Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

[bob_chasm]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@Agent Smith

^ That’s too much to expect from an affordable All Wheel Drive turbo charged performance car under $ 23,000.

Thats true. Is that how much you paid for yours?

regards,

bob

[Samael]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@mAd_ScIeNtIsT

I’m still utterly in love with the turbo in my car. It may be a biatch having to wait a minute when turning the car on before driving off, and before turning the car off (need to let the turbo spin up to speed and spin down with adequate oil being pumped to it by the engine) , but it’s sooo worth it. 197 hp and a 220 pounds of torque at low rpms from just a 2400cc engine makes it amazing.

Ok, so there’s a spot of lag, but when you ease your foot down, and the turbo makes the beast lunge ahead, there’s nothing quite like it.

I’m thinking that once you do a turbo, you can’t go back to normal engines…

Dude, that 197HP and 220 pounds of torque are at the crank not RWHP. Dyno the car and you’ll see the real numbers which are around 10%-15% less.

Turbochargers are good if you rev the piss out of your engine.

Try a “normal” engine with (350Z) 287HP and 274 lb-ft, you’ll forget your turbo. Or there’s a more fair comparasion to your car, the S2000 “normal” 2.0 engine putting out 240HP. Pretty sweet.

So what car do you have?

[Samael]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@bob_chasm

**

Been there done that with two WRXs. Noisy, uncomfortable and insufficent low end torque. I was just kidding about the pony cars.

regards,

bob

300 crank lb-ft at 4000 rpms are not enough?

[RaMo]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@mAd_ScIeNtIsT

I’m thinking that once you do a turbo, you can’t go back to normal engines…

Try a big displacement V-8 (5.7 litres and up none of the pansy European 4 litre stuff). It’ll make your turbo feel and sound like a cheap lawnmower. Theres just no substitute for displacement.

[waleed]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

one of the best turbo car is mitsubishi evo over 400 BHP :o

[waleed]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@RaMo

Try a big displacement V-8 (5.7 litres and up none of the pansy European 4 litre stuff). It’ll make your turbo feel and sound like a cheap lawnmower. Theres just no substitute for displacement.

u know wats funny those dumb ass americans make such inefficient cars. i bet u the 5.7 gets beaten by the 2 liter evo hands down.

know ur stuff b4 u speak child.

[bob_chasm]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@Samael

300 crank lb-ft at 4000 rpms are not enough?

**

I said low end torque. Look at how much torque it makes at 2000-2500 rpms.

regards,

bob

[RaMo]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@waleed

u know wats funny those dumb ass americans make such inefficient cars. i bet u the 5.7 gets beaten by the 2 liter evo hands down.

know ur stuff b4 u speak child.

no - you should know your stuff. There’s more to an engine than the headline power figures. The Evo (especially the FQ400) suffers from horrendous turbo lag therefore isn’t a tractable car (slower than a Ford Focus from 30-60 in top gear). You have to be in exactly the right gear otherwise you’re going nowhere fast. The small block chevy on the other hand (as an example) develops about 80% of its peak torque at at 2500 rpm meaning that gear selection is pretty much academic.

[waleed]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@RaMo

no - you should know your stuff. There’s more to an engine than the headline power figures. The Evo (especially the FQ400) suffers from horrendous turbo lag therefore isn’t a tractable car (slower than a Ford Focus from 30-60 in top gear). You have to be in exactly the right gear otherwise you’re going nowhere fast. The small block chevy on the other hand (as an example) develops about 80% of its peak torque at at 2500 rpm meaning that gear selection is pretty much academic.

ok beta tell me who is dumb enough to have the car in 5th gear at 30 MPH???

do u know its as fast as the murcelago on the ‘top gear’ (program by BBC) track. the king has spoken

[bob_chasm]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@waleed

ok beta tell me who is dumb enough to have the car in 5th gear at 30 MPH???

do u know its as fast as the murcelago on the ‘top gear’ (program by BBC) track. the king has spoken

Okay so which gear would you be in at 30 mph in a WRX, do you know?

[WRX]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@bob_chasm

Okay so which gear would you be in at 30 mph in a WRX, do you know?

Well it depends on the WRX driver. For normal driving you should be on 3rd gear. But if launched properly 30 mph can also be achieved in 1st gear.
I don’t understand why people complain about WRX’s low end torque and turbo lag. I actually like the low LET because it gives me better fuel mileage under normal driving condition. I mean who actually wants to drive his car like a maniac all the time? It happens once in a blue moon when I feel like leaving rivals in dust. Especially some yuppie in BMW or Audi who paid 20,000 more than WRX pricetag yet still WRX outperforms them in speed and handling. If someone is a true performance car enthusiast, luxury, quietness and roomy interior should be the last thing on his mind.

[waleed]

Re: Normally aspirated engines, turbocharging or supercharging - which turns YOU on?

@bob_chasm

Okay so which gear would you be in at 30 mph in a WRX, do you know?

in a normal car you would be in 3rd