Rocket engine. No aspiration needed.
Rocket engine. No aspiration needed.
refuelling could be problematic though...Originally Posted by Bob
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
I go for N/A too.
I like n/a motors. I don't see the need for turbo/superchargers when you can get the same power out of an n/a motor.
REALLY!?!?!Originally Posted by johnnynumfiv
show me that 5000hp all motor funny car you have been hiding!
...right now buddy!
Favorite aspiration has got to be.... ram air! (ie scramjet!)
the fastest way to fly through oxygen rich atmosphere!
Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it
Engine torque is an illusion.
Stfu hightower. I realize that at a certain point you need forced induction to get more power. I'd rather have a 750hp n/a motor than a 750hp n/a.
Get a life and stop exaggerating your generalisations...Originally Posted by johnnynumfiv
Good well then you see my point...Originally Posted by johnnynumfiv
ummm.... yeah I just hope that was a typo?Originally Posted by johnnynumfiv
I would rather have a moderately sized FI engine that makes 750hp and can be used in everyday traffic instead of some high strung F1 like NA engine that makes 750hp.
by the way n/a normally stands for Not/Non Applicable
NA is Naturally Aspirated
Power, whether measured as HP, PS, or KW is what accelerates cars and gets it up to top speed. Power also determines how far you take a wall when you hit it
Engine torque is an illusion.
how come no one is saying turbo, we woldn't have the fastest car in the world without it......1.8T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The McLaren F1- The most fun you can have with your clothes on
"Live Fast, Die Young, and Leave a Good Looking Corpse" -James Dean, weeks before dying in a car crash at the age of 24
IMHO i dont think exact notation is essentialOriginally Posted by hightower99
autozine.org
No shit Sherlock, if anybody knows this it would be Johnny.Originally Posted by hightower99
John says:
so i had to dump acid into the block tank today
i'm afraid to fap
cause i got it on my hands
rrrrrrrrrrrrright...................Originally Posted by baddabang
autozine.org
I have a life and a job rebuilding motors and restoring cars.Originally Posted by hightower99
Yes, it was a typo, I meant 750n/a rather than a 750f/i.
You can kiss my polish ass about the abbreviations.
For power delivery I like a balanced larger displacement engine. That is one that doesn't run out of breath at higher RPM but has displacement to augment off the line torque. BMW motors are quite nice in this regard as are Ford's V8s and the GM LSx motors. The Nissan VQs are also nice though to many of them are delivered from the factory with a raspy exhaust note.
For economy I find turbos work nicely. They seemed to be geared long like a larger displacement motor (lower revs on the highway). When you need to pass the turbo makes up for the lower revs with a dose of torque. On the other hand, based on those I've used (150hp VW 1.8t, 185hp SAAB 2L, 267hp Mazda 2.3T), I don't like the throttle response and the off idle torque. Basically I like being able to engage the clutch at under say 1200 RPM and use the engine torque to motor away. The small displacement turbos I've driven aren't well suited to that style of driving. Also, even the best of them have some even tiny amount of turbo lag.
The very few supercharged cars I've driven seemed to have been OK compromises. They almost all struck me as a way to get more power out of an existing engine rather than an ideal solution. It was like the car company didn't have an adequate NA motor so they used a blower to make a smaller displacement motor feel larger. A turbo on the other hand seems to be a way to get an engine to act like a small displacement motor at cruise yet have large displacement torque when needed (with some penalty in throttle response and linear power delivery). Now all that said, I think SC motors generally have nicer power delivery than turbos because they feel a lot like a larger displacement motor. I'm not sure they really have a mileage advantage over a larger displacement motor. So in the end they strike me as an OK solution when you can't just bump displacement. A great example of that are the SC Ford Modular V8s. They are VERY smooth but they really exist because the modular family of motors really can't go beyond 5.4L and thanks to the long stroke design they have never had great hp/l. (but they are VERY smooth and sound great)
So in the end I prefer NA motors followed by turbo then SC. NA because I feel they are the nicest to drive. Turbos have my least favorite power delivery but at least they seem to deliver on the promise of good power when you want it and good mileage when you don’t ask for the power. SC comes in third because it doesn’t give me the option of mileage and power (not at the same time) like a turbo yet it doesn’t have quite the nice power delivery of the NA motor.
Nitrous is fun too. I've sprayed a last gen Celica with a 50 shot, and it made 45hp and 60lb-ft over stock at the wheels. Not bad for a couple hundred bucks and an afternoon.
[O o)O=\x/=O(o O]
The things we do for girls who won't sleep with us.
Patrick says:
dads is too long so it wont fit
so i took hers out
and put mine in
Look, to be honest, it all depends on what car you have. If you've got a "69 Monaro GTS, then an Naturally Aspirated or Supercharged engine will do the job. There again, if you have a Nissan Skyline, then you could dump in a single or twin-turbo. But overall, a Turbo will do for me.
Join V8SuperChat NOW!
http://vee-eight.super-forum.net
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)