Grunt V Boost - Simple poll  

tuffZK

robbo23 you obviesly missed my point. bigger is better. you can stick a turbo on a 2 litre and you can also stick a turbo on a 6 litre so if you use your brian you will realise that you can get more out of the 6 litre.

also robbo23 why is a c6 z06 corvette quicker then probably any production 4 cyl turbo car? answer is because it has 7 litres of pure grunt! now if you put a turbo or superchager on it than not much will keep up with it. (just proving that bigger is better)

Bet the stock EVO 8 will get it's arse kicked against the stock Z06 every time.

WattsyLX

Mate... forget it..... its like banging your head against a brick wall.

The kiddies are right, the whole car world revolves around 4 cylinder turbo's and nothing else comes close.

Perhaps one day they will all grow up and realise that their beloved EVO8 and STI's and whatever else they all rave about, are not the be all and end all of performance cars.

Until then ill happily break out the trusty old V8 on the weekend, and if i have any problems i know that i can easily fix the uncomplicated old girl myself with a spanner and screwdriver, rather than having to shell out thousands of dollars to some computer whizz tuner like the turbo boys do!

Uncomplicated, pure grunt...... gotta love it!

tuffZK

well said wattsylx

sandman_350

i will third that Wattsy...... i have smoked EVERY turbo 4 potter that i have come across , im sure there are quick ones out there .... but in the real world on the str##t well sorted V8's are still King , im not talking about some pimply faced kids Dads statey that someone smoked with there evo or Honda , but a well sorted , low geared , large capacity V8 will most always come out on top ...... there really is NO replacement for cubic displacement its just simple mathematics Kiddies

Stuit

last time i checked, corvette z06s cost about US$65k. thats a fair bit more than any production 4 cylinder turbo. about double the amount to be precise. add in the fact that the corvette has near supercar status, its not really a fair comparison.

also just a note about what youre saying RE: displacement.........youre kinda proving our point that turbo IS a replacement for displacement.

eg. say you have a 2L evo. you want it to keep up with a 6L clubsport. whatever are you to do? i know - turbo it!! it will now keep up. now see what happened there? instead of adding an extra 4L to the evo (upping the displacement) we added a turbo to it, and VOILA! we used turbo to make up for the extra displacement. see how that works?

tuffZK

striut you missed the whole point. who said you can't turbo a 6 litre motor?

i'm saying big cubes is the best way to get big power, supercharged, turbocharged or nitrous all the huge power engines have big cubes.

example - top fuel dragster 700 odd cubes 5500 hp

i'm not talking about a pissweak 120 cube engine with 280 hp.

the bottom line is the more cubic inches you have the easier it is to get big horsepower.

Stuit

no you seem to have missed the point. you could turbo a 6L engine, and that would enable it to keep up with a bigger engined car, much the same way that a turbo enables a 2L car to keep up with a 6L car. get it yet?

thats how turbo = replacement for displacement! it enables cars with smaller displacement to keep up with cars with bigger displacement.

also we're not talking about top fuel dragsters, we're talking about cars that people drive on the road.

tuffZK

stuit why do you say a turbo is a replacement for displacement?

i'm saying big displacement plus turbo or supercharger or nitrous is going to make better power then a motor with fuckall displacement with a turbo or blower or nos.

agree?

Stuit

oh god.....obviously when both are turbod the one with more displacement will make more power. thats not in question.

im saying that turbo is a replacement for displacement because its true! here ill show you my exact reasoning as ive said it before: "thats how turbo = replacement for displacement! it enables cars with smaller displacement to keep up with cars with bigger displacement." a turbo essentially REPLACES the extra displacement of the bigger engine.

PKR

Funny that you mentioned Honda, even though they dont produce turbo engines. Did you know that Chev left Indy racing, along with toyota because it was so heavily dominated by Honda that it was discrediting them. The V8 engines they were using were actually big bore stuff, typical US.

Somehow their F1 V8 engines(Honda) produced more power from a smaller displacement. Why??? Technology!

This is why i like smaller displacement engines, i like technology! German, Italian or Jap V8? Yes! US/Oz V8? Ok their not bad but no technology, no interest!

Wanna see a real V8...click below...

http://www.rtl.nl/(channel=yorin,progid=rt...n.xml/wm364.wvx

Malmatic

depends we racin or just burnin tyres an fuel. love the sound of 300kw v8 been a v8 man all my life but havin said that. im gettin rid of the rex anytime soon. so have to be turbo for me

sik_muzza

would much prefer to have boost under my foot. for soo many reasons

WRX mad

Turbo powered car any day of the week for me!

Though the sound of a good V8 is nice!

VBR85

BOOST BOOST BOOST! did i mention boost?

Jimmy

Well done sting youve managed to sort the posers from the enthusiasts.... hehe
300kw non turbo has to win in terms of speed, acceleration, outright power, etc etc. but by all means if u think that because its got a turbo its better, then ure safer in a 200kw turbo car than a 300kw muscle car. ( not by much, but still its the best of both evils )

can you imagine what the roads would be like if all these turbo groupies actually knew how to make horsepower out of an engine :| if they actually knew that throttle response is important in a street situation :S


f'n groupies.


P.S 200kw non turbo would be better than 200 kw turbo in all aspects other than street cred.

WattsyLX

No it isnt.... the turbo would be better... cos its got a turbo badge and makes turbo noises!


Again, the poll question is simple - would you prefer 300kw aspirated or 200kw turbo-charged.
Thats the way i read it! Sure, the thread starter quoted two makes of cars a few posts later in the thread, and then a few posts further into it he posted that it was simply a general comparison.

There was no mention of V8 vs 4 cylinder turbo in the poll question.

So lets put it into this perspective -
You have the choice between a Commondore VL turbo with 200kw, or a naturally aspirated Commondore VL that has 300kw...... would you still choose the turbo one?

clutch-monkey

clearly the turbo, because of the fully sik bov noise uleh
i don't even see how this is a competition an extra 100kw is an extra 100kw no matter how it's developed lol

WattsyLX

Yeah, but even though the turbo choice has 100kw less power, the turbo still somehow makes it faster! Just ask some of these turbo groupies!
Then ask them how this is so....... i havent heard a legitimate answer yet!!

Stuit

so those 190kw standard commodores are faster than the 169kw wrxs? the 300kw clubsport is faster than the 206kw evo 9? funnily enough, that would be a 'NO' on both counts. NA engines have a very linear power delivery. the more the revs go up, the more power you get. easy enough. turbo engines get all their power in one big whallop, and usually hit max power before an n/a engine will. sure you might have turbo lag, but even that is negligible in turbo cars these days. get a wrx sti to 4000rpm and watch the 6L clubsport thats also at 4000rpm sail off into your rear view mirror, and its not gonna catch up.

you can call everyone that would prefer the turbo car a groupie if you want. i prefer the technologically advanced engine, not the knuckle-dragging neanderthal ones. if that makes me a 'groupie' in your books then i dont care, as your books wouldnt be worth the paper theyre written on.

if you can make 200kw from a 2L engine with a turbo or instead you can make it by getting an engine 2+ times the size, why the hell WOULDNT you want the turbo one? theyre much easier to extract power from, are more technologically advanced....oh thats right, apparently bigger is better

go back to your caves.

sandman_350

You really struggle with Reality dont you Stuit .......so just allow me the privaledge of getting inside your head for just one moment.... you say the Commodore weighting in at 1655kg packing a heafty 300kW is going to be driven away from by an Evo with only 200kW but also weighing heavily at 1470kg ?????? as i said Stuit you really have reality issues dont ya mate ?

Jamesyboi

I'd rather Grunt

Stuit

yes, because every road test/performance figure backs me up

you seem to struggle with accepting the truth

HOON69

10 years ago you couldnt afford that import and were lapping the school yard in your excels whilst us big boys owned our GT's and SLR500's
so to you and give me grunt over forced anyday of the week.

look at a Ls1 out of the box high 12's to even low 11's N/A
cant get many of those with a 200rwkw import can ya

moe002

Why is a non-boosted car a bogan mobile?!?! you have a realy fucken weird way of look at stuff!!!

Cubic Inches will always win hands down... So you reckon a 528 Hemi crate engine is Bogan?!?! Your a dickhead!

WattsyLX

Read my previous posts and the poll question again, mate.

We are talking engines, not cars.

So you would still say that the 200kw turbo motor would be better than a 300kw N/A motor when placed in the same car, example being a VL Commodore (just for the sake of argument here).

No one is doubting that the factory Commodores would be beaten by the turbo imports that you have used as an example. Remember the Holden would have been set up more with luxury and driveability for Aussie conditions, rather than out and out performance like the import would have been set up for. Start changing diff gears and shit in the Commodore and we have a totally different ball game!

And for the record, im not calling you a groupie, if you like turbos and can come up with good reasons as to why then good for you, the beauty of the car scene is that everyone is different....... but some of the posters in this thread are simply voting for forced induction just because the word 'turbo' is mentioned!

clutch-monkey

that's the crux of it right there...
i'll take 280kw N/A from a flat six anyday

sick_sr20de

i can see 2 very well said points here. IF a 200kw turbo was in a VL and a 300kw NA was in a VL... then the obvious choice is there... the NA engine. BUT in the days that we are in, all out grunt and power isnt how the race is one, it is won with technology, POWER to WEIGHT ratios, 4WD.

A clubsport with 300kw would be a hell of alot of fun to drive and tear up your tyres. But that 6L chews alot of fuel compared to a 200kw turbo evo. They both go around the same speed. On a track the evo would kill a clubsport. Off the mark a evo would kill the clubsport, due to a lack of grip.

There is so many factors that contribute to what everyone is saying better. There is no 'better' car. There is cars better at doing certain things, hillclimbs, drag, track, circuit, drift, and surely if your doing circuit you would choose an evo over a clubby, but if you were doing drift, obviously a clubsport will be more suited because of the rwd.

Did anyone here watch speedweek on sbs after the drift nationals at 1pm (GMT+10hour time). There was Monaros vs Evos. Front line had 1 monaro and 1 evo. Who one? The evo killed the monaro, and by the first corner there was 4 evos infront of that 1 monaro that started out front. So obviously for circuit an evo is a better car.

But going back to the first thing i said about the same car with the 2 different engines, the NA 300kw is going to come out on top. How ever Evo vs Clubby.. my opinion, an evo comes out on top.

imprezed yet?

leon its called a SIMPLE POLL not the most complex fuckin thing eva lol

Jimmy

I kinda half agree with you Mr Sick sr20de, BUT in the thread that we are, 300kw wins.

Stuit

read the ORIGINAL question and poll again




now since you dont usually have 1 car come with 2 different engines (300kw v8 or 200kw turbo) it can be safely assumed that we are talking about 2 different engines in 2 DIFFERENT cars. add the comment by the topic starter that 'its a comparison to the new LS2 R8 HSV Commodore to the Evo 8' and i think we get the basic drift of what hes asking. we're talking cars as a whole, not just engines - as evidenced by 'could mean any car with these power figures'

Jimmy

the post starter is confused, or he is trying to confuse you.

any way if the engines could be in any car then id take a 300kw n/a evo please.

WattsyLX

And keep reading further into the thread.....

the thread starter then states...

It was just a quick comparison between two motor power outputs, not specific cars.............

Geez, funny how we read only what we want to see.

No matter which way you look at it.... 300kw v 200kw..... one motor has an extra 100kw of power regardless of whether it has a turbo hanging off the side or not!

Stuit

theres a complete contradiction in 2 posts by the thread starter, im going by the one where he names cars specifically, youre going by the one where he says no specific cars....obviously we're arguing about different things.

eighty-eight

Stuit -
forced induction IS NOT a replacement for displacement. if you dynoed a 6L and a 4L with the same power, the torqe output would be much higher from the 6.0L

Stuit

what does that have to do with anything?

i guess the fact that my 2L + turbo can keep up with 4L+ commodores etc tends to point that it IS a replacement, and a pretty darn good one at that. i drive my brothers mkiv na 3L supra and my car is easily faster than it. are you tellling me that its not?