| Jeffblue |
05-19-2011 11:08 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaggeron
(Post 1120669)
@JeffBlue
"And the argument that 'NA is better than turbo, because you can always turbo the NA car' is kind of an.... odd argument. "
I don't think it's an odd argument. The main point is that if an engine has a maximum potential, the Turbo's car is already closer to that potential and if an NA and a Turbo engine are already producing the same power figures, then there is more room for improvement in the NA motor. Imagine two runners both putting in the same time for the 100 meters. One is taking a performance enhancing drug, the other not. The one not taking the drug has a higher potential since if he did take the drug, he would in fact perform better than the other.
|
There's very little headroom in small displacement NA cars. Big v8's make a lot of gains with bolt ons as to turbocharged cars. Small displacement v6's make small to moderate gains, NA i4's make very little with simple modifications like bolt ons and tune. that's just the truth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaggeron
(Post 1120669)
"so lets say best case scenario, you've got a 3000lb ft-86 and a 3300lb genesis 2.0t. Put a 150lb driver in one and a 250lb drive in the other, and then you've got 3250 and 3450 lbs. so with a drive you are talking about a 200lb difference between the cars."
I'm hoping 3000lbs is the worst case scenario and not the best case. If it ends up being more than 3k, then, frankly, I don't want it. Also, I'm not sure why the genesis gets the 150lb driver and the FT gets the 250lb driver .. lol. Why not just compare with same driver. Rule of thumb is for each 100lbs you need to add around 10HP. So at 3k vs. 3.3K the genesis 2.0T would have to add 30HP to make the same numbers -- Remember, that the original proposed HP figures for the FT were between 200-210. Again, if it makes much less than that, I'm not interested.
|
http://bkmania.com/bbs/data/tuning/BK20_Turbo.jpg
That looks like some nice gains to me. Tune them both and you'll have more than enough of a power bump in the genesis to make up for the tentative weight difference between the two cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaggeron
(Post 1120669)
"two engines are the same size, the one that has forced induction is going to produce more power"
Obviously not correct right -- HP is not merely a function of displacement. The HP numbers for the 2.0T are after the turbo not before it ... (that's obvious but I had to get it out there because you seem to be suggesting that the turbo on the 2.0T adds something beyond its stated 210HP)
|
Same displacement motors NA vs Turbo
VG30DE:
222hp 195tq
VG30DETT:
300hp 283 tq
2jz-GE:
220hp 220tq
2jz-GTE:
321hp 333tq
Another good comparison is the KA vs Sr20
KA24DE (2.4L NA)
155hp, 160tq
SR 20DET (Single turbo 2.0L motor)
95 to 99 silvia 245hp 202tq
(notice the sr20DET making more power with LESS displacement, now imagine if it was an SR24det)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaggeron
(Post 1120669)
"put 1k in each car, which i guarantee most people dont even bat an eye at (as far as car forum folks are concerned) and you will see the turbocharged engine make significantly more power. "
That is more or less the point under contention. It's an empirical question not one answered by reflecting on the principles of Turbo vs. NA. In my research -- and granted I haven't researched the 2.0T that much, people are not getting significant gains out of exhausts and other bolt-ons with that particular motor.
|
see above
There is a reason that when people get a 240sx, and want to make a lot of power, they swap to an SR20 from the KA motor. The sr20 is designed to take boost from the factory and is an all around better motor. Are there people out there with Turbo'd KA motors? yea, there are, but the obvious choice is the factory turbocharged motor. |
