Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
    Results 36 to 70 of 199

    Thread: Will I Ever Be Able To Go Back To a "Normal" Naturally Aspirated Engine?

    1. Member turbinepowered's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 18th, 2007
      Location
      Southeastern US of A
      Posts
      6,279
      Vehicles
      '86 Interceptor 700, '82 Quantum Coupe
      10-04-2012 10:05 PM #36
      Quote Originally Posted by MylesPH1 View Post
      I've gotta say, though - for running around town in traffic, you might miss that low end grunt of the turbo. It's not just fun, it's more suited to modern driving, where you want that power right now.
      As someone who remembers when turbos were all about top end and turbo lag meant you weren't building power before 4k anyway...
      Quote Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
      There is an area of a normal brain that lets the owner know the object works and needs to be left alone. Not all of us have it. It is like being colorblind.

    2. 10-04-2012 10:10 PM #37
      Came from a VRT to a 2.5 lol sucks.
      @WhiteOnRice25

    3. Member
      Join Date
      May 12th, 2008
      Location
      Wakefield, MA
      Posts
      665
      Vehicles
      2009 BMW 135i M-Sport
      10-04-2012 10:16 PM #38
      How on earth are you pulling 400hp/500tq out of an N55? I'm pretty sure this isn't possible yet.
      2009 BMW 135i M-Sport : Alpine White/Coral Red : N54 : 6-Speed Manual
      2006 Audi A3 2.0T DSG - SOLD

    4. Member kiznarsh's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 10th, 2007
      Location
      SoCal
      Posts
      1,319
      Vehicles
      '10 S4 | '91 MR2 Turbo
      10-04-2012 10:18 PM #39
      I think the answer for me is no.

      Having that low-end torque is becoming a requirement for me since brisk city driving is what I do the most. Going from a turbo to a supercharger has been pretty fun since I don't have to wait till 4k RPMs yet don't have to deal with the lag either. Win win.

    5. Member rains's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 30th, 2008
      Location
      Sherwood Park
      Posts
      1,095
      Vehicles
      1995 Saturn SW1
      10-04-2012 10:43 PM #40
      Well, I have 2 turbo charged cars.

      My 2000 GTI has a tiny turbo, and even with the stage II software and supporting hardware, it has very little top end power. Don't get me wrong, it's great for booting around town, as it spools pretty quickly and delivers relatively instant torque. But it just doesn't 'wow' me.

      My 93 Jetta, ABA-T with a t3/t04e, on the other hand, is a different beast. It doesn't spool until 4k rpms, but when it does, it goes like stink, and pulls hard to redline. Not great for a daily driver, but hilarious when it spools.

      Now, to compare either of these two to my previous car, a 95 Passat, with the Vr6 ... it's a different feeling. The Vr6 was torquey enough to make me laugh. But, it delivered instant power. So, to compare that to the GTI with the k03, I'd rather have the Vr6, but compared to the ABA-T, I'd rather have that, simply for the fun factor when it spools.

      I guess it really depends on what size/ style of turbocharged vehicle you are switching from back to NA ... is it tiny, or big?
      Quote Originally Posted by VadGTI View Post
      This thread is now about car cakes.
      Quote Originally Posted by Cousin Eddie View Post
      Things I learned today: You don't have to pass grade 12 English to Manage a Honda dealership.

    6. 10-04-2012 10:49 PM #41
      I've been here a few times in my life. It's not easy to explain. Coming from over 20 cars, some NA (m3s) and some turbo charged (334whp TT, 135i, GTIs), it's really the car at hand. I'm very satisfied with my M coupe but it's not like I wasn't happy with my previous turboed cars either.

    7. Member Omnilith's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 15th, 2010
      Location
      Bay Area, CA
      Posts
      1,307
      Vehicles
      2002 SVT Focus, 2000 Focus ZX3, 1966 Cortina, 1987 Dodge Charger, 1998 Tacoma, 1983 Plymouth Scamp
      10-04-2012 11:05 PM #42
      I transition back and forth from quite quick to extremely slow on a regular basis. I enjoy the variety.

      My quickest toy can get to sixty in the fives, and my slowest toy in over twenty seconds.

    8. 10-04-2012 11:06 PM #43
      you live in vegas dude. you need as much air rammed into the engine as you can get.
      Sent from Commodore 64

    9. Member
      Join Date
      Jan 3rd, 2000
      Location
      Oakland, CA
      Posts
      5,992
      Vehicles
      2014 e350, 2007 LBP S2000, 96 gti vr6 turbo
      10-04-2012 11:08 PM #44
      Quote Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post

      But I am curious if, for example, somehow on here has gone from a WRX to an S2000 and enjoyed it?


      I have a 500whp gti vr6 and a near-stock s2000. the s2000 is vastly more fun

    10. Member 1Point8TDan's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 4th, 2003
      Location
      Calgary, AB
      Posts
      8,337
      Vehicles
      D40 Frontier CC 4X4, 3BG Passat .:RS Variant
      10-05-2012 12:16 AM #45
      I don't plan on buying anything that does not have a turbo. Whenever I rev the Passat, it always brings a smile on my face.

    11. Member SchnellFowVay's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 20th, 2001
      Location
      Las Vegas, NV
      Posts
      11,055
      Vehicles
      Bent M
      10-05-2012 01:33 AM #46
      Quote Originally Posted by fs454 View Post
      How on earth are you pulling 400hp/500tq out of an N55? I'm pretty sure this isn't possible yet.
      Crank hp/tq.
      I TCL.

    12. 10-05-2012 01:37 AM #47
      Horsepower is for people who can't drive.

    13. Moderator MylesPH1's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 6th, 2000
      Location
      Los Angeles
      Posts
      4,356
      Vehicles
      E24, E24, W126
      10-05-2012 02:12 AM #48
      Quote Originally Posted by turbinepowered View Post
      As someone who remembers when turbos were all about top end and turbo lag meant you weren't building power before 4k anyway...
      Good point, let me be more specific - the OP had a 2.0T VW and an E92 3-series, they build torque early and often
      - A bunch of old, tough, unbreakable German iron
      - One temperamental, stubborn, fragile Italian thing

    14. Banned Tiny4cyl's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 5th, 2011
      Posts
      1,494
      Vehicles
      '15 WRX Limited HK 6MT, '14 370Z Sport 6MT SRM, '99 Camry CE 4AT
      10-05-2012 02:39 AM #49
      op being faggy for bragging

    15. Member turbinepowered's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 18th, 2007
      Location
      Southeastern US of A
      Posts
      6,279
      Vehicles
      '86 Interceptor 700, '82 Quantum Coupe
      10-05-2012 06:47 AM #50
      Quote Originally Posted by MylesPH1 View Post
      Good point, let me be more specific - the OP had a 2.0T VW and an E92 3-series, they build torque early and often
      Oh I know, it was just amusing given my memory of my introduction to turbocharging.

      Sent from the future via Google Skynet
      Quote Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
      There is an area of a normal brain that lets the owner know the object works and needs to be left alone. Not all of us have it. It is like being colorblind.

    16. Member SVTDanny's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 7th, 2005
      Location
      Winchester, VA
      Posts
      16,846
      10-05-2012 07:16 AM #51
      Quote Originally Posted by fs454 View Post
      How on earth are you pulling 400hp/500tq out of an N55? I'm pretty sure this isn't possible yet.
      He quotes crank numbers because it makes him feel better about being himself.

    17. 10-05-2012 07:27 AM #52
      You won't have to go back. Forced induction is going to become more and more common as displacement shrinks.

    18. Member jay3737's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 19th, 2005
      Location
      Kalamazoo, MI
      Posts
      1,091
      Vehicles
      '12 Regal GS / '93 MR2
      10-05-2012 07:47 AM #53
      i have two turbo cars (WRX, GS) and a 135hp n/a MR2 - the MR2 is my favorite to drive.

      heat soak here in TX is a bitch on the two turbo cars anyway...
      '12 Regal GS | '93 MR2

      Quote Originally Posted by Iroczgirl View Post
      A Buick with a manual transmission. The Mayans must be right.

    19. Member MCTB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 29th, 2005
      Location
      The Northern of Virginia
      Posts
      8,880
      Vehicles
      '12 Focus SE, '72 MGB GT, '58 MGA, '15 Outback Limited
      10-05-2012 07:49 AM #54
      I had a MKV GLI with some light mods and then a chipped allroad 2.7T. Then went to a NA 90hp diesel in a Land Cruiser. Then went to my Focus. Do I miss a turbo? Sometimes but Im not all that broken up about it. Around town, it was never making the power where I wanted it so there were very few times where I actually used it. The only time I liked it was on highways to pass someone without needing to shift.


      I might have to spend more time rowing the gears around but that adds its own joy for me. Did it this morning. Needed to pass someone so I went from 5th to 3rd and took off.

    20. Member Dandbest's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 11th, 2003
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      2,140
      Vehicles
      2013 Touareg TDI
      10-05-2012 07:55 AM #55
      Quote Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post
      Crank hp/tq.
      can we see a dyno graph? Or are you just guesstimating, cause it sure sounds that way.

      Anyway, to answer the question, I went from a 2011 135i to a 2012 Mustang GT 5.0. Haven't looked back.

    21. Banned justanotherusername's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 26th, 2007
      Location
      Palm Beach, FL
      Posts
      25,984
      Vehicles
      '08 135i, '00 4runner, '85 Huntsman (Toyota) RV
      10-05-2012 07:55 AM #56
      Quote Originally Posted by SVTDanny View Post
      He quotes crank numbers because it makes him feel better about being himself.
      Or maybe just because it's easier to compare to manufacturers ratings.

      The chassis dyno generation kills me. 10 years ago the ONLY numbers anyone talked about were at the crank.

    22. Member
      Join Date
      Nov 19th, 2006
      Location
      Raleigh, NC
      Posts
      1,467
      Vehicles
      2006 BMW 325i, 2008 Yamaha R6
      10-05-2012 07:57 AM #57
      OP, ride a sportbike, and you'll know what a true naturally aspirated engine is supposed to feel like.

    23. Member Dandbest's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 11th, 2003
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      2,140
      Vehicles
      2013 Touareg TDI
      10-05-2012 07:58 AM #58
      Quote Originally Posted by justanotherusername View Post
      Or maybe just because it's easier to compare to manufacturers ratings.

      The chassis dyno generation kills me. 10 years ago the ONLY numbers anyone talked about were at the crank.
      the problem with that is that he has no way of guessing his crank hp without going to a dyno first and then adding say 20%. Wheel hp is far more accurate

    24. Member clutchrider's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 10th, 2010
      Location
      Connecticut
      Posts
      4,669
      Vehicles
      2012 GLI
      10-05-2012 07:59 AM #59
      I'll play. Having owned only NA 4 cylinder motors my whole life; Escort, two Saturns, a Civic, and a Matrix before buying my GLI. I am on the "will I ever go back" category.

      My thoughts are purely based on 4 cylinder motors though. In order to get the power, any power from them while accelerating, merging, passing, etc. you would have to wind them out and redlining (although fun) can seem like a chore. With the turbo I am pretty much always in a sweet spot in all of my gears. Press the gas and the car just goes.

      It may not be lightning GT500 take offs but for daily driving with some mixed fun and spirited jaunts, it makes driving much more pleasurable. There is something to be said for cruising in 2nd or 3rd on a road and being able to just "rubberband" as someone called it and launch the car a bit without having to constantly hold the car at higher RPMs to get into it's spot. The range is so much better across it juts provides a smoother pull.

    25. Banned justanotherusername's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 26th, 2007
      Location
      Palm Beach, FL
      Posts
      25,984
      Vehicles
      '08 135i, '00 4runner, '85 Huntsman (Toyota) RV
      10-05-2012 08:03 AM #60
      Quote Originally Posted by Dandbest View Post
      can we see a dyno graph? Or are you just guesstimating, cause it sure sounds that way.

      .
      About all it takes for a 135i to hit those numbers is a tune or piggyback and a set of catless downpipes. There are tens of thousands of them out there putting down 350wHp +. It's not a stretch at all.

      This is just a tune:


    26. Banned justanotherusername's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 26th, 2007
      Location
      Palm Beach, FL
      Posts
      25,984
      Vehicles
      '08 135i, '00 4runner, '85 Huntsman (Toyota) RV
      10-05-2012 08:05 AM #61
      Quote Originally Posted by Dandbest View Post
      the problem with that is that he has no way of guessing his crank hp without going to a dyno first and then adding say 20%. Wheel hp is far more accurate
      Wheel HP is more accurate? No way. The varience in the different chassis dynos is extreme. He's not quoting an exact number anyway. The cars are hitting 350wHp + all over the place. Saying his is at 400Hp at the crank is a conservative estimate given just basic add-ons.

      Besides that, it's a sidenote on the original post anyway. Stop focusing on the exact number so much, and more on the point of the OP.

    27. Member SVTDanny's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 7th, 2005
      Location
      Winchester, VA
      Posts
      16,846
      10-05-2012 08:12 AM #62
      Quote Originally Posted by justanotherusername View Post
      Or maybe just because it's easier to compare to manufacturers ratings.

      The chassis dyno generation kills me. 10 years ago the ONLY numbers anyone talked about were at the crank.
      Yes, let's compare a modified and tuned example to manufacturer ratings that were created on an engine dyno. That's logical.

      Quote Originally Posted by justanotherusername View Post
      Wheel HP is more accurate?
      Way more accurate to be used when comparing to other cars, which is the point of obtaining these numbers in the first place. So yes.

    28. 10-05-2012 08:15 AM #63
      I don't think this is a fair question. "Turbocharged cars" is way too broad. For example, a stock A4/GTI etc will get full boost around what, 2300 RPM? Most likely it will make full torque here and full power somewhere around 4800 RPMs. I didn't look up these numbers but I assume they are close. These types of cars don't have nearly as many of the drawbacks as do a car with a much larger turbo, like an EVO, STI or any modified turbo charged car. So to me the turbo will not be noticed at all by 90% of people driving it. And for people like us, enthusiast, the turbo adds a much needed power increase but doesn't sacrifice much except for sound.

      A free revving motor like an SK2 or even an E46 M3 don't make power until much higher up in the rev band, making them more similar, but not that same, as big turbo'd cars. The main difference here, I think, is peoples perception of turbo chargers. And how NA cars are purer.

    29. Member Dandbest's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 11th, 2003
      Location
      NY
      Posts
      2,140
      Vehicles
      2013 Touareg TDI
      10-05-2012 08:18 AM #64
      Quote Originally Posted by justanotherusername View Post
      Wheel HP is more accurate? No way. The varience in the different chassis dynos is extreme. He's not quoting an exact number anyway. The cars are hitting 350wHp + all over the place. Saying his is at 400Hp at the crank is a conservative estimate given just basic add-ons.

      Besides that, it's a sidenote on the original post anyway. Stop focusing on the exact number so much, and more on the point of the OP.
      I answered the question the OP asked, but I'll reiterate- in a nutshell, you need a V8.
      Btw, the graph you posted is for a car with no cats and running 100 octane...yep, because we all run 100 octane on our daily drivers, every day. Totally realistic. And yeah, 500 ft/lbs torque is totally realistic on a stock turbo N55...daily driven as per the OP...

    30. Member Shomegrown's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 26th, 2002
      Location
      Detroit
      Posts
      17,943
      Vehicles
      Current: Audi S4, Q5 TDI quattro, Porsche Boxster S, Dodge Dakota 4x4
      10-05-2012 08:21 AM #65
      Quote Originally Posted by justanotherusername View Post
      Wheel HP is more accurate? No way. The varience in the different chassis dynos is extreme. He's not quoting an exact number anyway. The cars are hitting 350wHp + all over the place. Saying his is at 400Hp at the crank is a conservative estimate given just basic add-ons.

      Besides that, it's a sidenote on the original post anyway. Stop focusing on the exact number so much, and more on the point of the OP.
      Agreed.

      Chassis dynos are just mickey mouse bull**** anyway.

    31. Banned justanotherusername's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 26th, 2007
      Location
      Palm Beach, FL
      Posts
      25,984
      Vehicles
      '08 135i, '00 4runner, '85 Huntsman (Toyota) RV
      10-05-2012 08:21 AM #66
      Quote Originally Posted by SVTDanny View Post
      Yes, let's compare a modified and tuned example to manufacturer ratings that were created on an engine dyno. That's logical.
      .
      So your idea is that we search out wHp numbers created on different chassis dynos all over the world and use those to compare to his car? That's idiotic. Why not just stick with the conservative assumption that his car is making 400Hp at the crank and be done with it. Simple.


      Quote Originally Posted by SVTDanny View Post
      Way more accurate to be used when comparing to other cars, which is the point of obtaining these numbers in the first place. So yes.
      BS. The weather alone can cause a 5% swing in chassis dyno numbers on a turbo car. not to mention the size of the fan in front of the intercooler, the type of dyno....

      Chassis dynos are good for before and after results, and nothing more. Anyone who thinks it's apples to apples to use numbers off of differrnet dynos is out of their gourd.

    32. Member turbinepowered's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 18th, 2007
      Location
      Southeastern US of A
      Posts
      6,279
      Vehicles
      '86 Interceptor 700, '82 Quantum Coupe
      10-05-2012 08:24 AM #67
      Quote Originally Posted by msrothwell View Post
      OP, ride a sportbike, and you'll know what a true naturally aspirated engine is supposed to feel like.
      Our really any modern bike save the big cube cruisers.

      Hell, some of the sport touring bikes have vtec. He could dead.

      Sent from the future via Google Skynet
      Quote Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
      There is an area of a normal brain that lets the owner know the object works and needs to be left alone. Not all of us have it. It is like being colorblind.

    33. Member SVTDanny's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 7th, 2005
      Location
      Winchester, VA
      Posts
      16,846
      10-05-2012 08:27 AM #68
      Quote Originally Posted by justanotherusername View Post
      So your idea is that we search out wHp numbers created on different chassis dynos all over the world and use those to compare to his car? That's idiotic. Why not just stick with the conservative assumption that his car is making 400Hp at the crank and be done with it. Simple.




      BS. The weather alone can cause a 5% swing in chassis dyno numbers on a turbo car. not to mention the size of the fan in front of the intercooler, the type of dyno....

      Chassis dynos are good for before and after results, and nothing more. Anyone who thinks it's apples to apples to use numbers off of differrnet dynos is out of their gourd.
      Yes, a chassis dyno is inaccurate, by all means - but it gives a roundabout idea of what it making it to the ground, which is all that matters. Between chassis dyno, and 1/4 mile MPH, you can get a good picture of what a car is actually doing.

      So rather than that, we'll just add the claimed horsepower gains from all of our mods together, then add in the factory rating, and boom - we have our number. Makes sense.

      I have never heard any other "group" quote numbers from the crank outside of the 135/335 crowd.

    34. Banned justanotherusername's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 26th, 2007
      Location
      Palm Beach, FL
      Posts
      25,984
      Vehicles
      '08 135i, '00 4runner, '85 Huntsman (Toyota) RV
      10-05-2012 08:32 AM #69
      Quote Originally Posted by Dandbest View Post
      I answered the question the OP asked, but I'll reiterate- in a nutshell, you need a V8.
      Btw, the graph you posted is for a car with no cats and running 100 octane...yep, because we all run 100 octane on our daily drivers, every day. Totally realistic. And yeah, 500 ft/lbs torque is totally realistic on a stock turbo N55...daily driven as per the OP...
      Ummm.....can you not read? The graph has a baseline, and numbers for 91 and 93 octane, as well as 100. It made 353Hp on 93 octane pump gas. Even if you only assume 15% driveline loss that's over 400Hp at the crank. And that's ONLY with a tune.

    35. Banned justanotherusername's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 26th, 2007
      Location
      Palm Beach, FL
      Posts
      25,984
      Vehicles
      '08 135i, '00 4runner, '85 Huntsman (Toyota) RV
      10-05-2012 08:35 AM #70
      Quote Originally Posted by SVTDanny View Post
      Yes, a chassis dyno is inaccurate, by all means - but it gives a roundabout idea of what it making it to the ground, which is all that matters. Between chassis dyno, and 1/4 mile MPH, you can get a good picture of what a car is actually doing.

      So rather than that, we'll just add the claimed horsepower gains from all of our mods together, then add in the factory rating, and boom - we have our number. Makes sense.

      I have never heard any other "group" quote numbers from the crank outside of the 135/335 crowd.
      Ok, so you think something as simple as cranking the boost up isn't going to produce the same results from one car to the next? There are litterally THOUSANDS of dyno runs with these mods in place that produce the same results. It's not a stretch at all to think that it's going to produce the same results on the OP's car, or mine.

      And nobody is just adding up HP gains of all their mods. We're talking about ACTUAL dyno runs that support exactly what he's saying.

      A tune and catless downpipes isn't exactly rocket science you know.

    Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •