Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: na vs turbo vs s/c vs rotary

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbs, Aus
    Posts
    477

    na vs turbo vs s/c vs rotary

    Out of curiosity, if a car of any description (lets say a old mini cooper) has 200 engine kw's. Of the four(na,turbo,s/c,rotary), if power is identicle which engine will generate the best performance? 0-100, topend etc
    RUF CTR Yellowbird is what dreams are made of

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    brisbane - sub-tropical land of mangoes
    Posts
    16,252
    Quote Originally Posted by h22a View Post
    say a old mini cooper has 200 engine kw's.
    sweet jesus
    the answer will always be "f*cking fast"
    Andreas Preuninger, Manager of Porsche High Performance Cars: "Grandmas can use paddles. They aren't challenging."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    No(r)way.
    Posts
    2,467
    Quote Originally Posted by clutch-monkey View Post
    sweet jesus
    the answer will always be "f*cking fast"
    you mean "f*cking wheel-spin"??


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    brisbane - sub-tropical land of mangoes
    Posts
    16,252
    Quote Originally Posted by LotusLocost View Post
    you mean "f*cking wheel-spin"??

    followed by "where'd my subframe go"
    Andreas Preuninger, Manager of Porsche High Performance Cars: "Grandmas can use paddles. They aren't challenging."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    St Marys Western Sydney
    Posts
    20,953
    I'd go N/A or rotary for something that small. No need for the low and mid range characteristics of both the superchargers.

    Probably go rotary then just for the fun of it.

    Dont have a clue which would be faster though, but again because the naturally aspirated ones would probably be more usable, i'd say you'd be able to extract the performance easier
    I am the Stig

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    The answer depends on what sort of engine is used.

    For 200kW you have a wide choice of engines.

    NA will be rev happy unless you use a large engine (heavy)

    Turbo will envolve lots of piping but will ultimmately lead to a more driveable car (unless you turbocharge an MC engine)

    SC is the king of drivability in this lot but the instant go from idle is not a good match with a lightweight mini

    Rotary normally most rotary engines are turbocharged (unless you use the new renisis) so you have 2 options either the engine from a late series RX-7 which is easily capable of 200kW and has little to no lag. Or you could go with the new renisis from a RX-8 which IMO is the best fit for driving a lightweight mini.

    The renisis will perform better only because you won't have to fight as hard for takeoff traction it is lighter and you can certainly hold it where the power is.
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    2,975
    I'd say NA too for a multitude of reasons..but these threads are all too common and plenty tech discussion to be found in other threads. This is a seminal thread:
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...ght=aspiration
    autozine.org

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbs, Aus
    Posts
    477
    i had a brief look but couldnt be bothered consuming my whole day looking for a thread thats worded completely different. it doesnt matter what sort of car it is im just wondering what engine type will utilise its 200kw best.
    RUF CTR Yellowbird is what dreams are made of

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by h22a View Post
    i had a brief look but couldnt be bothered consuming my whole day looking for a thread thats worded completely different. it doesnt matter what sort of car it is im just wondering what engine type will utilise its 200kw best.
    Then there is no answer for that as 200kW is 200kW regardless of the engine making it.
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    2,975
    Quote Originally Posted by h22a View Post
    i had a brief look but couldnt be bothered consuming my whole day looking for a thread thats worded completely different. it doesnt matter what sort of car it is im just wondering what engine type will utilise its 200kw best.
    then hightower99 answered your question well
    autozine.org

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York-Staten Island
    Posts
    215
    SC for me(for this car)
    Ferrari will be WCC. Whoever wins the WDC will be from the Scuderia.........Yet who?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Posts
    7,827
    Quote Originally Posted by sicilian973-2 View Post
    SC for me(for this car)
    I'd definately not even consider that

    The fuel usage is higher than that of a n/a engine. Also the rotary has the same problems. Since every other figure is the same, that would be a good reason not to take it.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,777
    Power is fine, but you also need to consider TORQUE.
    Not surprised some skipped over that important point

    Rotary are good but seriously lack grunt and need constant gear changes - not always feasible mid corner, so too easy to bog down.

    I'd be seriously worried about a turbo in a small, light FWD. The risk of power understeer is very high.

    SC is adding weight

    I'd go n/a
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Posts
    7,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    SC is adding weight

    I'd go n/a
    You will need to consider that a N/A engine producing the same power output, will be larger and heavier too Actually a pretty tough choice to make

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    2,975
    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie View Post
    You will need to consider that a N/A engine producing the same power output, will be larger and heavier too Actually a pretty tough choice to make
    not if you allow it to rev high. high power low weight and less torque too avoid a heavy drive line and less torque steer.
    autozine.org

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sultan of Brunei!!
    By lfb666 in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 12-11-2006, 05:58 AM
  2. Territory Turbo Review (Carpoint)
    By adrenaline in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-05-2006, 05:18 AM
  3. Car and Driver: 997 Turbo Preview
    By F1_Master in forum General Automotive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-09-2006, 10:15 AM
  4. 2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK55 AMG F1 Safety Car
    By DarkPhenix in forum Racing forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-04-2004, 09:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •