Is the 2L engine the "perfect" size?

[pinzgauer]

It's no accident that many very successful cars are 2.5l fours, some NA, some turbo.

They are out performing most of the 3.5 to 4 L v6s from prior decades. Torque as well as HP.

[wil]

a two liter is the perfect engine? didn't watch the video however it begs the question as to what basis was this determined?

There's a whole host of things involved with this. I had a `96 ranger & `96 tacoma, ranger had a 2.3 & the tacoma had a 2.4.

the tacoma will outpull the ranger by a wide margin, the torque curve on the tacoma is far better. The difference? cylinder head.

eliminate epa factors and the chevy 454 goes from 160 hp (in 1976) to 450 hp (in 1970) off the showroom floor.

[WillBrink]

a two liter is the perfect engine? didn't watch the video however it begs the question as to what basis was this determined?

There's a whole host of things involved with this. I had a `96 ranger & `96 tacoma, ranger had a 2.3 & the tacoma had a 2.4.

the tacoma will outpull the ranger by a wide margin, the torque curve on the tacoma is far better. The difference? cylinder head.

eliminate epa factors and the chevy 454 goes from 160 hp (in 1976) to 450 hp (in 1970) off the showroom floor.

Watch vid...

[wil]

Watch vid...

went ahead and scrolled through the ad bandini. He talks quite a bit about chamber volume and poor combustion at chamber edges. But never says a word about quench and it's direct effect on that, as well as never mentions chamber shape, chamber wall height, etc.

Nothing really informative.

Best or perfect engine? The closest anyone could come to that would be what is best for a given application.

A 2 liter isn't going to beat a KB on fuel at the drag strip, by the same token a KB on fuel isn't going to work at all on the street compared to a 2 liter 4 banger.

I had an L20B in my 510. Simply adding the 2.2 liter crank & rods made that engine a lot stronger.
what was the application? looking for more torque on a daily driver.

stock 1600 was really terrible in the hills in SoCal. L20B had a lot more torque for climbing hills, then did the crank (stroke) change.

Same story, what is best for a given application?

[WillBrink]

went ahead and scrolled through the ad bandini. He talks quite a bit about chamber volume and poor combustion at chamber edges. But never says a word about quench and it's direct effect on that, as well as never mentions chamber shape, chamber wall height, etc.

Nothing really informative.

Best or perfect engine? The closest anyone could come to that would be what is best for a given application.

A 2 liter isn't going to beat a KB on fuel at the drag strip, by the same token a KB on fuel isn't going to work at all on the street compared to a 2 liter 4 banger.

I had an L20B in my 510. Simply adding the 2.2 liter crank & rods made that engine a lot stronger.
what was the application? looking for more torque on a daily driver.

stock 1600 was really terrible in the hills in SoCal. L20B had a lot more torque for climbing hills, then did the crank (stroke) change.

Same story, what is best for a given application?

I can't comment on all that as it's not my lane. I have driven a bunch of, and drive right now, 2.0L turbo, but per OP, prefer the smooth wide power band of V6. My GF as the VW GTI track version that's 221 HP (or there abouts) and that's got legit quickness, etc and is a lot of fun to drive, and in terms of a practical car for every day life and fun driving, I can't think of a better choice for the $.

I like the room and size of compact/mid sized SUVs, but would be happy with that GTI.

[P2Vaircrewman]

On the TV series Engine Masters they put twin turbos on a bone stock 5.3 LS4 and made 1543 horsepower.