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

[turbinepowered]

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...

[BMP_3918]

Came from a VRT to a 2.5 lol sucks.

[fs454]

How on earth are you pulling 400hp/500tq out of an N55? I'm pretty sure this isn't possible yet.

[kiznarsh]

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.

[rains]

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?

[fetah]

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.

[Omnilith]

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.

[Noah Fecks]

you live in vegas dude. you need as much air rammed into the engine as you can get.

[cabzilla]

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

[NoXenons]

You need the low-end torque that V8 M3's and V10 M5's are deficient in. I prescribe a C63 AMG

[1Point8TDan]

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.

[SchnellFowVay]

How on earth are you pulling 400hp/500tq out of an N55? I'm pretty sure this isn't possible yet.

Crank hp/tq.

[Dubai Vol]

Horsepower is for people who can't drive.

[MylesPH1]

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

[Tiny4cyl]

op being faggy for bragging

[turbinepowered]

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

[SVTDanny]

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.

[bbk]

You won't have to go back. Forced induction is going to become more and more common as displacement shrinks.

[jay3737]

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...

[MCTB]

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.

[Dandbest]

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.

[justanotherusername]

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.

[mrothwell]

OP, ride a sportbike, and you'll know what a true naturally aspirated engine is supposed to feel like.

[Dandbest]

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

[clutchrider]

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.

[justanotherusername]

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:

[justanotherusername]

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.

[SVTDanny]

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.

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.

[lorge1989]

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.

[Dandbest]

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...

[Shomegrown]

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.

[justanotherusername]

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.

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.

[turbinepowered]

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

[SVTDanny]

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.

[justanotherusername]

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.