[avira_tk]

The saying is relevant in more ways than one, no replacement for displacement means the low stress high capacity engine won't need replacement via repairs or rebuilding. Every reliable engine has this characteristic.

The replacement for displacement is brought to you by the same folks who told Europeans to buy tiny hatches with diesel to reduce their carbon footprint and save the planet. Yes, the convenience of personal transport was combined the messianic delusion of saving the planet, on a monthly payment basis no less.

The downsized, highly strung engines are created to serve the lease period, usually about 3 years, they simply fall apart after that. The other thing downsizing brought about is badges that mean nothing, 30TSI - 1.4L, 55TDI - 3L, literally multiply by 2 to make gullible customers think they got a 5.5 V8 instead of the same old V6.

[streetfighter]

My thoughts... When the new Fiesta was launched, we did a comparo with mine (1.6S) vs the new one which had a 1.5L engine. I used to work with the tech team at a auto-journalism company, and they requested me to lend the car for the comparo; I agreed on the condition that I'd accompany them during the drive and shoot.

A pic from that drive:


Coming back to the topic, the 1.5L engine certainly felt underpowered when compared to my 1.6L engine. On paper, the BHP figures were high on the new 1.5L Fiesta. But the 1.6L felt punchy in the low and mid-range and certainly was the more fun to drive between the two. So, dispacement does has an advantage on the driveability and fun quotient

Another point I want to bring in is... most highways have a speed limit and overspeeding fines are getting stricter day-by-day. Almost everyone I know who drive a 4-wheeler have got a fine, especially on highways around Mumbai. Considering top speed to be capped around 80-100kmph for most Indian highways... does it make too much sense to run after higher displacement cars for personal use?

[Shardul3131]

Given a choice between A Small Capacity Turbo vs A Naturally Aspirated, higher Displacement Engine, I'd still pick the Small Capacity Turbo if I'm just looking for Raw, unadulterated fun.

The most mass market example is Skoda/ VW's 1.0 Turbo Petrol vs Honda's 1.5 NA Engine. Having Driven cars being powered with both the Engines pretty extensively, I feel the 1.0 was superior when it comes to Acceleration and Highway Performance

Nothing beats a NA engine when it comes to Reliability and Low End Performance though, so regular commutes would be more fun.

No replacement for Displacement when it comes to city commutes and a stress free experience is what I feel.

[rishil.ghurki]

Based on my experience (albeit limited), I do believe that displacement still matters in the lower spectrum of consumer cars. I'd like to share my observations:

1. I own a Nissan Magnite Turbo MT: this sports a 1.0L Turbocharged 3-cyl petrol engine (HRA0) producing 100PS & 160Nm (@2800-3600) (MT). The turbocharger only kicks in at 1800 rpm and until then, it feels underpowered, like a NA 1.0L petrol. This could also be due to the torque-banding being mostly in the mid-range, but it does feel underpowered in certain conditions and makes you want to down-shift a gear.

2. My other concern with these downsized turbos, is to do with the reduction in cylinders. A well made 3-cyl turbo petrol engine is very rare to find. The refinement: NVH-levels, idle vibrations are just not well contained (case in point: my Magnite).
The only exception perhaps is the 1.0 TSI from VW and maybe Hyundai's.

3. Most car buyers (including me), get excited seeing the power output figures on these 1.0L turbos and get convinced to buy. I've seen people who were looking for the Venue 1.2, but were convinced to go for the much more expensive 1.0L DCT after their TD! :P

4. While testing these turbo petrols for the FE, under ideal conditions, no doubt that they return impressive figures. But, in reality, the FE depends purely on your throttle usage! Moreover, Maruti Suzuki has been able to provide consistently good FE figures from their line-up of NA 1.2L, 1.5L 4-cyl engines (albeit at the compromise of slightly lower power output).

To sum up, my opinion is that the market does seem to be shifting towards lower displacement turbos, mostly because of the VFM it offers.

[shankar.balan]

A different take as a reply to this thread.
The world is rapidly moving to EV’s and in the EV world displacement is no longer relevant.

[AROO7]

Originally Posted by Kanwar7421

The question is "Have Automobile companies found a replacement for displacement?"

Yes, they have and downsizing is here and will remain for good. Even legacy car brands (Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, etc.) have now started to feel the pinch. The reason is stricter emission norms, heavy taxation (eg- gas-guzzler tax), etc. Almost all mass-market and premium brands are shifting to smaller boosted engines.

Here is a small example of how technology (read smaller engines with more power) from F1 trickles to mass-market cars in favor of downsizing. The Mercedes-AMG One, a hypercar, is powered by a 1.6-liter turbocharged V6 + 4 electric motor. Performance figures, 0-98 KMPH in 2.9 seconds and 352 KMPH top speed. In layman's terms, the powertrain is a street-legal version of an F1 car's powertrain. Similar tech has now trickled to the brand's 2023 Mercedes-AMG SL43. It comes with a 2.0-liter e-turbocharged inline-4 + 48-volt mild-hybrid system. The electric turbocharged used above makes 381 hp and 354 lb-ft of torque. Does 0-100 KMPH run in 4.9 seconds and has a top speed of 275 KMPH. The company has solved the turbo-lag problem by just using an electric turbocharger and also managed to downsize the engine without sacrificing performance.

In short, it's only a matter of time before we start getting smaller and more powerful engines doing duty in big cars and SUVs. As for the example of Ford and Toyota you have quoted above. Both the manufacturers are present in the US and both no longer offer a V8. The V8s have been replaced by twin-turbocharged V6 engines by them. The same has been extrapolated to their all other markets.

[dhanushs]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

It has always been an ambiguous statement at best. It suggest more Volume is better. Better for what? Power, torque, fuel efficiency, reliability, noise, emissions, size, weight, maintenance? All these factors influence one another....

For the question to make some sense, I think it should be purely based on an enthusiastic point of view. For a driving enthusiast, is the statement true?

But, then again, you can go on about what kind of enthusiasm are we catering to...

[Livnletcarsliv]

Regarding your Fortuner case, of 3.0 vs 2.8, I don't think any there is any significant difference. The power & torque outputs increase in the 2.8 is purely because of the technological advancements and nothing else.

However, there is a significant difference when the CC is reduced from 1.5L to 1.0L or 1.6L to 1.3L and so on. The main difference is the stress (significantly lower in the high CC engine), reliability (high CC engine will be more reliable), longevity (high CC engine probably will outlive our lifetime).

One of the main reasons for this is our (India as well as global) car buying patterns. Eg - Those days people did not change cars every 6-7 years (only very few will do). But now the affordability and the technological advancement has a great influence on car buying. So today manufacturers don't care about the longevity of the car, especially in the "upto 2000cc category". Manufacturers still do care about longevity of the cars in the higher displacement category. Also due to the ever changing market dynamics and business model.
And there are other reasons that is mentioned in this thread like - cost, tax, regulations, etc.

And a NA engine is always more reliable and easy on pocket than a Turbo. Of course, performance and fun to drive factor depends on what engines.

So to answer your question on displacement - YES, automobile companies have found a replacement for displacement. More in the low displacement engines and turbo conversions. Less in the high displacement engines.

[Rapidholic]

I have a MY'20 rapid 1.0 tsi manual with 20k on the odo and then last year I got a pre owned MY'09 Altis 1.8 manual with 105k on the odo. My better half doesn't know the difference in specs as she is not into cars and gadgets but she says altis drives way better (and I agree with her) however only thing she likes about the rapid is to floor the pedal in 6th gear and do illegal speeds.
So yes no replacement for displacement.

[Mortis]

Let's disregard other aspects like reliability, etc. fir a minute and consider the main reason for downsizing a larger NA to a smaller turbo engine is to improve fuel efficiency and lower carbon emissions.

Can the engineers and other experts on the forum help me out with a hypothetical situation ? Let's say this test is done under ideal conditions and averaging out stuff.

What if there was a fixed test track. The car has to rapidly accellerate to 40kph then maintain speed for a km. Then accelerate upto a highway speed of 80kph in gear and maintain speed for 10km. This is followed by 1km of stop and go traffic situation i.e. accellerate to 15kph then complete stop. Repeat until 1km is crossed.
Which car would be the most fuel efficient in and ideal scenario ?
The cars are 1.0 GDI Hyundai Venue and the other is a fictional 1.4 GDI Hyundai Venue.
Im not sure if both engines are from the same family and share the exact same technology and number of cylinders, differing only in displacement. Let's assume the gearbox and gear ratios are the same or similar (if that is even possible). Basically only varying in power output and torque via a slight upsize in cylinder volume. We also do factor in the additional engine weight and weight of strengthened support members and engine mounts (would that be an additional 30-40kg or so ?)
Would the same car with a more powerful engine have better Average fuel economy in this hypothetical scenario or would the additional weight and possibly (?) higher volume of fuel burned per cylinder per cycle of the larger displacement engine make it less fuel efficient ?

I believe that once the car is upto speed the smaller engine would most likely burn lesser fuel to maintain that speed but then the larger engine would most likely do this at a lower rpm. During the acceleration phases it would be less work for the more powerful engine to get pretty much the same weight of car up to speed so you would need to step on the accelerator less and thereby burn less fuel.
I'm curious to know what the outcome of such a test would be.

[CR07]

I drive a Ford Ecosport 1.5 TDCI S and Kia Sonet IMT 1.0 Turbo petrol.
If we are to look at only the acceleration (Flat out or roll on), the Sonet is definitely the better of the two. 120 PS (Sonet) vs 100 PS(Ecosport), and 172 NM vs 215 NM.

So yes, in terms of power and performance alone, the 1.0L Turbo P manages to outshine the 1.5 Turbo D.

[Livnletcarsliv]

Originally Posted by Mortis

Can the engineers and other experts on the forum help me out with a hypothetical situation ? Let's say this test is done under ideal conditions and averaging out stuff.

1.0 GDI will be more fuel efficient - given ONLY, STRICT and LIMITED conditions that you've mentioned.

[Guite]

I am somehow sceptical of the newer small capacity turbocharged engines. The 1.0 TSI is delivering more power and torque than my 1.2 TSI engine. With all technical wizardry going on behind the scene, will this 1.0 engine work as effortlessly as the older 1.2? Will it be as reliable? The technology might be too complex that point of failure could be many. So personally I would choose a larger displacement engine over a smaller one.

[On4Wheels]

Slow and steady win the race! In my opinion the modern turbo engines are fast and quick. However, it ages fast unlike the large displacement engines. As per thermodynamics, higher the temperature higher the efficiency. This may induce higher thermal stress on the engine, which will eventually reduce the life of the engine. In the era of turbo engines, we may see only a few engines cross 400000 kilometer mark. Correct me if I am wrong.

[for_cars1]

Long answer short - "there is NO replacement for displacement" is still relevant in 2022 as majority of the sales is still pure ICE engine based.
Larger CC simply translates to great low-rpm and stress-free high rpm performance.

If the Hybrids vehicle sales surpasses the pure ICE vehicles in the near future, the above adage will start losing its relevance.

With pure EVs or fuel cell vehicles dominating in the distant future, this saying will go extinct.