133 replies to this topic

[Thealastair34]

Nothing to stop an SC'd engine revving to 9,000rpm. What you need to do to get an NA to rev to that is equally applicable on an SC'd engine.

I agree with you there

you say revving a na hard but you are only going a couple hundred revs higher than my supercharger! and if you do this then you are doubling your budget to get the engine to do it! and as said will only get 220bhp

besides forced induction sounds alot better at the willy waving events :lol:/>

suppose it depends what you think high revs is!

nothing sounds better than a screaming engine at 9k! wait untill we have rubbish quiet turbo f1 engines

i was comparing the itbs to a sc on the z22se engine, see no point comparing to to a different engine that has no relevance to this conversation

Ok I see

Edited by Thealastair34, 09 January 2013 - 08:37 PM.

[techieboy]

Nothing to stop an SC'd engine revving to 9,000rpm. What you need to do to get an NA to rev to that is equally applicable on an SC'd engine.

Yes I'm aware of that

So why wouldn't it be more fun to have the same 9k rpm but with the 50% more power from forced induction of some form over a throttle bodied solution?

It's not for me whatever, I fcuking hate the induction noise of the wanky chav'd Honda's around here. Annoys the fcuk out of me, all that induction noise and those rpm's and still barely more torque than a standard sh!tbag Z22SE engine.

[Thealastair34]

Nothing to stop an SC'd engine revving to 9,000rpm. What you need to do to get an NA to rev to that is equally applicable on an SC'd engine.

Yes I'm aware of that

So why wouldn't it be more fun to have the same 9k rpm but with the 50% more power from forced induction of some form over a throttle bodied solution?

It's not for me whatever, I fcuking hate the induction noise of the wanky chav'd Honda's around here. Annoys the fcuk out of me, all that induction noise and those rpm's and still barely more torque than a standard sh!tbag Z22SE engine.

The response and the power delivery of a highly tuned n/a engine is more fun IMO and what most out and out performance cars engine engines strive for

But your right it's what you prefer

[Anarchy]

I went for 220 BHP and the SC, the worst of both worlds it would appear So much better than the 160 it had before though.

[techieboy]

The response and the power delivery of a highly tuned n/a engine is more fun IMO and what most out and out performance cars engine engines strive for

Why do we still look at F1's turbo era as the best car/engine combo then?

5 years from now, you won't be able to buy an engine that isn't forced induction of one form or another. Turbo power is the spawn of the devil, no doubt. But, the power delivery of the SC'd engine is exactly the same as the NA as it's all crank driven (well, in the case of the Z22SE engine, it's actually better than the sh!tty mapping of the standard car). Even Caterham realise that now with the R600.

[J4EY D]

But what's better, SC or Turbo?

[ArticMonkey]

Quite simple ......

the sc drives like an automatic - a lazy drive and few gear changes are required to have fun, whereas the webcon itb's drive like a manual car - which requires using the gears to get the best out of the engine, coupled with a zafira 4.17 gearbox they are very quick

The SC only drives like an automatic, if you drive it that way. If you want to stir the gears (especially with the same 4.17 gearbox) it's an order of magnitude quicker than an ITB car. :P/>

The lines here speak for themselves. Lowest -> Highest - Standard, Stage 2+ NA, Stage 3 NA, Stage 2 SC and Stage 3 SC.

I'd check your key there bud. Your stage 2 and 3 are the wrong way round in order of low to high.

[badgerade]

But what's better, SC or Turbo?

[techieboy]

Well, at least you knew not to include ITB's in the list.

[J4EY D]

Well, at least you knew not to include ITB's in the list. :P/>

Just trying to sort out second place

[techieboy]

I'd check your key there bud. Your stage 2 and 3 are the wrong way round in order of low to high.

Nope, that's right. Hopeless - Gutless - Stage 3 NA - Stage 2 SC - Stage 3 SC

[The Batman]

[ArticMonkey]

I'd check your key there bud. Your stage 2 and 3 are the wrong way round in order of low to high.

Nope, that's right. Hopeless - Gutless - Stage 3 NA - Stage 2 SC - Stage 3 SC

Torque 5 power 5 is your stage2 (last on the list) torque 4 power 4 is your stage 3..........? Hence not in numerical order

[slindborg]

fcuk this stage bollocks in the ear. 95% of the point of tb's is a revvy noise machine..... For which you don't want a long stroke (fnaaaaar) Supercharge the bitch.

[The Batman]

Slindborg I'm gonna stage 4 your face

[slindborg]

Everything is stage 1 mr nelson.

[techieboy]

Slindborg I'm gonna stage 4 your face

I think the major problem is, somebody has already Stage 5'd his ass. Would explain a lot of things.

[techieboy]

Torque 5 power 5 is your stage2 (last on the list) torque 4 power 4 is your stage 3..........? Hence not in numerical order

Ahh. No control over that, that's Dynoplot's doing. I've chopped the key off the bottom of it at Photobucket but won't help if peoples browsers have cached the image.

[The Batman]

Slindborg I'm gonna stage 4 your face :lol:/>

I think the major problem is, somebody has already Stage 5'd his ass. Would explain a lot of things. :P/>

[Ouchie]

The response and the power delivery of a highly tuned n/a engine is more fun IMO and what most out and out performance cars engine engines strive for

Why do we still look at F1's turbo era as the best car/engine combo then?

Thought that was roughly about the hair wigs and model shagging era, plus >1000bhp, epic lag and super self destructing engines/turbos. Men were men and racing drivers were alpha males back then.