He said LOW REVS which is the point I was getting at, try at least giving the impression of having the ability to read
Engine Sizes
- Thread starter DAIR
- Start date
He said LOW REVS which is the point I was getting at, try at least giving the impression of having the ability to read
No because most NA race cars have a very smooth power band! Always there and no lag or sudden surge of boost! NA for the win. Nothing like a mad revving engine to have fun with! The new TFSI engines are good however!
The main point of his post was lag, he mentioned several times it was the lag that he doesn't like.
No amount of stick stirring will make any difference to lag.
You want [generally] to be in the gear with the highest torque at that road speed (well engine RPM after the gear ratio conversion).
That is even more true for NA cars than boosted cars
He said he found it more annoying at lower RPMs, which means that were he in a lower gear he would not find it as annoying
I was simply picking up on complaining about things you experience at an RPM that were you driving it spiritedly you would not be at
When I read your posts do you know what goes through my mind?
MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT MOOT.
Your posts, and you - Are moot.
Many have pointed it out to you already, but seeing as you are a little slow I will point it out for you again.
He prefers the feel of a pushrod V8.
Anything else is irrelevant, especially something as trivial and as far disconnected to FEEL as you can get (valve timing, wtf?). You are arguing an opinion, a preference. Do you know what someone who argues those is? A fool, that's what.
I would like to say quit while you are ahead but quite frankly, that would just be plain laughable. So I say to you - Quit before you are even more behind, nobody is impressed with you fabricating moot points as a stage to waffle on about technical crap you want us to think you know about. It's boring, besides the point (recurring trend eh?) and plain annoying.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
... Because everyone drives perfectly on the road, rev-matching, staying constantly in boost, following the perfect line, allowing people to pass when the blue-fag waving marshalls stationed every 200yrds along the road give you the signal...
... muppet... don't you have anything better to do with your time than make non-sensical arguments on the interwebs to wind people up?
[/rant]
Of course in a race I would wish to stick as close to peak power as I possibly can & certainly driving a turbo'd race car would require you to keep it spooled up constantly for best performance/response...
... but you're an idiot if you drive like that on the road
Not only would fuel consumption drop dramatically, if you're doing 25k miles a year, you would be exhausted at the end of any med-long journey
The majority of people will be in the highest gear possible to provide the most mpg...
and for me, it's nice to be sitting on the motorway at 1,500 rpm, way out of boost, and still be able to feel the response when you touch the pedal... not after you've waited what feels like a few seconds.
Of course, in reality, the actual lag is much smaller than that, but it's how it feels that counts to me.
DreXel said:
Exactly...
rypt said:
What's the point in flaming? Don't stress... just get your point accross without appearing to be an ass and everyone will be much happier
However... DreXel was right... I was stipulating low-revs to excentuate the point I was making.
RSClio said:
There is that... but to be fair... I love the feel of that surge and if choosing between a 2.0n/a with 150bhp or a 2.0t with 250bhp... I would be much more likely to go for the 2.0t despite the lag in order to enjoy the extra power.
It's not particularly the un-even-ness of the power band either... the peaks and troughs would be learnt very quickly... my main issue is the throttle response. Then secondly it being able to use the power throughout the rev-range... sure it's not peak-power through the range... but the area under a torque/power curve for a larger displacement engine would be so much greater which corresponds to how the car feels to drive.
The main question was whether to go for a bigger displacement n/a engine or a smaller displacement FIed engine.
The smaller displacement turbo'd engine is just that... a small displacement & until that boost kicks in... you're stuck with a pathetic amount of power being delivered... or course you can manipulate gears to stay within that magically boosty powerband... but the majority of people I know would much prefer to not have to bother bouncing up and down gears all the time in regular road driving.
For 30mph town driving, my car sits at barely above idle RPMs and yet it picks up straight away and starts to fly.
Without taking cost in to consideration... I am certain that if you put two cars next to each other... identical in every way except one has a highly tuned 400bhp turbo'd 2.0L boxer engine and the other has a 400bhp n/a 4.0L v8... anyone with any semblance of a passion for driving will choose the larger displacement v8....
The power delivery is so much smoother and easier to work with when compared to a smaller engine... I think the best way to put it without writing a frikkin essay on the subject would be to say:
- Small-displacement turbo'd car... you have to work to use the power properly
- big-displacement n/a car... you don't
On top of all of is... it also depends a lot on the car.
For example, a great little cheap drivers car would be the mx5... especially the earlier models... standard n/a they're just great... the original 1.6L inline 4 115bhp model was an incredible engine... so much fun to drive.
You get a lot of people, who, looking for cheap power, end up turbo-charging the ******** off them and it completely changes the character of the car... to a point when you start reaching 230bhp+ they're just a pain in the arse to drive. Fantastic on the track when kept in boost... but even then you have to know how to drive them or you will get caught out very easily in a corner.
Supercharged variants are so much nicer... but I would always go for the orignal n/a engine as they're so much fun.
DreXel said:
Well... keeping within boost does minimise the effects... but they're definitely still present and it's not what you really want when balancing the throttle in a corner when you're on the limit of grip.
Of course you can... but it requires more effort & the results need to be predictable...
rypt said:
Only for peak performance... which is not what 99% of people driving on the road are looking for
rypt said:
As far as I can tell... this thread is mostly about comparing small displacement turbo'd engines with larger displacement n/a variants of roughly the same power output.
With that in mind... that comment is just plain wrong I'm afraid...
A larger displacement n/a car has a much broader torque range and therefore dropping off from the peak point of torque delivery in an n/a car has a MUCH smaller impact than dropping out of peak torque in a turbo'd car.
And you're stipulating "boosted" cars... we're not talking about superchargers here... that's a whole different ball-game and they are a fantastic middle-ground.
They increase the output of an engine throughout the majority of the rev range without changing the general characteristics of the engine... they're fantastic imo... but only if done properly
There are a lot of side-effects to badly done supercharger conversions... but of course you'd expect a supercharged production car to avoid those
rypt said:
You're repeating the obvious again & it is not the point I was making... most people don't aim for peak performance (or even know what it is!) on the road
Sin_Chase said:
Lol...
BTW... LOVE S2000s... brilliant drive... lovely revvy engine, great short-throw gearbox and epic noise when you're screaming the ******** off them
____
Excuse the epic-read of my rather lengthy post
What does lag matter with road driving, when do you even need all your horses in under a second? Plan your overtakes, and you can even do some impressive overtakes in a diesel.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Talking about feel, not need...
My second car is a 325td... of course you can make it shift when you want it to... but that's not the point...
I've driven a good few diesels... old and new... and not one can feel anywhere near as good as a petrol engine imo
BTW... LOVE S2000s... brilliant drive... lovely revvy engine, great short-throw gearbox and epic noise when you're screaming the ******** off them
I wish I could love my engine but it does not have the technically superior i-VTEC implementation which means I don't love it...right?
If only I bought a CRV with i-VTEC!
All sarcasm aside, I never get bored with my S. Not sure I could ever be satisfied with another manual gear change again....in a price bracket I can afford
With regards to the OP. I think it's a shame the CHOICE is slowly diminishing...what I fancy on any given day changes. Sometimes I have a huge need for a big lazy rumbling V8 for the sound, the drama and presence.
Other days I am loving the 9,000RPMs of raceyness my F20c gives me.
It will be a shame that if, 5 years down the line, I want a large, modern high displacement engine I won't be able to have it. All it means though is I will just get something old, go classic perhaps - regardless of emissions or technical prowess/modernisation.
crinkleshoes, nice post ... and I do agree with most of it, I was simply making a point of you complaining about something specifically at low RPMs with that "something" being a performance related item. If you cared about performance you would not find yourself at those RPM levels when you are trying to extract that performance (as opposed to just cruising).
You are right of course about it still being there at higher RPMs, but things such as twin-scroll turbos, lighter/smaller turbines do have an impact on reducing this. Equally you feel it less at higher RPMs anyway due to the turbine already having more inertia.
What I disagree with, is your point that "people are not aiming for peak performance". If you are buying a car that has huge power and speed then you are only doing it for one of 2 reasons.
1) Either you are a show-off with no actual understanding and ability and just want the car to look "cool".
2) Or you are someone who actually knows about the car, knows how to drive it ... in which case the only reason you are buying that raw power is because you intend to use some of it.
People who fall into the (1) category should just go and buy some boring poser car (some sort of useless blinged up SUV thing).
You are right of course about it still being there at higher RPMs, but things such as twin-scroll turbos, lighter/smaller turbines do have an impact on reducing this. Equally you feel it less at higher RPMs anyway due to the turbine already having more inertia.
What I disagree with, is your point that "people are not aiming for peak performance". If you are buying a car that has huge power and speed then you are only doing it for one of 2 reasons.
1) Either you are a show-off with no actual understanding and ability and just want the car to look "cool".
2) Or you are someone who actually knows about the car, knows how to drive it ... in which case the only reason you are buying that raw power is because you intend to use some of it.
People who fall into the (1) category should just go and buy some boring poser car (some sort of useless blinged up SUV thing).
Because everyone drives around 24/7 with their arse on fire, never encounters traffic or any other circumstance that kerbs the potential of what their vehicle is capable of and never, ever needs acceptability below ten tenths.
A large part of modernisation in motor engineering is to be able to give the broadest range of capability without compromise. We still have to have bespoke solutions for the extremes, be it eco-warrior box or banzai track insanity but assuming a perfect world why would anyone say no to the utopia of anything, anywhere, anytime?
You talk crap. If people subscribed to the mentality you just expressed there would be no middle ground. I don't even want to imagine what that world would look like.
A large part of modernisation in motor engineering is to be able to give the broadest range of capability without compromise. We still have to have bespoke solutions for the extremes, be it eco-warrior box or banzai track insanity but assuming a perfect world why would anyone say no to the utopia of anything, anywhere, anytime?
You talk crap. If people subscribed to the mentality you just expressed there would be no middle ground. I don't even want to imagine what that world would look like.
But when you aren't cruising around you are already at the higher RPMs, where the effect is far less (not completely gone though I admit).
The POINT I was making is that the poster SPECIFICALLY mentioned low RPM, an RPM you do not see when you are not cruising.
He did not say "the throttle response delay sucks in this car", he said "I picked up on throttle response delay at low RPM", which implies that it is not as much of an issue at higher RPM (yes it is still there of course).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
I wish I could love my engine but it does not have the technically superior i-VTEC implementation which means I don't love it...right?
If only I bought a CRV with i-VTEC!
All sarcasm aside, I never get bored with my S. Not sure I could ever be satisfied with another manual gear change again....in a price bracket I can afford
With regards to the OP. I think it's a shame the CHOICE is slowly diminishing...what I fancy on any given day changes. Sometimes I have a huge need for a big lazy rumbling V8 for the sound, the drama and presence.
Other days I am loving the 9,000RPMs of raceyness my F20c gives me.
It will be a shame that if, 5 years down the line, I want a large, modern high displacement engine I won't be able to have it. All it means though is I will just get something old, go classic perhaps - regardless of emissions or technical prowess/modernisation.
lol
and that's another aspect I didn't cover... it's wonderful owning more than one car hehe... you can get the best from different worlds
planning on grabbing myself a track toy in the next few months... I'm thinking of going for something along the lines of a bike engined 7-style toy.
I love the characterisitcs of bike engines & the noise made when you're screaming your way up to 14,000+ rpm is epic!
But of course, it would never take over from my XKR as a daily drive.
I understand and agree with that... to a point.
As stated above... I can cover up to 25k miles in a year... regularly doing 200-300 mile trips in one go... with traffic and road conditions, keeping a well-tuned turbo-equiped motor quarely in the power-band for such a long period of time on british roads would be exhausting and not what I was looking for when choosing a cruiser.
Not needing to stay in that band can be a blessing & why would I choose something that exhibits the characteristics I hate just to put up with it for when I do want to play with the power... when I don't need to?
One way you could choose to look at it is 'lazy' performance... to get the same effect, you don't need to put anywhere near the same effort in & in general... you have the ability to use a LOT more of the power over a much broader range of revs.
Yes, and I think I mentioned that things are getting noticeably better as tech progresses... but it's still present to such an extent that I find it still noticeable (albeit much improved) in a 2010 supercar that supposedly eliminates lag.
That's a bit close-minded tbh... far too black and white... there are a lot more 'reasons'.
For example me...
I wanted something:
- reliable
- powerful
- comfortable
- just generally enjoyable
- to be tracked once in a blue-moon
Couldn't care less about looks & practicality is a non-issue as all it needs to transport is me, a bag of clothes and a laptop.
A bigger displacement n/a engine is almost always more reliable than a highly-strung smaller displacement counterpart... plus the service intervals are much longer (a stock scoob is 6k miles if i remember correctly, the more powerful it's made, the shorter it becomes... whereas my jag only needs to be serviced every 10k miles)
I love power... but I also care about the way it's delivered & bigger displacement = a much bigger usable power range.
Then it comes back to... why should I choose something I consider to be less enjoyable with less usable power & something that requires more user input to attain the same outcome?
If I was concerned about fuel economy then I would choose to put up with the characteristics I don't like and go for a smaller FIed engine... but thankfully for me, that's not the case. On the flip-side... larger n/a engines *can* be more fuel economic than smaller turbo blocks under certain circumstances too...
rypt said:
Not to me & it's my money... end of
It's an annoyance that would be present every time I press the throttle and especially with my experience, would nag at me... causing me to wish I'd bought something better
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
But the point isn't whether it matters or the exact effect when you're going for it...
The point is, most people don't want to be driving their cars like that constantly just in an effort to minimise the annoyances.
I get the distinct impression you've never driven a really nice big displacement engine before... whenever you get the opportunity I highly recommend you do and it will instantly become obvious why they are so much nicer to drive in general.
And for me... the mere presense of the issue would be noticeable every time the throttle is depressed.
Of course there are circumstances where I would put up with and work to compensate for the effects... but why bother when you don't have to?
I've driven Yank V8 (LS series, the best of their V8s), and have driven the BMW V8
I also driven smaller 6pot, 4 pot both NA and turbo.
I know what you mean, but for me when I'm on it then I'm at higher RPMs in a turbo anyway and the delay is less
When I'm just cruising, I don't care about the delay personally as I'm taking it easy anyway.
But I guess that is just me, I have a cruise around and a drive spiritedly mode ...
I like the sound and power of the V8s, but I would still always pick the more refined BMW V8
I also driven smaller 6pot, 4 pot both NA and turbo.
I know what you mean, but for me when I'm on it then I'm at higher RPMs in a turbo anyway and the delay is less
When I'm just cruising, I don't care about the delay personally as I'm taking it easy anyway.
But I guess that is just me, I have a cruise around and a drive spiritedly mode ...
I like the sound and power of the V8s, but I would still always pick the more refined BMW V8
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
I prefer turbos over na. There's something childishly exciting about the whoomph you get when a turbo (or two) kicks in and even with spooling issues and VODs I'd still rather have it.