do you drive a supercharged or turbocharged CAR? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : do you drive a supercharged or turbocharged CAR?


97guns
09-28-2005, 18:34
my current car is a pumped out vw 1.8 TURBO thats putting down 196 hp and 237 ft. tq. to the ground. my previous car was a pontiac grand prix gtp supercharged that i left stock and i must say that i CAN'T drive a normally aspirated car any longer. the supercharger had a smooth power delivery that just kept pulling and my turbo really throws you back in your seat when it spools up. ive ridden in a friends infinity g35 with around 300 hp and the throttle sensation is nothing like a forced induction car. i dont think i can live without forced induction. thoughts/comments/perspectives?

DaisyCutter
09-28-2005, 19:11
Originally posted by 97guns
do you drive a supercharged or turbocharged CAR?

No, I prefer having more cylinders.

c5367
09-28-2005, 19:17
My previous ride was a 1.8T as well. It was stock except for a short shifter. surprisingly enough, the 180hp 1.8T feels ever-so-slightly more sporty than the 270hp 3.2 VTEC in my new TL.
I think the difference is the superwide torque curve that forced induction engines can provide. The VW hits its torque peak at 1950, and that peak extends into the 4k range without dropping at all. The VTEC on the other hand is admittedly a rev happy engine. Until you get it on the cam, it's typical Honda smooth.

Ron3
09-28-2005, 20:52
Yes I do!

I'm pretty hooked on it too. My next ride will have to be much lighter if doesn't have a power-adder!

Ron3

Swanny
09-28-2005, 21:11
Yep. I drive a 2001 Audi A4 1.8T. Great car, but I still need to get the chip for it. It is 180HP stock, but a chip with a 93 octane program will get me closer to 210HP. Not a bad gain in power for $500.

bac1023
09-28-2005, 21:34
My Lotus Esprit has a 3.5L twin turbo V8. Turbo lag is not noticable and I love its power delivery. I had a Porsche 944 turbo S a few years ago and that suffered from serious lag and still didn't bother me. Lag or not, I love turbocharged cars. That said, I have had some powerful NA cars and enjoyed them as well.

ColoradoPacker
09-28-2005, 21:41
At a mile high altitude where I live you need a turbo.

I have a 2004 Subaru STi with 300hp/ftlbs and it ran a 13.4 @ 101 at Bandimere speedway once, stock but emptied out of everything. That's about 0.4 seconds and 4mph slower than sea-level. No noticable turbo lag, and good torque (although nothing compaired to a 5.0 SC Mustang I had a ride in once).

Asha'man
09-29-2005, 00:32
I'll be driving one soon, assuming I can ever get room in my buddy's garage for the motor swap. Ford 2.3 Turbo, SOHC, T3, huge FMIC, 255lph pump, 35# injectors, boost controller, 3" exhaust, etc. Basic turbocar mods. I would like to see at least 250rwhp and well upwards of 300ft/lbs once it's running and tuned, and I don't think that's unreasonable. It's going into my '92 Stang.

Brian

Asha'man
09-29-2005, 00:33
CP - looks like you can drive pretty well. Most of the STi's I see at Bandi are running high 14's-low 15's. :)

Brian

ColoradoPacker
09-29-2005, 00:51
It's all in the launch. Get the RPM too low and it can bog, too high and the stock cluch smokes. I've seen Stock WRX's run 15.0 at bandimere with th right driver.

My previous 2000 Impreza RS with aftermarket turbo made 233whp @ 10 psi on 95 octane on a dynapack in Broomfield (about what an STi puts to the wheels at the dyno in Parker), and I still ran a 13.7 @ 97 on 3 cylinders where it couldn't make over 8 psi after #3 piston let go...

streeter69
09-29-2005, 06:26
I will be driving one when I get money together for a KB:cool:

45acp4me
09-29-2005, 14:09
My old Talon would run 12.9's @ 108MPH running on 110 octane and it would do mid to high 13's on 93.

Beyond that, the coil overs, camber plates and stabilizer bars made it pull .98 G's on the skid pad with street tires.

Fun car, but at 160,00 miles, it was needing too much work to keep up with. Buying a house was more important than making it an all out toy and not a daily driver so it had to go for something newer.

dbrowne1
09-29-2005, 15:09
I've got a VW 1.8T as well, with lots of mods. Haven't dynoed it on the current setup, but similar setups are around 210-220whp, 260-280wtq. (K04 turbo, chip, 3" exhaust, boost controller, and some other tweaks).

And it still gets 32mpg on the highway. ;f

fnfalman
09-29-2005, 15:16
Forced induction is for companies who don't have real mechanical engineers to design a good engine.

dbrowne1
09-29-2005, 15:41
Originally posted by fnfalman
Forced induction is for companies who don't have real mechanical engineers to design a good engine.

Right...;Q Those Germans have no clue how to design engines. 5 valves per cylinder and a small, low inertia turbo = 6 cylinder torque curve with 4 cylinder efficiency.

Let me clue you in - a 1.8T econobox, with a $500 chip, can match or beat a stock or lightly modified 4.6 or 5.0 Mustang in the 1/4 mile, last for twice as many miles, and use 30% less fuel.

97guns
09-29-2005, 16:23
yep i really cant say enough about this little car i have now. mustang owners really hate it when i pull on them. its been every day driver reliable and i get around 27 mpg with city/hiway driving

pnarq5
09-29-2005, 16:35
fnf has a point. Why no turbos on ferraris? BMW top engineers consider turbos and superchargers as cheating! Porsche has only two turbo, the Turbo and the GT2(I do not count the stupid suv). The top Porsches have no turbo. lamborghini, no turbos.
Turbo are fun. They help give extra power when the money is not there. I enjoy them. They make a car feel faster. Take two cars that are the same speed, one turbo and the other not. The turbo will always feel faster.
However, the best engines in the world are naturally aspirated.

fnfalman
09-29-2005, 17:05
Originally posted by dbrowne1
Right...;Q Those Germans have no clue how to design engines. 5 valves per cylinder and a small, low inertia turbo = 6 cylinder torque curve with 4 cylinder efficiency.

Let me clue you in - a 1.8T econobox, with a $500 chip, can match or beat a stock or lightly modified 4.6 or 5.0 Mustang in the 1/4 mile, last for twice as many miles, and use 30% less fuel.

Let me clue YOU in, my BMW inline 6 is silky smooth with power delivery and has plenty of oomph. All without forced induction.;Q

No lag, no extra pieces, no chip, no refuel mapping, no cool down period before shutting off engine. Just good old fashioned engineering...

Forced induction is the easy way out for making power.

45acp4me
09-29-2005, 17:16
Originally posted by fnfalman

Forced induction is the easy way out for making power.

Not the easy way out, just cheaper. Why should we have to pay $40k for a car that makes 260 HP out of a 6 cylinder when we can pay $26k and make the same and get better mileage. Not all of us want pure refinement, some just want power and grip.

Your Z4 will get spanked pretty hard by the Japanese AWD factory turbo cars and for less money. Sure it's not BMW, but for the money, they perform pretty darn well.

BTW, Porsche would never consider turbo charging the Boxster because it would start to perform too close to it's higher end cars. They have the technology to make a turbo model like they did with the 944, they just don't want to see people mod them and beat up on the 911.

Cars are all fun, but for a nice starting platform, a turbo car is a nice way to go.

dbrowne1
09-29-2005, 17:55
Originally posted by fnfalman
[B]Let me clue YOU in, my BMW inline 6 is silky smooth with power delivery and has plenty of oomph. All without forced induction.

I've driven lots of BMWs. Nice cars, but notably lacking in the "oomph" department until you get to the M cars.

No lag, no extra pieces, no chip, no refuel mapping, no cool down period before shutting off engine. Just good old fashioned engineering...

There's no lag to speak of on the VAG 1.8T. It's at full boost, even when chipped, at well under 2500rpm. It is nothing like a SAAB or a DSM turbo. If I mash the gas when it's already moving and in gear, it's fully spooled in literally 1 second.

The chip goes in (or gets flashed via the diagnostic port) and you forget it. There's no tuning to be done unless you are neurotic and want to squeeze the last 3hp out of it. It's a water-cooled turbo and you don't need to cool down or use a turbo timer. I pulled my stock turbo after 50K miles, with no cool downs, and the bearing and oil lines were spotless.

Forced induction is the easy way out for making power.

And chainsaws are the easy way to cut trees. I guess some people still like axes...

dbrowne1
09-29-2005, 17:59
Originally posted by pnarq5
fnf has a point. Why no turbos on ferraris? BMW top engineers consider turbos and superchargers as cheating! Porsche has only two turbo, the Turbo and the GT2(I do not count the stupid suv). The top Porsches have no turbo. lamborghini, no turbos.
Turbo are fun. They help give extra power when the money is not there. I enjoy them. They make a car feel faster. Take two cars that are the same speed, one turbo and the other not. The turbo will always feel faster.
However, the best engines in the world are naturally aspirated.

The "top" Porsches have no FI because they are made for race circuits where FI is not allowed. Go look at racing history, and you'll see that turbos were prevalent for a period and that those cars made the best numbers, but were killing drivers.

Mercedes uses superchargers across its entire fleet. Lotus uses turbos. And FI doesn't make cars "feel" faster - it DOES make them faster.

Ron3
09-29-2005, 20:08
Originally posted by fnfalman

Forced induction is the easy way out for making power.

You mean it's the easy way IN to making power!

I don't recall the last time I saw a semi-truck that wasn't turbocharged.

Actually forced induction is more complex then natural aspiration, and it costs more, but it's usually better and makes alot of sense for street vehicles.

Ron3

David N.
09-29-2005, 20:19
Originally posted by pnarq5
fnf has a point. Why no turbos on ferraris? BMW top engineers consider turbos and superchargers as cheating! Porsche has only two turbo, the Turbo and the GT2(I do not count the stupid suv). The top Porsches have no turbo. lamborghini, no turbos.
Turbo are fun. They help give extra power when the money is not there. I enjoy them. They make a car feel faster. Take two cars that are the same speed, one turbo and the other not. The turbo will always feel faster.
However, the best engines in the world are naturally aspirated.

The F40 was turbocharged.

pnarq5
09-29-2005, 20:43
Maclaren F1
Carrera GT
Enzo

These guys really missed the boat! What a bunch of idiots! They forgot the turbos.
Okay, here is the deal-
Turbos and superchargers are great. For the same POWER, they are more efficient that a naturally aspirated engine. Turbos, being the most efficient forced induction, have no parasitic drag and can be "turned off" with the throttle position to get max m.p.g.
However, a naturally aspirated engine has a more linear power band that is more predictable and has better feedback. Also the throttle responce is instant. Every turbo has some kind of lag.
That said, I like turbos and I like naturally aspirated engines. I would have no problem buying either. If the car was to be driven or raced on a road course, I would pick the naturally aspirated car.
Please don't talk about semis. We (should) all know that diesels are a very different story.
AGAIN: I like the F.I. (the turbo better than the SC) so do not flame my ass about that!

gixxer11
09-29-2005, 20:52
I think turbo "LAG" is awesome. I love the "rubberband" effect. Turbos aren't cheating, they complete the engine, IMO. The sounds from a healthy turbo engine.....ooohhh man! I do belive in the "no replacement for displacement" creed, though. Bigger engine, bigger turbo! Remember the late '80's-early '90's F1 cars? The flames from the exhausts? How could you not appreciate that? Most of the major racing series' don't favor FI cars anymore, with a few exceptions, but everyone (i.e. Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes, etc.) have raced FI cars. Hell, aren't most, if not all, the AMG series Benzs are FI?

pnarq5
09-29-2005, 21:08
gixxer11, you bring up a good point. The "rubber band" effect. I forgot to address dbrowne1 brilliant point. He said,"And FI doesn't make cars "feel" faster - it DOES make them faster."
Now read real careful dbrownel.
We all know that adding FI to a car will make it faster. My point was this: You have two cars. Both run a 13.5 @107 in the 1/4 mile. If you drive them both and do not know their times, you would guess that the turbo car would be the faster of the two because of this "rubber band" effect.
Ever been in a Grand National? Fast yes, but they feel much faster.

Ridgeway
09-29-2005, 21:58
Originally posted by gixxer11
Hell, aren't most, if not all, the AMG series Benzs are FI?
MB is phasing FI out of both it's AMG & non AMG vehicles.

Your Z4 will get spanked pretty hard by the Japanese AWD factory turbo cars and for less money. Sure it's not BMW, but for the money, they perform pretty darn well.
wait till the new M Roadster is out next year...or even the 3.0i when the N54 replaces the M54

BMW top engineers consider turbos and superchargers as cheating
small overstatement imo
BMW has previously used FI on it's gas engine vehicles
& presently the diesel vehicles are all turbocharged
add to that rumors (now likely false it seems- especially in light of MB leaving the FI arena imo) of a turbo 3er(335) to fit between the 330 & m3
I'm glad BMW sticks to N/A for M cars, but wouldn't mind a turbo Z4 or 3er to fill the price/performance gap.

pnarq5
09-29-2005, 22:07
It was an engine builder from the "M" (motorsport) dept. at BMW that had issues with turbos and superchargers. I saw an interview where a M engine biulder almost walk out because of the question-"why don't you use turbos?"

Last time:
NO ONE THINKS DIESELS ARE BETTER WITHOUT TURBOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!
Diesels are VERY different!

epsylum
09-29-2005, 22:21
IMO Turbos are not cheating. They only harness power that is being wasted by NA cars (exhaust pressure).

I unserstand comparing turbo cars to turbo cars and NA to NA cars. They are 2 different animals.

Turbos give better power, better gas milage (when stayng off the boost), and better reliability when designed properly. They are very Dr. Jekel (sp?) and Mr. hyde but that's part of their charm. A *****cat one second and a raging beast the next.

I think a turbo or 2 can only make a good car better. E.g. The Saleen S7 was bad, but the TT version is even better. The 917K was a bad mofo, the 917/30 was the baddest race car for over 30 years.

Turbocharging IS easy, but it doesn't make it bad in any way.

I read an interesting article in a car mag about making more fuel efficient engines that can keep the same performance. The best idea is smaller engines with turbos to make up for the lack of displacement. So now you can have your cake and eat it too, 30+mpg and 200+ hp. I like that better than any stupid hybrid (those batteries WILL die some day, good luck finding the coin to buy new ones).

gixxer11
09-29-2005, 22:26
Who gives a $#!t about what BMW thinks about turbos. I mean they are only one company. And they certianly used them before. Some like N/A, some like FI. Depends on the purpose of the vehicle. N/A waste all that energy out the exhaust. Turbos are harder to control. I heard that the M engineers are working on an electric car. No lag, lots of torque.

David N.
09-29-2005, 22:50
I wonder how much of the current lack of forced induction in a lot of the performance companies lineups is due to F1 not allowing it. Ferrari and BMW without, and MB maybe dropping it...all (usually) strong teams in F1.

Personally I prefer my engines to be naturally aspirated in a V configuration with the number of cylinders divisible by four. But that's just me. If someone else wants to put their car on a respirator, who am I to stop them?

pnarq5
09-30-2005, 07:27
Hummmmmm.......Who cares about BMW? One of the finest performance car makes ever, who cares?
How about Ferrari, Honda, Lamborghini, and BMW. Some pretty big names and not one of them have a FI car in their current line up. It has been a long time since any of them have. I do not think Honda has ever had one. I guess some of us know more than these big name engine builders.
Let me guess, the wankle is also a better all around engine?

Don't mean to sound anti-turbo, because I am not. However, some of you seem to think that a FI engine is always the best for an situation.

Anyone know why Honda has never used a turbo?(production cars, and not watercraft) Seems odd to me.

d0truji
09-30-2005, 07:37
.

pnarq5
09-30-2005, 07:51
d0truji, nice truck! What kinda power are you getting from that? Who makes the kit?

dbrowne1
09-30-2005, 08:27
Originally posted by pnarq5
You have two cars. Both run a 13.5 @107 in the 1/4 mile. If you drive them both and do not know their times, you would guess that the turbo car would be the faster of the two because of this "rubber band" effect.

And the NA car probably has twice the displacement. If I knew that, I probably wouldn't bet on the turbo car.

dbrowne1
09-30-2005, 08:32
Originally posted by epsylum
I read an interesting article in a car mag about making more fuel efficient engines that can keep the same performance. The best idea is smaller engines with turbos to make up for the lack of displacement. So now you can have your cake and eat it too, 30+mpg and 200+ hp. I like that better than any stupid hybrid (those batteries WILL die some day, good luck finding the coin to buy new ones).

Welcome to the mid-90's - this is exactly what the VAG 1.8T engine is designed to accomplish. Now it's being phased out and replaced with the 2.0FSI (direct injection turbo) engine which is even more efficient and makes even more power.

pnarq5
09-30-2005, 09:20
Originally posted by dbrowne1
And the NA car probably has twice the displacement. If I knew that, I probably wouldn't bet on the turbo car.

A swing and a miss............................

Anyone got a chalk board?

epsylum
09-30-2005, 09:54
Originally posted by dbrowne1
Welcome to the mid-90's - this is exactly what the VAG 1.8T engine is designed to accomplish. Now it's being phased out and replaced with the 2.0FSI (direct injection turbo) engine which is even more efficient and makes even more power.

I know all about the 1.8T and now the 2.0T. ;)

Great engines, I would take one over a VR-6 just becasue of the weight savings. Also those engines were designed from day one to be a turbo plant (notce no NA version of them) so they were designed to minimize turbo lag. Everyone I know that has driven one says they feel like a V-6 but handle like an I-4.

epsylum
09-30-2005, 10:06
Originally posted by pnarq5
Hummmmmm.......Who cares about BMW? One of the finest performance car makes ever, who cares?
How about Ferrari, Honda, Lamborghini, and BMW. Some pretty big names and not one of them have a FI car in their current line up. It has been a long time since any of them have. I do not think Honda has ever had one. I guess some of us know more than these big name engine builders.
Let me guess, the wankle is also a better all around engine?

Don't mean to sound anti-turbo, because I am not. However, some of you seem to think that a FI engine is always the best for an situation.

Anyone know why Honda has never used a turbo?(production cars, and not watercraft) Seems odd to me.

What about Porsche? You know, one of the winningest car makes ever. They have a long tradition of using turbos. Same goes for the other family companies, VW and Audi (especially Audi). BMW has had a nice run of tubo cars, all being topped by thier 1500hp early 80's F-1 car (all out of just a tad over 1 liter and 4 cylinders at that). The car had WAY more power than brakes, chassis, suspension, tires, well anything.

Porsche 962- Turboed (winningest Le Mans car ever)
Audi R8- Turboed (dominates the LMP class and has for about 5+ years)
Audi Quattro Sport Group B Rally car- Turboed (producing well over 1000 hp at times)
All the top WRC cars - Turboed
Porsche 917/30- 12 cylinders AND Twin turboed (held closed cicuit speed record for about 30 years until beaten by an early 90's Indy car)
IRL cars, includes Honda motors- Turboed
CART- Turboed

You can say what you want for street use, but it seems that racing has no issues with turbos, other than F-1 felt it made the cars too fast.


BTW NICEEEEE Tundra,

I am going out on a limb and guessing it's a TRD blower. Nice that Toyota offers those and it doesn't even void the warrantee.

pellertpale
09-30-2005, 10:43
No

dbrowne1
09-30-2005, 11:19
Originally posted by pnarq5
A swing and a miss............................

Anyone got a chalk board?

How many NA street cars with a 1.8L engine do you know of that can run in the mid-13's? Even Honda/Acura ricerockets can't do that.

pnarq5
09-30-2005, 12:10
Originally posted by dbrowne1
How many NA street cars with a 1.8L engine do you know of that can run in the mid-13's? Even Honda/Acura ricerockets can't do that.

STRIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE two!

dbrowne1
09-30-2005, 12:33
Originally posted by pnarq5
STRIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE two!

Why don't you show me how to hit the ball then. I must be missing something here. ;Q

pnarq5
09-30-2005, 12:58
The question is not- Out of a given displacement, which can make more power, a N/A of a FI engine? That is obvious!
The question that I am debating is- If you have two cars with the same performance, one FI and the other one N/A, which is the better or more desirable car to drive? (same meaning- hp/torque, straight line speed)
When Porsche, Ferrari, or any other car maker desides to build a supercar, which way will they go, FI or N/A? Almost all of them go N/A today, why?
FI has it's place, but when talking about an engine that gives the best and most predictable power, N/A wins.
When we talk about racing, everything changes. In most racing, there are rules (some direct, some indirect) that make everyone go FI or N/A.

Batter up!

45acp4me
09-30-2005, 13:00
Originally posted by pnarq5
STRIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE two!

Ok, how many people have taken a honda into the 13's in it's factory form or spent less than a a few thousand dollars getting it there without a bottle?

pnarq5
09-30-2005, 13:23
45, auto makers build and sell cars to make money. Hondas are not built to be the fastest cars on the road. They are built to fit the needs and wants of the most people they can. And they do it better than just about anyone out there.
At this level of cars, I like turbos. I wish that my Prelude had a turbo and was rwd. However, I am talking about cars that are made to be the fastest and best handling cars out there. If I were in the market for a Porsche, I would take the GT3 over the Turbo any and every day.
I like the curves, and when cornering hard, I do not want to hit the gas and have to wait....wait....then get too much power. That is the key reason I like N/A engines. But yes, at the level I am at right now, a turbo is great cheap power.

dbrowne1
09-30-2005, 13:24
Originally posted by 45acp4me
Ok, how many people have taken a honda into the 13's in it's factory form or spent less than a a few thousand dollars getting it there without a bottle?

Nobody. That's my point. All I said that there aren't any 1.8L NA street cars in the mid-13's, and I stand by that...unless you want to get into a built H22 or B18 in a gutted car on slicks, but that's not a "street car" in my book.

Originally posted by pnarq5
The question that I am debating is- If you have two cars with the same performance, one FI and the other one N/A, which is the better or more desirable car to drive? (same meaning- hp/torque, straight line speed)

That wasn't MY question, it's yours. Mine was given 1.8L of displacement, how many NA street cars are in the mid-13s?

Better or more desireable? I guess that depends - do you care about fuel mileage, weight (and its effects on other performance characteristics), and cost of the vehicle?

pnarq5
09-30-2005, 13:31
"That wasn't MY question, it's yours. Mine was given 1.8L of displacement, how many NA street cars are in the mid-13s?"


I am sorry, but that statement is strike three.


WE ALL KNOW THAT OF TWO ENGINES, BOTH THE SAME SIZE, ONE FI AND THE OTHER N/A, THE FI CAN PRODUCE MORE POWER!
I think my grandma knows that.

45acp4me
09-30-2005, 13:36
Originally posted by pnarq5
45, auto makers build and sell cars to make money. Hondas are not built to be the fastest cars on the road. They are built to fit the needs and wants of the most people they can. And they do it better than just about anyone out there.
At this level of cars, I like turbos. I wish that my Prelude had a turbo and was rwd. However, I am talking about cars that are made to be the fastest and best handling cars out there. If I were in the market for a Porsche, I would take the GT3 over the Turbo any and every day.
I like the curves, and when cornering hard, I do not want to hit the gas and have to wait....wait....then get too much power. That is the key reason I like N/A engines. But yes, at the level I am at right now, a turbo is great cheap power.

You were asked how many 1.8l Hondas drove 13's out of the box or with minimal modifications, you steered around the question because there are none.

dbrowne1
09-30-2005, 13:37
Originally posted by pnarq5
"That wasn't MY question, it's yours. Mine was given 1.8L of displacement, how many NA street cars are in the mid-13s?"


I am sorry, but that statement is strike three.

And who exactly is pitching here? The village idiot?

WE ALL KNOW THAT OF TWO ENGINES, BOTH THE SAME SIZE, ONE FI AND THE OTHER N/A, THE FI CAN PRODUCE MORE POWER!
I think my grandma knows that.

Then what the hell is YOUR point? That if you get a big enough NA engine, it can make the same numbers with more linear power delivery? Well, no ****.

It also burns more fuel cruising, weighs more, and is most likely more expensive to build. So other than subjective power delivery preferences...what advantage does it have?

epsylum
09-30-2005, 13:46
Originally posted by pnarq5

When Porsche, Ferrari, or any other car maker desides to build a supercar, which way will they go, FI or N/A? Almost all of them go N/A today, why?

Batter up!

Reasons-

Ferrari- an NA V-12 is as "Ferrari" as a V-8 s to american cas, it's the Ferarri thing. Although the F-40 was a TT V-8 and the last car that Enzo got to see built.

Porsche- the Carerra GT is only one NA supercar out of a dozen Turboed ones. The one before it was the 911 GT1 which had turbos. Before that 959, again turbos. The CGT's engine was devolped for an LMP car that never came to be (possibly due to the fact that they realized it couldn't hang with the R8R's that are indirectly making them money). So instead of scrapping it, they stuck it in a street car.

Koenigsegg CCR- Blown

MB CLK GTR- was replaced by the faster LM version featuring a V-8 and turbos.

Toyota GT-One- V-8 Turbos

MB SLR - Blown, and they will be cranking the boost up next year from what I have read.

Saleen S7 - NA, the faster S7 TT, twin turboed

I think we will all agree that the F-50 is fast. But how about the Koenig TT F-50. It was so much faster they had to put much more powerful brakes on it and have BBS make custom wheels to fit around the new brakes. Koenig's son is the test driver and said the stock F-50 brakes were "begging for mercy". These are F-50 brakes we are talking about, not your usual POS stockers.

I don't see how a heavier and bigger motor or one that has to rev like a 2 stroke to get power is in anyway better for an all-around performance car. IMO if you don't run FI then don't whine that it's "easy" to get more power with FI. It's not like it's a friggin secret.

Asha'man
09-30-2005, 13:50
People overuse the "turbo lag" argument, IMO. Back in the early days of factory turbo cars, it was often a problem, but with today's technology it's usually minimal. My buddys' SVO's with hybrids and 3" exhaust come into full boost around 3300 rpm, and 2700 with the stock T3. That's not that laggy. Stay in your powerband (2700-6000 rpms) and you've got no lag at all. In the 1.8T and others, lag is virtually non-existent throughout the RPM range.

I personally prefer the slow-FAST slow-FAST action of a turbocharged car over the constant torque of a powerful n/a car, but that's just me.

Brian

Armed&Dangerous
10-01-2005, 12:30
True. Turbo lag is getting to be a thing of the past. I have a 2005 Subaru WRX Sti and that thing does not exhibit noticeable lag as compared to my previous 1992 Toyota MR2 Turbo. What a difference between the two cars, driving the STi is just like driving a V8...power is always there.

So what do I prefer as I also have a Lexus 4.0 Liter V8 (GS400)? The faster one...the Sti !!! Nothing can be as addicting. I guess rowing gears add some fun and make up for the lack of "luxury" that the GS400 has.


Originally posted by Asha'man
People overuse the "turbo lag" argument, IMO. Back in the early days of factory turbo cars, it was often a problem, but with today's technology it's usually minimal. My buddys' SVO's with hybrids and 3" exhaust come into full boost around 3300 rpm, and 2700 with the stock T3. That's not that laggy. Stay in your powerband (2700-6000 rpms) and you've got no lag at all. In the 1.8T and others, lag is virtually non-existent throughout the RPM range.

I personally prefer the slow-FAST slow-FAST action of a turbocharged car over the constant torque of a powerful n/a car, but that's just me.

Brian

DaisyCutter
10-01-2005, 21:02
Originally posted by dbrowne1


Let me clue you in - a 1.8T econobox, with a $500 chip, can match or beat a stock or lightly modified 4.6 or 5.0 Mustang in the 1/4 mile, last for twice as many miles, and use 30% less fuel.

Well, last week I replaced the decade old plugs and dist-cap/rotor in my 1995 5.slow Mustang GT. The car has 127,000 mi in the odometer and I know for a fact it'll beat a 2003 VW GTI 1.8T, cause I've raced my buddy's rig.

Maybe you think the 300lb lighter GTI would be faster, fine. I know for a fact it don't make up for the 100 ft-lb less torque and 50 less horsepower the GTI is putting out.

DaisyCutter
10-01-2005, 21:05
Originally posted by 97guns
yep i really cant say enough about this little car i have now. mustang owners really hate it when i pull on them. its been every day driver reliable and i get around 27 mpg with city/hiway driving

Mustang owners hate it because DAILY we got a dozen jerk-off's in 4cyl cars trying to prove something. A little tip-

The neon lights, ninja graphics, and obnoxious exhaust don't really make it any faster. Vtec is getting its *** kicked yo.

Toxie
10-02-2005, 00:41
SRT-4. 5.6 0-60,13.8 in the quarter, from a 2.4L turbo. 22MPG city, 30 HWY.
MSRP 21,500.
The expression on my buddy's face (95 Stang/w bolt ons) when I pass him in my NEON-
PRICELESS! :)



Enough said.


(or for more detail- Which is better? a 4.6L 3v with 300HP, or a blown 4.6L 3v with 450 HP?)
Upsides of FI:
FI is easier to modify for more power (from the factory)
FI gets better gas mileage then N/A for similar power output
FI is more flexable (for engine VS power requirements)
FI makes cooler sounds then N/A (because it can have all the NA sounds, but with the added sweet scream or whoosing)

Downsides of FI

Cost, as it costs more to build a car with FI then without. (Duh)
Lag/spool time
Some people of less then 1300cc brainpan compacity consider it "cheating". Too bad for them- this is the 21st cenruty. Try using some tech from THIS CENTURY on your damn car.

Bottom line is this- Nearly every car would benefit from an afttermarket blower or turbo. It's expensive but ultimately one of the best ways to add a LOT of power with virtually NO weight to your car. You might not "like" it, but it is "Better" from a performance standpoint simply because it MAKES MORE POWER.

I had a prelude. Red 1997 SH. I loved the car- untill I drove the WRX. Then I drove a SRT-4. I used to say that I loved the twisties. Now I love the whole road.

My Next car is a used 03-04 cobra. Its the only place to step up to a faster car for a practical price.

DaisyCutter
10-02-2005, 10:39
SRT-4 Neons are fast, though pretty rare. And don't tell me that engine is gonna outlast any V8.

IMO, even a clapped-out Mustang GT is cooler than a $20,000 Dodge Neon. At the end of the day, a Neon is still a Neon.

EDIT: I suppose it comes down to what your prupose is. The Junior High kids who watch "Fast & Furious" prolly get off on Badazz Neon's... I hope that 13yo girl you pick up at the Junior High is your baby sister. ;) ;e

hokieglock
10-02-2005, 10:57
i have a 03 tacoma with the trd supercharger. went from 190hp to 270hp (at least that's what trd claims). it's still a little nipper rocket truck. gonna add the trd headers and exhaust system in the future. that's supposed to bring it just over 300hp. any other recommedations to up the hp?

Toxie
10-02-2005, 11:00
And don't tell me that engine is gonna outlast any V8.

Please! Cmon dude- there are PLENTY of ****ty V8's out there. Many a rustang has died an ugly sub-100 death. An engines cylinder count is in no way indicitave of it's reliability (look to honda or toyota for examples).

IMO, even a clapped-out Mustang GT is cooler than a $20,000 Dodge Neon. At the end of the day, a Neon is still a Neon.

To each his own. just FYI- unless they perfect hydrogen cell technology quickly the golden days of the americal V8 are numbered. In 10 or 15 years I doubt there will be any affordable V8 sports cars.

I suppose it comes down to what your prupose is. The Junior High kids who watch "Fast & Furious" prolly get off on Badazz Neon's... I hope that 13yo girl you pick up at the Junior High is your baby sister.

Or some of us can only afford one car, have to have 4 doors for our KIDS, and still want something as fast as a rustang. Jackass.

epsylum
10-02-2005, 12:11
Originally posted by Toxie


Cost, as it costs more to build a car with FI then without. (Duh)

Building a NA car is easily as expensive, if not more expensive than a FI car. It costs more per extra horse power. So with an NA car you gotta have big ole cams, tons of head work, high compression pistons, strong rods, and bullet proof crank to handle all the extra forces on the engine. All that stuff isn't cheap. Not to mention you will probably be running on race gas.

FI is adjustable, NA isn't. Turbos are more gradual than a roots type blower, so all thier boost is when the engine is already spinning at a decent clip, thus not putting as much load on the internal parts as with a roots blower or NA.

Ask anybody who has built a high output NA motor. It ain't cheap.

epsylum
10-02-2005, 12:14
Daisycutter

here's a ricer for ya.

http://store1.yimg.com/I/supra_1861_156646624

This is one of the baddest Supras on the road and one of the cleanest you will ever see! This car is simply flawless inside and out with just 37k miles, and made quite a splash at this years National Supra Meet in Las Vegas. If you havenít seen this car in person, itís likely someone you know has!
The car was just completed and has a very extensive list of modifications:

WOTM Turbo Kit with WOTM76 Turbo Capable of 990rwhp+ and mid 9's in the 1/4 at over 150mph. This car went 10.7@142 at just 30 PSI at 3100 ft on its first pass!!

WOTM Built Engine:

Custom spec JE Pistons

upgraded Rings

upgraded wrist pins

ARP Studs

Carillo H-Beam rods and more

WOTM Built Head with Ferrea Valvetrain and mild port work

WOTM 4in Downpipe

WOTM Midpipe

Chrome 4in intake

HKS GTII Wastegate

WOTM 4in Stainless Catback with Polished Muffler

WOTM Feramic Clutch Kit

AEM EMS

FJO Wideband 02

HKS DLI

HKS Camshafts

Boost Logic SFI Crank Pulley

Greddy 4-row Front Mount Intercooler

WOTM Rail and 1000cc Injectors

Tein HA's

TRD Sways

Fikse 18in Wheels and Yokohama Tires

Greddy Gauges

TRD 10k Tach

WOTM Manual Boost Controller Kit with stainless lines

TRD Chrome Front Strut-bar

RMM Carbon Fiber Rear Wing

Brembo Big Brake Kit

BTW it's for sale. $62,750.00 and it's yours ;f

Asha'man
10-02-2005, 13:43
Originally posted by DaisyCutter
Well, last week I replaced the decade old plugs and dist-cap/rotor in my 1995 5.slow Mustang GT. The car has 127,000 mi in the odometer and I know for a fact it'll beat a 2003 VW GTI 1.8T, cause I've raced my buddy's rig.

Maybe you think the 300lb lighter GTI would be faster, fine. I know for a fact it don't make up for the 100 ft-lb less torque and 50 less horsepower the GTI is putting out.

Then you're a decent driver and your buddy isn't, because '94-'95 GT's are pretty slow. Downrated to 215hp from 225 in the Foxes, and they weigh several hundred pounds more than a Fox. I hope yours isn't stock, because I would probably call BS on that kill.

Originally posted by hokieglock
i have a 03 tacoma with the trd supercharger. went from 190hp to 270hp (at least that's what trd claims). it's still a little nipper rocket truck. gonna add the trd headers and exhaust system in the future. that's supposed to bring it just over 300hp. any other recommedations to up the hp?

Can you get a smaller blower pulley for it? And maybe a 50 shot? ;)

Brian

Kahlig
10-02-2005, 13:57
I drive a 1989 Pontiac GTA/TTA. It is one of a special run they made for the Indy Pace car duties that year. 3.8 Buick GN engine with Pontiac heads, and the GNX intercooler. I have a few upgrades, and with 18psi of boost it runs mid-high 12s. I have also owned a Buick T-Type Regal,and a supercharged Mercury XR-7 Cougar. I love boosted cars. My TTA only has 30K miles.

Godfather
10-02-2005, 14:14
I don't feel like jumpping in on the current "discussions," but I just wanted to add that I have a '91 Talon TSi AWD and a '91 Galant VR4 and I am addicted to BOOST!

dbrowne1
10-02-2005, 16:06
Originally posted by DaisyCutter
Well, last week I replaced the decade old plugs and dist-cap/rotor in my 1995 5.slow Mustang GT. The car has 127,000 mi in the odometer and I know for a fact it'll beat a 2003 VW GTI 1.8T, cause I've raced my buddy's rig.

Maybe you think the 300lb lighter GTI would be faster, fine. I know for a fact it don't make up for the 100 ft-lb less torque and 50 less horsepower the GTI is putting out.

What does your buddy's rig have, and how good a driver is he?

I've got a 2000 1.8T with 95K miles that runs 220hp, 270ft-lbs to the front wheels. It's a mid-13's car easily.

Your friend's 03 GTI will do 200whp/240wtq with a chip and exhaust alone, or damn close to that.

hokieglock
10-02-2005, 16:34
Originally posted by Asha'man



Can you get a smaller blower pulley for it? And maybe a 50 shot? ;)

Brian

brian, i'm no gearhead and have no idea what your talking about. i was thinking of something simple like a chip everyone seems to replace, i don't want to replace any of the guts of the stock stuff.
thanx;f

dennis

David N.
10-02-2005, 21:31
Weren't some of the 5.0 Mustang LX's, the real light ones, from around 1990 capable of low 14's or an occasional 13.9 from the factory? Awfull lot of parts available for the 5.0 for not a lot of money. They could be real fast real cheap.

Asha'man
10-02-2005, 22:09
Originally posted by Kahlig
I drive a 1989 Pontiac GTA/TTA. It is one of a special run they made for the Indy Pace car duties that year. 3.8 Buick GN engine with Pontiac heads, and the GNX intercooler. I have a few upgrades, and with 18psi of boost it runs mid-high 12s. I have also owned a Buick T-Type Regal,and a supercharged Mercury XR-7 Cougar. I love boosted cars. My TTA only has 30K miles.

TTA's rock! Probably the only third-gen F-body I would actively seek out. I've only seen a couple around here, but they're awesome cars. What've you done to yours, basic turbocar mods?

Originally posted by hokieglock
brian, i'm no gearhead and have no idea what your talking about. i was thinking of something simple like a chip everyone seems to replace, i don't want to replace any of the guts of the stock stuff.
thanx;f

If you look at the supercharger, you can see the pulley on the snout that the belt turns. If you replace that pulley with a smaller one, the blower internals spin a little faster for the same engine RPM, making more boost and thereby more power. By a 50 shot, I meant nitrous oxide, but it sounds like you personally might be best served by staying away from that. :) Also, look into getting a good dyno tune by someone reputable in your area. A good tuner can work wonders with timing, fuel and boost, and make your engine more efficient and safe to boot. As an example, my friend took his heavily modified '88 Mustang GT (supercharged 347 stroker, etc) to, dare I say, the best tuner in town. His first dyno run was about 405 rwhp, and he made 515 rwhp when the tune was done. Just to tease you a little. ;)

Brian

45acp4me
10-03-2005, 06:22
Originally posted by David N.
Weren't some of the 5.0 Mustang LX's, the real light ones, from around 1990 capable of low 14's or an occasional 13.9 from the factory? Awfull lot of parts available for the 5.0 for not a lot of money. They could be real fast real cheap.

$2,000 1991 or 1992 AWD Talon

$250 on a cat back exhaust and test pipe

$100 Manual bleeder valve

13.5 second car for less than $2,500.

The DSM cars are cheap to hit the 13's and 12's in, once you start gunning for 11's or faster, all cars get spendy.

DaisyCutter
10-03-2005, 13:38
Originally posted by Toxie
Please! Cmon dude- there are PLENTY of ****ty V8's out there. Many a rustang has died an ugly sub-100 death. An engines cylinder count is in no way indicitave of it's reliability (look to honda or toyota for examples).



The number of cylinders isn't indicative of service life, but it's relative performance is...

Comparing a 200hp 5.0l V8 and a 200hp 2.0l I4...

I'm betting engine performance degrades faster for the smaller engine.

more heat...
more RPMs...
more compression...

The light that burns twice as bright only lasts half as long. Ya really think an original SRT4 is gonna be running strong after a decade of abuse?

DaisyCutter
10-03-2005, 13:40
Originally posted by dbrowne1
What does your buddy's rig have?

Snazzy pedals and a cool steering wheel.

45acp4me
10-03-2005, 14:11
Originally posted by DaisyCutter
The number of cylinders isn't indicative of service life, but it's relative performance is...

Comparing a 200hp 5.0l V8 and a 200hp 2.0l I4...

I'm betting engine performance degrades faster for the smaller engine.

more heat...
more RPMs...
more compression...

The light that burns twice as bright only lasts half as long. Ya really think an original SRT4 is gonna be running strong after a decade of abuse?

I purchased a 1991 AWD Talon in 1996 with 69,000 miles on it. Less than a half year later it had a full exhaust, a modded intake and it went from 9.5 lbs. of boost to 13 lbs. with no bleeder or boost controller. Around 95,000 miles I put on a 25% larger turbo a boost controler and a piggy back fuel computer. The car ran great until around 160,000 miles wehn it was time to replace valve guides. The lower end was still in great shape and I only sold the car as I had a new one and I didn't have the money to build it up as I wanted because I was buying a house.

The last 65,000 miles of it's life was spent at 16 to 18 PSI daily and race gas runs of up to 23 PSI of boost. It ran high 12's, pulled nearly a G on the skid pad and stopped on a dime with the 12" brakes.

I wasn't easy on the car either, bouncing off the rev limiter was great entertainment because it would shoot fireballs out the tail pipe if the exhaust was hot. :) When I had already had all my fun with it I tried to kill the car. I put half a quart of gear lube in the crank case one day just to watch my friends freak out. ;f

160k is pretty good for a car seeing nearly double the boost pressure and 25% more volume than it was designed for. The Mitsubish 4g63 is a 20+ year old design that can run double it's intended output without even cracking open the block. At stock levels, it will last just as long or longer than anything the US has turned out. 160k is pretty darn good out of a motor that was making at least another 125 HP than it was in factory form. (probably more like 150+)

hokieglock
10-03-2005, 15:01
Originally posted by Asha'man
TTA's rock! Probably the only third-gen F-body I would actively seek out. I've only seen a couple around here, but they're awesome cars. What've you done to yours, basic turbocar mods?



If you look at the supercharger, you can see the pulley on the snout that the belt turns. If you replace that pulley with a smaller one, the blower internals spin a little faster for the same engine RPM, making more boost and thereby more power. By a 50 shot, I meant nitrous oxide, but it sounds like you personally might be best served by staying away from that. :) Also, look into getting a good dyno tune by someone reputable in your area. A good tuner can work wonders with timing, fuel and boost, and make your engine more efficient and safe to boot. As an example, my friend took his heavily modified '88 Mustang GT (supercharged 347 stroker, etc) to, dare I say, the best tuner in town. His first dyno run was about 405 rwhp, and he made 515 rwhp when the tune was done. Just to tease you a little. ;)

Brian

that sounds like a great idea. i'll take to a tuner. thanks for the advice.

dennis

dbrowne1
10-03-2005, 15:01
Originally posted by DaisyCutter
The number of cylinders isn't indicative of service life, but it's relative performance is...

Comparing a 200hp 5.0l V8 and a 200hp 2.0l I4...

I'm betting engine performance degrades faster for the smaller engine.

more heat...
more RPMs...
more compression...

The light that burns twice as bright only lasts half as long. Ya really think an original SRT4 is gonna be running strong after a decade of abuse?

Don't know anything about the SRT4's engine, but the VAG 1.8T is pretty much bulletproof if properly maintained. Regular oil changes and a timing belt every 80K or so. There are late-90's Audis with that engine with 300K on them.

Mine is approaching 100K miles, with nearly all of that at 2x or 3x factory boost, and shows no signs of problems. Compression, oil analysis, factory scan tool diagnostics, etc. are all within normal specs.

Now, a NA engine may last longer, but once you get into the 250K+ range, it sort of doesn't matter. The rest of the car is going to be toasted anyway.

Kahlig
10-03-2005, 19:35
Asha'man,
Upgrades so far:
Adjustable wastegate
Adjustable fuel pres. reg.
Walbro fuel pump
100lb valve springs
modified intake w/ big K&N
Flowmaster muffler
160 thermostat
Transgo trans kit
Knock gauge

I really need a 3in downpipe and no cat. That would give me an easy 40-50hp bump. A bigger turbo is also in the near future. I try to keep the boost under 20psi.

Asha'man
10-03-2005, 21:18
What's the stock turbo, T3? I could definitely see that bump in horsepower with a 3" DP, plus probably a few hundred RPM's loss in spool time. Full 3" exhaust could do nothing but good either, if you haven't already. :)

Brian

Turbo6PGT
10-03-2005, 23:54
YAY! Good thread idea! you beat me to the punch heh. I have a Turdblow on my PGT. Turbo's are more fun than anything else you can put on a car. Ive tried juice, blowers, but turbocharged engines will always have a special place in my heart. There's nothing like waiting for the boost to rise and feeling yourself slide further into the seat. Amazing what forcing air into a fire can do for energy and power! :)

I live about 10 minutes from a guy that has a mid 8 second Tsi talon. His name is John Shepard and owns shepard racing in Ohio. This guy is serious about racing. Has a HUGE turbo, LOTS of nitrous and 4 slicks. He is fun to watch race, scary what an 800awhp 4 cylidner looks like at 170mph.

Anyway my POS just got a fresh rebuilt engine, all forged goodness. Its a '95 Probe GT. The main mods are:

2.5L 24-valve KLZE V6
8.7:1 Diamond Aluminum Pistons
Mazda Millenia-S Rods
MX6 LS 5-speed Transaxle
Southbend DXD Clutch
255L/Hr fuel pump
T3/T4 60mm Garett Turbo
2.5" turboback exhaust
Ported/Polished Intake Manifold
22x7x2.5" front mount intercooler
Lightenned 18 lb. flywheel
Solid polyeurethan motor mounts
and blah blah blah... just a bunch of stuff that costs too much!

Im in the process of setting up MegaSquirt engine management controlling fuel and spark. I should be able to pump out around 285-295whp and 270ft-lbs at the wheels at 7psi of boost. People with less tuning and less compression with a similar setup have made evne more so Im setting my goals somewhat modest. Hopefully I can get this pig tuned a little better so I can beat on it some and enjoy the money Ive wasted haha. I need a new hobby!

OH YEAH, thats why Im here...To buy guns and stop playing with cars! :)

Toxie
10-04-2005, 01:47
The number of cylinders isn't indicative of service life, but it's relative performance is...

Sure, but then so is the presence of a turbo. However you weren't talking about relative performance. FI is allmost allways an indicator of superior performance (given same engine sizes).

Comparing a 200hp 5.0l V8 and a 200hp 2.0l I4...

I'm betting engine performance degrades faster for the smaller engine.

Your bets fit in the penny slots bud. Use some REAL evidence- not "I think" postulations.

more heat... More heat in the turbo, but those of us that regularly change our oil it wont matter. most Superchargers don't run enough hotter to make a difference.
more RPMs...

Again- most Vtec honda engines will outlast a traditional V8.

more compression...

You do realize that your NA V8 will have HIGHER compression then the FI car right?

Do you have any evidence of this or is it just your suppositions?
You have to get through your skull that I could care less how many cylinders an engine has. I'm a proponent of FI over NA. FI is the superior performance choice without question, reguardless of size.

The light that burns twice as bright only lasts half as long.
Fortunately, We're burning gasoline in the SRT-4 and not candles. Your welcome to burn your mustang from both ends though. Call me if you need help :)

Ya really think an original SRT4 is gonna be running strong after a decade of abuse?

In the same numebers as a mustang or Firebird? I would guess that it will be equal or slightly higher- because it's more of an enthusiasts car (rather like a cobra or WS6) and the owners are more fanatical about vehicle maintence.

That said- I'll let you know. The mustang itself has had a simply mundane service record- neither VERY reliable or unreliable, so I fail to see why you tout it is "reliable preformance", espically when you compare it to lets say, A honda Prelude, Integra type R, Nissan 300ZX, or Toyota Supra. All sport smaller engines with vastly superior reliability records.

So to wind it down- No, more cylinders arent inherently more reliable. Every (car) engine is better with FI. That is all. Good day.

method
10-04-2005, 02:02
Hey Turbo6PGT, is that a Duratec motor in the Probe? I have
an SVT Contour, would love to have a turbo 3.0 under the hood, but I'd settle for a turbo on the existing 2.5.

Kahlig
10-04-2005, 08:05
Brian,
I am still running the stock exhaust. Not sure about the turbo. I hope to get a TA-49 turbo, and a Terry Houston 3" downpipe from John's Performance. It's such a fun car to tinker with.
Chad

Turbo6PGT
10-04-2005, 08:18
Originally posted by method
Hey Turbo6PGT, is that a Duratec motor in the Probe? I have
an SVT Contour, would love to have a turbo 3.0 under the hood, but I'd settle for a turbo on the existing 2.5.

My motor was basically the primer that Ford used to make the durratecs. Ford owns Mazda so they hyjacked the KL block and head and used a mazda style intake manifold setup. They are still VERY similar. They had KL motors from 93-97 in the supercharged Millenia's, MX6, MX3, Probe and 626. My mother owns a Mazda6 and I love the car but just needs a little more UMPHHH in the motor department. A 3.0L should be faster than that. Your contour was actually the first of the durratecs I think.

As for this heated debate of what lasts longer and whats better, its always going to be turbo. Its called VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY! :) These big deisel semi's that you drive past on the freeway have them. Turbos were designed in the 50's and were getting put on large trucks that drove through the rockies. When they tried to go up those long inclined mountains the air was just to thin and they would choke and stumble. Turbo's raise the engines efficiency nd performance.

Bottom line is all V8's made in the US cars are pathetic IMO. The new 4.9L Mustang V8 only dyno's at 255rwhp and has 300 at the crank. The 4.0L Caddy northstar engine makes a little more than that with less motor. There are several new cars that make that much power/trq and they are n/a V6's...Like the 3.5 maxima, Acura TL, and sveral Audi's. You guys can argue back and forth that a V8 will last longer than a B16 but it doesnt matter. Piston rings and connecting rod bearings are all made the same for the most part. Anyone who changes their oil when it needs changed will last forever. Oh yeah and the person who doesnt BEAT DOWN their engine daily. I would NEVER buy a used honda because the typical theory is people abuse them because they think they can take more torture. Thats fine for them but when they sell it the motor is on its last leg and it dies. Just my .02

But F/I will dominate no matter what its used on. I doubled the power of my stock motor with only 8psi of boost, its incredible! Even the 500+ cubic inch top fuel mopars have gigantic blowers, some also with nitrous.

Ron3
10-04-2005, 12:10
Toxie Wrote (I could't get the stupid quotes to work)

"Comparing a 200hp 5.0l V8 and a 200hp 2.0l I4..."


What has a 200hp 5.0l V8?

The last time a Mustang 5.0 had just 200hp was a 1985GT!!

Man that was 20 years ago!

How about a little apples to apples, huh?

The 2005 Mustang 4.0L v-6 has 210hp and is rated for 19mpg city, 28 highway.

The 2005 Mustang GT 4.6L is rated for 300hp, 17mpg city, 25mpg highway.

Just some current info to help you out.

Ron3

Ron3
10-04-2005, 12:15
Originally posted by method
Hey Turbo6PGT, is that a Duratec motor in the Probe? I have
an SVT Contour, would love to have a turbo 3.0 under the hood, but I'd settle for a turbo on the existing 2.5.

A turbo in a 2.5L contour? Where ya gonna put that thing? Thats one cramped engine compartment already! ;e

Ron3

Ron3
10-04-2005, 12:18
About longevity,

Nearly all factory forced-induction equipped car engines are built using stronger componants to handle the extra stress. They are made to last a long time.

High rpm's (like in a small motor) are just as detrimental to an engine not made for it as forced induction. Having both would be real hard on a motor.

Ron3

DaisyCutter
10-04-2005, 14:38
Toxie, I'm not gonna quote the BS you wrote.

Saying an SRT-4 engine will last longer than a Mustang GT- because the owners are more fanatical about maintenance TOTALLY INTENTIONALLY BYPASSES the idea I was getting at.

Performance comes at the price of reliability. The more high performance an engine is, the less it's service life (excluding BS arguments that introduce other variables... like yours).

So I whip out my Honda owners manual:

Service life for a Honda 125cc motocross bike top-end (piston/rings/wristpin/etc) is ~12 hours.

Now if I double the displacement to a 250cc bike... that service life is now ~24 hours.

What if I double the displacement again?? 500cc, OMG the service life is ~40 hours!!!

Now since the 125 makes 38hp, and the 250 makes only 47hp at twice the displacement... I'd say that the 125 is higher performance. Sheesh, the 500 only makes 55hp, it's the lowest performance by far (relative to displacement).

Take, a Honda Vtec, a Nascar engine, and a F1 engine. Compare the relative performance and service life. Big surprise, performance and service life are once again exclusive.




Now, which engine is higher performance, a 200hp 5.0 V8, or a 200hp 2.0 I4??

Which is gonna last longer?

The red hot SRT4 will be clapped out way before the big V8.

method
10-04-2005, 14:38
Originally posted by Ron3
A turbo in a 2.5L contour? Where ya gonna put that thing? Thats one cramped engine compartment already! ;e

Ron3

Battery has to be relocated to the trunk. Turbo6, thanks for the info, but I have to disagree with your opinion regarding American V8's as being pathetic. The Chevy LS1/2/6/7's are the very antithesis of pathetic, 320-505 hp, and they return upwards of 30 mpg in a Corvette. BTW, the current Mustang GT uses a 4.6L motor, and the Cadillac Northstars are 4.6L in displacement, 4.4L in the blown V cars.

Godfather
10-04-2005, 15:41
Ya really think an original SRT4 is gonna be running strong after a decade of abuse?

Ok, I have to comment on this one...
BOTH of my cars are 14 years old, and run strong. I am actually in the process of combining the best from each car and building the Galant VR4 (that's a turbo AWD 4 door for all you not in the know), and I am looking to get about 400whp reliable, on a 14 year old 4 banger.

Turbo6PGT
10-04-2005, 17:32
Originally posted by method
Battery has to be relocated to the trunk. Turbo6, thanks for the info, but I have to disagree with your opinion regarding American V8's as being pathetic. The Chevy LS1/2/6/7's are the very antithesis of pathetic, 320-505 hp, and they return upwards of 30 mpg in a Corvette. BTW, the current Mustang GT uses a 4.6L motor, and the Cadillac Northstars are 4.6L in displacement, 4.4L in the blown V cars.

I actually totally agree, I just didnt want to turn this into a GM vs Ford battle because it always gets ugly. Im diehard chevy when it comes to V8's, its ford and dodge that make me bitter. I can respect the 03-04 cobras. But Chevy has 50 year old pushrod technology and still hangs tough with these new efficient DOHC 3 or 4 valve Ford V8 motors. Now of course the 5.4 cobra motor has a smaller engine than the 5.7L GM 350's but I certainly think the 9-12psi of boost the cobras have outweighs the 0.3L of displacement. So lets review!

360 cubic in. NO BOOST = 310whp (HEMI)
327 cubic in. w/ 12psi = 375whp (COBRA)
350 cubic in. NO BOOST = 320whp (WS6/LS1)
152 cubic in. w/ 10psi = 320whp (MY PROBE);i

Gee which motors are most impressive?? My probe hangs tough even though I have less than half the motor. But uhh yeah PUSHROD POWA! The new Z06 coming out is going to have around 500hp and 512trq stock with a 427 cubic inch pushrod V8! ;P How can you not respect that, and it handles awesome to boot!?

Honestly though if this is a reliability issue buy a friggin 05 civic or camry and have a different car for performance. CHEAP, FAST, RELIABLE! Pick two, you cant have all 3 PERIOD!

epsylum
10-04-2005, 18:01
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT
Honestly though if this is a reliability issue buy a friggin 05 civic or camry and have a different car for performance. CHEAP, FAST, RELIABLE! Pick two, you cant have all 3 PERIOD!

Sure you can have all three, you just have to give up some in all departments to get it.

IMO the perfect all around car is a Subaru WRX (not the STI). Relatively cheap, reliable, AWD, and perfroms quite well.

I however would do as you explained and have a daily driver and a perfomance vehicle. Drive the civic/accord/camry, whatever to and from work and the grocery store. Drive the *fill in name of favorite performance car here* whenever you want to have fun.

45acp4me
10-04-2005, 19:35
Originally posted by DaisyCutter


The red hot SRT4 will be clapped out way before the big V8.

Since it's a Chrysler product, it probably will be. However I'd put the Mitsubishi 2.0l 4g63 or the Subaru WRX motor against a V8 or V6 when it comes to engine life.

My Talon had 160,000 miles before it needed valve guides, the compression was still good with only the #2 cylinder about 10 PSI lower than the rest. Thats a motor that spent a third of it's life running at 16 to 18 PSI daily when it started out at 9.5.

BTW, Godfather, the GVR4 is the ultimate street race car, most people think they just got beat by a Camry. :)

kawalerzysta
10-04-2005, 21:03
Originally posted by epsylum
I know all about the 1.8T and now the 2.0T. ;)

Great engines, I would take one over a VR-6 just becasue of the weight savings. Also those engines were designed from day one to be a turbo plant (notce no NA version of them) so they were designed to minimize turbo lag. Everyone I know that has driven one says they feel like a V-6 but handle like an I-4.
In Euorope you can buy non turbo 1.8l from VAG.

Turbo6PGT
10-04-2005, 21:30
Originally posted by 45acp4me
My Talon had 160,000 miles before it needed valve guides, the compression was still good with only the #2 cylinder about 10 PSI lower than the rest. Thats a motor that spent a third of it's life running at 16 to 18 PSI daily when it started out at 9.5.


I will be the mean guy, DSM's are the worst car in the world as far as reliability, especially the 95+ blocks. The awd has several engineering flaws with the transmission/block bolt setup and the transfer cases. And the motors run overly hot their entire lives, they usually dont last more than 150k miles on the stock engine unless your granny drove it. Your vavle seals had to be bad as well as guides and lifters. I give props to the DSM efficiency and capability but still dont like the unreliableness. Of course there are exceptions to every car, but the general consensus is DSM = an appointment with cinder blocks in front yard.

David N.
10-04-2005, 21:34
Ever wondered what a 4.6 Ford with 215,000 looks like inside? Then click here! (http://forums.tccoa.com/showthread.php?t=21941) Now before you read the thread and get to thinking that particular naturally aspirated 281 was the one that propelled his nearly two ton Thunderbird to a 12.57 quarter, it wasn't, at least not in that configuration. If I recall correctly, at the time it was torn down, it was only good for 13's.

45acp4me
10-04-2005, 21:42
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT
I will be the mean guy, DSM's are the worst car in the world as far as reliability, especially the 95+ blocks. The awd has several engineering flaws with the transmission/block bolt setup and the transfer cases. And the motors run overly hot their entire lives, they usually dont last more than 150k miles on the stock engine unless your granny drove it. Your vavle seals had to be bad as well as guides and lifters. I give props to the DSM efficiency and capability but still dont like the unreliableness. Of course there are exceptions to every car, but the general consensus is DSM = an appointment with cinder blocks in front yard.

I'll take it coming from a guy that drives an anal probe, a car that never performed from the time it came off the line to the time it makes it to the junk yard. ;f

My DSM did eat a tranny in the thing, but that was my fault for ***** shifting it the entire time I owned it.

If you can run 12's for less than $1,500 without strapping on a bottle, you can make all the fun you want, but the bottom line is, the probe was a slug because Ford didn't want anything to beat the Mustang and stopped really engineering the first turbo probes. The 6 cylinders were fugly slugs too.

I will however admit they lasted longer even if they were slow and boring. :)

Short Cut
10-04-2005, 21:47
http://home.comcast.net/~1911brass/rearend-cropped.jpg

There are tons of upgrades available for this model to increase power, but I've kept it bone stock. Still it makes 360hp and does 0-60 in 4 seconds flat with a true 180 mph top end.

Toxie
10-04-2005, 21:48
Toxie Wrote (I could't get the stupid quotes to work)

"Comparing a 200hp 5.0l V8 and a 200hp 2.0l I4..."

Thats a direct QUOTE from the die-hard NA V8 guy (daisycutter). I just forgot to use the HTML.

Toxie, I'm not gonna quote the BS you wrote.

You probably couldn't wrap your head around the logic. I'll forgive you though.

Saying an SRT-4 engine will last longer than a Mustang GT- because the owners are more fanatical about maintenance TOTALLY INTENTIONALLY BYPASSES the idea I was getting at.
You had a POINT? I could've sworn that you were just spouting your opinion like it was scientifically tested fact (Which it is most certianly not)

Performance comes at the price of reliability. The more high performance an engine is, the less it's service life
Not if superior Technology, design or materials are used (as if often the case). And as Ron3 so nicely put it- FI cars have stronger internals to compensate for the added power. I highly doubt the Cobra engine is any LESS reliable then a regular 4.6L engine.


(excluding BS arguments that introduce other variables... like yours).

Im sorry you take cold, hard logic as BS. I additionally have a real estate venture you may be interested to invest with in Florida.



Service life for a Honda 125cc motocross bike top-end (piston/rings/wristpin/etc) is 2 hours.

So your quoting TWO CYCLE maintence recommendations with CAR ENGINES? Why not compare the service records from a '69 stang and an Airbus A330? Airbus makes ALOT more power.


Now since the 125 makes 38hp, and the 250 makes only 47hp at twice the displacement... I'd say that the 125 is higher performance. Sheesh, the 500 only makes 55hp, it's the lowest performance by far (relative to displacement).

Glad you can do the math. Too bad those numbers are completely useless to our discussion. You assume Cars and motorcycles (you even include a TWO STROKE) are similar in maintence requirements. THey are not.

My SRT-4 recommends ALLMOST EXACTLY the same service intervals as an 05 mustang. By your logic then not only is my engine a higher performane one, but is also more reliable- since it requires the same maintence but is higher performance.

Take, a Honda Vtec, a Nascar engine, and a F1 engine. Compare the relative performance and service life.
I guess it's a good thing were NOT comparing those things. We're comparing 2 current production engine styles. THat would be like me using Turbo-Diesel semi engines in my side of the debate- which are some of the most reliable engines ever produced.

Big surprise, performance and service life are once again exclusive.

It's about 1000 times more complicated then you seem to want to make it- but then I can tell you like things simple so I'll do that for you.





Which is gonna last longer?

Hmmm, well subaru has a 100,000 mile club ( and a 200,000 mile club- you can get the stickers from the DEALERSHIP) because they have SO many owners who rack up that many miles. Mustang have that? No?
What, don't want to look up the reliability between a 2.2L Vtec engine and the 4.6L?

The red hot SRT4 will be clapped out way before the big V8.

You may confuse your opinion with the facts, but sadly you have little to no idea what you are talking about. Please stop embarrasing yourself.

epsylum
10-04-2005, 22:08
I almost forgot about ShortCut's sweet Porsche.

That man has good taste. :cool:

Turbo6PGT
10-04-2005, 23:06
Originally posted by 45acp4me
I'll take it coming from a guy that drives an anal probe, a car that never performed from the time it came off the line to the time it makes it to the junk yard. ;f

My DSM did eat a tranny in the thing, but that was my fault for ***** shifting it the entire time I owned it.

If you can run 12's for less than $1,500 without strapping on a bottle, you can make all the fun you want, but the bottom line is, the probe was a slug because Ford didn't want anything to beat the Mustang and stopped really engineering the first turbo probes. The 6 cylinders were fugly slugs too.

I will however admit they lasted longer even if they were slow and boring. :)

Im not gonna start a war here but what's more boring, someone taking a unique car w/ no aftermarket and building your own turbo system and engine...or your DSM that 15,000 other people have run 11's with for $1,500?? Not to mention talons look like a wedged cardboard box that handles like a wooden wagon? If you want 1/4 mile times buy an AWD car. I've motored plenty of 11 and 12 second talons on the freeway. Drag racing just means more repairs. More often as a result of the problems with transmissions, axles, steering racks etc. I choose my car still. It's a Mazda at heart. KLZE engine, suspension and chassis. Nothing will replace the Mustang, hence no more probe. My friend has a blown 5.0 running 8psi and makes less horsepower than I do with less compression and I have half the displacement. Sorry I still choose my car.

Who brought up SRT4's?? ;z Worst handling car on earth, but straight line speed is decent with the LSD. My friend wore a head/neck brace screwed into his skull because the srt-4 flipped even with its lowered suspension. Its still just a neon with a snail and a good aftermarket. Even the late 90's r/t neons handle better than their performance srt car. Sad on dodge's part! Neon's used to OWN the autocross scene due to their weight and wheel base.

Asha'man
10-05-2005, 00:52
Originally posted by Godfather
Ok, I have to comment on this one...
BOTH of my cars are 14 years old, and run strong. I am actually in the process of combining the best from each car and building the Galant VR4 (that's a turbo AWD 4 door for all you not in the know), and I am looking to get about 400whp reliable, on a 14 year old 4 banger.

My buddy just helped a friend of his put a Holset on his Galant. I'm not sure which Holset it was, but the guy's been running 35 psi on a 220,000 mile stock motor for over a month now. :)

Brian

ColoradoPacker
10-05-2005, 01:08
Holset?

I thought it was Holstet.

Anyway, just wanted to remind people that at high altitude their is no replacement for boost. Without any mods our turbos lose less power up here than a supercharger, which will need a smaller pulley because the SC will lose 3psi at 6000+ feet.

An NA import that runs a 15.9 at sea-level will run a 17.5 in Denver. But a 14.4 WRX will run a 14.9 and a 13.0 sec STi will run a 13.4 (real times seen at bandimere). An STi with stock turbo and fuel management, but with intake, turboback and an extra 5psi of boost can run 12.8 while a stock 2003 Z0-6 runs low to mid 13's

Ron3
10-05-2005, 01:12
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT


360 cubic in. NO BOOST = 310whp (HEMI)
327 cubic in. w/ 12psi = 375whp (COBRA)
350 cubic in. NO BOOST = 320whp (WS6/LS1)
152 cubic in. w/ 10psi = 320whp (MY PROBE);i



The 03-04 Cobra's are 281cu in (4.6L), have 8.5lbs boost, and are factory under-rated at 390hp (actually about 420hp net)

Just clarifying. Ron3

45acp4me
10-05-2005, 08:00
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT
Im not gonna start a war here but what's more boring, someone taking a unique car w/ no aftermarket and building your own turbo system and engine...or your DSM that 15,000 other people have run 11's with for $1,500?? Not to mention talons look like a wedged cardboard box that handles like a wooden wagon? If you want 1/4 mile times buy an AWD car. I've motored plenty of 11 and 12 second talons on the freeway. Drag racing just means more repairs. More often as a result of the problems with transmissions, axles, steering racks etc. I choose my car still. It's a Mazda at heart. KLZE engine, suspension and chassis. Nothing will replace the Mustang, hence no more probe. My friend has a blown 5.0 running 8psi and makes less horsepower than I do with less compression and I have half the displacement. Sorry I still choose my car.



Huh?

My car was used for lapping days mostly, the drag times were just to try and figure out if my mods were working or not. When all was said and done, I was pulling close to 1g on the skid pad on street tires after the suspension mods. It handled pretty good before the suspension upgrades, it handled great afterwards.

The probe still never performed from the factory and you had to spend thousands to make it go. Between the exhaust, fuel pump, AFC, clutch and IC pipes, I had less than $2,000 in power mods. And unlike the probe, it didn't look like a cat fish head that got it's stepped on. ;f

I've watched cars with 120,000 miles on the clock make 350+ HP on the dyno with a 16g, front mount and 2.5" exhaust. I've seen them do 320+ with a stock intercooler.

The DSM still lives on in the form of the Evo, the probe however is now gone forever because there was not a market for it.

Turbo6PGT
10-05-2005, 09:37
I was misinformed about the cobra engine, I was told by several people that it was the same motor in the Lightning which had a 5.4L V8. My mistake, but still proves my point.

45acp4me, so you cant respect a car because you dont know anythig about it? Your AWD dsm is in the same class as a probe. Hatchback, good gas milage, bad rear seating and decent handling. Squashed catfish eh? Everyone has their own tastes but Ive always thought DSM's looked like deformed easter eggs. *shrug* Ive personally seen how well awd DSM's handle, they are nothing special but they arent bad either. The AWD makes them worse, a FWD talon is better in twisties unless there's snow on the road. Either way the open differential FWD probes hand them their cookies in a paper bag. The lap times prove that time and time again. Go to the road tracks and learn! As you can see Im not into drag racing, I prefer onroad turns and twisties. I didnt build a track car, I would have gotten a LS1 for that.

And the probe DID perform well right out of the box in '93. 13 years ago when it was designed the 2.5L engine made 200chp/160trq. This must be why Car & Driver voted it it "CAR OF THE YEAR!". If memeory serves the 93 GSX/TSi made 205chp with 12psi of boost and 0.5 less cubic inches. Are you saying 0.5 cubic inches makes more power than 12psi? Probes didnt require higher octane gas to make that power either. I agree the market for the probe was limited, but that doesnt mean its a waste. Mine serves me very well for what I do with it! The KL series engines make more hp per cubic inch than just about everything except italians. Add boost in and its a tight competition with any car. The KL heads will flow more CFM's than DSMs will anyday of the week

Your just making redundant claims. The EVO is NOTHING like your DSM. Other than its 4 cylinder and turbo. It has 4 doors for starters, much larger turbo than the 14b, totally different block design, different awd system etc etc. And it actually has room in the back seats unlike the DSM which was only suitable for someone w/out kids. A married guy can get an Evo and have the performance but also have the wife and kids with him and full luggage to boot. That was the new marketing plan, nothing like the hatchback DSM.

And the stance of a probe is nothing to laugh at, its front wishbone suspension, thick sway bars and wide stance makes it a VERY good handling car. Most DSM people Ive run across get a kick out of it when Im faster because its an anal probe. So I dont mind the anal name or driving my car the least bit. But as usual Im defending my car to people who know nothing about the platform but still make fun it of. :)

Short Cut
10-05-2005, 10:03
Originally posted by epsylum
I almost forgot about ShortCut's sweet Porsche.

That man has good taste. :cool:

Thanks buddy! ;?

Ron3
10-06-2005, 11:40
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT
I was misinformed about the cobra engine, I was told by several people that it was the same motor in the Lightning which had a 5.4L V8.

The 2007 Shelby Cobra GT500 will have a 5.4L 32-valve engine with an Eaton Supercharger. Will be rated around 450hp. Supposed to be on sale this coming spring/summer. There are at least five or six cars (A couple 'verts too) that have been seen driving around. (test mules)

Here is Mr. Shelby driving one:

http://www.mustangmods.com/data/11550/gt500_vert.jpg

One in blue:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/Stormdoo/vistabluegt500.jpg

Several pics of a test mule:

http://www.melvinchu.com/picturegallery/shelbygt500?page=1

Ron3

45acp4me
10-06-2005, 11:49
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT


And the stance of a probe is nothing to laugh at, its front wishbone suspension, thick sway bars and wide stance makes it a VERY good handling car. Most DSM people Ive run across get a kick out of it when Im faster because its an anal probe. So I dont mind the anal name or driving my car the least bit. But as usual Im defending my car to people who know nothing about the platform but still make fun it of. :)

The Eclipse and Lancer use the same engine, although it's now got a bigger turbo and some other updates:

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/PDF-E/evo7.pdf

I'll still make fun of the proble because the HP to cost ratio is still better on a DSM and with the amount of knowledge and aftermarket parts, the Talon makes more sense.

I will give you props for taking the road less traveled though. :)

Turbo6PGT
10-06-2005, 14:46
Originally posted by 45acp4me
The Eclipse and Lancer use the same engine, although it's now got a bigger turbo and some other updates:

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/PDF-E/evo7.pdf

I'll still make fun of the proble because the HP to cost ratio is still better on a DSM and with the amount of knowledge and aftermarket parts, the Talon makes more sense.

I will give you props for taking the road less traveled though. :)

My cost/HP ratio is less than great, but I do all the work myself with my own tools so its not too terrible. I just like this platform and the engine design. But someone should tell those crybaby honda trolls that their hp ratio is as bad as a UGO haha! ;f Then maybe they wont cause such a noisy disturbance going up and down my road sounding like an airplane making a whopping 110whp.

45acp4me
10-06-2005, 17:23
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT
But someone should tell those crybaby honda trolls that their hp ratio is as bad as a UGO haha! ;f Then maybe they wont cause such a noisy disturbance going up and down my road sounding like an airplane making a whopping 110whp.

I'll drink to that! ;c

Last summer I had one pull up next to me while I was driving the Taurus (aka the tortise). I asked how quick it was and he said it was fast. So I told him cool and lets do it when the light turns green. He gives me a funny look, but gets ready none the less. The light changes, I leave first with about three car lengths on him and he could not reel in the 145HP beast of a bench seated four door.

He looks ashamed at the next light and I ask him if he did anything besides the exhaust. He tells me he has an intake too and asked what I have done. I tell him nothing, but I did change the oil last week. ;f

Too bad the light changed and I couldn't tell him to loose the wing because it was killing his top end. :)

dbrowne1
10-06-2005, 18:35
Originally posted by 45acp4me
Too bad the light changed and I couldn't tell him to loose the wing because it was killing his top end. :)

I love those people.

I drive a (modified) 1.8T that looks almost 100% stock on the outside, complete with cheesy OE wheel covers. I get some funny looks when my "chick car" growls, takes off, and blows off boost.

The Honda fartcan crew especially loves it, as they watch my taillights.

epsylum
10-06-2005, 19:02
Originally posted by dbrowne1
I love those people.

I drive a (modified) 1.8T that looks almost 100% stock on the outside, complete with cheesy OE wheel covers. I get some funny looks when my "chick car" growls, takes off, and blows off boost.

The Honda fartcan crew especially loves it, as they watch my taillights.

There isn't a FWD Honda out there that has the power potential of a 1.8T powered VW. The Veedub comes with a turbo and a LSD stock. Those are both aftermarket for the Honda. Not to mention I hear 250whp out of a 1.8T is freakin easy (mostly bolt ons). The 1.8T engine was designed from day 1 to be turboed. So the whole engine architecture favors any change in the turbo. No fear of cracking blocks, like a turbo Honda

It all comes down to, if you want a car to make power, get one that was designed to from the get go.

Reminds me of an article I read in European Car. They had a guy who had a 11 second MkI Rabbit ('78 IIRC). Gutted the car (the MkI Rabbits only weigh like 1600lbs, stock), stock VR6 and tranny out of a late 90's Jetta, Qauife diff, slicks on facto-black steel rims. THAT'S IT. He was beating Cameros and Mustangs in his class. He said he had less than 10 grand in the car. It even had the beat up and slightly rusting original paint job. If I had that car I would try to race everyone, just because the look on people's faces when you beat them in a beat-up looking 78 Rabbit would be classic.

dbrowne1
10-07-2005, 08:21
Originally posted by epsylum
[B]The Veedub comes with a turbo and a LSD stock.

It doesn't have an LSD. One of its main weaknesses, but a Peloquin or Quaife unit is only $800 or so to drop in.

Not to mention I hear 250whp out of a 1.8T is freakin easy (mostly bolt ons).

250whp is impossible without a significant turbo upgrade and all that goes with that (manifold, injectors, tuning). I have the largest (currently available) turbo that is a direct replacement using the stock manifold and fuel system, and that will do 245whp/300wtq with full exhaust, race gas, FMIC, and IC mister. 220whp/280wtq on pump gas and stock IC is common.

ATP has some reworked Garrett turbos supposedly coming out soon that are direct bolt-ons, which will do 300+, but I don't want that on my daily driver.

Turbo6PGT
10-07-2005, 09:54
Originally posted by dbrowne1

ATP has some reworked Garrett turbos supposedly coming out soon that are direct bolt-ons, which will do 300+, but I don't want that on my daily driver.

Dont kid yourself! OF CORUSE YOU WANT A 300HP DAILY DRIVER!! I had my probe setup for 300 at the wheels fo a couple years, stock motor didnt like that seeing as it had 105k miles. But then again your car weighs MUCH less. So yeah 250-260 wouldbe fun in that little car!

epsylum
10-07-2005, 16:52
Originally posted by dbrowne1
250whp is impossible without a significant turbo upgrade and all that goes with that (manifold, injectors, tuning). I have the largest (currently available) turbo that is a direct replacement using the stock manifold and fuel system, and that will do 245whp/300wtq with full exhaust, race gas, FMIC, and IC mister. 220whp/280wtq on pump gas and stock IC is common.

ATP has some reworked Garrett turbos supposedly coming out soon that are direct bolt-ons, which will do 300+, but I don't want that on my daily driver.

Hmm I read an article (forgot which one) that wanted to see how much power they could get out of a 1.8T. They got about 240 IIRC without switching out major components.

Oh well I am probably remembering it wrong.

DaisyCutter
10-07-2005, 22:04
Originally posted by Toxie
Please stop embarrasing yourself.

Indeed.

glockxgray
10-10-2005, 13:30
I sure do love my 2000 Grand Prix GTP.
The original poster is right, nothing like boost.

I am about 250hp at the wheels, but the torque makes it fell alot higher.


GXG

Cochese
10-18-2005, 18:01
Originally posted by 45acp4me
I purchased a 1991 AWD Talon in 1996 with 69,000 miles on it. Less than a half year later it had a full exhaust, a modded intake and it went from 9.5 lbs. of boost to 13 lbs. with no bleeder or boost controller. Around 95,000 miles I put on a 25% larger turbo a boost controler and a piggy back fuel computer. The car ran great until around 160,000 miles wehn it was time to replace valve guides. The lower end was still in great shape and I only sold the car as I had a new one and I didn't have the money to build it up as I wanted because I was buying a house.

The last 65,000 miles of it's life was spent at 16 to 18 PSI daily and race gas runs of up to 23 PSI of boost. It ran high 12's, pulled nearly a G on the skid pad and stopped on a dime with the 12" brakes.

I wasn't easy on the car either, bouncing off the rev limiter was great entertainment because it would shoot fireballs out the tail pipe if the exhaust was hot. :) When I had already had all my fun with it I tried to kill the car. I put half a quart of gear lube in the crank case one day just to watch my friends freak out. ;f

160k is pretty good for a car seeing nearly double the boost pressure and 25% more volume than it was designed for. The Mitsubish 4g63 is a 20+ year old design that can run double it's intended output without even cracking open the block. At stock levels, it will last just as long or longer than anything the US has turned out. 160k is pretty darn good out of a motor that was making at least another 125 HP than it was in factory form. (probably more like 150+)

DSM's are my favorite.

http://www.shepracing.com/turboarticle_files/0203tur_darkst_03.jpg

^^^runs 8 second ETs

arrowdriver
10-18-2005, 22:52
I've had 2.2L I-4 Turbo, 2.8L V-6, Rotary Turbo, Rotary non turbo (current), LS1, LT1, 3.1L V-6, 2.0L I-4 (non FI, in this case Fuel Injection..). And those are just the gasoline engines. Various diesels have ranged from 2.0L I-4 to 7.6L I-6 Turbo Intercooled (yeah not in a car...).

All have been fun except the 2.8L V-6 (was in a Bronco 2 I had in college). Off all those I would say the 2.2L I-4 in the Dodge Daytona Shelby Z was the most fun from a pure engine standpoint, but was also the only one that wasn't quite stuck (something about a stuck shut waste gate that made that engine a lot of fun.......and yes I sold it before it had too many miles on the engine).

And for the record, the fastest road going "mass produced" car has 4 turbos, AND a cylinder count divisible by 4. ;)

Turbo6PGT
10-18-2005, 23:45
^^ He's right! The best way to make power efficiently and safely is more cylinders and great 5 valve heads... AND BOOST! Im asuming your referring to the new Buggatti EB 110. I know AMG has a 12 cylinder quad turbo setup in some of their race cars as well. Funny thing is all these european super engines will rev to 9,000+ rpm's, have 12 cylinders, 4 turbos and less displacement than 90% of the V8's in the USA. Yet they still dominate them by nearly double the power. This has to do with money, R&D and the US emissions control. How can you argue with efficiency though? Its great BUT it comes at a price!

You guys with your silly DSM's need to give up the fight. That 8 second talon, now high 7's, breaks every other 3 passes down the track. Go ask John about his endeavors and repairs he does to make a car do that. Yes they make great power cheap but thats hardly reliable. Those cars break more than any car on the road aside from Chrysler minivans. :) If you owned one and it never broke consider it a blessing! DSM's ar the rage in my neighborhood but they spend more time fixing their cars than driving them.

mec
10-19-2005, 03:08
Originally posted by epsylum

IRL cars, includes Honda motors- Turboed


You might wanna double check that.. ;) ;f

PistolWhip
10-19-2005, 05:16
Every car I own save for my wifes Grand Cherokee is Supercharged. I have a 2000 Mustang GT which is my drag/street toy with a Vortech and I have a 2002 SVT F150 Lightning as a Daily Driver. Pics of both are in my sig. The Mustang makes right aroun 500 RWHP and the Lightning I would guess is in the 380 range. I will not take this opertunity to embarass you by pointing out the "missinterpratation" of facts that you have slathered over this thread, but I will tell you this: 4.6l= 281 cubic inches. 5.4l= 331 cubic inches. 5.7l= 350 cubic inches. 5.8l= 351 cubic inches.
And if you honestly think you can compare your Probe to an 03/04 Cobra, or anything that SVT has had a hand in for that matter save for a Focus, your insane.



To save you face later in life: 1 Liter = 61.0237438 Cubic inches

Turbo6PGT
10-19-2005, 07:59
Originally posted by PistolWhip
I will not take this opertunity to embarass you by pointing out the "missinterpratation" of facts that you have slathered over this thread...

To save you face later in life: 1 Liter = 61.0237438 Cubic inches

I know how big a cubic inch is thank you, I wasnt sure on the exact engine sizes so I was generalizing but it still proves my point. So by all means go ahead and embarass me with all my "missinterpratation". You can try to prove the modular 4.6'a are wonderful but they are still VERY unefficient compared to todays standard of engines. Let's see 2.0L honda's can make anywhere from 550-620whp on 26psi and race gas(some even 1.8L). How much boost does it take your MGT to make 620whp again?? You've got a big V8 and a blower and cant do that. Plus I've seen a MGT w/ Kenny Bell on on our dyno that was tuned with SCT and only made 590rwhp on 29psi w/ water injection , C14 fuel, and agressive timing(21 degrees total). Not very impressive for a blown V8 twice the size of the 4 bangers with even more boost.

And for the matter of my probe, since YOU are so "missinterpreted" I shouldn't have to defend it. I just watched a bone stock KL03 Probe engine dyno 398whp on 13psi with nothing but an exhaust and engine management. My buddy with the same engine as me made 300whp on 7psi boost as well. Stock these engines might make 140whp, so he was making 22whp/1psi boost. I havent dyno'd mine because its not broke in yet so I cant provide numbers, but my turbo is more efficient than his and wont run out of breath until 30psi. Considering the turbo probes dyno ~550whp on 25psi with 2 less cylinders, 2.1L smaller and fewer valves Im pretty sure its worthy and spanks the engines made by SVT. I dont even have an aftermarket like you do OR magazines dedicated to my car for that matter. I had to build my own car from the ground up and my DIY setup will still perform more efficiently than yours. If you really wanna get technical we can flowbench our heads, cuz I already know which one is better. Why do you think Ford has a big V8? Because they cant make a smaller engine thats efficient enough to make power. There's plenty of proof out there to support my claims that the Ford OHV engines are unefficient.

Bottom line, is the typical blown mustang slow? NOT AT ALL but they could make more power if people would actually understand what make cars fast. You dont just slap a blower on a car that you bought from a magazine and call it good. Everyone and their uncles sister has a supercharged mustang anymore. It annoys me that so many people dont take pride in researching the nuts and bolts of their own cars and do mods that they know little about. I guess if you met your personal goals it wont matter whats under the hood. Im just stating there are more efficient ways to make 500-600hp than the 4.6L Mustang. You can argue forever but the evidence on the dyno's out there will backup my claims 10 fold.

Cochese
10-19-2005, 12:21
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT


You guys with your silly DSM's need to give up the fight. That 8 second talon, now high 7's, breaks every other 3 passes down the track. Go ask John about his endeavors and repairs he does to make a car do that. Yes they make great power cheap but thats hardly reliable. Those cars break more than any car on the road aside from Chrysler minivans. :) If you owned one and it never broke consider it a blessing! DSM's ar the rage in my neighborhood but they spend more time fixing their cars than driving them.

You need to stop checking out all of the trashy ricers in your neighborhood.

Sheps DSM is a race car. Every race car breaks something every 3 passes, or else your not trying to go faster. The reason I posted it? It's a full bodied, carpeted car with all of it's stock glass and and went under 10's on street tires. That's what we call an accomplishment.

I have owned a turbo Mitsubishi vehicle on/off since 1998, modifying and tinkering all along the way. If you do it right, instead of doing it like a dumbass ricer, DSM's are bulletproof. I have probably a hundred personal examples of reliable, streetable, 13 second or less DSM's that I've ridden in, worked on, or whose driver I'm friends with.

My best friends 1993 TSiAWD had 167,xxx miles, a stock 14B, totally stock motor and Supra side mount plus a handfull of bolt-ons (ND 660 injectors, Walbro 255, full exhaust (stock ex mani!) before it was wrecked, and it ran a flat 13 at Bandimere speedways elevation in Colorado. The motor was rebuilt with a knife edged crank, Ross Pistons, Eagle Rods, a BJ's ST4 cylinder head with oversized valves, and all bolt-ons plus a Shep Tranny were moved into a beautiful 1991 GVR4, including the ever rare 4 bolt rearend swap retaining the AWS on the GVR4. Brakes from a newer 3KGT VR4 were added with EBC Green pads and a full suspension including lowering springs, KYB AGX's off of my Talon and front and rear strut tower bars and suspension techniques sway bars with urithane bushings.
I would venture a guess that this GVR4 (aka silly DSM) would fair well against your Ford Probe.

My pos 93 TSiAWD was purchased for $1000 not running, with a broken tranny, and some bolt-ons including a test pipe, 16G, AFC, guages and MBC. I picked up a tranny and T-case for $360 off of the Colorado DSM List, tuned the car and added NGK blue wires and it ran a mid 13 second pass on a stock fuel system and stock motor, until I sold it for a truck to move my stuff out of state.

Oh, and Sheps block is stock running 8 second passes.
I'd love to see your probe bust an 8 second pass with comparible mods.

Turbo6PGT
10-19-2005, 12:51
Originally posted by glocktastic
Sheps DSM is a race car. Every race car breaks something every 3 passes, or else your not trying to go faster. The reason I posted it? It's a full bodied, carpeted car with all of it's stock glass and and went under 10's on street tires. That's what we call an accomplishment.

Oh, and Sheps block is stock running 8 second passes.
I'd love to see your probe bust an 8 second pass with comparible mods.

Shep ran a 7.89 last month, or so I was told by someone who knows him. ;f And I totally give him props for everything as it is a race car and it blows my mind. DSM blocks are very stout, heads are very boost friendly as well! But I have also seen a couple KL blocks push 800hp w/ TT setups in Australia in road race cars in the falcon T/A series. Full stock double-bolt main block as well, very similar to the DSM blocks and the 911 boxer blocks.

If I had a 150-shot direct port + 32psi on a T04S turbo I guess we could find out how fast a KL can be, but I dont have a custom gearbox or AWD so I dont think so. He builds his own trannies which are stronger and allow him to run up to 190mph. Mine tops out at 150 or so. And I really dont like working on cars 4 nights a week anymore, I've moved on from owning race cars. But John Shepard is a cool guy and his car decimates!

Cochese
10-19-2005, 13:13
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT
Shep ran a 7.89 last month, or so I was told by someone who knows him. ;f And I totally give him props for everything as it is a race car and it blows my mind. DSM blocks are very stout, heads are very boost friendly as well! But I have also seen a couple KL blocks push 800hp w/ TT setups in Australia in road race cars in the falcon T/A series. Full stock double-bolt main block as well, very similar to the DSM blocks and the 911 boxer blocks.

If I had a 150-shot direct port + 32psi on a T04S turbo I guess we could find out how fast a KL can be, but I dont have a custom gearbox or AWD so I dont think so. He builds his own trannies which are stronger and allow him to run up to 190mph. Mine tops out at 150 or so. And I really dont like working on cars 4 nights a week anymore, I've moved on from owning race cars. But John Shepard is a cool guy and his car decimates!

Agreed

PistolWhip
10-19-2005, 13:34
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT
I know how big a cubic inch is thank you, I wasnt sure on the exact engine sizes so I was generalizing but it still proves my point. So by all means go ahead and embarass me with all my "missinterpratation". You can try to prove the modular 4.6'a are wonderful but they are still VERY unefficient compared to todays standard of engines. Let's see 2.0L honda's can make anywhere from 550-620whp on 26psi and race gas(some even 1.8L). How much boost does it take your MGT to make 620whp again?? You've got a big V8 and a blower and cant do that. Plus I've seen a MGT w/ Kenny Bell on on our dyno that was tuned with SCT and only made 590rwhp on 29psi w/ water injection , C14 fuel, and agressive timing(21 degrees total). Not very impressive for a blown V8 twice the size of the 4 bangers with even more boost.

And for the matter of my probe, since YOU are so "missinterpreted" I shouldn't have to defend it. I just watched a bone stock KL03 Probe engine dyno 398whp on 13psi with nothing but an exhaust and engine management. My buddy with the same engine as me made 300whp on 7psi boost as well. Stock these engines might make 140whp, so he was making 22whp/1psi boost. I havent dyno'd mine because its not broke in yet so I cant provide numbers, but my turbo is more efficient than his and wont run out of breath until 30psi. Considering the turbo probes dyno ~550whp on 25psi with 2 less cylinders, 2.1L smaller and fewer valves Im pretty sure its worthy and spanks the engines made by SVT. I dont even have an aftermarket like you do OR magazines dedicated to my car for that matter. I had to build my own car from the ground up and my DIY setup will still perform more efficiently than yours. If you really wanna get technical we can flowbench our heads, cuz I already know which one is better. Why do you think Ford has a big V8? Because they cant make a smaller engine thats efficient enough to make power. There's plenty of proof out there to support my claims that the Ford OHV engines are unefficient.

Bottom line, is the typical blown mustang slow? NOT AT ALL but they could make more power if people would actually understand what make cars fast. You dont just slap a blower on a car that you bought from a magazine and call it good. Everyone and their uncles sister has a supercharged mustang anymore. It annoys me that so many people dont take pride in researching the nuts and bolts of their own cars and do mods that they know little about. I guess if you met your personal goals it wont matter whats under the hood. Im just stating there are more efficient ways to make 500-600hp than the 4.6L Mustang. You can argue forever but the evidence on the dyno's out there will backup my claims 10 fold.

You know, I had a whole long responce drawn up, but your not even worth the bandwidth. When your done internet racing and are ready to show your faith in that super duper Probe and your infinate wisdom of "what it takes to make a car fast," put your money where your mouth is just let me know. After I embarress you with my Stang, I'll beat your ass with my tow vehicle too....Ricer ~chatter~

hapuna
10-19-2005, 15:46
How's your gas mileage????????

;a ;z ;a

Turbo6PGT
10-19-2005, 15:49
Originally posted by PistolWhip
You know, I had a whole long responce drawn up, but your not even worth the bandwidth. When your done internet racing and are ready to show your faith in that super duper Probe and your infinate wisdom of "what it takes to make a car fast," put your money where your mouth is just let me know. After I embarress you with my Stang, I'll beat your ass with my tow vehicle too....Ricer ~chatter~

Im not worth the bandwidth eh? Or is this because you were going to reply with opinions w/out any factual evidence? I never said my probe was faster than your car and never cared for that matter. I defended my engine and design with facts and proof while your still dribbling about your Ford's. I give respect where it is due, the cobra is a cool car for the price but I do not care for the attitudes of owners such as yourself that have an agenda... Ford decimates all! RIGHT?

You call me a ricer but you're more of a ricer than me! I freely admit that the probe isnt the greatest platform and I respect german engine design, japanese, Brittish and most of all ITALIAN. But my car is no slouch, Ive put plenty of 12 second cars in their place. But my point still stands and is proven as far as I'm concerned. Volumetric efficiency, ever heard of it? Probably not because most Ford engineers havent either! It's why modeular 4.6's make less HP/psi of boost. You mustang guys are a penny a dozen. You are one track minded and refuse to admit that anything else is better even though it can be proven on a dyno or track. Mustang owners are one track minded just like the cars themselves. They go straight fast and cant even take off straight w/out adding a drag link kit. But you're the better man here by far by calling names.

epsylum
10-19-2005, 16:32
Originally posted by mec
You might wanna double check that.. ;) ;f

Sorry, forgot they ditched the turbos recently.

They were faster before the IRL/Cart days, when they had turbos.

PistolWhip
10-19-2005, 18:11
Originally posted by Turbo6PGT
Im not worth the bandwidth eh? Or is this because you were going to reply with opinions w/out any factual evidence? I never said my probe was faster than your car and never cared for that matter. I defended my engine and design with facts and proof while your still dribbling about your Ford's. I give respect where it is due, the cobra is a cool car for the price but I do not care for the attitudes of owners such as yourself that have an agenda... Ford decimates all! RIGHT?

You call me a ricer but you're more of a ricer than me! I freely admit that the probe isnt the greatest platform and I respect german engine design, japanese, Brittish and most of all ITALIAN. But my car is no slouch, Ive put plenty of 12 second cars in their place. But my point still stands and is proven as far as I'm concerned. Volumetric efficiency, ever heard of it? Probably not because most Ford engineers havent either! It's why modeular 4.6's make less HP/psi of boost. You mustang guys are a penny a dozen. You are one track minded and refuse to admit that anything else is better even though it can be proven on a dyno or track. Mustang owners are one track minded just like the cars themselves. They go straight fast and cant even take off straight w/out adding a drag link kit. But you're the better man here by far by calling names.

;Q ;z Whatever bud