A simple question which is nonetheless CONTROVERSIAL

[Fred Douglass]

I don't want to be the next person to ignite the BB-vs-sb firestorm BUTT, after reading tons of literature and talking with people about any number of engines, AND having driven my own 351C as well as several BB cobras---I have a question specifically about displacement and "real" horsepower (vs "pony-power").

The April "Mustang and Fords" issue had the article title "Still No Replacement for Displacement" which is a new twist on the old adage "There is no substitute for Cubic Inches". So, I talked to several local Ferraristi (a convenient source of low-displacement, high dynoed power afficianadoes) and then to some American big-block fans. The latter said, "unless each rated horsepower and foot/lb. of torque comes from close to a cubic inch, it won't have the grunt". In other words (let's say), 450 hp/450 ft/lbs. from 270 ci is NOT the equivalent of 450 square from 427 inches. I suppose this means that 1.8 hp @ cubic inch is not as powerful as 1.0 hp. One old, wise man said, "Rated (dynoed) hp is hp--period. It's the torque which does the talkin' and THAT'S where the cubic inches count!"

Who's right? Do you need the cubic inches to have real power, or do these frenetic turbo'd rice-burners have the answer (in equivalent power)? Is there, in other words, TRULY no substitue for cubic inches, or is it all in letting those cubic inchces breath? I tend to believe that displacement is the easiest and truest source....until some steroided Honda gallops past my cobra, that is.

Hope there are some brave and helpful piston-heads out there who'll throw their hats in the ring on this one.

Keep smilin'