If it is for the Batman movie, it should be for Bruce Wayne. Why should Batman get all the cool looking cars?

if this is for either bruce wayne or b-man it looks like hes flat broke in this enstallemnt of the series, he did have a nice mercielago in the first one and now he upgrades to a lincon? man this looks terrible, the only lincolin i like is the Entourage continental with the suicide doors, this car is just rubbish...

That is going to be one nice looking Lincoln on the outside. Wonder what the interior will have. I have been hoping that Lincoln would get more competitive in this segment.

See? You can increase power without increasing displacement: this car produces 115 hp more than current gen 3.5 V6's and runs on pump gas (91 octane). It has to, otherwise it couldn't run on the roads.

Allen: yeah sure...

Stick those turbos on a 7L V8 and watch the dyno go into 4 digits at part throttle...

Not that this car needs 4 digit horsepower, just saying the "no replacement for displacement" saying is true no matter how much people try to fight it.

Again I keep saying "all else held equal"... but you guys ignore that and want to keep comparing smaller engines with 20 psi boost (not this one, just in general) to a bigger N/A engine...

Either take the turbos off the smaller engine, or also cram 20 psi boost into the bigger engine, and you'll see the adjusted power output is still proportional to displacement and the bigger engine wins.

I'm not going to debate that a Lincoln actually needs 1600+ HP however... thats absurd.

You also shouldn't be comparing a boosted engine to a n/a engines. An ideal comparison would be both n/a with the same compression ratio and displacement (all are 3.5L so thats not a problem). Then if the Ford engine couldn't match the power of the Nissan or Toyota engine, feel free to talk smack and I'd be right there with you.

It's about time Ford produces something that is going to catch a lot of looks. The LS is all but dead, great car 7 years ago, but now it's way passed its prime. The MKZ was a step in the right direction but Ford was still missing an upscale sedan to compete against other competition in that class but this maybe it. I think this car will be the most popular Lincoln sedan in it's lineup when it comes out and maybe even the most popular Luxury sedan out of the big 3.

@chris

It appears the replacement for displacement is a turbo, and sometimes 2 of them.

What do you want to hold equal. There are tradeoffs for every engine design. Even with the same overall design, when you increase displacement, you can increase/decrease weight, dimension, cost, etc.

In the real world nothing is held equal.

You can compare boosted engines to n/a engines, because those are the same comparisons that lincoln made when it decided to go this way.

Its like saying you can't compare 911 tubo to a z06. Because 1 has turbo and 1 does not. Unfortunately for your argument they're comparable enough that many magazines feature that very comparison, every time a new version of 1 of the cars comes along.

Let me know when you get out of chris world, and join us in the real world where displacement is not the only thing that matters.

mf: no it's not.

I didn't say displacement is all that mattered. I said there is no substitute for it. A higher displacement engine will always have potential for more power than a smaller displacement engine when built the same.

Some people like to say "with more technology and efficiency we can now make the same power with a smaller engine"

I like to say "apply those gains, but keep the engine the same size" so instead of seeing a 400 HP 4L engine become a 400 HP 3L engine, we just have a 500 HP 4L engine.

Now I agree not every car needs the potential that a larger engine offers and I'm not advocating sticking 8L V8s in everything. I'm just refuting the misconception that "technology or boost is the replacement for displacement" don't know what they are talking about because that same technology and boost can be applied to ANY engine for power and efficiency gains, not JUST small ones.

Case in point every 600 HP 3.0L Supra you see is running 25+ psi boost on 110 octane while 4.6L Cobras are making the same 600 HP but with 16-18 psi and 91 octane.

Your homework:

1) why can the Cobra make the same power with less boost (and thus lower octane)?

Hint: both are flowing the exact same amount of air, but the effective compression ratio of one is higher because it has to flow the same volume in a smaller area...

Obviously there is a substitute for displacement, because auto makers, tuners and enthusiasits have been using those subsitutes for years.

Who cares if you can add a supercharger or turbo to x car. The fact that you're talking about adding turbos instead of just increasing displacement, means that there is no substitute for boost. heh

The supra made it to the same hp level as the cobra, proves that there is a substitute for displacement. The fact that bmw makes more hp from the factory with a 4L than ford makes with a 4.6 proves that the substitutes work well.

Chris:

Yea well I have seen plenty of Supras Dyno more than turbo charged Vipers and Vetts. Its also about what the engines can take. These high displacement N/A engines just are not designed to be turbo charged. Thats why every time you see a turbo charged Viper its always at really low boost. Do you think they just want to run 6 psi? No. Thats just what that engine can take safely. If vipers could run 25+ pounds of boost we would see 4000hp vipers all over the place. When you see a 3.0L inline 6 engine dyno well over 1000hp on a stock block you will know what I mean.
The Supra's engine was designed from the ground up as a turbo engine therefore it can take 25+ psi of boost. Each engine is designed for its purpose.

In my opinion though nothing beats increasing your hp by 100 at the wheels with intake, exhaust and a boost controller. All that for under a grand.
An N/A engine can't do that.

Chris:

Yea well I have seen plenty of Supras Dyno more than turbo charged Vipers and Vetts. Its also about what the engines can take. These high displacement N/A engines just are not designed to be turbo charged. Thats why every time you see a turbo charged Viper its always at really low boost. Do you think they just want to run 6 psi? No. Thats just what that engine can take safely. If vipers could run 25+ pounds of boost we would see 4000hp vipers all over the place. When you see a 3.0L inline 6 engine dyno well over 1000hp on a stock block you will know what I mean.
The Supra's engine was designed from the ground up as a turbo engine therefore it can take 25+ psi of boost. Each engine is designed for its purpose.

In my opinion though nothing beats increasing your hp by 100 at the wheels with intake, exhaust and a boost controller. All that for under a grand.
An N/A engine can't do that.

Chris:

I remember when I was telling you "all else held equal" about DOHC versus pushrods. Guess it just holds water for you huh? Because your beater Mustang is just that good.

He's still right though. Ceteris Paribus, there is no replacement for displacement. All engines have it, and more of it increases power potential. If you design an engine with a new technology that increases power/efficiency, for example, Direct Injection, are you replacing displacement? No. You are complementing it. Direct Injection and other methods and components will add performance to higher displacement designs as well. So you're still not replacing displacement.

Let me put it in different terms. Saying that a turbocharger is a replacement for displacement, rather than a complement to it, is as silly as saying this: Displacement is the replacement for boost. It simply isn't true, boost is its own method of adding power, and displacement doesn't "replace" it, just like boost doesn't "replace" displacement.

With regards to stock motors, it would true to say that Ceteris Paribus, there is no replacement for boost - but only when you're discussing a boosted motor vs a boosted motor. All motors have displacement, but not all motors have boost. So all things remaining equal, you can always say that there's no replacement for displacement, but you can't always say there's no replacement for boost.

@alexvrb

The problem with the argument you and chris are making, is the Ceteris Paribus qualification it self.

You might as well change it to ignoring reality. Because what follows tends to ignores anything hindged on reality.

Btw, all motors have pressure at the manifold, boost is just an increase in that pressure. 7psi boost is only a 50% increase. So you can also say there is no replacement for boost. Without the pressure of the air going into the motor, you wouldn't be able to burn anything.

mf:

You just dont get it do you.

If you have a 2L engine boosted with 28 psi you have 6L of air moving. If you have a 8L boosted to 28 psi you have 24 L of air moving, or STILL 4 times the potential air/fuel flow per unit time, same as before either were boosted. If a larger bore is also part of the displacement difference, the larger engine will also enjoy better breathing due to larger valves.

Don't compare a N/A engine with a weak 7 psi to a fully built boosted engine, thats just dumb. My argument is that there is no replacement for displacement, a fundamental concept. I'm not arguing that a forged engine from the factory can handle more boost than a N/A engine with an after market turbo, thats absolutely ridiculous and obviously not true. What do you suppose a Viper engine with a fully built bottom end and 8:1 compression with 40 psi boost and methanol and race gas would make if it can make 1700 HP on only a "very low boost" tune? Scary isn't it. Wait until you see the new ZR1 Corvette with a LS3 making 650+ HP with a scant 6-8 psi boost... it will come with forged internals as well and people will crank them up to 20+ psi just like the Cobras and Supras.

My Cobra can run 20+ psi boost on the factory bottom end (6 bolt mains, forged crank, iron block, and Manley H beam rods with ARP fasteners straight from SVT), and they have been pushed over 1000 HP on the factory bottom end as well. (And before anyone starts hating on iron, it was done on purpose all other Mustangs use aluminum; iron is stronger and is also used in the 2JZ and 3SGTE for that same reason). I consider it and the Supra to be sister cars. In fact the Terminator Cobras earned the reputation for being "domestic Supras" among import tuners. Does that make every engine that doesn't have forged internals and low compression pistons from the factory suck because it cant run 20+ psi on stock internals? Hell no.

Try boosting a regular non turbo 2JZ, it won't handle the boost either since it has weaker internals and higher compression.

I enjoy that I can make the power I can on a stock engine, but I also know that anyone with the time and money to rebuild a LS1 or a Viper with the same internals as my Cobra is going to blow me away because of their displacement advantage (ie a 26 psi stroker Viper would be like 2000+ HP on pump gas). Fortunately I'll never run into one because the reality is that it costs a lot more money to tear down a perfectly fine engine just to build it for boost, which is why I prefer a car like a Cobra or Supra made for boost from the factory. Just because a Supra and Cobra come from the factory with forced induction internals and can do it stock doesn't say anything about any other car that wasn't built that way. It just means we have less work to do to make the power and are a step ahead of the game.

Still why do you think they make 3.4L stroker kits for the Supra and 2.2L stroker gets for the MR2 if displacement wasn't coveted by the real tuners who actually understand physics and know what they are doing?

Oh, and do yourself a favor and check what I said. Every Supra you see with over 600 HP is a dyno queen that is running no cats and leaded 110+ octane race gas. You see this often with imports and small displacement boosted cars, running high boost and high octane to pull a pass on the dyno to make 1000 HP, then detune it for a 91 octane pump gas street tune to only 600 HP which is how they drive it, but they still claim to have a 1000 HP car. Misleading and the definition of a dyno queen. This is not a knock on Supras (no pun intended) but a simple truth and side effect of relying on boost instead of displacement. Ask any body who actually works on either of these cars and they will tell you the same thing.

Cobra's running 600 HP on 91 octane are a dime a dozen and almost a minimum requirement and they can run 1600 HP on race gas on the VT and MMR engines Don't kid yourself about Supra's making that on a stock engine either, every 1000+ HP Supra I've ever seen employs a fully rebuilt Titan or HKS bottom end. I love both those cars, but lets not over exaggerate here.

And I totally agree. Nothing beats having 500+ RWHP with nothing but a $150 intake, $300 flash tuner, $500 cat back, and a $75 pulley on a totally stock car. It was a tough call between a Supra and a Cobra, but in the end, the Cobra cost less, there are more of them, the after market is bigger and more sane in price ($8,000 for a forged stroker set is just some ridiculous markup), and above all that extra 1.6L of displacement means I can make more power with less boost and drive it 24/7 on corner station pump gas and so the power I claim is the power I have ALL the time on the street, not just during a open dump dyno session on race gas.

Didn't mean to turn this into a Supra vs. Cobra debate, I love both those cars, but it perfectly illustrates the displacement argument. Again I challenge you to show me a 3.0L Supra that runs 600+ RWHP on 91 octane 24/7 without the use of intercooler spray, methanol, etc. Twin screw Cobras have been doing it since Kenne Bell strapped a twin screw to the 4.6. Which car you prefer is personal choice, but there is no denying the extra flexibility of more displacement.

To make things interesting, superchargers rob a lot of power and heat the air more making them less efficient.

'03 Cobra with 18-20 psi boost with nothing but a turbo system replacing the supercharger and its pulley system gives 850 RWHP on 91 octane and runs 9s in the 1/4 on stock IRS and 6 speed.

It's been a while since I've been into Supras and I don't remember exactly where the boost/octane threshold was, but assuming you can find a few 600 HP Supras on pump gas, I know you won't find a 850 RWHP Supra on pump gas. There is just no way around the detonation knock when relying on boost pressure instead of displacement; even if you rebuilt the engine with proper quench and compression ratio, knock is inevitable after 25psi or so.

Nobody every had to worry about knock or running higher octane because they bored or stroked their engine on the other hand...

Correction:

"I'm not arguing that a forged engine from the factory can handle more boost than a N/A engine with an after market turbo, thats absolutely ridiculous and obviously not true."

Mean that to say "a forged engine from the factory CAN'T handle more boost" is not true.

again if displacement is so great than why are you adding fi?

Why don't you just increase your displacement to 10L?

Chris:

Well the reason I chose the Supra was because of it's rarity, sexiness and bullet proof engine. My 97 dynos 400 at the wheels. That's with the stock turbos at 17 psi, full 3" exhaust, intake and a boost controller. It does that maintaining its mpg and Toyota reliability & smoothness. Unless my gunnin' it it no louder than stock. To me thats awesome! Thats not even that great compared to what other guys are getting on their stock turbos. I have personally seen upwards of 500hp on a stock turbo setup. 800hp+ Supras may be Dyno Queens but 600hp is pretty average on street Supras with pump gas. Hell, you can get 500hp without even upgrading the fuel system! It all depends on what turbos they are running. Big turbos require less boost to make the same amount of power than a smaller turbo would so you really cant compare psi. I can change out my stocks for a Stage 1 T67 Single turbo and be making over 600hp! There are so many variables that you just cant generalize every set up.

Plus there is no way that you will just replace the supercharger with a turbo system make 850 hp and run 9's! It just aint that easy. What about the fuel system, clutch, suspension? It takes more than just power to run 9's

If I handed you a stack of money, say 100 notes and they were all $100 bills. You'd have $10,000.

I could also hand you 200 notes, but in $50 bills and you'd still have $10,000.

Or I could take advantage of the added displacement (200 notes instead of 100 notes) AND boost (denomination) and give you 200 $100 bills then you'd have $20,000.

Assuming $100 bills are the largest you can get (ie: can only boost so much without exotic fuels, etc), you couldn't get $20,000 if you only were allowed 100 notes.

Are you understanding both concepts of volume AND density yet?

small engine, no boost = weakest
big engine, no boost = weak to strong
small engine, with boost = weak to strong
big engine, with boost = strongest

(see 8000 HP top fuel 500 cubic inch & 40+ psi to see what both boost and displacement together do)

Or in terms of the HP/L figure you guys love so much

100 HP/L 2.0L engine = 200 HP
50 HP 4.0L engine = 200 HP

But:

100 HP/L 4.0 engine = 400 HP

Just because I double the displacement does that mean you are happy halving the HP/L and keeping the power the same, or would you rather keep the HP/L constant and simply add more liters (and thus HP/L * L = HP) ?

If you still don't see how that works, you're a lost cause.

Just because some manufactures choose to build weak under tuned poorly implemented large displacement engines doesn't make small engines superior. Better suited and more practical to some applications, but not inherently superior. I don't like seeing big V8s making 250 HP either when they should be making 500+. But what do you expect when you are making cheap cars and cutting corners to save money?

However you simply cannot deny the basic rule that there is no replacement for displacement. Any company, I don't care if it's BMW or Ferrari, or Ford or Yugo, if they built two engines the same, but with different displacements, the larger engine WILL ALWAYS have more power.

The question is whether or not the potential of that added displacement is untapped, or if it's even needed in the first place in many vehicles.

mf:
---
you actually missed the reason I prefer displacement in addition to boost. As I previously stated, with the same boost and same HP/L the engine with more L is going to make more power. However instead of making more power with the bigger engine, simply scale back the boost so that you are making the same power as a smaller engine, but using 91 octane fuel safely instead of leaded race gas.

Dariel:
---

Yeah I figured 600 was about the limit for pump gas on that 3L, being that 850 is about the limit for pump gas on a 4.6L... and 400-450 being the limit for pump gas on a 1.8L 4 cyl...

See the trend and how after all the boost and stuff has been added up that the power differences is exactly in line with the displacement differences? It's nearly 100 HP per piston with 400-600-800 for a 4-6-8 cyl. (yeah they aren't exactly the same sizes but close enough, roughly 1/2L displacement per piston). Thats the point I'm trying to explain to people like mf who simply don't get it and are too busy watching F&F instead of learning about cars.

www(dot)sctflash(dot)com(slash)rides(dot)php

This car runs 91 octane pump gas and runs a 9.65 @ 143 with 857 RWHP 873 RWTQ and is a full weight 3,700 lb street trim car with A/C and back seat.

The stock fuel system on the 03 Cobra is good to 617 RWHP with a blower, I'd stretch that to 700 maybe with turbos? After that you need to bump the power to the stock fuel pumps, go to 5/8" rails and 55+lb injectors, and a higher ranging MAF meter that doesn't peg.

And it already comes with Brembo brakes, upgraded track tuned suspension, etc. so it's not as critical to replace as say a basic Mustang GT. Like I said it's a sister car to the Supra, plenty of headroom in stock form just begging for bolt on horsepower.

But when I say "turbo kit" I don't mean a turbo and some silicon hoses for $300, I mean the same thing as most turbo kits for any car, imports or domestic: that usually implies all turbo hardware and associated support upgrades like bigger injectors and computer ROM included as part of the kit, otherwise you couldn't even use it.

All the things they added after the turbo kit (injectors, rails, MAF meter, Sulivan intake) are all part of the $8k bolt on turbo kit, which isn't a bad deal considering it also includes a full tubular front suspension system and coil overs.

www(dot)turbohorsepower(dot)com to check out the turbo kit featured here.

Remember all stock engine from oil pan to valve covers and making 850 RWHP on 91 octane pump gas. There are several others out there that confirm that 850 RWHP on pump is where it is with turbo, but they are personal cars without a dedicated project website like this one. Scour youtube, streetfire, etc. Turbos are pretty new for these cars since most have been satisfied with the Whipple and Kenne Bell blowers, but turbos are starting to get more popular as people strive for more power on pump gas.

So if a 281 (4.6L) cube engine revving to 6,000 RPM with 21 psi makes 850 RWHP (over 1000 HP crank)... VT and MMR also make a 325 (5.3L) stroker that revs past 8,000 RPM that combined with this kind of turbo setup make anywhere from 975 to 1200 RWHP on *pump gas* and around 1700 HP on race gas with a full race only build up. Remember thats 4.6L-5.3L, not a 10L V10. Just sharing info and trying to help educate people not familiar with the domestic side of things. It's really all the same to me in the end though.

PS: A stock Cobra makes ~400 HP at only 8 psi even with the lower efficiency and drag of a blower and still gets 22-25 mpg if you keep your foot out of it. The fact that it's making the same power as your Supra does at 17 psi is the testament that there is no replacement for displacement, which was the single point I've been trying to clear up to people. It's just a statement of physics, *not* the philosophy of some redneck who thinks his 250 HP 454 1979 Silverado is the most powerful engine in the world.

Hope you enjoy the Supra, awesome car. Get a T66 or something in there. If I had the money I'd have both in my Garage, best of the import and domestic worlds represented in these two cars.

You still haven't answered the question. You've danced around the question quite a bit, but you haven't answered it.

I will go ahead and answer the question for you. Why don't you increase the engine to 8L or 10L or 100L.

Because there is a cost to everything. You couldn't fit a 10L engine under your already massive hood without serious modification to most the car. Everything has a cost, everything has a limit.

This is the point you try to avoid with the all things equal qualification. All things are never equal in real life, only in theoretical discussions. The fact that you glue a turbo onto your car instead of sticking in a 5.4 is a testement to the fact that you don't even believe the mantra your self.

I don't have a problem understanding the concepts. I just have a problem with the displacement mantra you use and the all things equal qualification in response to every comparison between real world cars and engines. You are using theoretical concepts to support arguments for or against real world engines, but you never actually compare them you just spew this mindless mantra of displacement is always better.

The fact that the supra makes 400HP with only a 3 liter engine when the cobra has a 4.6 liter is a testment that there is no replacement for boost. Funny how this contradiction to your flawed argument works just as well. I admit it is equally flawed, but I find it humours how every time you try to debunk it, it ultimately proves just a true.

You ignore the costs of displacement with your all things equal qualification, but you never ignore the costs of boost, or the costs of higher rpm, or the costs of higher compression. They all have costs.

All things equal my 1 liter engine with 100 psi will beat your 10 Liter n/a engine.

Wow that all things equal makes my argument so much easier.

Just that little shot of the front end is telling. If the rest of the car is as well done the styling will be a hit. Detroit has to finally get the engine choice right. The engine better be refined and up to date. The target should be Lexus and Infiniti. I can't wait to see the rest of the car. Hopefully, it will not look like a Mazda with tacked on Ford parts.

mf:

Again you fail. Are you just pleading ignorance to get a rise out of me?

You fail to acknowledge that the 3.0L needs 17 psi to make 400 HP where the 4.6L only needs 8 psi to make 400 HP. What happens when you make the 4.6L 17 psi also? It then becomes 600 some odd horsepower. What happens if you drop the 3.0L to 8 psi? It then only becomes 270 HP. As both engines have similar bore, similar 4v valve trains, etc, clearly the extra displacement is a factor.

How about a stock 3.0L 2JZ compared to a stroked 3.4L 2JZ both running 17 psi? Would you argue that the 3.4L wouldn't make more power even though it's at the same boost? And while you are favoring boost, would the extra displacement not provide more volume to spool the turbos quicker?

I didn't choose a 5.4 because the 5.4 gets it's displacement from deck height and a severe stroke to bore ratio. Thus it has issues with piston velocity and extreme throw angle and skirt loading that make it not ideal for a high performance high stress engine. The 5.4L is a high stroke truck engine, not a drag strip engine. I'd rather take a 3.70" bored and stroked 4.6L block (either a Darton wetsleeved Teksid aluminum block or a Ford Racing block with thicker cylinder walls MADE to be bored .20" over) that displaces ~5.4L with an almost square ratio than take an actual 5.4L.

However if Ford ever released a modular 4v DOHC 429 (7.1L) engine with a square stroke:bore ratio (stroke = bore) you can bet that I'd be jumping all over it and having an engine that made 1000 HP on only 8 psi... and thats only to start out with... provided I could fit it between my shock towers... which has nothing to do with displacement in my case. Rather it's because DOHC heads and their valve covers are freaking HUGE. My 4.6L engine is wider and heavier than a 7.0L GM engine, so clearly your argument that displacement automatically makes an engine unwieldy is incorrect.

If you weren't holding all other factors constant to show that displacement produces more power, then yes, a 1L engine boosted 100 psi is going to spank a 10L engine. But thats like giving a body builder a 1 lb weight while you lift a 100 lb weight and proclaim you are therefore 100 times stronger. Granted 1L volume at 100 psi is equal airflow of only a 7.8L engine it would still beat the 10L engine because of two things:

a) way higher effective compression ratio. If the 1L and 10L were 8:1 compression but you (if it was even theoretically possible, I'll bear with you here) boost the 1L to 100 psi it's effective total compression ratio would become something ungodly like 30:1

b) continued thermal expansion throughout the ENTIRE power stroke all the way to BDC (this is actually where boosted engines make their power as the higher density fuel is STILL burning and pushing even at BDC. You're not increase peak combustion pressure with boost, you're simply making that peak last longer)

Now normalize your test, and also boost the 10L engine to 100 psi so that both are making the same HP per liter and pumping the same density of air/fuel per cubic inch.

The 1L engine has the equivalent displacement of 1L*(1+100/14.7) = 7.8L while the 10L engine has 10L*(1+100/14.7) = 78L.0 and all the aforementioned advantages that the 1L engine did. Notice the ratio is still 10 to 1, same as the base displacement.

By your HP/L argument, if both engines are making say 100 HP/L, then by definition the engine with more L period is going to make more power period.

Do you think the 1L still wins in this case?

Boost is an augmentation to increase the volumetric efficiency of an engine of a known displacement. If the same volumetric efficiency improvements are applied to two engines such that the HP/L number is the same, the bigger engine is simply going to make more power as a function of more liters.

I gave you an example. I contrasted the 4.6L Cobra engine and the 3.0L Supra engine and showed that the power difference between the two even when running the same boost is a function of the 1.6L displacement advantage. I even threw in a 1.8L (B18C) and gave accepted power numbers for it as well running the same boost levels. Here they are again:

1.8L B18C ~ 400-450 WHP
3.0L 2JZ ~ 600 WHP
4.6L Mod ~ 850 WHP

(my knowledge as of late is tailored to the 4.6, any *experienced* B18C/2JZ engine tuners feel free to adjust my numbers but I doubt they are far off)

These to the best of my knowledge are the generally accepted power outputs for these engines given 91 octane pump gas and 20-25psi boost via turbo.

Please explain the difference, in your own words.

You fail to acknowledge that the engine with 17 psi only needs 3L displacement instead of 4.6L like the 8psi engine. What happens when you take the 3L up to 4.6L? It becomes 800HP. What happens if you drop the 4.6L to 3L? It becomes slower than dirt. heh. Clearly the higher boost is a factor.

You're not telling me anything new reguarding displacement, engine sizes etc. However some of the weight difference has to do with the materials used, and not just the dohc, but the size is certainly a dohc thing.

its more like giving a body builder 300lb weight made out of lead, and another body builder a 300lb weight made out of aluminium to prove that they both ultimately take the same energy to lift. But i'm talking about the lead and you're talking about the aluminium.

Ultimately I don't care how the power is made, I have no bias towards 3L with turbo, or 6.2L n/a. I just get sick of hearing the argument of well you could just stick a turbo on the 6.2 so that makes it better. No that just means it could be better later, that doesn't make it better now. Compare current specs. Potential means nothing because 90% of people will never go beyond rims.

Well the reasoning is that the displacement of an engine is relatively fixed (even boring and stroking is a function of the original displacement). A turbo is universal, you can add it or take it off of any engine as a bolt on part. So a turbo can benefit any engine equally therefore it's not a factor in the potential of any particular engine.

But you can't exactly add 4 more cylinders to a inline 4 or cut a V8 in half, you're kinda stuck with what you have. The engine with more displacement is going to have the inherent potential advantage. That much should be obvious.

Doesn't matter if you are talking about aluminum or lead weights, or try to bias it in your favor, the body builder is going to have an inherent advantage no matter how you try to manipulate it in your favor. Even if you win because the body builder didn't show up, we intrinsically expect the body builder to have an advantage.

You hit the nail on the head with "No that just means it could be better later". I'm not arguing that any bigger engine is better than any smaller engine with a turbo any time anywhere. I'm arguing that the concept of "no replacement for displacement" is a universal truth and has nothing to do with the fact that a T76 3SGTE can make 700 HP with 2.0L and a N/A LS7 only makes 500 HP. The "it could be better later" concept is exactly what the meaning of no replacement for displacement is all about, because again you can do all those other things to any engine, but you are relatively stuck with the displacement limits of the engine you choose.

And lol at "most people don't go beyond rims" so true.

For the last time, I'm not saying displacement is greater than all else or that a bigger engine will always make more power in ever scenario simply because it's bigger. But as long as you recognize that it COULD be better later, then you understand the concept of "no replacement for displacement"

We can sit here and argue all day. Everyone chooses the car they want for whatever reasons. Large engine, small engines, whatever. Displacement isn't everything all the time. Why is it that the Mustang GT has 300 hp with a 4.6L V8 and the Nissan 350Z has 306hp with a 3.5L V6?
You are over generalizing everything. Sure all things equal
the engine with more displacement will make more power with the same amount of boost. Thing are NEVER equal. You have different engines, turbos, drive train. A small turbo pushing 17psi will make less power than a large turbo pushing 17psi. PSI isn't everything either. The volume of air that the turbo is pushing also determines power. You have to consider lots of things not just displacement. You like your big engines and I like my 3.0L. There is something for everyone.