na vs turbo vs s/c vs rotary

[h22a]

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

[clutch-monkey]

say a old mini cooper has 200 engine kw's.

sweet jesus
the answer will always be "f*cking fast"

[LotusLocost]

sweet jesus
the answer will always be "f*cking fast"

you mean "f*cking wheel-spin"??

[clutch-monkey]

you mean "f*cking wheel-spin"??

followed by "where'd my subframe go"

[fpv_gtho]

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

[hightower99]

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.

[jediali]

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

[h22a]

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.

[hightower99]

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.

[jediali]

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

[sicilian973-2]

SC for me(for this car)

[drakkie]

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.

[Matra et Alpine]

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

[drakkie]

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

[jediali]

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.