Cosworth427

They are both *quick*, not one person here as refuted that fact. The issue is
how flexible is the Skyline within different gears? The car has less usable power because the turbocharger delays power delivery, AND that the performance OFF BOOST is poor - (much like any other small turbocharged engine is.)

How hard is it for you people to understand what usable power actually is?

I say once again, I have driven and tuned turbocharged cars that have very little lag, but it's still no match for a natural aspirated car. This isn't a dig at the Skyline or to hype up BMWs, this is simply the way turbocars are and will probably always be this way.

Again, I'm not interested in what a Skyline can do on a dyno or how fast it's 0-60 is, or how quick around Suzuka with a JDM Nismo special model. I want power available instantly when I use the throttle at ANY gear, whether in a race or a daily drive to work.

Very easy, if I *needed* 90% of performance then shifting down is required. But you don't need 90% of twin-turbo power to accelerate up a hill or to overtake a car. You can stay in 4th gear in an M3 and it will easily build speed, less work and easier on economy. This makes more sence when you use an M3 as an everyday car.

After all, my choice is based on what I'd use daily.

Puggy

LMAO @ the slater of all "turboheads"

Coming from a bloke with a MKIII Supra turbo..............

Cosworth427

Your point ???

akshay67

ROTFPMSL @ Cosworth427

You are class mate...You've managed to pull everyone's chain again. Hats off to you!

Branners

his point perhaps could be that you say your preference is NA performance, yet you drive a supra turbo, not a supra turbo with sequential turbos, a straight out supra turbo with 1 turbo and lag to annoy such a devoted fan of torque...

JB

Luan Pra bang

Whats faster your imaginary M3 or his real skyline. Was Cemnot on TV once driving a ferrari at a skyline track day on Men and motors ?

C

Class? rotflmfao

90% of M3 drivers are 'rude boys' with a bit of cash who can't quite stretch to an M5

M3 = Nice car, handles well, pretty quick, well put together & pretty good if you want a standard fast car & blend into the crowd with all the other M3's

I do 70 odd miles to work each way, before I even leave my estate (about 2 miles to the motorway) I see 4 or 5 M3's every day, common as muck with a 'footballers wife' image unfortunately.

Standard car like for like, the M3 is probably quicker based on the fact it has pretty much the same weight nearly 1 litre more in displacement & 60 odd bhp.

But you never see a standard Skyline.

Last night said it all, coming home about 11pm a stage one Skyline on the M3 (I know the car so know its only a stage one), the well off estate agent in his M3 had a little pop @ around the 80mph mark, The Skyline went, the M3 gunned it & the Skyline pulled away with ease

The M3 could barely pull away from the Clio 172 Cup that we were in which annoyed him I think

image doctor

PMSL "Rude boys" this is exaclty the image I have of Skyline owners. absolutely fixated with power! Nothing else matters......POWER!

Ugly cars, ugly drivers - you cant argue with facts!

id

Cosworth427

Just because I drive a turbocharged car it doesn't mean I cannot prefer a natural aspirated car.

By your logic, it is not feasible to appreciate both types of cars and that they are mutually exclusive. You can decide to stick to one camp if you want, but I will not. Thanks.

For your information the CT-26 is one of the fastest spooling turbochargers available, and I have 3 litres of displacement as opposed to 2.6. Power delivery is pretty good (as quick if not quicker than the twin stockers on the RB) , but still not a match to NA power.

Cosworth427

It's not my problem if people get annoyed. In fact, the *only* members who get annoyed are the ones who have no clue about what they are talking about, and have ZERO arguement in the debate that they subconciously wish to win.

Sad really.

Puggy

Yeah - those 1.25i Fiesta's are a real b4stard aren't they.

Canon

mr cosworth, your assumption that rally teams would use six litre na engines if they could, do you feel this would help the overall handling balance and braking on the gravel stages? or do you feel that the ground made up by the responsive nature of the heavier na engine would offer a time advantage even when the six litre cars were being towed backwards out of the woods?

IanT

fwiw... a 300hp turbo will **** on a 300hp n/a... simply down the fact it's generating more power over a wider range of revs. Area under the graph and all that.

"**** on" ???

Absolutely not. They'll be roughly the same (assuming all other things are equal once you get out of 1st gear) ... e.g. over 0-100mph.

I'll give you a hint ... once you've ripped off the line and you've changed into second gear, how long do you spend in the low-medium rev.ranges when testing out absolute straight-line performance?

The lower-down torque of a turbo-charged engine might help someone who exits a corner in the wrong gear but a well-driven NA car with 300bhp will be just as quick as a well-driven turbo-charged car with 300bhp.

As for the debate about how much difference turbo-lag makes ...

I remember reading an article written by a racing instructor where he clearly stated that a turbo-charged car needs somewhere between 10-20% the power of the NA car to beat it around a typical circuit ... but that article was written 10 years ago. It may well have been true then but I'd be surprised if it's quite as clear-cut as that these days.

Ian.

Cosworth427

NA Power if the same quantity. 300 HP vs 300 HP. I can't believe you don't know what sticking within context is.

Bringing in Fiestas will do little to turn your *ignorant* attitude towards the topic of engines into a fact.

Cosworth427

Your "assumption" that using anything other than 4 cylinder engines will destroy balance of the car.

A 6 litre V8 will have the same length as a 4 cylinder when mounted along the longitude axis. So there will be hardly any change in weight distribution. But the positioning of the engine between the front and rear axles is key.

Weight will increase on the order of 20 - 40 KG depending on complexity. But that increase will do little to harm the handling, but the huge power delivery will give the team an advantage.

This is just all theory, but it is fact that when motorsport rules allow the use of larger engines, a race team will happly go for it to take advantage of the extra usable power.

CraigH

You've not mentioned reliability. A 400hp 6litre V8 will have a much longer lifespan than a 400hp 2litre turbo.

Your weights are a little out though surely?Although it's crude, take a 5.7 LS1 engine, ally block, all up weighs around 200kg. 2litre VTEC from S2000 weighs just over 100kg IIRC, ally block etc.

Only if it's the same or similar displacement, surely? (ie, 4 cylinder is 3 litre)

NotoriousREV

A little food for thought.

EVO magazine October 2003

M3 CSL vs Impreza Spec C

M3 CSL quoted as having 255bhp/ton
Impreza Spec C has 247bhp/ton

6th gear (M3/Impreza)

20-40: -/11.1
30-50: -/8.8
40-60: 7.8/8.8
50-70: 8.1/5.1
60-80: 7.8/4.6
70-90: 7.6/4.7
80-100: 7.8/4.8

Hmm, so the Impreza seems more flexible and quicker than the M3 in that test. Now, these speed are usually recorded as flying times rather than from closed throttle roll-ons (IIRC) however, even from a closed throttle, the turbocharged car in this instance could spend 3 seconds spooling up and still match the NA 50-70 time.

Just to clarify, this is a NA engine making 355bhp vs a turbo car making 335bhp. Obviously gearing will make itself felt but I'd say that the Impreza would make a better real world car in this example.

Clearly NA cars are more "responsive" but whether that is enough to close the gap on a turbo car with superior mid-range is doubtful, IMHO (although, again that is only comparing the M3 which is in a relatively high state of tune for it's engine capacity. Replace the M3 engine with a 6.0 V8 tuned for the same peak power and it would be a different story).

Just for balance, around Bedford, the M3 clocked 79.95 vs 80.30 (a 0.5% quicker lap time from a car with 3% better PWR).

Yes, I'm a geek and my Skyline is imaginary and does have Do-Luck bodykit

st/EVO

you people are so unfriendly, i cant be bothered with this anymore,
at the end of the day skylines are for little boys who cant drive properly
the ///M 3 is for men who can

st/EVO

and it is only a datsun after all isnt it

Puggy

Bhp/tonne the Festa is prob about the same as your whale LOL

ROTFLMFAO. You, calling me ignorant - FPMSL!

ex-webby

LOL

OK chaps. I think it's important to realise that most of the people posting here are just having a bit of fun. I'm sure all have a smile on their face when reading / replying.. I know I do.

M3's are great fun cars.. and the ones I've driven are very quick. I would argue that in almost all circumstances they are slower than a decent Skyline, but to be honest, I personally find them more fun to drive than the active gadgetry on a skyline.. but that's just me.

--

I will join in again though, if I may

Cosworth, you keep talking about things like "if they both have 300BHP".

The problem with that is that peak horses means absolutely nothing in the real world. it is very possible to map two engines, one with 400BHP and another with 250BHP and have the 250BHP car MUCH faster than the 400.

This is why peek BHP figures are only really of any use when talking with your mates in the pub.

Also. On the weight issue. I can't think of a way you could possibly say that you could produce a NA engine with the same kind of power output as a turbo engine and make it weight the same.

Yes you could make a 2ltr NA engine weight roughly the same (or even less I would think) than a 2ltr turbo engine.. but there's no way it will put out the same power.

All the best

Simon

ex-webby

PS

There is actually a huge wealth of knowledge and true understanding on this board, so just because people don't agree with you, does not mean they are stupid.

Humbly, I would suggest that you listen to what people are saying as well as telling people who YOU are saying. It really is quite educational.

davyboy

Cossie reminds me of Mycroft!

NotoriousREV

Nah, Mycroft would be telling us why the gyroscopic forces of the turbos would be detrimental to the handling

Canon

somone is showing their age hehe. i think the little boys thing sounds very immature, i dont know if you are are a little boy now or a little old datsun driver

chill

mycroft, ah yes, the soarer afficianado, the one with the spindly legs and bad taste in drain pipe trousers

to begin with i thought mr nacro was mycroft, then i though mr cosworth was mycroft, perhaps they both are

SlowBoy

iTrader: (1)

How hard is it for you to understand that if you know how to drive you don't need flexible power. Flexible power is for automatics, mate. Prefer them, too, do you?

Cosworth427

This magazine/internet racing at it's very best. Those times were made with boost building. If they were to test 50-70 in 6th, then they would have to use full throttle as low as 30 MPH to build the boost. That does not represent real world driving at all when you need power on demand!

Here's where you don't get it. Within an 8 second period of elapsed time, which car has travelled a futher distance? If both cars were dead at 50 and then both drivers hit the throttle, the M3 will be in front by some distance, simply because it uses whatever power available instantly. The Spec-C on the other hand does very little, meagre power available and progressively climbs as the boost builds, then it gets moving. What you described in those EVO tests is that the Spec C pulls harder within a given time, but has no effectively covered enough distance for a overtaking procedure.

And what about uphill roads? The delay will be even worse, revs won't climb soon enough and not enough exhaust energy to spool the turbo. It's perpetual.

Finally, when has a stock R34 GT-R weighed 1380 KG like a Spec-C?

NotoriousREV

I do get what your saying, but I think you're over-emphasising the lag and underplaying the better midrange of a turbo car vs a highly strung NA car (as opposed to a lazier tuned but bigger NA engine).

Why thank you, I do try

Cosworth427

Keep your guests and visitors to this site happy, nothing wrong with that...

But two people agreeing on something false does not make it true.



What a stupid scenario.... It's like a saying a Ferrari F355 can be beaten by a stock Nissan Micra *if* the drivers made it happen. But it doesn't mean that anyone who says the F355 is faster than the Micra *means nothing*. The only way a 400 HP car of the same weight gets outperformed is if that power is unusable. What "400 HP" car did you drive that was so slow?



The S2000 engine is around 140 KG including manifolds. The LS-1 is around 170 - 180 KG with accessories. A 5.3 litre BMW with DOHC weighs as little as 160 KG.

Displacement doesn't always mean extra bulk or the physical volume of the engine itself. Something as compact as the LS-1 is no longer than a Nissan SR20DET 2 litre 4 cyl engine. It is shorter than a 2JZ-GTE & RB26DETT inline-6 and its only around 6-7 inches wider. It weighs a few kilos more than those 6 cylinder engines.

Cosworth427

lolololol

Go tell that to Jaguar, Mercedes, Lexus, BMW and any other manufacturer who specialises in daily drivable performance cars.

You don't *need* flexible power just like you don't need 500 HP for the road, but who the hell are you to tell me what I need and what I don't need in a performance car?

Go put a bad-boy bonnet on your Corsa.