Phil M

Lets get something straight,, i'm talking throttle response here

If you had the above 2 engines the turbo one is going to be a little bit faster because it has a lot more torque at low revs, although the n/a lump will still be most responsive i.e the full amount of power that is available from that engine at them revs will be given as soon as you put your foot down.. whereas the turbo V8 won't be giving its full whack as soon as you put your foot down.

And the n/a will probably be quicker to start with, generally when a turbo is fitted to the same engine the compression ratio is lower, (by increasing the compression ratio on a n/a car will make it more powerful.) so for that first second or so when you put your foot down with both engines the n/a will jump ahead

Phil M

All i can speak for the car i've driven with a different exhaust on it, and it wont give this car 25% more torque.

The M3 accelerates quicker at 2000rpm than the evo does

CraigH

I think you're confusing torque with response. The blown engine WILL be more powerful, ultimately, but it WON'T have the throttle response. End of.

If you COULD have the same ultimate response with a blown engine, why do you think all bike manufacturers are still persisting at squeezing every last bit of power out of their engines by N/A means, not blown? Because on a bike, throttle RESPONSE is key. And you don't ever get a blown engine as good as N/A.

CraigH

When I say blown I'm relating to turbo, not supercharged, which are better (but still not as good)

drb5

iTrader: (4)

a scoob bi-turbo? yes please

http://www.forcedairtech.com/stage4.html

Cosworth427

1st: The "charged" 5 litre will make more torque and power. Period. But less responsive . Lower compression pistons on turbo cars usually does this.

2nd: There is no 2.0, or 2.6 litre turbocharged car that makes 500 lbs/ft at 1800 RPM.

Just because it is accepted that a "blown" engine outperforms a natural aspirated engine of equal size, it doesn't support the notion that a 2.6 litre turbocharged car will match the power delivery of a 3.2 litre NA car.

igratton

power delivery and the amount of power eventually delivered are totally different things I guess.

I have driven both the latest M3 and (only) an R33 GTR (somebody let me have a go in a 34 please ). I agree - the M3 has very very good throttle response - but personally for me I'm prepared to wait that extra .5 second for the turbo to spool because ultimately a turbo charged car gives 'me' a far more exciting driving experience (I've owned 5 turbo charged cars - I have 2 at the moment and shortly to be 3 when the XTR4 arrives).

I like the edgey nature of turbocharged cars, you drive them completely differently to NA cars so you never find yourself waiting for this huge amount of effort that is required to get the exhaust side of the turbo spinning. Turbos place a whole new element of fun and control that is required to drive a rwd (or mainly so in the skylines case) car well. I'm not suggesting I can drive a rwd car well either.

I would love to have seen how well an M3 (or a CSL for that matter) compared to mine and Craigs 1.3l hayabusa powered XTR2 doing a 30-150 in 6th gear Likewise I would love to see our friends XTR2 Turbo (still a 1.3l and only a measly 350bhp at the engine output shaft) against pretty much any standard traditional supercar upto 160mph

Is horses for courses again boys and girls - and my horse happens to have a silver steel spinny thing before the throttle body

ps: hello birdy - has the man run that Nobel in yet ? is he missing the skybus ?

CraigH

That's 'cos you're asleep most of the time and N/A cars catch you by surprise - is why the XTR2 caught you off gaurd all the time

WRX280

Fosters,

i totally agree with you. But look back through the archives at the long threads and you'll know what i am talking. IMHO...he is a complete idiot . I'd say it to him behind my laptop and i'd say it to his face, as would ALOT of other people.

I've referred to this link before and i'll do it again. This is what i think of him:

http://www.seghea.com/emails/troll.html

Cheers

juan

thats a fairer quote.


Your initial one was tarring all evos with the same brush.
I was merely pointing out that that is only one car, in the same way that mine is only one example, though obviously quite different.
Though the one you were in sounds a bit suss to me!, or else some wishful enhancement of the conditions
I've only been in one evo 5 and fair enough it did have longer gearing than my earlier one and didn't pick up as quick but it would be pulling hard well before 4K

Cosworth427

Woah, talk about personal grudges with internet strangers!

Well this "complete idiot" doesn't claim a standard MR-2 Turbo can do 170+ MPH because of some little downloaded java applet said so .... Someone who makes claims such as that shouldn't even speak, so think yourself as privileged.

Honestly, who gives a **** if you don't like my attitude or how I talk to you, except yourself? If you have nothing to say related to the debate then take your personal grudges else where. It's really pathetic.

Mr Merciless

Who said an MR2 can do 170 mph?

Cosworth427

WRX 280 did. He owns a modified one now, but back in the day there was a huge augmentive thread about it, he completely had it in his head that a standard MR-2 Turbo can do over 170 MPH. He used some web applet software as "proof".

Midmotorsteve

I know of a 1.5 4age MR2 turbo that does 205mph, they put the smaller engine in so it could only be modded to put out more sensilble power levels for school kids to drive....

http://www.bobnorwood.com/The%20Fast...0in%20Utah.htm

Mr Merciless

Surley there are better cars to convert than a MR2?!?!!?

IwantAscoob

it all boils down to personal preference at the end of the day, there is no point in arguing what gets to 60 mph 1 second faster.

we live in the real world, breaking every second to make sure we are not going to get flashed doing 50 in a 30 zone.

there is no arguement here as for NA vs turbo, as some folk will love the instant punch of a na engine, and some of us love waiting (losing the race knowing once the turbo's spool up your going to **** all over them) for that turbo boost, which provides a very enjoying feeling, what with the hiss of them spooling and the dump vavle letting off, and that sudden surge of acceleration.

there is no argument here, just a conflict of opinions. lets just enjoy what ever we choose to drive, and let those who choose different enjoy there's to.

dij

I totally disagree with you.

I want a car that I can thrash around in reverse downhills in the wet,
and for that I think the best car is a fork lift truck

OK just winding you up

Its great that this thread is still going

Keep it up guys

def

I dont know if this has been mentioned but theres a 5 lap battle between a 350z,s2000,boxter,M3, with a skyline cam car.

The Skyline r34 launched quicker and easily beat the pack to film the 350z.
the skyline slightly blocked the bimmer but was far quicker at that piont and just wanted to film the Z.

The M3 fought hard to gain a place over the s2000 and didnt catch the z although the skyline by this time wanted to take pics of the front of the z and had easily over took the newer Datsun.

The piont is these cars were driven by gt drivers and at the limit on track the M3 had to push hard to keep up with the jap stuff.

I have a download but you can by best motoring from Duke video!!!!

dij

I think I might have seen that video.Was there a yellow evo and a blue scooby in that aswell?

The film I saw(all in Japanese) had the gtr thrashing everything,the evo in second and the M3 in third place.

I must admit the beamer does do exceptionaly well but it couldnt come close to the err 'Datsun'.

It may have been a little more realistic if there was a hill involved

Big C

Enjoyed this thread so far, only on page 4 at the mo', but bed becons, so it will have to be tomorrow that I find out the real answer....?


C

Baron von Spudgun

blimey, this is a long thread, but heres the way i see it...

m3... easy to live with, doesnt get so much undesirable attention, you cant tune it too much therefore saving a feckin fortune , the birds love 'em , all the warranty aftercare you could wish for(and ive had excellent service from my dealer ). although it only has 343bhp, so what, it will still muller most things on the road without breaking sweat.it 'feels' quick. all in all, i havent regretted for one minute leaving jap cars for the purple fokker

skyline.. a legend, especially amongst baseball capped kevs and cyber geeks, who automatically assume every skyline is at least 1000bhp
ever tried living with a 500plus bhp skyline as your only everyday car? they are a friggin' pain, sorry, but they aint the easiest car to live with, not by a mile. on the plus side, they look the business, are fantastic to tune, and two dump valves and the pops n bangs never fail to make you grin.


so in summary...

if its the only car id own, id take the m3 EVERY day of the week, mines a total joy.
if i have two cars, then a cheap runanbout and a tuned r34 would be fun.
BUT... get the m3, AND a tuned r32 for fun, now yer talking

dij

Hooray

very well put

Thats the end of that

IwantAscoob

the m3 is a cracker of a car, but the skyline is rare you see hardly none of them on the road, and when you do happen to see an r34 with a big exhaust you can just see thats its a monster waiting to eat anything in its path.

as has been said, if ya want an everyday tesco shopping car get a m3, if ya wanna stick out and you like people pointing at your car saying "omg look at that skyline" get a skyline.

some guys buy a tt 180, others buy a tuscan, good luck to them, buy what ever floats your boat, and **** what ***** on the internet think.

cosworth likes the m3 better good, and when hes behind a r34 gtr on the way to santapod with everyone with there camcorders filming the gtr and no one looking at his m3 hed wish he had a r34.

i bid you farewell

D.J.

Driven both. Enjoyed both.
Found the Skyline drove like a large engined BMW when it wasn't on boost.

Cosworth427

"....Oh my &#@@% god, look at that 1000BHP Japanese Vauxhall Calibra!!!"

davyboy

I think that says a lot about the type of people who frequent these events too

Cosworth427

Err nope. Nothing unique or special about a turbo-laggy AWD skyline. In fact, the only people who drool over these cars are kids who have been watching this http://www.thefastandthefurious.com too many times.

A RWD, natural aspirated car with real usable torque and HP is what I'd rather spend 40K of my own money on. When you actually buy ME a car, then you can dictate.

In fact, a Skyline is nothing but an overweight Impreza, I just don't need a bunch of hooligans who know how to type on a keyboard to lecture me what car I enjoy more.

Now go polish your Eco-Tec engine cover.

davyboy

I was agreeing with you!

RWYB events do seem to attract rather a lot of Playstation generation, baseball cap wearing neds.

Now, go polish your helmet!

carl

What, you mean like in the 1980s when (after Renault showed the way) all of the competitive F1 manufacturers dropped their 3-litre NA engines for 1.5 litre turbocharged engines?

Cosworth427

The advantage was that because F1 has no rule regarding horsepower, that means the smaller turbocharged engine make legally 300+ HP more than the 700 horses that the N/A engines made at the time. Enough of a difference to overcome turbo lag and switch-like power delivery. Even so, the F1 teams had to reduce the power output during the actual race.

Yet the 3 litre natural aspirated F1 cars of modern day are substantially quicker per lap than the cars from the turbo era. There would be no way that any F1 team would go back to the 1.5 turbo power plants if they were re-introduced into F1 again.