Turbo vs NA

Jonnycoupe · 27 Sep 2011 at 17:21

adam cool dude said:
I think not. Do a google search for the Nissan Pulsar VZR N1. 1998 123bhp/litre. I have a hybrid in my primera. It's a Sr20Ve with Sr16Ve cams and a few other goodies and I can tell you unlike the VTEC these engines have better torque. I still can not understand why Nissan didn't use the engine more because it was and still is a fantastic engine.

When something is synonymous you do not need to Google it.

Uriel · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:07

I prefer N/A but do quite like variable vane turbos, like the one I used to had on my old Octavia 1.9 tdi (110BHP, pre-pd). Due to the variable vane mechanism boost starts very low and is delivered gradually so there isn't really a 'shove in the back point'.

Shame that long term use in diesels cokes up the mechanism so problems ahoy!

Relentless81 · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:17

adam cool dude said:
I think not. Do a google search for the Nissan Pulsar VZR N1. 1998 123bhp/litre. .

Thats the one I was thinking of, highest BHP per litre mass production NA engine believe, sadly never made it over here and very rare

Muffin` · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:23

Relentless81 said:
Thats the one I was thinking of, highest BHP per litre mass production NA engine believe, sadly never made it over here and very rare

F20C trumps that dosen't it? still what an engine, do want.

Relentless81 · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:35

Hmmm yeah maybe, somone do the maths I'm a tard so cant

PMKeates · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:43

Jonnycoupe said:
When something is synonymous you do not need to Google it.

I'm glad someone knows what synonymous means

As has been mentioned, Honda came along with the F20C a year later boasting 125.2 HP per litre.

Relentless81 · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:44

PMKeates said:
I'm glad someone knows what synonymous means

Its only synonymous to the blinkered.

PMKeates · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:48

Relentless81 said:
Its only synonymous to the blinkered.

That doesn't stop it being synonymous though, does it?

If an individual says "it drives like a VTEC", is someone as far-seeing as you unable to decipher what they mean?

Relentless81 · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:52

I'd probably correct them and state that they mean DOHC VTEC as VTEC is just Hondas branding for its VVT

I'm not disagreeing with you, you miss my point, those who dont know any better will consider is synonymous and it would seem that is the majority

PMKeates · 27 Sep 2011 at 18:58

Relentless81 said:
I'd probably correct them and state that they mean DOHC VTEC as VTEC is just Hondas branding for its VVT

I'm not disagreeing with you, you miss my point, those who dont know any better will consider is synonymous and it would seem that is the majority

No, you are disagreeing, as you are saying that "those who dont know any better will consider is synonymous", whereas in fact everybody understands it when used as a synonym for what I can describe now as "that VTEC driving style" (and you'll know exactly what I mean by that).

Start saying "it drives like a NEO VVL" and most people, even motoring enthusiasts, won't have a clue.

Relentless81 · 27 Sep 2011 at 19:05

Relentless81 said:
those who dont know any better will consider is synonymous and it would seem that is the majority

Thats what I said :confused:

Anyway, turbo vs NA

I have this argument with my mate every time we go out pretty much, and thats at least once a week, so the point is as with most things car related, its personal preference on the power delivery

Unfortunately high revving NA engines are a dying breed and I'll have to get used to that metal snail fake power at some point in the future but the time being I'm going to stick with my VVTL-I engine for as long as I possibly can

Dolph · 27 Sep 2011 at 19:20

Given my car history includes a VTEC car (1997 Honda Civic 1.9 VTi), a turbo car (2007 Audi S3) and my current car is a reasonably large NA engine (Passat R36), I can say all of them rock.

All drive differently, the Turbocharged car will (when on boost) feel the fastest, the VTEC will encourage you to rag it far more, and the big NA will just have plenty of power everywhere.

I'd happily own any of them again.

Dolph · 27 Sep 2011 at 19:30

Relentless81 said:
Hmmm yeah maybe, somone do the maths I'm a tard so cant

F20C was 240bhp from 2 litres, so 120bhp per litre, the little nissan still wins.

adam cool dude · 27 Sep 2011 at 19:47

Jonnycoupe said:
When something is synonymous you do not need to Google it.

I was refering to the "nothing came close at the time" when nissan had a better engine in the form of the srXXve.

PMKeates · 27 Sep 2011 at 19:53

Dolph said:
F20C was 240bhp from 2 litres, so 120bhp per litre, the little nissan still wins.

It was 250 HP in Japan, which is where the Nissan is 200 HP, so the Honda wins, as I mentioned earlier.

PMKeates · 27 Sep 2011 at 19:54

adam cool dude said:
I was refering to the "nothing came close at the time" when nissan had a better engine in the form of the srXXve.

One variant of an engine that was produced in limited series, I agree

Slackjaw190 · 27 Sep 2011 at 20:22

VTEC kicked in yo!

R.I.P Vtec, k20 you were the power of dreams

Jonnycoupe · 27 Sep 2011 at 20:39

adam cool dude said:
I was refering to the "nothing came close at the time" when nissan had a better engine in the form of the srXXve.

On paper... Again.

But its the package. The Honda chassis's of that era deserve just as much accolade as the engine.

Dr Who · 27 Sep 2011 at 23:36

Dogbreath said:
That article has a fair bit of crap in it. It says that a turbo must increase thermal efficiency simply because it uses energy which is normally wasted; if it converted this energy directly to useful output that would indeed be the case, but it simply doesn't. Some of the energy lost by pumping losses on the exhaust stroke will be recovered on the intake stroke, but not all. A turbo effectively uses that waste exhaust energy to allow you to burn more fuel.

Turbochargers are basically only useful for economy purposes when combined with downsized engines, and then only if you are running off boost or at low boost for most of the time.

You ignore the fact that exhaust gasses are still expanding, it is not just pumping energy that operates a turbo. The argument is about efficiency, and turbos increase engine efficiency FACT, you cannot argue that away anyway you try. The thermal efficiency is smaller than the volumetric efficiency granted, but for equivalent power you then have to consider frictional savings in the smaller engine and the lost weight compared to more cubes.

They also improve economy by allowing you to run a smaller engine with less frictional losses ON boost compared to an equivalent larger (and heavier) engine.

You argue that they allow smaller engines to run off boost, well I counter that with the Fiat Twin air, one of the most efficient small engines around which spends a large proportion of its running ON boost.

You are seriously underestimating a modern turbo charger, almost every manufacturer will be using one now to provide more performance AND economy whilst saving weight, and that is just petrol, the benefits for diesels are even greater.

adam cool dude · 28 Sep 2011 at 07:40

Jonnycoupe said:
On paper... Again.

But its the package. The Honda chassis's of that era deserve just as much accolade as the engine.