

 

In-between V6 for the Camaro? 4.3. The top tier LT1 itself has a truck variant, I'm sure the reverse could be feasible.

[balthazar]

In a perfect world, I'd like to have, say, a 666 CI dual quad V8.