Nissan R35 GT-R Dyno:
12-20-2007, 06:46 AM
#81
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points, but the derogative tone is completely uncalled for. You need to sit down and take a chill pill internet e-warrior. You shouldn't have just jumped on here and started bitching because I only got half of my facts 100% correct. I'm just regurgitating what I've learned and been told.
My enthusiasm stems from the fact, hear that, FACT, that an uninterrupted supply of power is better than an interrupted supply ANY DAY. You can't just flatline power production in the middle of the power band and tell me that that is the most efficient way of making power, because it isn't. Simple common sense. If you don't believe me look at the dyno graph.
The GT-R flatlines between turbine engagement, not the most efficient, steady delivery of power I've ever seen. Not optimal for smooth transitions through corners. What happens if you NEED that power coming out of the turn or else your opponent passes you? You gun it and the engine lags at that flatline, and the opponent whizzes on by you because he doesn't have to worry about turbo spooling. It's marginal, but it does exist. This kind of thing has sunk better cars than the GT-R in professional racing.
The GT-R flatlines between turbine engagement, not the most efficient, steady delivery of power I've ever seen. Not optimal for smooth transitions through corners. What happens if you NEED that power coming out of the turn or else your opponent passes you? You gun it and the engine lags at that flatline, and the opponent whizzes on by you because he doesn't have to worry about turbo spooling. It's marginal, but it does exist. This kind of thing has sunk better cars than the GT-R in professional racing.
If I am short with you it's primarily because it's aggravating repeating myself. So that being said here's a direct question to you, please answer it.Question:
How can you claim the car is "Not optimal for smooth transitions through corners. What happens if you NEED that power coming out of the turn or else your opponent passes you? You gun it and the engine lags at that flatline, and the opponent whizzes on by you because he doesn't have to worry about turbo spooling. It's marginal, but it does exist. This kind of thing has sunk better cars than the GT-R in professional racing." when the car has the unofficial record as the fastest stock production car ever to lap the Nurburgring??
You just explained why you THINK this car would suck around a track when I just PROVED to you it is in fact the BEST stock production car around the Nurburgring PRODUCED TO DATE on record.
Your one and ONLY argument is an apparent flat line in the power curve produced on one dyno run. This is just a shot in the dark but you don't know much about dyno's, power curves, and how to properly read them do you? Dyno's are nothing more than a TUNING TOOL. Ask any major speed shop, tuning pro, or builder and they will say the same, a Dyno is a piece of diagnostic equipment and it's information should be taken as so. There are ALOT of reasons that a flat spot on a power curve can appear and you immediately see the culprit as twin scroll turbo's not "engaging" properly and restricting the engine. That's a big leap of faith on your part. Again not trying to be an *** but if you do some research and inquire on what other possibilities could cause that flat spot you might understand more.
Here you go...
http://forums.gtrforums.com/
Case in point you posted in a similar thread on here
https://ls1tech.com/forums/automotive-news-media-press/832357-first-independent-nissan-gtr-test.html
which has in post 27 a view of the drivetrain. All you had to do was look at the picture and you'll notice the turbo's are at the base of the headers right before the cats and they are each spooled by it's own bank of cylinders and boost that same bank. It's essentially two turbocharged 1.9L Inline 3's in the shape of a V. That should be enough to understand that they aren't sequential turbo's at all.
And if you can please show me what a dyno chart looks like from a vehicle with sequential turbo's since you seem to recognize that power curve as a characteristic of sequential turbo's.
I'm not trying to flame or insult you, I'm just trying to prove my point.
As to your comments about the Evo, etc having fantastic acceleration, I'll agree, the turbo plays a part in that, but most of that can be attributed to their stock gearing in the 4.xx range, incredibly low numbers which directly impose that lovely speed limit at around ~130mph on a car that feels like it could do much more. On lesser cars like the STi, Evo, and(lo and behold!)the Nissan SKyline GT-R the turbo down-spool between shifts is fairly poor, which is why some serious drivers like installing ALS(Anti-lag system, aka backfiring or misfiring system) on their cars to keep the turbo spooled and making power. It trashes the turbine over time, but it does its job well and counters the negative effects of turbo spool.
Also, In the same exact thread as I mentioned above that is also on this forum on which you posted if you would have bothered to read ANY of what was posted in post 27 concerning the transmission you wouldn't of posted about the "In the Nissan SKyline GT-R the turbo down-spool between shifts is fairly poor"...please re-read it before assuming the new GT-R suffers from the same technological and mechanical restrictions/drawbacks as Evo's STI's, GT-R's, Supra's, etc... of the late 90's.
...McLaren SPECIFICALLY wanted an NA engine because(Check this out!) they deemed turbo and blown motors too unpredictable with their power delivery. They reinforce my position about turbos in racing vehicles in this article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1
Two things...
One...I guess the fact that that same McLaren was one of the pioneers in developing turbo's for racing wouldn't mean much?? How do you think McLaren became as big as he is today? Look up his turbo accomplishment's in F1 racing in the 80's!
Two...I guess the fact that turbo's are banned in almost every sanctioned racing body has nothing to do with why you don't see them in big organized racing? I guess not, it's probably because turbo's, as you put it "don't deliver power the right way"
So by quoting him saving "they deemed turbo and blown motors too unpredictable with their power delivery" 15 years ago is gonna prove your point in the present day?? Mclaren himself is building blown and turbo charged cars TODAY because turbo power delivery is very predictable with today's technology. You don't see me quoting Thomas Savery (the inventor of the steam engine) accusing Nickolaus August Otto (the inventor of the internal combustion engine) of the unreliability and crudeness of his engine. If your gonna make an argument about a turbo's downfall please let's use today (i.e. the present) as a basis of argument.
This is quoted from the days when Formula 1 cars were turbo charged up until 1988 when they were banned by F1 due to the complications in imposing restrictions on engines which were producing too much power and deemed unsafe...
"The 1988 season saw McLaren-Honda win all but one race in a fearsome display of technical superiority and reliability. Those were not the words with which one might have accurately described turbos during their infancy, but that’s what a decade of development by top F1 teams can achieve.
F1’s turbo era is remembered for its spectacle - the ultra-high performance qualifying engines and flame-spitting exhausts. Faced with such an excess of power the teams could run steeper wing angles which not only gave the cars more grip in the corners, but created more drag and facilitated overtaking."
Source: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/03/29/banned-turbos/
12-20-2007, 07:24 AM
#82
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NA engines are simply preferred for racing, and you can ask any drivers around, if they were offered a turbo engine with 500 horses or an NA engine with 500 horses, which would they pick and I'd bet money any REAL, PROFESSIONAL racer would choose the NA hands down. You've got to understand that smoothness is key on the track, and jerky power delivery isn't what it's all about.
Yeah, maybe I'm being a bit uncalled for but you don't see me saying that Jesus loves turbo's and if he were alive he would drive a Nissan do you? It's hard not to get upset when you provide no facts and then submit ALL REAL PROFESSIONAL racer's as testimony to your belief that they would hands down prefer to drive NA engines.
Don't believe me? Check out what the top sports car makers in the world put into their top models...They either use natural aspiration or blowers because turbos don't deliver power the "right way"....
Porsche Carrera GT-NA
Ferrari Enzo-NA
Lamborghini Murcielago-NA
Corvette Z06/ZR1-NA
Dodge Viper-NA
Pagani Zonda-NA
McLaren F1-NA
Koeniggsegg CCX-twin blowers
TVR Cerbera Speed 12-NA
McLaren SLR-NA
Ford GT-blower
Ultima GTR-NA CHEVROLET V8
Caparo T1-NA 3.5L V8
Porsche Carrera GT-NA
Ferrari Enzo-NA
Lamborghini Murcielago-NA
Corvette Z06/ZR1-NA
Dodge Viper-NA
Pagani Zonda-NA
McLaren F1-NA
Koeniggsegg CCX-twin blowers
TVR Cerbera Speed 12-NA
McLaren SLR-NA
Ford GT-blower
Ultima GTR-NA CHEVROLET V8
Caparo T1-NA 3.5L V8
Lingenfelter ZO6 Corvette 427 CID Twin Turbo
Saleen S7 Twin Turbo
Brabus SV12 S Bi-turbo Roadster
Porsche 911 Turbo's
Bugatti Veyron (yeah I said it...more on this car later)
RUF CTR3
Hennessey Viper
SSC Ultimate Aero Twin Turbo
SL AMG 65
Ferrari F40
Heffener's Performance Twin Turbo Murcielago
Heffener's Performance Twin Turbo Gt-40
The list does go on but I have better things to do.
Again DO YOUR RESEARCH before presuming what they were trying to achieve with this car...the President of VW promised the press 8-10 years ago that they would produce the first 1000hp car and that is exactly what they did. Their goal wasn't to make 2000hp it was to make a 1000hp super car that was reliable and... PRACTICAL. I'd like to see what you would assemble to make a 1000hp car and keep it reliable and practical.
You just said "I'll laugh at you because it not only has a huge, abnormal engine type, but FOUR turbos. Retardedly inefficient, but it is one of the few turbo engines out there with such a smooth power curve"
Concerning the 4 turbo's...why do you think that power curve is so smooth? Magic, luck, alot of praying at the local church? I can guarantee you the engineers who designed this car also thought about the fact that they used 4 turbos and would laugh at the idea that a Junior at Texas State University though their design "Retardedly inefficient" (I hope your not majoring in engineering). I would start listing the reasons, pro's and con's of using 4 turbo's as opposed to 2 but a little research might do you some good.
As a fun fact do you actually know how much power that engine actually produces? Probably not so I'll save you the hassle of looking it up, it's actually 3000hp. Your right that is sooooo retardedly inefficient.
12-20-2007, 07:26 AM
#83
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please understand that I mean no disrespect and you are entitled to your opinion regarding this car. But in any discussion there are gonna be points that get heated and when (in my opinion) you make wild claims and uneducated explanations as to why this car is absolute crap I have a right to voice my own opinion. I do agree looking back that my tone was uncalled for and I do apologize for it. But when you talk big about something you know nothing about (strictly my opinion here and we can agree to disagree) I will voice my own opinion.
I don't see a reason to continue going back and forth, so I'll just agree to see things differently than you do.
Best of luck with school.
I don't see a reason to continue going back and forth, so I'll just agree to see things differently than you do.
Best of luck with school.
12-20-2007, 11:42 AM
#85
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-20-2007, 12:47 PM
#86
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 3,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow,
Okay, smaller rotating masses, like F1 engines, are ideal for RACING...
For a mass-produced street car, therein lies the beauty of a V8... You don't need to wind the motor up to have fun... But anyway...
FI will always reign supreme as the choice for QUICK, BIG power...
For grueling racing, Le Mans, F1, etc. it is currently NA.
For a street car, these things don't really matter since the turbos are small, the roots blowers are small, and the "big displacement motors" are really small (except maybe the Viper), compared to professional racing variants of turbos and motors and fuels.
Okay, smaller rotating masses, like F1 engines, are ideal for RACING...
For a mass-produced street car, therein lies the beauty of a V8... You don't need to wind the motor up to have fun... But anyway...
FI will always reign supreme as the choice for QUICK, BIG power...
For grueling racing, Le Mans, F1, etc. it is currently NA.
For a street car, these things don't really matter since the turbos are small, the roots blowers are small, and the "big displacement motors" are really small (except maybe the Viper), compared to professional racing variants of turbos and motors and fuels.
12-20-2007, 12:50 PM
#88
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please understand that I mean no disrespect and you are entitled to your opinion regarding this car. But in any discussion there are gonna be points that get heated and when (in my opinion) you make wild claims and uneducated explanations as to why this car is absolute crap I have a right to voice my own opinion. I do agree looking back that my tone was uncalled for and I do apologize for it. But when you talk big about something you know nothing about (strictly my opinion here and we can agree to disagree) I will voice my own opinion.
I don't see a reason to continue going back and forth, so I'll just agree to see things differently than you do.
Best of luck with school.
I don't see a reason to continue going back and forth, so I'll just agree to see things differently than you do.
Best of luck with school.
Good points, once again, but wouldn't you keep skirting around the point I'm trying to make....would you rather have an NA engine with 500 horses that you could put FI on later and get a lot more out of it due to its displacement, or an FI 500 horsie engine right off the showroom floor? I know you think it's baseless, but the NA is always going to be the better choice. It's inherently less complex, leaving YOU less things to break, which is ALWAYS a good thing.
Really, I think we've both beaten this topic to death already, and I don't think either of our opinions are going to change.
Also, almost all of the cars you listed were 'tuners', not factory production vehicles. Explain that to me, as well as the fact that a lot of those cars started out as NA vehicles, which had turbos ADDED to them later. These cars were already badass with their NA powerplants, so the turbos did nothing but bump it up a notch.
Alot of those cars are almost undriveable on the street as well....
Agree to disagree then alright? You keep thinking I'm baselessly spouting off worthless garbage and I'll keep thinking your nothing but a turbo snob who wouldn't touch an NA engine to save his life...
12-20-2007, 02:09 PM
#89
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points, once again, but wouldn't you keep skirting around the point I'm trying to make....would you rather have an NA engine with 500 horses that you could put FI on later and get a lot more out of it due to its displacement, or an FI 500 horsie engine right off the showroom floor? I know you think it's baseless, but the NA is always going to be the better choice. It's inherently less complex, leaving YOU less things to break, which is ALWAYS a good thing.
Really, I think we've both beaten this topic to death already, and I don't think either of our opinions are going to change.
Also, almost all of the cars you listed were 'tuners', not factory production vehicles. Explain that to me, as well as the fact that a lot of those cars started out as NA vehicles, which had turbos ADDED to them later. These cars were already badass with their NA powerplants, so the turbos did nothing but bump it up a notch.
Alot of those cars are almost undriveable on the street as well....
Agree to disagree then alright? You keep thinking I'm baselessly spouting off worthless garbage and I'll keep thinking your nothing but a turbo snob who wouldn't touch an NA engine to save his life...
Really, I think we've both beaten this topic to death already, and I don't think either of our opinions are going to change.
Also, almost all of the cars you listed were 'tuners', not factory production vehicles. Explain that to me, as well as the fact that a lot of those cars started out as NA vehicles, which had turbos ADDED to them later. These cars were already badass with their NA powerplants, so the turbos did nothing but bump it up a notch.
Alot of those cars are almost undriveable on the street as well....
Agree to disagree then alright? You keep thinking I'm baselessly spouting off worthless garbage and I'll keep thinking your nothing but a turbo snob who wouldn't touch an NA engine to save his life...
Turbos are and always will be the best way to make power. Emmisions concerns, an older generation buyers that associate turbos with "unreliable" , as well as cost, all work against popular turbo use in the states. The new CAFE may help out though.
Maybe you should right GM and critisize their use of the FI in the greatest Corvette of all time. Or if you like, you could write nearly all comapnies that produce a sports car and give them your opinion as well, since the halo sports car of Ford, Nissan, Saleen, Mercedes, Porsche, Bently, etc. all use FI on their fastest cars.
Most people will agree to disagree with you, but it's not out of friendship. Most of us don't like to be wrong
12-20-2007, 04:19 PM
#90
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points, once again, but wouldn't you keep skirting around the point I'm trying to make....would you rather have an NA engine with 500 horses that you could put FI on later and get a lot more out of it due to its displacement, or an FI 500 horsie engine right off the showroom floor? I know you think it's baseless, but the NA is always going to be the better choice. It's inherently less complex, leaving YOU less things to break, which is ALWAYS a good thing.
Really, I think we've both beaten this topic to death already, and I don't think either of our opinions are going to change.
Also, almost all of the cars you listed were 'tuners', not factory production vehicles. Explain that to me, as well as the fact that a lot of those cars started out as NA vehicles, which had turbos ADDED to them later. These cars were already badass with their NA powerplants, so the turbos did nothing but bump it up a notch.
Alot of those cars are almost undriveable on the street as well....
Agree to disagree then alright? You keep thinking I'm baselessly spouting off worthless garbage and I'll keep thinking your nothing but a turbo snob who wouldn't touch an NA engine to save his life...
Really, I think we've both beaten this topic to death already, and I don't think either of our opinions are going to change.
Also, almost all of the cars you listed were 'tuners', not factory production vehicles. Explain that to me, as well as the fact that a lot of those cars started out as NA vehicles, which had turbos ADDED to them later. These cars were already badass with their NA powerplants, so the turbos did nothing but bump it up a notch.
Alot of those cars are almost undriveable on the street as well....
Agree to disagree then alright? You keep thinking I'm baselessly spouting off worthless garbage and I'll keep thinking your nothing but a turbo snob who wouldn't touch an NA engine to save his life...
1) I would choose the FI 500 hp model off the show room floor.
Reason:
Those engines, although smaller in displacement were built for boost out of the factory and it is comparatively cheap to get more performance out of them. All that is needed is to turn up the boost to get more HP...
The problem with buying a 500 hp NA engine is those engines aren't built for boost and it would cost $5000 - $8000 to add a FI system on them at which point you would be limited in how much boost you could run through them without tearing into the internals as they were not built to handle boost from the factory. Also the bigger the cubes + FI the less streetable a vehicle becomes.
And yes the power delivery of the 500 hp FI system would be alot better than that of a NA 500 hp motor.
(This is all based on opinion mind you, I understand your stance and that is cool too.
)2) Each supercar company you listed has their own reasons why they chose not to add FI on their vehicles so I can't generalize for all of them but I can tell you why a few of them didn't just off the top of my head.
Ferrari:
Apart from the F40 which was a company first for Ferrari, Ferrari and it's loyal supporters are N/A buffs. When the F40 was built alot of die hard Ferrari owners were pissed and considered it sacrilege that Ferrari would resort to cheap parlor tricks to obtain more HP. Since then Ferrari has promised never to put FI on any of their production vehicles.
Corvette:
Same as with Ferrari except they learned from Ferrari's mistake. As it stands most corvette affectionatoes are against the ZR1, which (I'm in a hurry and can't look it up and don't know enough about corvettes either) would be one of the first factory corvette's with a FI system on it. Understand that brand loyalty results in a big majority of a companies sales and in the end they are out to make money.
Which brings me to the majority of the other ones...PRICE. FI on big cubed motors is not easy and not cheap at all. Alot of the top supercar companies are privatively owned and don't have the heritage or time and money to spend on researching a FI system.
Pagani, Koeniggsegg, TVR, are all examples of that and they ultimetly need to make a profit. McLaren and Saleen on the other hand do have racing heritage and the money to do that kind of research and they in fact do build FI motors.
And FI doesn't give me hard ons like you claim. I'm currently trying to put my stock V8 inside a 240sx and I have no intention of adding FI on it.
Peace
Last edited by Spoolin; 12-20-2007 at 07:27 PM.
12-20-2007, 05:43 PM
#91
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll answer your questions, would of appreciated it you had answered mine though.
1) I would choose the FI 500 hp model off the show room floor.
Reason:
Those engines, although smaller in displacement were built for boost out of the factory and it is comparatively cheap to get more performance out of them. All that is needed is to turn up the boost to get more HP...
The problem with buying a 500 hp NA engine is those engines aren't built for boost and it would cost $5000 - $8000 to add a FI system on them at which point you would be limited in how much boost you could run through them without tearing into the internals as they were not built to handle boost from the factory. Also the bigger the cubes + FI the less streetable a vehicle becomes.
And yes the power delivery of the 500 hp FI system would be alot better than that of a NA 500 hp motor.
(This is all based on opinion mind you, I understand your stance and that is cool too. )
2) Each supercar company you listed has their own reasons why they chose not to add FI on their vehicles so I can't generalize for all of them but I can tell you why a few of them didn't just off the top of my head.
Ferrari:
Apart from the F40 which was a company first Ferrari and it's loyal supporters are N/A buffs. When the F40 was built alot of die hard Ferrari owners were pissed and considered it sacrilege that Ferrari would resort to cheap parlor tricks to obtain more HP. Since then Ferrari has promised never to put FI on any of their production vehicles.
Corvette:
Same as with Ferrari except they learned from Ferrari's mistake. As it stands most corvette affectionatoes are against the ZR1, which (I'm in a hurry and can't look it up and don't know enough about corvettes either) would be one of the first factory corvette's with a FI system on it. Understand that brand loyalty results in a big majority of a companies sales and in the end they are out to make money.
Which brings me to the majority of the other ones...PRICE. FI on big cubed motors is not easy and not cheap at all. Alot of the top supercar companies are privatively owned and don't have the heritage or time and money to spend on researching a FI system.
Pagani, Koeniggsegg, TVR, are all examples of that and they ultimetly need to make a profit. McLaren and Saleen on the other hand do have racing heritage and the money to do that kind of research and they in fact do build FI motors.
And FI doesn't give me hard ons like you claim. I'm currently trying to put my stock V8 inside a 240sx and I have no intention of adding FI on it.
Peace
1) I would choose the FI 500 hp model off the show room floor.
Reason:
Those engines, although smaller in displacement were built for boost out of the factory and it is comparatively cheap to get more performance out of them. All that is needed is to turn up the boost to get more HP...
The problem with buying a 500 hp NA engine is those engines aren't built for boost and it would cost $5000 - $8000 to add a FI system on them at which point you would be limited in how much boost you could run through them without tearing into the internals as they were not built to handle boost from the factory. Also the bigger the cubes + FI the less streetable a vehicle becomes.
And yes the power delivery of the 500 hp FI system would be alot better than that of a NA 500 hp motor.
(This is all based on opinion mind you, I understand your stance and that is cool too.
)2) Each supercar company you listed has their own reasons why they chose not to add FI on their vehicles so I can't generalize for all of them but I can tell you why a few of them didn't just off the top of my head.
Ferrari:
Apart from the F40 which was a company first Ferrari and it's loyal supporters are N/A buffs. When the F40 was built alot of die hard Ferrari owners were pissed and considered it sacrilege that Ferrari would resort to cheap parlor tricks to obtain more HP. Since then Ferrari has promised never to put FI on any of their production vehicles.
Corvette:
Same as with Ferrari except they learned from Ferrari's mistake. As it stands most corvette affectionatoes are against the ZR1, which (I'm in a hurry and can't look it up and don't know enough about corvettes either) would be one of the first factory corvette's with a FI system on it. Understand that brand loyalty results in a big majority of a companies sales and in the end they are out to make money.
Which brings me to the majority of the other ones...PRICE. FI on big cubed motors is not easy and not cheap at all. Alot of the top supercar companies are privatively owned and don't have the heritage or time and money to spend on researching a FI system.
Pagani, Koeniggsegg, TVR, are all examples of that and they ultimetly need to make a profit. McLaren and Saleen on the other hand do have racing heritage and the money to do that kind of research and they in fact do build FI motors.
And FI doesn't give me hard ons like you claim. I'm currently trying to put my stock V8 inside a 240sx and I have no intention of adding FI on it.
Peace
Not to add fuel to the fire but your dead wrong. Koenigsegg has never made a car that was not FI, and TVR did develop a FI car even though they prefer NA.
12-20-2007, 06:32 PM
#92
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Antonio TX
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the F40 which was a company first Ferrari and it's loyal supporters are N/A buffs. When the F40 was built alot of die hard Ferrari owners were pissed and considered it sacrilege that Ferrari would resort to cheap parlor tricks to obtain more HP. Since then Ferrari has promised never to put FI on any of their production vehicles.
12-20-2007, 07:26 PM
#93
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as the TVR I don't know much about that company and should of looked them up before making a generalization on why their cars aren't turbocharged.
My mistake, thank you for correcting me.
12-20-2007, 11:44 PM
#94
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere around -199C
Posts: 7,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points, but the derogative tone is completely uncalled for. You need to sit down and take a chill pill internet e-warrior. You shouldn't have just jumped on here and started bitching because I only got half of my facts 100% correct. I'm just regurgitating what I've learned and been told.
My enthusiasm stems from the fact, hear that, FACT, that an uninterrupted supply of power is better than an interrupted supply ANY DAY. You can't just flatline power production in the middle of the power band and tell me that that is the most efficient way of making power, because it isn't. Simple common sense. If you don't believe me look at the dyno graph.
The GT-R flatlines between turbine engagement, not the most efficient, steady delivery of power I've ever seen. Not optimal for smooth transitions through corners. What happens if you NEED that power coming out of the turn or else your opponent passes you? You gun it and the engine lags at that flatline, and the opponent whizzes on by you because he doesn't have to worry about turbo spooling. It's marginal, but it does exist. This kind of thing has sunk better cars than the GT-R in professional racing.
As to your comments about the Evo, etc having fantastic acceleration, I'll agree, the turbo plays a part in that, but most of that can be attributed to their stock gearing in the 4.xx range, incredibly low numbers which directly impose that lovely speed limit at around ~130mph on a car that feels like it could do much more. On lesser cars like the STi, Evo, and(lo and behold!)the Nissan SKyline GT-R the turbo down-spool between shifts is fairly poor, which is why some serious drivers like installing ALS(Anti-lag system, aka backfiring or misfiring system) on their cars to keep the turbo spooled and making power. It trashes the turbine over time, but it does its job well and counters the negative effects of turbo spool.
I am also very aware of how forced induction can, in some ways, replace the lacking of displacement in an engine. A prime example of this is the Jaguar XJ220, which has a 3.5L V6 and two T3 turbos. It made around 550hp and was the supercar around until its arch nemesis, the McLaren F1, with it's naturally aspirated 6.1L V12 came and smashed the Jaguar to pieces, putting out around 630 hp and later close to 700 horses.
While I'm on that subject, McLaren SPECIFICALLY wanted an NA engine because(Check this out!) they deemed turbo and blown motors too unpredictable with their power delivery. They reinforce my position about turbos in racing vehicles in this article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1
NA engines are simply preferred for racing, and you can ask any drivers around, if they were offered a turbo engine with 500 horses or an NA engine with 500 horses, which would they pick and I'd bet money any REAL, PROFESSIONAL racer would choose the NA hands down. You've got to understand that smoothness is key on the track, and jerky power delivery isn't what it's all about.
Also I'm having trouble finding just what type of turbo setup it really has. Is it a Parallel or Sequential dual-scroll? Judging by the dyno chart it looks like a sequential, but as proved earlier, I can be wrong about things...
Also, on the topic of my age and education, I'm attending my Junior year at Texas State University. This might be infuriating to you, but I've always been able to prove my point WITHOUT sources to my teachers. "A" grade material too!
I don't think that V8's are the godliest source of power on the earth either, just that a V8 is better than a V6 with identical power adders, etc. More bangs = more power, and in most cases, smoother power delivery. There is a reason why V12s can make ungodly amounts of power and still sound like silk.
Don't believe me? Check out what the top sports car makers in the world put into their top models...They either use natural aspiration or blowers because turbos don't deliver poer the "right way"....
Porsche Carrera GT-NA
Ferrari Enzo-NA
Lamborghini Murcielago-NA
Corvette Z06/ZR1-NA
Dodge Viper-NA
Pagani Zonda-NA
McLaren F1-NA
Koeniggsegg CCX-twin blowers
TVR Cerbera Speed 12-NA
McLaren SLR-NA
Ford GT-blower
Ultima GTR-NA CHEVROLET V8
Caparo T1-NA 3.5L V8
But the fact that most major sports car producers choose NA over turbo is not the point here, rather only a supporting argument for my position that a turbo car just isn't optimal for racing on a turn course. With engine technology as it is today, Nissan would've delivered a much more impressive vehicle if they had just stuck a souped-up, forged VK45 in there as opposed to the loss-leader type engine they decided to go with. An engine doesn't have to start as an exotic if the end result is there, like the Koenigsegg CC8S proved to the world.
Now go ahead and talk about the Bugatti Veyron and I'll laugh at you because it not only has a huge, abnormal engine type, but FOUR turbos. Retardedly inefficient, but it is one of the few turbo engines out there with such a smooth power curve....
All that being said, I still love the new GTR. I've always loved Skylines for as long as I've known about them. All I'm saying is that I personally have a problem with them using a tt V6 when several less complex, NA V8's could've made for better powerplants for racing use....but I guess I was mistaken in thinking that everyone thought that way. Sorry if I misinformed anyone with my previous posts in any way. Let's try to keep this civil here...
My enthusiasm stems from the fact, hear that, FACT, that an uninterrupted supply of power is better than an interrupted supply ANY DAY. You can't just flatline power production in the middle of the power band and tell me that that is the most efficient way of making power, because it isn't. Simple common sense. If you don't believe me look at the dyno graph.
The GT-R flatlines between turbine engagement, not the most efficient, steady delivery of power I've ever seen. Not optimal for smooth transitions through corners. What happens if you NEED that power coming out of the turn or else your opponent passes you? You gun it and the engine lags at that flatline, and the opponent whizzes on by you because he doesn't have to worry about turbo spooling. It's marginal, but it does exist. This kind of thing has sunk better cars than the GT-R in professional racing.
As to your comments about the Evo, etc having fantastic acceleration, I'll agree, the turbo plays a part in that, but most of that can be attributed to their stock gearing in the 4.xx range, incredibly low numbers which directly impose that lovely speed limit at around ~130mph on a car that feels like it could do much more. On lesser cars like the STi, Evo, and(lo and behold!)the Nissan SKyline GT-R the turbo down-spool between shifts is fairly poor, which is why some serious drivers like installing ALS(Anti-lag system, aka backfiring or misfiring system) on their cars to keep the turbo spooled and making power. It trashes the turbine over time, but it does its job well and counters the negative effects of turbo spool.
I am also very aware of how forced induction can, in some ways, replace the lacking of displacement in an engine. A prime example of this is the Jaguar XJ220, which has a 3.5L V6 and two T3 turbos. It made around 550hp and was the supercar around until its arch nemesis, the McLaren F1, with it's naturally aspirated 6.1L V12 came and smashed the Jaguar to pieces, putting out around 630 hp and later close to 700 horses.
While I'm on that subject, McLaren SPECIFICALLY wanted an NA engine because(Check this out!) they deemed turbo and blown motors too unpredictable with their power delivery. They reinforce my position about turbos in racing vehicles in this article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1
NA engines are simply preferred for racing, and you can ask any drivers around, if they were offered a turbo engine with 500 horses or an NA engine with 500 horses, which would they pick and I'd bet money any REAL, PROFESSIONAL racer would choose the NA hands down. You've got to understand that smoothness is key on the track, and jerky power delivery isn't what it's all about.
Also I'm having trouble finding just what type of turbo setup it really has. Is it a Parallel or Sequential dual-scroll? Judging by the dyno chart it looks like a sequential, but as proved earlier, I can be wrong about things...
Also, on the topic of my age and education, I'm attending my Junior year at Texas State University. This might be infuriating to you, but I've always been able to prove my point WITHOUT sources to my teachers. "A" grade material too!
I don't think that V8's are the godliest source of power on the earth either, just that a V8 is better than a V6 with identical power adders, etc. More bangs = more power, and in most cases, smoother power delivery. There is a reason why V12s can make ungodly amounts of power and still sound like silk.
Don't believe me? Check out what the top sports car makers in the world put into their top models...They either use natural aspiration or blowers because turbos don't deliver poer the "right way"....
Porsche Carrera GT-NA
Ferrari Enzo-NA
Lamborghini Murcielago-NA
Corvette Z06/ZR1-NA
Dodge Viper-NA
Pagani Zonda-NA
McLaren F1-NA
Koeniggsegg CCX-twin blowers
TVR Cerbera Speed 12-NA
McLaren SLR-NA
Ford GT-blower
Ultima GTR-NA CHEVROLET V8
Caparo T1-NA 3.5L V8
But the fact that most major sports car producers choose NA over turbo is not the point here, rather only a supporting argument for my position that a turbo car just isn't optimal for racing on a turn course. With engine technology as it is today, Nissan would've delivered a much more impressive vehicle if they had just stuck a souped-up, forged VK45 in there as opposed to the loss-leader type engine they decided to go with. An engine doesn't have to start as an exotic if the end result is there, like the Koenigsegg CC8S proved to the world.
Now go ahead and talk about the Bugatti Veyron and I'll laugh at you because it not only has a huge, abnormal engine type, but FOUR turbos. Retardedly inefficient, but it is one of the few turbo engines out there with such a smooth power curve....
All that being said, I still love the new GTR. I've always loved Skylines for as long as I've known about them. All I'm saying is that I personally have a problem with them using a tt V6 when several less complex, NA V8's could've made for better powerplants for racing use....but I guess I was mistaken in thinking that everyone thought that way. Sorry if I misinformed anyone with my previous posts in any way. Let's try to keep this civil here...
I do not visit tech very often, but many on the truck site no e and my history... Long story short I have owned, raced, and built many street, street/strip, and tube chassis race cars
I think you may want to re-evaluate which threads you throw your $ .02 into. The only reason I hate mis-information like this, is because some guy who is looking for information to help him decide on his own setup may look at your post and make a decision on your major amount of mis information...
please do a little reading... i have many books on how engines work... but you may just wanna get one from the library.... im sure you could find one with nince pop ups in it to make you feel right at home.
If your wrong your wrong... swallow your pride and admit it.. dont sit here and argue it all day... its a waste of everyones time...
I know spoolin personally and he knows me... You really should do some research and learn the actual physics of how an engine works, and how all the various components contribute to it making power.... then after you get the basics under your belt... then move on to power adders such as n2o... (you may no it as nawwwz) and no im not talking about the sticker... im talking functional nitrous. the supercharging/turbocharging...
there are advantages and dis advantages to each setup...
12-21-2007, 12:16 AM
#95
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't read the whole thing, but other than the Koenigsegg system with the twin Rotrex blowers and the anti lag and possibly compound supercharging nothing is better than turbos. Turbo's can be tuned to give you a much more progressive powerband than any screw or centrifugal supercharger.
IMHO of course a N/A engine is better given the right powerband. I am surprised that this engine is not DI however. Because DI, VVT, and Turbos are an amazing combo! You can have your cake and eat it too, high boost and high compression!
I can't wait for the next gen of the LS engine, with VVT and DI it will definitely put the LS series in the worlds best engine category.
IMHO of course a N/A engine is better given the right powerband. I am surprised that this engine is not DI however. Because DI, VVT, and Turbos are an amazing combo! You can have your cake and eat it too, high boost and high compression!
I can't wait for the next gen of the LS engine, with VVT and DI it will definitely put the LS series in the worlds best engine category.
12-21-2007, 12:50 AM
#96
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere around -199C
Posts: 7,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't read the whole thing, but other than the Koenigsegg system with the twin Rotrex blowers and the anti lag and possibly compound supercharging nothing is better than turbos. Turbo's can be tuned to give you a much more progressive powerband than any screw or centrifugal supercharger.
IMHO of course a N/A engine is better given the right powerband. I am surprised that this engine is not DI however. Because DI, VVT, and Turbos are an amazing combo! You can have your cake and eat it too, high boost and high compression!
I can't wait for the next gen of the LS engine, with VVT and DI it will definitely put the LS series in the worlds best engine category.
IMHO of course a N/A engine is better given the right powerband. I am surprised that this engine is not DI however. Because DI, VVT, and Turbos are an amazing combo! You can have your cake and eat it too, high boost and high compression!
I can't wait for the next gen of the LS engine, with VVT and DI it will definitely put the LS series in the worlds best engine category.
12-21-2007, 11:12 AM
#98
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And your car will get raped because your torque is weak. Why did you round up to "~400" and not ~375?"
Depends on what his car weighs...it may not be a heavy *** boat like our cars.
W
Depends on what his car weighs...it may not be a heavy *** boat like our cars.
W
12-21-2007, 12:49 PM
#99
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think you may be the one that needs to take a chill pill and sit down for just a lil...
I do not visit tech very often, but many on the truck site no e and my history... Long story short I have owned, raced, and built many street, street/strip, and tube chassis race cars
I think you may want to re-evaluate which threads you throw your $ .02 into. The only reason I hate mis-information like this, is because some guy who is looking for information to help him decide on his own setup may look at your post and make a decision on your major amount of mis information...
please do a little reading... i have many books on how engines work... but you may just wanna get one from the library.... im sure you could find one with nince pop ups in it to make you feel right at home.
If your wrong your wrong... swallow your pride and admit it.. dont sit here and argue it all day... its a waste of everyones time...
I know spoolin personally and he knows me... You really should do some research and learn the actual physics of how an engine works, and how all the various components contribute to it making power.... then after you get the basics under your belt... then move on to power adders such as n2o... (you may no it as nawwwz) and no im not talking about the sticker... im talking functional nitrous. the supercharging/turbocharging...
there are advantages and dis advantages to each setup...
I do not visit tech very often, but many on the truck site no e and my history... Long story short I have owned, raced, and built many street, street/strip, and tube chassis race cars
I think you may want to re-evaluate which threads you throw your $ .02 into. The only reason I hate mis-information like this, is because some guy who is looking for information to help him decide on his own setup may look at your post and make a decision on your major amount of mis information...
please do a little reading... i have many books on how engines work... but you may just wanna get one from the library.... im sure you could find one with nince pop ups in it to make you feel right at home.
If your wrong your wrong... swallow your pride and admit it.. dont sit here and argue it all day... its a waste of everyones time...
I know spoolin personally and he knows me... You really should do some research and learn the actual physics of how an engine works, and how all the various components contribute to it making power.... then after you get the basics under your belt... then move on to power adders such as n2o... (you may no it as nawwwz) and no im not talking about the sticker... im talking functional nitrous. the supercharging/turbocharging...
there are advantages and dis advantages to each setup...
It's like ya'll just don't get it. Ok. My turbo info might not have been 100% correct(which I've admitted to the generalizations...), but my OPINION still stands, I, you hear that, I prefer NA, and so do many others. That's it.
I'm not taking a crap on the GTR, just saying it is a nice car which could've been made better if Nissan hadn't been all turbo-obsessed. Sue me if it's "inaccurate" or "moronic" to state my opinion on things, why don't ya?
If you want accurate info on the GTR this is not the site to get it from anyway...
Once again, in case the boys above me didn't hear me the first time, SORRY FOR THE MISUNDERSTANDING. I've seen way worse just FLOAT ON BY most of ya'll, so give me a break. I'm not here to be your pariah.
Also, I AM aware of the basic functions of how engines work and a few of the intricasies(not all, I'm not exactly a professional engine builder like everyone on here seems to be...
) involved with making them run better. Please stop calling me an idiot for no reason other than to make yourselves look better. It isn't appreciated, and it certainly isn't civil. It seems like you guys always have time to call someone an idiot but never have time to explain why...curious, no doubt.In any case, I'm not going to contribute to the further detriment of this thread, so you guys just keep on ragging on me, I'm probably not going to answer you if it's full of spite like the majority of the ramblings on here. Have a good rest of the afternoon fellas.
12-21-2007, 01:41 PM
#100
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 3,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignore it dude... They have every right to correct you, but they have every right to be "impolite" as well, unfortunately... I post here to avoid the pettiness of the kills section, but the lines are blurry it seems...