High horsepower, straight line car forums...

[Diode Dynamics]

My 2007 GT with a few bolt on's...long tube headers, intake / tune, will toast a relatively stock FR-S. But I actually prefer driving the FR-S regardless.

I think lighter cars are more fun to drive, and when I go from the S14/FR-S to the Mustang...it's extremely noticeable how heavy the Mustang is

Nick C.

[rice_classic]

Going straight, going around turns...

Nobody said anything about the folks that want to go around in circles.

[BRZ21]

Originally Posted by chrisl

A mustang is not twice the weight of a BRZ. 30-40hp added to a BRZ is more like 45-50hp added to a Mustang.

no but displacement is

[Hanni_0176]

Originally Posted by chrisl

Sure, you won't be lacking for power, but the turbo lag will be an issue in corners more due to the inconsistent delivery of the power. Boost coming on mid-corner, with a bit of lag, is a recipe for kicking the back end out and losing a lot of time. Of course, it all depends on what you want the car for - if you want it for passing power on the highway, and straight line performance, then sure, a turbo is a great way to do that.



That's why I said potentially more reliable - I agree that the reliability at this point is somewhat of an unknown. That having been said, I'd be shocked if a 400hp 86 were anywhere close to as reliable as a base C7 or 991 Carrera. I won't say that it's impossible, but I would be extremely surprised.


That's all true, but I still think that's kind of missing the point of the car - for the amount of money it takes to do that, you could buy a Mustang GT and get it up to >500whp (or even >600whp) with a positive displacement blower if you want straight line speed.

Don't get me wrong here - I absolutely understand the desire for more power, but if that power is added with a fairly high boost turbo (and what you're talking about there is pretty high boost), I think it kind of ruins the character of the car.

Wouldn't the turbo lag be relative to the size of the turbo, rather than the amount of whp the car is able to produce?

I'm sure a stock Vette/Porsche/whatever will have a longer duration before parts start needing replaced for maintenance compared to a turbo FT86... but if you're willing to do so, most cars can be maintained to last for years before part availability (and thusly cost) become too limiting a factor to keep the car maintained unless the car is worth alot (like old classic muscle cars, which are worth lots of money these days).

Well, if the Mustang GT after added options costs the same amount as an FT86 with a turbo kit, that's already an even cost comparison. Obviously the total horsepower output potential of the Mustang GT after mods is going to far exceed what the FT86 is capable of... but at how much horsepower does it start to become overkill for anything but pure drag racing? 400whp in an FT86 doesn't limit it strictly to straight line racing or ruin streetability, does it? Even if for whatever reason that it did, the boost can be dialed down via the boost controller... and there is also flex fuel kits (and/or the ability to ECU reflash within a matter of minutes).

Circling back to the turbo lag issue. I'm not sure why the car would necessarily have bad turbo lag (and thusly hurting track performance or whatever) with 400whp. Most of the 400whp builds I've seen are making low 300's in whp on pump gas at like 10 psi, with e85 allowing them to advance the timing and push it up to 16 psi for the 400whp number. I would assume as long as the turbo is small enough (and is pushing close to its max rated hp), that the turbo lag would be minimal. Especially once you get into the possibility of twin scroll designs in the future (which JDL has already developed... just waiting on others), I'm not convinced that the turbo lag would really be any sort of significant issue. Clearly, for the builds looking towards going fully built motor and 600whp or more, then most definitely there will be some bad turbo lag. But at 400whp on e85? From what I've seen people post about their boost plots, the turbo lag hasn't been more than a half second delay at best (with single scroll designs)...

[Hanni_0176]

Originally Posted by thill

It is all relative to what you consider "fast". If you coming from a Prius, this car will feel plenty fast in a straight-line. If you are coming from a higher horsepower/tq car then this car will must likely feel slow. My last car made 275hp and 275ft lbs of tq with max torque being made below 3K RPM's. It felt much faster in a straight-line than the BRZ. But I knew that going in and did an extensive test drive.

People coming from faster cars really need to do an in-depth test drive before buying this car. I have read too many people who bitch and moan about the straight-line performance of this car only to find out they pretty much bought the car site unseen, or with little to no test drive and they bought it based on all the glowing reviews.

If your expectation is that this car will be as fast as a V6 Mustang, Camaro, or turbocharged 4 cylinder Gencoupe, you will be frustrated.

If you plan on adding FI from the start, then it you probably don't have much to worry about. And you also have to adjust your driving habits. You pretty much have to live above 5K RPM's to get the most from this car. For many people that are used to shifting before that range, it will require you to change your habits to get the most from the car.

Actually, this car has almost identical 0-60 mph and 1/4 times as the 2005-2009 V6 Mustang... yes, the newer ones are a full second faster in 1/4, but I see ALOT more 2005-2009 models on the road than I do the newer models. Just sayin.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by cjsporl

Actually my G body Monte Carlo SS is the same exact car used in NASCAR back in the day. Back then, car manufactures actually had to sell the car they tracked unlike today...

Hate to break it to you buddy, NASCAR hasn't used stock cars since 1967, a full decade before your G body went into production.

http://espn.go.com/racing/nascar/cup...vious-cup-cars

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Hanni_0176

Wouldn't the turbo lag be relative to the size of the turbo, rather than the amount of whp the car is able to produce?

I'm sure a stock Vette/Porsche/whatever will have a longer duration before parts start needing replaced for maintenance compared to a turbo FT86... but if you're willing to do so, most cars can be maintained to last for years before part availability (and thusly cost) become too limiting a factor to keep the car maintained unless the car is worth alot (like old classic muscle cars, which are worth lots of money these days).

Well, if the Mustang GT after added options costs the same amount as an FT86 with a turbo kit, that's already an even cost comparison. Obviously the total horsepower output potential of the Mustang GT after mods is going to far exceed what the FT86 is capable of... but at how much horsepower does it start to become overkill for anything but pure drag racing? 400whp in an FT86 doesn't limit it strictly to straight line racing or ruin streetability, does it? Even if for whatever reason that it did, the boost can be dialed down via the boost controller... and there is also flex fuel kits (and/or the ability to ECU reflash within a matter of minutes).

Circling back to the turbo lag issue. I'm not sure why the car would necessarily have bad turbo lag (and thusly hurting track performance or whatever) with 400whp. Most of the 400whp builds I've seen are making low 300's in whp on pump gas at like 10 psi, with e85 allowing them to advance the timing and push it up to 16 psi for the 400whp number. I would assume as long as the turbo is small enough (and is pushing close to its max rated hp), that the turbo lag would be minimal. Especially once you get into the possibility of twin scroll designs in the future (which JDL has already developed... just waiting on others), I'm not convinced that the turbo lag would really be any sort of significant issue. Clearly, for the builds looking towards going fully built motor and 600whp or more, then most definitely there will be some bad turbo lag. But at 400whp on e85? From what I've seen people post about their boost plots, the turbo lag hasn't been more than a half second delay at best (with single scroll designs)...

That's definitely a fair point - it really all depends on what you're used to and what your goals are. To me, a half second of lag is fairly unacceptable in a purists, handling-based sports car, but to others, it may be fine, depending on what they want out of the car. At the end of the day, my statements above were based on what I would want out of a car, and I certainly won't say that my choices with a car are the only way to go. If someone wants to put this car on 15psi of boost and E85, that's their choice (and if it's done well, I'll probably be impressed by it, even if I wouldn't have made that choice myself).

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Hate to break it to you buddy, NASCAR hasn't used stock cars since 1967, a full decade before your G body went into production.

http://espn.go.com/racing/nascar/cup...vious-cup-cars

Yep, and the last even somewhat stock cars went away after 1980, still 6 years before his car was made.

[Hanni_0176]

Originally Posted by chrisl

That's definitely a fair point - it really all depends on what you're used to and what your goals are. To me, a half second of lag is fairly unacceptable in a purists, handling-based sports car, but to others, it may be fine, depending on what they want out of the car. At the end of the day, my statements above were based on what I would want out of a car, and I certainly won't say that my choices with a car are the only way to go. If someone wants to put this car on 15psi of boost and E85, that's their choice (and if it's done well, I'll probably be impressed by it, even if I wouldn't have made that choice myself).

I actually meant at worst, not best. I haven't seen anyone mention exceeding a half second, and there are quite a few with 1/4 second or less.

Also, keep in mind that I'm basing my info off of the turbo builds I've read up on, whether on these forums or from other sources on the web, and almost all of them have had turbos sized for much higher rated hp figures than what they are currently producing (the average seems to be turbos rated at roughly 525 hp max output), and none have been twin scroll designs. A turbo rated for 420-450 hp max output with a twin scroll design would probably have lag so minimal that you wouldn't even be able to tell a difference in throttle response between an N/A engine with a butt dyno.

On a final note, there are several successful turbo builds built for track (not drag racing) that are pushing over 400 whp on this forum, between the Member's Car Journals and Forced Induction sections... and I'm sure there are plenty more out there that have never visited this forum (or at least, never post here).

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Hanni_0176

A turbo rated for 420-450 hp max output with a twin scroll design would probably have lag so minimal that you wouldn't even be able to tell a difference in throttle response between an N/A engine with a butt dyno.

We seem to be mostly in agreement here, except for this one thing: you can definitely tell the difference. I've driven a new (F30) BMW 335i quite a bit, and it has a pretty small, modern, twin-scroll turbo and quite a bit of exhaust volume to power it (due to the 3.0L 6 cylinder). It is easily the lowest lag turbo car I've ever driven. Despite that, it still has a noticeably delayed throttle response compared to a similarly powered N/A 6 cylinder (namely, the one in my Cayman S). You would never notice that it had lag until you had the Cayman to compare it to, but once you're used to something like the Cayman, it becomes obvious. Is it horribly intrusive? No, not at all, but it's definitely not unnoticeable.

[Hanni_0176]

Originally Posted by chrisl

We seem to be mostly in agreement here, except for this one thing: you can definitely tell the difference. I've driven a new (F30) BMW 335i quite a bit, and it has a pretty small, modern, twin-scroll turbo and quite a bit of exhaust volume to power it (due to the 3.0L 6 cylinder). It is easily the lowest lag turbo car I've ever driven. Despite that, it still has a noticeably delayed throttle response compared to a similarly powered N/A 6 cylinder (namely, the one in my Cayman S). You would never notice that it had lag until you had the Cayman to compare it to, but once you're used to something like the Cayman, it becomes obvious. Is it horribly intrusive? No, not at all, but it's definitely not unnoticeable.

Makes sense, and I'll concede to the fact that some amount of turbo lag will exist no matter how small or efficient the turbocharger is. For people that are concerned with turbo lag, regardless of how much of it exists, there are also superchargers. While superchargers aren't currently making the same power figures as the turbos are right now, they still provide ample amounts of power without the lag. Heat soak, on the other hand...

Also, I posted this in another thread, but I thought this was an interesting find:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_turbocharger"]Hybrid turbocharger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Hanni_0176

Makes sense, and I'll concede to the fact that some amount of turbo lag will exist no matter how small or efficient the turbocharger is. For people that are concerned with turbo lag, regardless of how much of it exists, there are also superchargers. While superchargers aren't currently making the same power figures as the turbos are right now, they still provide ample amounts of power without the lag. Heat soak, on the other hand...

Also, I posted this in another thread, but I thought this was an interesting find:

Hybrid turbocharger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why I like superchargers, personally - I like the instant throttle response. It is a tradeoff though, since as you said, they don't make the same amount of peak power.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by cjsporl

I know everything else about the car is different but the body itself in the 1980's was the same.

I was about to post a rant with links supporting this point. As long as you realize that all you have is a body profile then I'm happy. Don't go around claiming:

Originally Posted by cjsporl

my G body Monte Carlo SS is the same exact car used in NASCAR back in the day.

You will get called out and other people will think less of you.

Edit: I love how the video you posted pointed out that it was homologated solely for the body (aerodynamics) and the anemic 175 hp engine compared to NASCAR which was pushing 600 just fifteen years earlier.

[Fluxx]

Originally Posted by Books

It's easier to add power to a great chassis than adding handling to a crappy chassis (but fast).

We have a wonderful well balanced and cheap RWD car as a foundation to build off of. If you want more power, I say go for it! I mean, if I were in the market for a $50k+ sports car... I may as well get an 86 and do an LS swap (And probably even have some money leftover for more mods)

The main gripe I have is when people complain "Needs more hoarspowah"... Dude, just mod it.

Since I'm fairly certain you are referring to Mustangs, these folks would like to have a word with you...
http://www.griggsracing.com/

Prior to getting my FR-S I was thinking of dropping the money on their system for my 70.