I have searched for post, NO luck!!

[gocivicls]

It is a post on All motor cars needing less overall HP for the same ET as a Boosted setup, because the efficiency of the powerband in the n/a car. I read it not too long ago, but I have tried searching in several diff. ways. NO LUCK!

Anybody know what the link is for this topic???

 

[posol]

can't find it cuz, well, its not true.

 

[gocivicls]

Originally posted by pissedoffsol@Dec 10 2003, 01:31 AM
can't find it cuz, well, its not true.

Thanks for looking. It could have been in HondaTech.

 

[NotUrAverage_Si]

the main thing n/a cars have over turbo cars is no turbo lag.

 

[jiahanhao]

B.. it is too true, that heavy intercooler and turbo must add at least 4000 metric tons to the weight of the car...

 

[ScrapinSi]

Most high power n/a hondas powerband doesnt start until 5,000 rpms A La VTEC... High powered turbo cars usually spool around 4500... You be the judge...

 

[preluderjs]

Toda's ITR pulled a 13.3 with a full interior and 205 whp at 8k rpm's (according to superstreet). Kind of interesting how that worked out....

 

[posol]

ok and? i've see turbo d16's blast 12s... and a couple 11s....

 

[driver1]

here we go with anohtoer all motor vs boosted aguement.......

Edit* And for that matter i say boost ownz!!!! and still will not hear the other side of the arguement because i dont beleive there is a wrthy one!

 

[Loco Honkey]

Originally posted by NotUrAverage_Si@Dec 11 2003, 01:03 PM
the main thing n/a cars have over turbo cars is no turbo lag.

No, you're wrong. NA cars have turbo lag all the way to redline. Sorry, but I'd rather wait a second for the turbo to spool up and double the torque output than not have any turbo spool at all and be stuck with a pathetic 130 ft lbs of torque from a 1.8L engine.

NA is for those of you that haven't figured out how to go fast and want "respect" rather than low ETs.

Turbo is for those of us that have a firm grasp on fluid and thermodynamics and understand the concepts of increased charge density.

End of story. I'll now go back to my hole from which I sprang.

 

[Slo86GT]

The original argument was in FI on Honda-Tech.

I'm still a firm believer that if you size the turbo properly for peak power output, a 200WHP turbo car will beat a 200WHP N/A car simply because of the forced air at lower RPM levels to help torque considerably for a more flat power curve all the way to redline.

 

[jiahanhao]

Originally posted by Loco Honkey+Dec 11 2003, 06:39 PM-->

NotUrAverage_Si

@Dec 11 2003, 01:03 PM
the main thing n/a cars have over turbo cars is no turbo lag.

No, you're wrong. NA cars have turbo lag all the way to redline. Sorry, but I'd rather wait a second for the turbo to spool up and double the torque output than not have any turbo spool at all and be stuck with a pathetic 130 ft lbs of torque from a 1.8L engine.

NA is for those of you that haven't figured out how to go fast and want "respect" rather than low ETs.

Turbo is for those of us that have a firm grasp on fluid and thermodynamics and understand the concepts of increased charge density.

End of story. I'll now go back to my hole from which I sprang.

NA is for those of you that haven't figured out how to go fast and want "respect" rather than low ETs.

maybe NA is for those of us who just don't want a turbo? or is that not ok with you?

 

[Loco Honkey]

Originally posted by jiahanhao@Dec 13 2003, 06:17 PM

maybe NA is for those of us who just don't want a turbo? or is that not ok with you?

That's fine. I don't care what you have in your car, but you'll never be as fast.