Daimo B
Member
Registered: 20th Mar 00
User status: Offline
|
Turbo for the sudden surge in power...
NA for useable track power.
All of course being driven by the right wheels. I like NA fwd cars, turbo fwd are fun but not as east to control. 4wd turbo is going to be faster than a NA. Theres lots of factors, each has merit and flaws.
A 200bhp NA engine though would beat a 200bhp turbo car of similar cc (i.e a TB 2.0 @ 200bhp would beat a standard LET on acceleration, top speed would be similar).
From my experience anyway...
|
Nick-S
Member
Registered: 3rd Mar 04
Location: Leigh. Drives: RS Megane 230 F1 Team R26
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nic Barnes
quote:
Originally posted by GSi_16v
Id still like to know were a high reving engine with a positive displacement supercharger or a big lazy engine with a centrifugal type supercharger fits in. No lag and boost... 
well technically, although it wont lag, it wont reach peak boost right away. so it kinda is like lag sort of kind of.
i was more referring to how superchargers were not included in the argument 
|
Nic Barnes
Member
Registered: 5th Apr 04
Location: nowhere near ginger people
User status: Offline
|
although i prefer to drive a turbo car, i really do prefer the noise of a good tb'd engine all day long. dont know why, maybe they just sound angry.
id not go back to n/a in terms of my corsa etc.
|
FruitBooTeR
Member
Registered: 18th Jan 07
Location: Wolverhampton Drives: S15
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by GSi_16v
quote:
Originally posted by Nic Barnes
quote:
Originally posted by GSi_16v
Id still like to know were a high reving engine with a positive displacement supercharger or a big lazy engine with a centrifugal type supercharger fits in. No lag and boost...
well technically, although it wont lag, it wont reach peak boost right away. so it kinda is like lag sort of kind of.
i was more referring to how superchargers were not included in the argument
Take it up with Redline then I didnt think up the article  I just copied what he said... no point in adding sc etc would make it to messy as they act slightly differently to turbos. Better to just have good old Turbo Vs N/A 
|
Jas
Member
Registered: 13th Oct 04
Location: Mid Wales
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
130 seems about average for a remap from what I can see.
Would need turbo, fmic, intake, exhaust at least.
and a fair few other things.. intake and exhaust wont give it over 10bhp
|
Nick-S
Member
Registered: 3rd Mar 04
Location: Leigh. Drives: RS Megane 230 F1 Team R26
User status: Offline
|
they should of said forced induction v natural aspiration then superchargers can play
|
Ellis
Member
Registered: 11th Sep 07
Location: Aberdeenshire
User status: Offline
|
Never owned a car with any sort of of forced induction, however being a passenger in Imprezas and the like makes you wonder why this debate exists
|
Nick-S
Member
Registered: 3rd Mar 04
Location: Leigh. Drives: RS Megane 230 F1 Team R26
User status: Offline
|
Because there aint no replacement for displacement and all that jazz. 
|
smcGSI16V
Member
Registered: 26th May 03
Location: Farnborough Drives: Thurlby 888 CDTi No.98
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
Turbo for the sudden surge in power...
NA for useable track power.
All of course being driven by the right wheels. I like NA fwd cars, turbo fwd are fun but not as east to control. 4wd turbo is going to be faster than a NA. Theres lots of factors, each has merit and flaws.
A 200bhp NA engine though would beat a 200bhp turbo car of similar cc (i.e a TB 2.0 @ 200bhp
would beat a standard LET on acceleration, top speed would be similar).
From my experience anyway...
I quite agree.
And anyway, who gives a shit. It's an an opinion from redline!
Bullshit mag for bullshit people.
|
andy1868
Member
Registered: 22nd Jun 06
Location: Burscough, Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
the most powerful thing i've driven with a turbo is a 1.7 dti combo van and my own car is the integra, so i can hardly compare the 2 accurately (unless we're talking about torque )
regardless of how good anyone says the N/A engine is, surely its going to be so much better with some sort of forced induction? i know i miss mid range grunt, a cheeky SC would help that FFS. the N/A engine will always been limited will it not?
|
FruitBooTeR
Member
Registered: 18th Jan 07
Location: Wolverhampton Drives: S15
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by smcGSI16V
quote:
Originally posted by VXR
Turbo for the sudden surge in power...
NA for useable track power.
All of course being driven by the right wheels. I like NA fwd cars, turbo fwd are fun but not as east to control. 4wd turbo is going to be faster than a NA. Theres lots of factors, each has merit and flaws.
A 200bhp NA engine though would beat a 200bhp turbo car of similar cc (i.e a TB 2.0 @ 200bhp
would beat a standard LET on acceleration, top speed would be similar).
From my experience anyway...
I quite agree.
And anyway, who gives a shit. It's an an opinion from redline!
Bullshit mag for bullshit people.
So im a bullshit person because i bought a copy?
|
Colin
Member
Registered: 4th Apr 02
User status: Offline
|
I drove a 400bhp Evo 6 a few months ago & it felt a lot more of an animal than my 343bhp M3....................quicker, more going on, louder, more bells & whistles etc however it simply wasnt the type of car I wanted to own, I wanted a good all rounder not a car with 2 speeds - warp 3 or stopped!! I woldnt say eithers necissarly better. It depends on what you want in a car 
|
smcGSI16V
Member
Registered: 26th May 03
Location: Farnborough Drives: Thurlby 888 CDTi No.98
User status: Offline
|
Just my opinion.
(people who have their cars featured, I mean; look at the state of the cars)
Don't take it to heart.
[Edited on 02-06-2009 by smcGSI16V]
|
