Originally posted by wibbly The application of a replacement for displacement doesn't depend on a starting point
You have added this to the statement.
No, you added to the statement. I just used afterwards as it was the basis for the context of how you were applying original phrase.
Originally posted by wibbly I have been very clear in my assertion that displacement can be replaced with boost. All you have suggested is that boosting a larger engine (adding displacement) nets a greater outcome (no shit Sherlock), however the starting place has never been suggested and should have never been assumed.
Well, no. Boosting a larger engine doesn't add displacement. It adds more power. The physical displacement of the motor remained the same despite pressurizing more air into the space. A 3.5 liter v6 with twin turbos is still a 3.5 liter v6. It may generate twice (or more) power at the crank after boosting, but it is still a 3.5 liter v6.
Despite your rudness, which is against the TOS of this site, there isn't a starting place to the meaning of the phrase. We agree. There is no replacement for displacement since boost increases for all size of motors and the larger the motor the more potential power generated.
And the context of using the phrase originally was to introduce another way of describing how technology is not entirely overcoming the physical properties of a larger sensor. Because, even if you somehow 'boost' a smaller sensor to output comparable IQ of a larger sensor, you can boost the larger sensor and do just the same. It scales too (in theory).