[tacho]

There is no replacement for displacement. But there is a substitute. It's called Forced Induction

[MileCruncher]

@OP: Atleast for me there is no clear answer. With Forced Indusction and Direct Injection technology in Petrol Engines, one can have a 1.4 L engine producing 200 BHP whereas you also have diesels which produce about 100 BHP with 2.2 Litres. The quintessential question to me would be how reliable is the engine? Churning out an obscene amount of power from an engine is not difficult but making it reliable is. So for me it would be a mix of BHP or rather Torque & CC.

[Yusha]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

This is only true when you compare 2 engines of the same type.

A smaller engine with FI can produce similar power and torque output as a bigger NA engine at the same rpm.
Shan2nu

Yes, you are right. Forgot to mention that.

[CARDEEP]

I have also voted for more power output (bhp).

Gone are days of "no replacement for displacement". Turbo-charging has changed the game like anything, without adverse effect on fuel consumption.

[aaggoswami]

Very tough decision making process!

I would prefer to go for BHP, irrespective of CC.
A big engine will be under less stress to make similar amount of bhp or torque. Where as to produce peak power, the smaller unit will have to work more. At high speeds, its more of bhp game to accelerate further.

Big engine though having lower specific output, will work less and will be under less stress IMO. The larger engine will have more easy torque than smaller unit.

In general, for high speed driving = cc, but for shorter distance and low speeds, its smaller engine.

[acidkill]

All in all, i would say that its really subjective and there are too many variables affecting perceived performance. For example

- The 1.9 TDI of the octavia is extremely FE inspite of is size and displacement.
- The 1.3 MJD can pack a punch inspite of its small size.
- Amongst petrols, the 1.2 K series maruti engine seems to have better BHP figures than the 1.5 NHC

As far as forced induction is concerned, turbocharges still rule the market over supercharges because of price. Therefore I would prefer a naturally aspriated engine because of the absence of any turbo lag. The 2.0 diesel in the lancer is a babe

[karpusv]

Thanks a lot for all those views coming in. I myself felt it was a tricky thing to decide on.

Most of the time when I visited dealerships, some would tell me that "This car has a XXXX cc engine".

While some other car dealerships would say, "This car has xxx power".
While both were correct, both are technically debatable also, as just one of these information doesn't make complete sense.

That is why I decided to get the feel of T-BHPians.

But, as general buyers, do people (non T-BHPians ) fall for the engine size or the power?

[Harshavarthan]

Originally Posted by Nitronium

Small powerful engines for me. The only advantage of a huge capacity engine is that the engine feels less strained while cruising.

Exactly and for the same reason i still prefer engine capacity to horse power.

[abhayshanu]

If the car was to remain stock then less cc and more bhp is much better, but if it were to be modded, there is nothing like cubic capacity.
A bigger engine will yield more result and will be better for modding because it has alot of potential, where as the smaller engine will already be near to its max.

[pranavt]

Originally Posted by abhayshanu

A bigger engine will yield more result and will be better for modding because it has alot of potential, where as the smaller engine will already be near to its max.

There's no magical formula that says this. It all depends on how well the engine has been optimised by the manufacturer, and the construction and characteristics of the engine and its components.

[designersf]

It is highly debateable. Ferrari makes 462bhp from its 4.5L V8 while Nissan's GT-R makes 473+ from a 3.8L Twin Turbo. Better still, the new 911 turbo makes 523bhp from its 3.6L flat-six Twin Turbo. So its obvious as to who wins the race.

[GTO]

Intriguing thread question. In stock form, and all other things remaining the same, of course I'd go for the engine with a higher power output. I have (had) two 21xx cc diesels. One makes 140 BHP, the other a mere 62. Of course, the former is turbocharged and has 340 NM of torque as well.

However, its not as simple as that. If two modern engines make the same BHP, and one is substantially smaller than the other, in most cases the smaller will be turbo-charged. In this case, I'd prefer the larger engine that makes the same power. Net net, I prefer naturally aspirated horses to turbocharged ones. More linear power delivery is just one of the reasons.

The auto industry is slowly moving toward smaller capacity direct injection turbo-charged engines. VW's 1.2 liter petrols are leading the trend while, closer home, we have the Superb 1.8 TSI.

[Grafin]

Originally Posted by designersf

It is highly debateable. Ferrari makes 462bhp from its 4.5L V8 while Nissan's GT-R makes 473+ from a 3.8L Twin Turbo. Better still, the new 911 turbo makes 523bhp from its 3.6L flat-six Twin Turbo. So its obvious as to who wins the race.

As far as i know, the Porsche 911 turbo produces only 500 Bhp and the 2010 model Nissan GTR produces 485Bhp.

[GoldenParadox]

Originally Posted by GTO

If two modern engines make the same BHP, and one is substantially smaller than the other, in most cases the smaller will be turbo-charged. In this case, I'd prefer the larger engine that makes the same power. Net net, I prefer naturally aspirated horses to turbocharged ones.

But why? If you elaborate on this part, I believe the debate will become more transparent.

Originally Posted by GTO

More linear power delivery is just one of the reasons.

Request: Kindly explain 'more linear power delivery'. Thanks in advance.

My point is, if all that hits your senses is all that you can perceive, how does a larger engine make any difference to the driver? Rather than each one's view, can we look for a technical reason why we should prefer one over the other? (1) In driving; (2) in maintenance; or (3) or ownership costs.

Is there such a reason?

[xingamazon]

Well I opted for the CC almost inline with GTO's response in support of the argument, if there are two engines having same BHP then the car with the better CC is for sure the winner.

But anyway given the situation that I have to decide upon two cars, I belive the test drive is what I would prefer to answer to the question, the powertrain operation is not just the CC of the engine or the BHP its how the who system reflects onto the driving experience that matters.