turbo yes

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by MatadorRacing_F1

He's been too busy reporting me for calling him a r****d and trying to get me perma-banned, to learn that competition cars focus on being fast, not fun.

There do seem to be a percentage of people on the forum that are so busy projecting their emotional baggage they can't be bothered to understand the point of this car, and that's unfortunate.

Just for the record, I'm not a turbo hater. My daily driver is a turbo Diesel and it's fantastic. I built a turbo R53 MINI with excellent success. One of my absolute favorite drivers cars of all time is the Evo IX. There is without question a time and place for turbo's in the vast expanse of the automotive world.

In the specific context of the FT-86, where having the car hard-wired to your brain is the primary thesis, a turbo will detract from that connection and transform the car into more of a performance car but less a sports car. If TRD comes out with a supercharged kit, that will still change the character of the car [mainly acoustic], but it won't completely invert it like a turbo would.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

There do seem to be a percentage of people on the forum that are so busy projecting their emotional baggage they can't be bothered to understand the point of this car, and that's unfortunate.

Just for the record, I'm not a turbo hater. My daily driver is a turbo Diesel and it's fantastic. I built a turbo R53 MINI with excellent success. One of my absolute favorite drivers cars of all time is the Evo IX. There is without question a time and place for turbo's in the vast expanse of the automotive world.

In the specific context of the FT-86, where having the car hard-wired to your brain is the primary thesis, a turbo will detract from that connection and transform the car into more of a performance car but less a sports car. If TRD comes out with a supercharged kit, that will still change the character of the car [mainly acoustic], but it won't completely invert it like a turbo would.

Agreed 100%. I love turbo cars as well, but I willingly admit that it goes against the grain of the basic ideal of what this car embodies. That being said, the car is also a canvas, and if an owner whats to add a snail, fine. They should stop moaning that it didn't come with one and add it. End of story. If that's what jives with what you want or you need more speed for competitive purposes, cool.


I don't get the constant moaning. They already made a car that lends itself toward tinkering, modifying and tuning. I guess folks today are so focused on the easy way of doing things they probably rather "oh, I'll just disconnect a few vacuum hoses and bam, 400bhp", than accept the greatness that has just been presented to us.

[u2b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGjQzXXphm8[/u2b]

[Levi]

At least some understand that FI does not suit this car. Those wanting a turbo just get the WRX STI or wait the next one. If not there is the Cosworth WRX STI CS400 for 50.000 € that goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 3,7 sec, as fast as a 200.000 € Gallardo.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Levi

At least some understand that FI does not suit this car. Those wanting a turbo just get the WRX STI or wait the next one. If not there is the Cosworth WRX STI CS400 for 50.000 € that goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 3,7 sec, as fast as a 200.000 € Gallardo.

I don't think that's fair to say.

[Lucas]

Originally Posted by old greg

You're wrong. Just sayin

throttle response, sure!
turbo response, ill agrue all day. its not physically possible. sure, cyl pressures increase, but the the only way to increase spool up with the same charger is through displacement or engine flow efficiency

unless you can explain to me otherwise

[coyote]

Originally Posted by Lucas

engine flow efficiency

[old greg]

Originally Posted by Lucas

unless you can explain to me otherwise

It has an effect in the real world in terms of time until boost, rather than rpm until boost on a dyno. You're right in that mass flow rate/pressure is what spools turbos, but a the improved off boost power will get you above your boost threshold sooner. Semantics, sure. But a higher compression turbo engine will be more "responsive" in the real world.

Originally Posted by coyote

Umm.. He's right you know. Volumetric efficiency and pressure drop across the exhaust valves/ports has a huge effect on turbo spool.

[Cerberus]

Originally Posted by subaruslow

This is ridiculous, you are clearly a reader not a driver. You are generalizing beyond idiocy.

This is why;

-Australian v8 supercars are turbo'ed
-Some lmp1 american leman cars
-FERRARIS BEST and many other f1 cars until 1989 when turbos were banned. Ferraris 1980's turbo f1 car was a dominator

You don't even understand the argument you are making. There is some validity to joe schmoe saying his z06 or whatever it may be has good low end and response compared to a car with a turbo (generally against a stock car). However a similarly displaced car with a turbo charged, or a correctly matched turbo/engine setup can easily dominate an n/a car and give far better response. N/A cars like m3 have zero torque and crap low end, so low end could easily be matched by a turbo'ed car.try driving one.

Saying they detract from emotional response is utter horseshit. The rush oh a high horsepower turbo car is hard to beat, and if fast with a robust powerband theres nothing better.

If ferrari had a turbo you'd crap yourself in the drivers seat. Ferrari knows only a certain amm of power combine with handling is needed and at a certain point more power is too much, and thats true of any chasis/drivetrain.

Also trashing mclaren is idiotic and makes you look foolish.

That is not true. They are naturally aspirated.
Very excited for this car .

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by old greg

It has an effect in the real world in terms of time until boost, rather than rpm until boost on a dyno. You're right in that mass flow rate/pressure is what spools turbos, but a the improved off boost power will get you above your boost threshold sooner. Semantics, sure. But a higher compression turbo engine will be more "responsive" in the real world.



Umm.. He's right you know. Volumetric efficiency and pressure drop across the exhaust valves/ports has a huge effect on turbo spool.

Wait old greg, but lower compression means exhaust gas has more pressure so wouldn't that help spool the turbo? Trading power at the crank for power to turbine.

[old greg]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Wait old greg, but lower compression means exhaust gas has more pressure so wouldn't that help spool the turbo? Trading power at the crank for power to turbine.

Not really. Yes, lower compression results in higher EGT's (and by extension, residual pressures), but for a ~2 point change in compression you're only looking at a ~5% increase.

[coyote]

Originally Posted by old greg

Umm.. He's right you know. Volumetric efficiency and pressure drop across the exhaust valves/ports has a huge effect on turbo spool.

Completely true, which is why (even if he didn't know the correct term) it should have answered his own question.

The level of technical discussion on this site is very poor. That's not aimed at you, it's because there are so many people (mostly kids) who have a keyboard, but no clue.

[BMWDAD]

turbo for subie, supercharge for Toyota?

Auto Spies says.............................

Considering Subaru first debuted the joint-[COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue ! important]project[/COLOR][/COLOR] Toyobaru vehicle at the 2011 Los Angeles Auto Show in form of the STI Concept, I feel pretty confident rooting for Subaru.

But according to 009's post yesterday, this isn't over until the fat lady sings.

009's post from Autocar stipulated that [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Toyota's [COLOR=blue !important]racing[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] division, TRD, is working on a supercharged, high-performance GT 86.

Looking at both base cars from the Tokyo Motor Show, it's clear that they're nearly carbon copies of each other. So, we know each automaker likely didn't spend much time differentiating their products in that regard.

I think we're going to see some significant differences when it comes to the high-performance variants. We already know Toyota is gunning for supercharging, while Subaru typically sticks to its turbos.

[furiousgibbon]

Originally Posted by subaruslow

This is ridiculous, you are clearly a reader not a driver. You are generalizing beyond idiocy.

This is why;

-Australian v8 supercars are turbo'ed

I registered just to tell you how utterly wrong you are. Australian V8 Supercars are naturally aspirated V8s.

Anyway, I am seriously keen for the BRZ (looks better than the 86 imo, especially in blue), here's hoping they bring them to Australia, but I'll settle for the 86 if need be.

As for forced induction, coming from a ~300bhp, 340lb/ft Focus ST, I'd prefer a little more torque in the 86/BRZ, but would need to drive one first to see whether I can live with 151lb/ft. I've been in an S2000 and found it sorely lacking in the low-mid range, but perhaps my driving style would need to change, I've got used to lazy low end torque from the turbo 5 cylinder in the Focus.

If a forced induction 86/BRZ could get around 200lb/ft that hangs around long enough to deliver 230-240bhp, with the same chassis dynamics, I think I would be a happy man.

[Levi]

Lacking torque has to do with the way of driving. On track such cars do not lack torque. They lack toruqe only as daily drive cars.

Such cars - 86/BRZ, S2000, M3, 911 GT3, F430 - should be driven as if you stole them.