ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
STICKER TWONK
ClioSport Club Member
Golf GTi DSG
Turbo will probably have more torque throughout the rev range. Depends what engines though dont it! Could have a 1.4 Turbo with 120bhp vs a 1.8 NA with 120bhp.
Yup. Turbo same horses but more torque
Nippy white cup
Is the Valver really quicker std m8? Pretty sure that the std 5 is low 7s and the Valver is mid to high 7s
The 5 GTT in standard form is quicker than the 16v in standard form...
5GTT was about 7.5, valver 7.7 - The 5 turbo was a shoe box on wheels dont forget, you only had to breath on the body panels and they were dented!
Turbo engines are normaly lighter as they are smaller - thus making the car lighter (although the 2 examples the cars are lighter anyway)
R5GTT 1.4 8v lighter than 1.8 16V Clio
Fiesta RST 1.6 8v lighter than 1.8 16v Fiesta RS1800
I know its only a very small comparason and some turbos are 16v and bigger but these to seemed comparable.
Honda dont generally use turbos do they? They dont seem to be hurt to much. If turbos where the only way to go some of their cars would have them???
Ferrari make some pretty good no expenses spared powerful engines with no turbos. Cant be THAT important for a good engine.
the jap market is limited to 280bhp, so a 3.5ltr V6 is relatively unstressed and still has massive scope for more.
Plus Honda have the whole VTEC thing going and its part and partial to their brand image.
400bhp Ferrari 360 engines are 3.6ltr and use simple RPM to process the amount of air needed to get a tad over 100bhp/ltr.
Ferrari are by no means no expense spared..........they are conventional high output 4 strokes.
The problem when you run identicle engines one with forced induction, the NA version will never ever ever be the fastest option. It might sound nicer, fit your driving style better, but a balls out turbo engine compared to a balls out NA engine will be several hundred bhp behind.
F1 currently is just approaching the 300bhp/ltr marker whilst the turbo era smashed that over 20 yrs ago with 1500bhp/ltr......
coolspot007007
ClioSport Club Member
Seat Leon Cupra
Quote: Originally posted by coolspot007007 on 10 September 2003
Quote: Originally posted by king.stromba on 09 September 2003
Honda dont generally use turbos do they? They dont seem to be hurt to much. If turbos where the only way to go some of their cars would have them???
But due to Vtec they have little torque, so use high revs to get around the problem?
VTEC ( the newer ones) have more torque available at lower rpm than conventional non cam pahsing/changing systems. Simply because of the milder profile they run at low RPM. BUT, the actual high cam can be turned on far earlier than it does std and pickup a whole dollop of power and torque for nothing.
Ferrari make some pretty good no expenses spared powerful engines with no turbos. Cant be THAT important for a good engine.
Some of the fastest Ferraris have been turbod, including the F40 and 308 GTB Quattrovalvole. Theyve been a cheap way for many manufacturers to make a long term production engine more powerful for little cash e.g. the 308 QV mentioned earlier. gained 150bhp on the original NA version. And the old saying theres no replacement for displacement is true but a turbo effectively increases the displacement due to being fed compressed air? (Im sure Ben R mentioned something about it a while ago)
Correct
Oi stromba, where did your post go, it was quite sensible and had good questions! lol
There were simple answeres that would of sorted it all out.
Oh, and just so you know, nobody was trying to shoot you down in flames....
SO, in basics.....a turbo and a NA engine of the SAME power, how do they compare?
Even with the attempt to simplify the issue you have overcomplicated it in a way. If they are making the same power then the drivability of the engine and this is what will make it a nice engine or not, depends totally upon capacity now. A 1300cc NA engin making 180bhp compared to a 1300 turbo making 180, the turbo will be a far better power unit all over, especially if yo run the same rpm as the NA unit even though you dont need to, it will just eliminate lag problems through never dropping out of high exhaust gas production and velocities.
If its a 7ltr 300bhp Chevy big block then a turbo version with a single small turbo for each bank then youll have an engine that makes its power at a lower rpm and with less stress and more torque.
Im not a turbo nut, im just not a fan of them.............but there is no denying that they just work out better than NA engine of the same capcity. And before anybody starts talking of lag, if your making such a large amount of power that serious lag is ruinin the engine, you do the same that you would with a wheezy, high rpm buzzy and peaky NA engine, more cubes.
As for the turbo F1 cars making the same power........less stress and lower rpms, more torque too. And lag wouldnt be an issue, they would come up with silly ALS and turbo designs and other ways of basically eliminating it.
But yup, fuel consumption would go up and that would have a detrimental effect on the actual cars dynamics.
I went to edit it and deleted it by mistake. Ooops
However, fuel may not be a problem, because the turbo engine would be lighter than its NA equililent so may get better fuel consumption (didnt think about that when i wrote the last post).
Also nobody has mentioned older cars. If i was goimng to buy an older car (say as a second car), a sensible person would stay away from turbos as they are expensive to replace, and on a 90,000 + mile car could be dodgy (apparently 200sxs / S13 silvias have poor oil supply to them and so they tend to be destroyed by high milage as the pipes get clogged up).
I think slapping a turbo on a car is the cheap effective option. However a better option would be a gas turbine engine, but they are cost prohibitive (at the moment). They have even better power to weight ratios, which is why they are used in helicopters.
i thought the basis of the topic was if the SAME ENGINE making the SAME POWER was used, where would there be a weight advantage?
All that plumbing, heavy turbo, oil lines, intercooler etc.
Gas turbine, wht would you do about the noise (massive exhaust and silencing systems) and the heat generated and massive amounts of pollution.
We built a gas turbine engine out of an old turbo for a laugh, when we ran it first time at 11pm so we could see the flame.........erm, the 130db noise emitted meant neighbours werent too happy and the police came round lol!
lol, yeah, it would be like driving a helicopter down the motorway. WHAT NOISE? I CANT HEAR YOU!! WHAT? SPEAK UP!
I thought there would be some weight saving because a smaller engine with a turbo could put out the same HP as a bigger one with non turbo? I thought he meant a different / same engine as long as it put out the same power.
Well leaving the weight issue to one side for the moment, Ive driven a NA 16v and a turbo 16v (both mine) Same F7P engine but obviously the turbo one has a lot more power and torque. Now this isnt even a comparison with equal power, but as I know the characteristics of the two types of aspiration on the same engine quite well, I reckon Im qualified to talk about them.
To be perfectly blunt if it were possible to have an F7P engine that made 240-250bhp even though NA, *and* it was just as driveable and everyday as the standard power F7P then I would have that over a turbo version every time. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that my 240-250bhp F7P turbo is much more useable than a 240bhp NA F7P...hidden power. You could drive around every day to the shops and back and never know that it was any more than a standard valver, its that mellow a drive. Then when you want to unleash the full 250bhp all you do is put your foot down and hit 3500 rpm, the turbo spins up within half a second at just about any speed except at idle, and whoosh off you go. So all things being equal, a large capacity NA engine is maybe a better drive. But for everyone who cant afford to run a car with a 5.0 V8, a 1.8 or 2.0 turbo is a lot better.
