Turbos

[ubersonic]

Looking for some information and Google cannot help, I was driving my friends car back from the cinema the other day and god damn that thing is quick but although its got a lot more power than mine I don't know if being turbocharged as opposed to my vtec was having an effect too, it seemed to have a truckload more low end power despite being a smaller engine im guessing this is because the turbo boosts at low revs whereas vtec doesn't engage till over 5k?

The cars in question are a Honda Prelude SIR (2.2L, 220bhp, FWD, Vtec) and a Nissan 200SX S14 (2.0L 340bhp, RWD, Turbo) now I know the SX will be a lot faster due to the bhp difference but what kind of effect would the turbo play in that?

 

[ubersonic]

Agh, the worms! I cant get them back into the can!! ^^

 

[ubersonic]

My apologies everyone I never imagined a simple question would spark all this

Had VTEC, now have Turbo.

Turbo is better.

Yeah that's why a 1.7L Volvo 480 Turbo will annihilate a 3.8L V8 NSX vtec, c'mon dude that's a pretty general statement to be making

That Type R graph says otherwise, it has a pretty flat torque graph beyond 2k rpm.

The issue with Vtec's is you get such a kick when the cams swap that anything off cam just feels inadequate, when in reality its no less than any other engine with the same capacity.

If your getting a really big kick when the cams swap you need to take it to a tuning company and get them to lower the change over point as sounds like its delaying too long hence the big jump at changeover its supposed to be a pretty smooth transition, on some cars you can barely even feel the difference just hear it.

 

[ubersonic]

What else can be bought for the money that can do the job as well as the Porsche, but more importantly, for as long as the Porsche will do it for.

What is it you drive, Smokey?

Yeah its a bit rude to trash talk the guy just because you don't like his car, personally I hate the look of every porsche bar the 917 and 962 (had the scalectrix's as a kid) but I dont dislike them or the people who choose to buy them. Just because they have used the same design for 40 years (why not, people like it, it sells) and tried to keep the overall look of the car doesn't really make it boring/bland or make him a **** Porsche driver. Now the new Fiat 500, that's bland/boring/40 years old ^^

 

[ubersonic]

Hehe its kinda funny that my original question about wither or not the low down pull I felt in my friends 200sx was the turbo feel or not has evolved into people debating the underlying technologies and in one case insulting somebody's Porsche.

At the end of the day vtec, turbos, superchargers and NoS all serve the same purpose and that's making a car faster than it otherwise be. Whenever people hear vtec they think of Civic/Accord/Integra Type-R's which is why vtec gets associated with "smal" engines, they never think of cars like the 3.5L V6 NSX Type-R or the 3.0L V6 Accord coupe, that NSX would embarrass a 3.5L Nissan 350z and the Accord would embarrass a car like the Toyota Supra 3.0L N/A but get annihilated by the Supra 3.0L twin turbo. The current NSX they are racing with has a 3.4L V8!

People compare the Type-R's to newer cars and laugh at them but they forget that they are race derived and that in those races for N/A cars they did exceptionally well against other N/A cars. I love my vtec but im under no illusion about its capability, when the Prelude was new it was on par with the BMW M3 of the day (not bad for a Honda) but today it can only just keep up with Astra VXR's and you see people complaining on forums that they cannot beat Focus RS's the thought of which is just laughable.

At the end of the day if you put a vtec prelude and a non vtec prelude in a drag race one would walk away from the other at 5k RPM, that shows how good the technology is and if you don't go over that 5k point you can get 30-40mpg outa the things which is pretty decent for a 20 year old design that has the option of going fast if you want.

 

[ubersonic]

ubersonic there is no 3.5 NSX, just 3.0 and the updated 3.2.

Now a NSX-R that would be rather awesome.

The NSX Super GT was a 3.5L V6 (3.494L to be exact) and the NSX HSV-010 GT is 3.4L V8 (3.397L) I know neither is a road going car but I was trying to stress that vtecs aren't just the 1.x-2.xL engined cars you see in McDonald's car park

 

[ubersonic]

Not everyone's, just idiots like yourself who have little or no clue.

If you extend the N/A Vs Turbo argument to supercars it becomes even less rosey.

All the best supercars are N/A, maybe a few exceptions with CCX and GT-R, and F40, lol.

what like the Quad N/A Veyron? or the Twin N/A SSC Ultimate Aero? those are the three fastest supercars on earth at the moment

 

[ubersonic]

Where did i say id have a DC5 over a porche?

Dunno but I would, Porches aren't that expensive these days as builders are working cheaper due to the recession, besides I think houses look nicer without porches

If i could afford to drop 50k on a car, maybe try import a NSX-R but doubt thats doable for 50k.

TVR Sagaris probably or a Ferrari 355, or a Nissan GTR if i was feeling more sensible, the only turbo i would have.

I don't understand, you would really like the NSX-R but thats not doable for under 50 grand so you would take a Ferrari 355, a car that was inferior to the standard NSX (20-30 grand these days) in just about every way?

 

[ubersonic]

Yes, the Ferrari is a Ferrari.

The NSX is more like a high end 'any other' Honda than a super car. It walks the walk, but fails to talk the talk.

I think your getting wrapped up in either Ferrari love or Honda hate, let me put it in perspective for you, the was a reason the NSX was considered to be in a league above similar priced jap sports cars of the day like the 300ZX, Supra TT, GTO and RX7 at the time. It was designed to be better that Ferrari's 328, a lot of work went into the design, Ayrton Senna was the test driver, and by the time it was released Ferrari had moved on to the 348 however the NSX destroyed it around a track, it was more reliable, had better styling and handled better and best of all it was cheaper, what more could you want.

To top it off Ferrari followed the 348 with the 355 and then the 360 neither of which could match the track times of the top of the range NSX-R despite being more expensive, eventually it took the stripped down 360CS with 100bhp more than the NSX to match its Nurburgring time.

I understand that the NSX is today an old car but please don't sell it short

 

[ubersonic]

Merlin is right here, the DC5 has a better power:weight ratio and a very similar suspension set-up. In the real world, the differences are negligible but they are there

Yeah the difference is so negligible that id say the drivers weight or even his breakfast could swing the power to weight either way lol. Personally id take the DC5 as the DC2 looks very dated inside now and that's where I sit lol.

 

[ubersonic]

People here might go "LOL, it's ugly/old/has a crap interior/a honda/only has 280BHP/does 0-60 in x.x seconds slower than a proper supercar/whatever"

Those people would be retarded, it was 0.1 seconds to 60 faster than the comparable Ferrari of the day (348), if people are bitching it was slower than the F40 or comparing a 20 year old supercar to the F430 or something then they need their heads examining.

Like I said, supercar? Perhaps not.

Why? was it too slow? no, did it not look the part? no, the only argument you can make is that it was a Honda and therefore inferior to a Ferrari/Porsche simply because of the badge name, in which case why are the Zonda, Kurn-eggs-egg (using phonetics because I cant spell) not given the same treatment?

I think the NSX is way ahead of something like a 3000GT in terms of performance

Your correct, assuming stock cars then over a quarter mile the NSX can just beat a 3000GT VR4 (twin turbo) and a Supra twin turbo, however it just loses to the Ferrari 355, and loses to the Porsche 911 turbo (of the day!) and the Dodge Viper GTS by a whole second.

The difference is on a track it will defeat all of the above cars.

Its the same was that the Veyron beat the McLaren F1 in a drag race however (and this is just my opinion) I think the McLaren could take the Veyron on a track just like the Zonda did.

 

[ubersonic]

If you have to explain why a car is a supercar, its not a supercar. Being a supercar is the whole package not just performance.

A Ferrari 599 or whatever needs no introduction. You just know. Whereas the NSX needs a Honda fan to explain its no ordinary Japanese coupe, and its actually brilliant to drive and how Senna himself.... etc.

I don't doubt its awesome. It's just not a supercar.

Dude you have to explain to a 5 year old why a Ferrari is a supercar too remember, when I was a kid I knew the Countach and F40 looked special but that was it, I didn't know about their performance or what BHP was.

Absolutely no offence intended (honestly not being sarcy or anything) but just because some people on an internet forum don't think the NSX qualifies as a supercar doesn't stop it being one, its one of the most important Japanese cars ever made purely from the point that it was the first time they were ahead of Ferrari/Porsche/etc.

It was one of the first supercars you could actually drive every day without ear of it falling apart. and don't forget that the "only 280bhp" argument may well stand in 2010 but back in 1989 it was a lot and the competing Ferrari only had 270bhp.

lets review:

Faster than Ferrari in straight line? check
Faster than Ferrari on a track? check
More power than Ferrari? check
More reliable than Ferrari? check

Again im not trying to be insulting but can you please explain why exactly in your opinion the NSX isn't a true super car? the only option I can see is the "its not a Ferrari/Porsche/etc and so isn't allowed to be as good" and saying that is like saying the NES wasn't a games console because it was made by a playing card company, or that the F16 isn't a proper plane because it was made by an electric boat company...

 

[ubersonic]

I thought the 89 to 98 ones were 250bhp?

It turns out we were both wrong, the standard NSX started as 270bhp and then rose to 290bhp in 1997, my apologies I could have sworn it was 280, guess its just the same power as he Ferrari 328 then lol, my bad

 

[ubersonic]

Wasn't that some "gentlemans agreement" in Japland about bhp not being more than 280bhp officially? I know it's not the case now.

Yeah the Japan Automobile Manufacturers' Association (JAMA) imposed a 280bhp power ceiling in the late 80's in order to avoid an arms race among its manufacturers. Back in those days the big advantage Japanese cars had over European/American makers was a reputation for reliability and with bhp figures rising (i.e 275bhp from the twin turbo '86> series Supra) they were worried that soon the would be quad turbocharged Japanese cars breaking down on every street corner and their country's reputation would be in shambles so they implemented the power ceiling.

 

[ubersonic]

Yup, I remember earning £320 a month about 12 years ago and I was LOADED, in the pub three times a week and shopping everyweekend ah stuff the NSX I want a time machine

Deloreans are definitely not supercars

 

[ubersonic]

Damn I could have said Delorean

Get to 88mph and break the temporal barrier, that's defiantly better than vtec ^^

Im I correct in saying the had to put a Porsche engine in the one in the movies because the stock one couldn't get to 88mph inside the films running time?

 

[ubersonic]

yeah i heard the original delorean suffered torque issues so they shoe horned a decent engine in.

not remotely relevant here though...

Will I don't think anything relevant to my OP has been said in the last 10 pages lol

 

[ubersonic]

Id like to retract my previous statement about the NSX being a supercar, I was arguing on the basis that it was easily on par with other supercars like the Ferrari 355 but it turns out that isn't a supercar either. According to Ferraris roadmap their supercars are the 250GTO, 599GTO, 250LM, 288GTO, F40, F50 and the F60 (Enzo), everything else is just a high performance sports car.