extracting power from f4r

[Chip-mk1]

nope the NA clio would be quicker as the turbo one would be parked up with a broken Sadev (only rated to 180ftlbs remember )

FLOL, fair point although in reality im sure they'll take more for a short period of time, even the standard box copes kind of ok with turbo power.

 

[ian-speedy]

I'm expecting that power having spent roughly 2k

I cannot fit a turbo for the class i'm in rallying , if I did I would be in the same class as all the WRC cars , now some i'll beat , but not all of them

 

[ian-speedy]

FLOL, fair point although in reality im sure they'll take more for a short period of time, even the standard box copes kind of ok with turbo power.

Even if it did have a turbo , I bet they would still be closely matched , the turbo car would be quicker on the straights but I reckon the NA car would be quicker in the bends allowing for lag

 

[Chip-mk1]

Even if it did have a turbo , I bet they would still be closely matched , the turbo car would be quicker on the straights but I reckon the NA car would be quicker in the bends allowing for lag

A couple of the cars I have mapped have gone from throttle bodied engines to turbo engines, and they have always got faster over a lap on the turbo engines, It does depend a lot on how its mapped and specced though, a crucial element (which ive not yet done on my turbo clio but will do so in the future) is to map the throttle pedal as the boost controller, so that at half throttle you dont still get 99% of the power like on most factory turbo cars, thats the biggest problem with power delivery coming out of bends.

I'd wager even the best possible turbo setup will still lose a couple of mph on every bend though, but if it gains 20mph on every straight that very quickly comes out in the wash IME on a racetrack, although would be a different story down a very twisty B road im sure.

Put it this way though, have you ever seen ANY motorsport class where you are allowed a petrol turbo of the same capacity as an N/A car and without a restrictor on a turbo?
I havent and the reason is they would slaughter the N/A cars by so much it would make it silly.

The only reasons ever to go N/A IMHO are:
Rules say you have to
To keep it very simple on a cheap build

 

[MG cup]

A couple of the cars I have mapped have gone from throttle bodied engines to turbo engines, and they have always got faster over a lap on the turbo engines, It does depend a lot on how its mapped and specced though, a crucial element (which ive not yet done on my turbo clio but will do so in the future) is to map the throttle pedal as the boost controller, so that at half throttle you dont still get 99% of the power like on most factory turbo cars, thats the biggest problem with power delivery coming out of bends.

I'd wager even the best possible turbo setup will still lose a couple of mph on every bend though, but if it gains 20mph on every straight that very quickly comes out in the wash IME on a racetrack, although would be a different story down a very twisty B road im sure.

Put it this way though, have you ever seen ANY motorsport class where you are allowed a petrol turbo of the same capacity as an N/A car and without a restrictor on a turbo?
I havent and the reason is they would slaughter the N/A cars by so much it would make it silly.

The only reasons ever to go N/A IMHO are:
Rules say you have to
To keep it very simple on a cheap build

Iirc the BTCC and WTCC ran 300bhp S2000 cars for a season or two during switchover period where both turbo and n/a cars were at the sameish bhp. Turbo cars won at high speed circuits, n/a at everything else.

N/A will usually beat a turbo car around a lap if they are similar power.

 

[Fred@BTM]

ah but the super touring BTCC days, mondeos, volvos, primeras, lagunas were NA and they still hold several lap records even today! Mk1 and Mk2 NA escorts kicking the arse of "modern day" WRC subarus? NA is better - fin

 

[Chip-mk1]

Iirc the BTCC and WTCC ran 300bhp S2000 cars for a season or two during switchover period where both turbo and n/a cars were at the sameish bhp. Turbo cars won at high speed circuits, n/a at everything else.

N/A will usually beat a turbo car around a lap if they are similar power.

Exactly, the Turbo cars had to have their power massively restricted to make it anything like fair, if you dont have a rule making you run a restrictor then the turbo will win by a mile.
Remove the restrictor, change the turbo, remap it, and those same turbo cars would have been 500bhp and quite a few seconds a lap quicker than the N/A cars I am 100% confident.

People who compare motorsport cars when deciding on a trackday build always seem to forget about the restrictors which you DONT have to run when building a trackday car!

 

[Chip-mk1]

ah but the super touring BTCC days, mondeos, volvos, primeras, lagunas were NA and they still hold several lap records even today! Mk1 and Mk2 NA escorts kicking the arse of "modern day" WRC subarus? NA is better - fin

ONLY because the turbo cars that ran since have all had to run a restrictor!

And TBH if you look at NGTC cars even with a restrictor they are still getting loads of fastest laps anyway:
http://www.touringcartimes.com/article.php?id=5953

 

[Chip-mk1]

Another example, knockhill the fastest touring car round there is a turbo one, and not only is it quicker than all the N/A ones but its actually SLOWER than the fastest Evo Road car that ran there in time attack on road legal tyres!

BTCC lap record: Tom Chilton (GBR), Global Ford Focus, 52.999s (86.35mph) on 3 September 2011
Time Attack record : Gavin Renshaw 52.59


Take the restrictors away like you can on a trackday, and Turbos are WAY faster in a comparable car.
Chiltons car was a far bigger budget car than Renshaws evo, and also Chilton is a far better drive im sure, and he was on better tyres, and still the unrestricted turbo road car beathim by almost half a second! And beat every N/A BTCC car by even more than that!

 

[Fred@BTM]

yeah time attack car has how much power though? 500+? vs a 300bhp BTCC car so its extra 200bhp only gave him a 0.5sec faster lap, a super tourer would still kick both of them in to touch!

 

[MG cup]

Agreed with Fred, N/A is better lol. Turbo cars will spend most of the season being rebuilt or parts modified etc etc as they are notoriously unreliable, always a sensor out of range, needing replaced etc.

I'm N/A mad myself so im a bit biased but I agree at 2000cc turbo car will beat an N/A 2000cc car if modifications were open. My point with the BTCC S2000 cars was that with the sameish power then the N/A car will do most of the winning.

Knockhill is a funny comparison as I find a 2WD turbo car is better suited to there with the elevation changes and two big acceleration zones. Flatter circuits with a stop start layout will suit N/A better. It doesn't' surprise me Chilton holds the record there still as he set's his cars to steer from the rear which you need for turn in on the off camber corners at KH. Renshaws EVO is easily 2-3 times the power of a BTCC car, quite poor times for them cars I think when my mate can put a 250bhp Westfield round in 53's.

 

[Fred@BTM]

David Leslie's Primera did some bonkers lap time round Donny (inc melbourne) trying to find the time now

 

[MG cup]

Super Touring cars FTW, can't forget that them cars were pushing a million pound value and 10-20 times that in development. They were proper prototypes but shows what's possible with N/A If you spend the mulla.

 

[Chip-mk1]

yeah time attack car has how much power though? 500+? vs a 300bhp BTCC car so its extra 200bhp only gave him a 0.5sec faster lap, a super tourer would still kick both of them in to touch!

Probably more like 700bhp mate, but you seem to be missing the point that its a worse car on worse tyres with a worse driver and its STILL quicker.

Super tourers were far lighter, had far more suspension freedom etc.
Take a super tourer and turbo it and its lap times would get even quicker, and you could make it MORE reliable at the same time I would wager as those engines used to go pop a fair bit, lol

 

[Chip-mk1]

Agreed with Fred, N/A is better lol. Turbo cars will spend most of the season being rebuilt or parts modified etc etc as they are notoriously unreliable, always a sensor out of range, needing replaced etc.

Just not true at all, if you had 2 identical super tourers I am 100% confident I could make a turbo one that would be faster AND more reliable, as you wouldnt need the same revs or same peak cylinder pressures, everything would be under much less strain if it was built to just make 50% more power than he N/A version for example.

I'm N/A mad myself so im a bit biased but I agree at 2000cc turbo car will beat an N/A 2000cc car if modifications were open.

CORRECT!

My point with the BTCC S2000 cars was that with the sameish power then the N/A car will do most of the winning.

Quite a few of the lap records were still turbo cars, even with the restrictor, but like I said its a rubbish comparison when people are looking for a trackday power plant as there arent restrictors on trackdays!

Knockhill is a funny comparison as I find a 2WD turbo car is better suited to there with the elevation changes and two big acceleration zones. Flatter circuits with a stop start layout will suit N/A better. It doesn't' surprise me Chilton holds the record there still as he set's his cars to steer from the rear which you need for turn in on the off camber corners at KH. Renshaws EVO is easily 2-3 times the power of a BTCC car, quite poor times for them cars I think when my mate can put a 250bhp Westfield round in 53's.

Time attack cars are very restricted on suspension mods, all original mounting points etc, and are on ROAD tyres, do you not realise how much difference that makes?

 

[Fred@BTM]

but a 700bhp SHOULD beat a 300bhp car, but only by 0.5 sec? bit s**t really LOL!

Pirelli got it right with their statement

 

[Chip-mk1]

but a 700bhp SHOULD beat a 300bhp car, but only by 0.5 sec? bit s**t really LOL!

As mentioned there are many reasons for that like it being a tiny budget car on road tyres etc.

Bottom line is if you have X amount of quid to spend, and no rules against restrictors you WILL be faster with a turbo.

Pirelli got it right with their statement

I agree, but the laptimes dont always

 

[MG cup]

To summarise this, super tourers are ace, BTCC cars are also ace but given the choice of N/A and turbo car at the same power we would have N/A and if engine mods were open and the turbo cars had a lot more power then we would have turbo?

 

[Fred@BTM]

i wouldn't have a turbo if you paid me, horrible things for cheats!

 

[MG cup]

Time attack cars are very restricted on suspension mods, all original mounting points etc, and are on ROAD tyres, do you not realise how much difference that makes?

In 2012 the pro class were running slicks at KH as I was there watching it, I understand the difference between the 2 but its only about a second difference round KH.

 

[MG cup]

Give me N/A anyday too, tuned turbo cars always have me on edge when thrashing them, they always feel like there ready to spit the dummy at any point and usually do in one way or another.

 

[Chip-mk1]

To summarise this, super tourers are ace, BTCC cars are also ace but given the choice of N/A and turbo car at the same power we would have N/A and if engine mods were open and the turbo cars had a lot more power then we would have turbo?

Yes mate.

I do LOVE the sounds of a decent high revving N/A as well by the way, im not against N/A tuning and in fact have tuned more N/A cars than turbo myself over the years, im just realistic that if you want say a reliable 150bhp per litre, turbo is your only option and even at 120bhp per litres its a lot cheaper!

 

[Sam@NP]

The argument that turbo race ars are unreliable is b****cks. Our KTM had zero engine issues running 320bhp at the wheels.

 

[Chip-mk1]

In 2012 the pro class were running slicks at KH as I was there watching it

Ah, thanks for correcting me on that mate, although Im sure you agree that its still nothing like the quality of car or driver in BTCC so still prooves that throwing hundreds of turbo ponies at a car DOES make it faster over a lap.

 

[Chip-mk1]

The argument that turbo race ars are unreliable is b****cks. Our KTM had zero engine issues running 320bhp at the wheels.

Exactly!

They are only unreliable if chasing every single last bhp, same as N/A

You can make 300bhp a litre more reliably with a turbo than you can 150bhp per litre without!


The poor reliability comes from people trying to keep winding the boost up on an engine not built to take it or not mapped properly.

 

[MG cup]

The argument that turbo race ars are unreliable is b****cks. Our KTM had zero engine issues running 320bhp at the wheels.

That power is very easily made with that engine as its an Audi tfsi iirc so handles it quite easily, push the envelope and there is more to go wrong with a turbo car... Put it that way.

They are only unreliable if chasing every single last bhp, same as N/A

Agreed.

 

[Chip-mk1]

That power is very easily made with that engine as its an Audi tfsi iirc so handles it quite easily

And how much could the same basic engine handle reliably N/A instead of that 320?
220 realistically?

 

[MG cup]

Say 250bhp for a well tuned N/A engine and a 320bhp for a well tuned turbo engine both working well within their means as far as pistons, rods and top ends. I would put a months wages on the turbo being the first to require a major component. Both being race cars for argument sake.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Say 250bhp for a well tuned N/A engine and a 320bhp for a well tuned turbo engine both working well within their means as far as pistons, rods and top ends. I would put a months wages on the turbo being the first to require a major component. Both being race cars for argument sake.

For a 1.8/2,0 2 litre I assume you mean? like Sams etc?

If so, no way, 320hp would be a walk in the park to make reliable for many many hours of flat out use, the 250 N/A though would be needing to rev to about 8Krpm and spend most of its time near there and that means ring seal dieing off much sooner due to the piston speeds involved.

And the moment you try and go just 20% further (still far less than the turbo is making) you would be into 2 rings and slipper pistons etc on most engines and rebuilds measured in minutes of full throttle not hours.

 

[ianm172]

Im loving this thread :-D

 

[MG cup]

This could go on forever lol, Turbo is better bang for buck basically, N/A is a proper drivers car. Surely we can agree on that one?

 

[SharkyUK]

I think we can agree to disagree that NA trumps everything else and is, in fact, superior. :rasp:

But please, carry on... I'm quite enjoying the ongoing banter!

 

[Sam@NP]

Either way, an engine is just a disposable item. The chassis and its dynamics are where true skill and engineering is

 

[Chip-mk1]

This could go on forever lol, Turbo is better bang for buck basically, N/A is a proper drivers car. Surely we can agree on that one?

You need to drive a PROPER turbo car I think mate.

The engine we built for my mates astra was 400bhp from 2 litres and still VERY controllable when I mapped it with the throttle position as the boost controller, you would be genuinely amazed how much easier it was to put the power down than a typical 300bhp engine not done that way.

 

[Chip-mk1]

Either way, an engine is just a disposable item. The chassis and its dynamics are where true skill and engineering is

Agreed, and in fact even more so on a turbo engine, as its so capable of delivering more power than you need a lot of the time anyway so no need to chase every last bhp anyway for most trackday type applications.
Although if the mapping isnt right especially for boost delivery, you can have the best chassis in the world and it still not drive nicely, which is what a lot of people have experienced and been put off turbo cars by

 

[ianm172]

You need more turbo power to beat a similar weight similar power na car. Although it is alot easier to get power from a turbo. Think that's a fair comment, im in the middle and like both

 

[Chip-mk1]

You need more turbo power to beat a similar weight similar power na car. Although it is alot easier to get power from a turbo. Think that's a fair comment, im in the middle and like both

Turbo means more weight, more weight means slower, so if you were stupid enough to build a turbo engine that had no more power than before you turbo'd it then yes it would get slower not quicker for sure.

I love both types of engine, im one of those people that tends to enjoy the good bits of whatever I am driving.

So when I drive our RS2 clio with only about 140bhp but flat curve all the way to the limiter I love the smoothness and the way it revs like hell so willingly, and when I drive the turbo I love the surge of torque and seemingly endless reserves of power by comparison.

I guess someone else driving both might hate the lack of torque of the RS2 car and hate the aggressive delivery of the turbo, just depends on what you choose to focus on really!

 

[Fred@BTM]

The argument that turbo race ars are unreliable is b****cks. Our KTM had zero engine issues running 320bhp at the wheels.

how many gearboxes again, remind me, i forget

 

[Chip-mk1]

how many gearboxes again, remind me, i forget

Ah, now thats a different story!

Especially for an F4R!

 

[MG cup]

You need to drive a PROPER turbo car I think mate.

The engine we built for my mates astra was 400bhp from 2 litres and still VERY controllable when I mapped it with the throttle position as the boost controller, you would be genuinely amazed how much easier it was to put the power down than a typical 300bhp engine not done that way.

How does a 600bhp Harvey Gibb built and tuned YB suit lol

Like I say I'm biased as 2 of my mates have seen the error of their ways by racing high output turbo cars and switched to N/A and never looked back, one because their wallet feel's better about it, 2 it take less to prep the car and they can wring its neck and have better lap times too. One of the cars in argument was an escort cossworth with group A shell, all the suspension gubbings, diffs etc etc, 600bhp SCR engine and swapped for a 250bhp c20xe Westfield that is only around 300-400 kg lighter than the Escos. The weight reduction is far outweighed by the torque and grip out the corners IMO of the escos but still he Westfield pi**es all over it.