This explains everything

"norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback" (norskracer98) 11/18/2014 at 23:57 • Filed to: None

4

15

About how I feel about the "Boostang"

And this is where I leave you tonight

Jesse Shaffer > norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback 11/19/2014 at 00:15

2

I couldn't disagree more, personally. Why do we have to keep making the same old shit, when lighter, smaller, and more efficient is way more bad-ass.

Don't knock forced induction, until you've tried it properly. My car sounds like a V8 with a jet-engine revving next to it-in tune. It outruns GT's, almost weekly and pulls 25 MPG highway... and can still make almost 400ft lbs/300 hp.

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/cheap-tricks-1…

I like how top gear make fun of "Muricans and their V8 motors," and then totally turns hypocritical when we try to do it right.

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > Jesse Shaffer 11/19/2014 at 00:30

1

You have your opinion I have mine...

Jesse Shaffer > norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback 11/19/2014 at 00:34

0

Tradition does have a certain value, I won't knock you on that one. I certainly wouldn't want the Mustang to be four-banger only - even against my own logic. The new Shelby GT350 body is sex on wheels.

Milky > Jesse Shaffer 11/19/2014 at 01:06

0

First off, GTs made at most 315hp and weigh a lot more than a neon. So you should out run them.

Second, the mustang has always been, and will continue to be great because you can walk into a dealer and serious V8 power in a RWD coupe for the price of a midsize sedan. Like your car as much as you want, but no one can go buy one with a warranty.

Jesse Shaffer > Milky 11/19/2014 at 01:18

0

Anything on my car that breaks costs about $100 to fix - if you try, so that warranty point is mute. My point isn't "my 1999 Dodge Neon is better than any Mustang or any other car, for that matter." That's horse-shit. My point is forced induction is -in all aspects- better than relying on the vacuum from atmospheric pressure to make PSI during combustion. There is a replacement for displacement, and the contrary adage is archaic.

No neon "should " outrun a muscle car. It's just funny as hell when one does - for all parties involved.

Axial > Jesse Shaffer 11/19/2014 at 01:25

0

Because a small displacement can't make its power in the same relaxed fashion as a larger displacement engine rated with the same output. Because the bigger engine will always have more potential to anybody who wants to actually modify his or her car.

I really don't mind making go-fast cars with smaller engines. I think they are neat and, up to a certain performance level, they are certainly viable. But there is, with absolute certainty, no replacement for displacement when it comes to having the most power from internal combustion alone. It's materials, it's physics. The reason forced induction even has the results it does is because it's effectively increasing your engine's displacement. You also are doing nothing to improve fuel economy when making that power, and I question the benefits of small displacement when you can get 30 MPG out of a 460 HP V8 car and something like a MazdaSpeed3 can't do better than 25.

tl;dr : Forced induction is equally applicable to large displacement, and small displacement inherits a lower performance ceiling with compromises that appear sooner when striving for increasingly higher levels of performance.

BTW, that write-up on the Neon was a fun read. I read it back when it was originally posted, but it was amusing to revisit.

Milky > Jesse Shaffer 11/19/2014 at 01:28

0

"…. forced induction is -in all aspects- better ..."

Holy hell you went there. I'm not even going to touch that one.

Sam > norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback 11/19/2014 at 01:53

0

I would only care if they gave it to us as the only option. Freedom to choose. Can't get much more American than that.

Jesse Shaffer > Milky 11/19/2014 at 02:03

0

No, I want to hear this.

Modern turbochargers have no lag, thanks to electric motors (my Td04 is a tiny turbine, so I've never had this problem.) Pistons in a V8 compress what limited air they can get in 8 jugs to make power, requiring eight pistons (weight) 8 cylinders (lots of weight,) an 8-throw crank (weight,) 8 injectors (eh,) etc.... . A turbo compresses the air before the piston gets a shot, then force pre-compressed air in to the cylinders, doing their job before they even clock-in.

High compression pistons are expensive, require ridiculously costly cam modifications to run right, and usually cause cars to lose low engine-speed composure. My car uses $350 factory Mopar pistons+rods that are rated for use at around 500 hp, on stock cams. My car drives, below approx 1/3 throttle, like a stock neon. There's a reason my Dad's 1970 high-comp 340 Dart had a 2800 rpm high-stall torque converter. Off the line - it would fall on its face with a factory fluid-energy converter. By 2650 - my car is neck-deep in its torque band.

Why do you think "Natural" aspiration is better? I, respectfully, want to know.

Jesse Shaffer > Axial 11/19/2014 at 02:34

0

Because the bigger engine will always have more potential to anybody who wants to actually modify his or her car.

Wait, what? I can vary (or modify) my engine-output between 240 ft. lbs and 390 ft lbs. with a $10 part I made, myself, at True Value. This is all on factory Mopar parts, sans my home-made valve. You could trick a bone-stock SRT-4 in the same manner. Show me an N/A car you can modify for less than even $500 to build half this output variance?

But there is, with absolute certainty, no replacement for displacement when it comes to having the most power from internal combustion alone.

This is just incorrect. Combustion is ignition. Combustion originates where the flame kernel starts. Forced induction radically improves combustion PSI. It's materials. It's physics.

I appreciate that you read my articles on the weeon, though. Thanks for reading!

I question the benefits of small displacement when you can get 30 MPG out of a 460 HP V8 car and something like a MazdaSpeed3 can't do better than 25.

Weight. Lack of mass and negative inertia in corners is the benefit, because: gravity.

You also are doing nothing to improve fuel economy when making that power

Nor in your V8 when making power. The "trick" is when you're "off" throttle, and cruising - you're only firing four injectors.

MazdaSpeed3 can't do better than 25.

Outside of being AWD, this car is irrelevant.

small displacement inherits a lower performance ceiling with compromises that appear sooner when striving for increasingly higher levels of performance.

Tell that to Mclaren, Mercedes, or Ferrari - and see how they respond.

no replacement for displacement

biggest lies our daddy's said. Mine, at least, conceded the truth after a few runs in my boosted four-banger. The former 340 Cuda/Dart 383 RoadRunner owner went out and bought himself a P-body a few months later.

djmt1 > norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback 11/19/2014 at 07:39

0

BTW the V8 is available in the UK. At £35,000 we finally have a replacement for the old Monaro. Interesting to see if they sell any or if the M235i takes all the business.

Milky > Jesse Shaffer 11/19/2014 at 11:41

1

Clarifying here that you are the one making blanket statements "in all aspects- better". Not me.

As for weight, I just looked this up, a SR20DET weighs 328lbs and a LS1 weighs 425lbs. Yes its more but there is a reason every drift has switched to them.

While you're car might not lag, when does your power fall off? 5k rpms? Everything I've seen about turbo cars is they either have lots of torque low and no power up top, or all the power up top with lots of lag. I realize not all NA cars rev to 9k, but I don't know of any turbo cars that do.

Also try as you might to convince yourself your car sounds like a V8, it doesn't. A turbo is a muffler, end of story.

Turbos make good noises, but they don't make NA noises and way to compare your car to something 30 years older, setting the bar high.

Jesse Shaffer > Milky 11/19/2014 at 12:13

0

While you're car might not lag, when does your power fall off? 5k rpms?

It used to, so I bought these:

I haven't done this write-up, yet. Now I rev to about 6800 before the band starts slipping away, but that's on a minivan block, mind you. I would need bigger cams to get a few grand higher, but I decided it was cheaper and made more sense to just shift...

I will concede to the point that it probably doesnt, after-all, sound like a V8 - but if you're just concerned about making noise - that's the inherent reason that we disagree.

Everything I've seen about turbo cars is they either have lots of torque low and no power up top, or all the power up top with lots of lag.

Are you familiar with variable-vane turbo geometry? That issue has been solved, it just aint that cheap, yet.

Are you familiar with Formula 1? They can rev to 15k on boost. If you're mad at turbos as mufflers - more power to you - but I find that a bit ignorant.

Milky > Jesse Shaffer 11/19/2014 at 12:35

0

Really?! I'm ignorant because I left out the craziest, most expensive cars period?

You do realize that just saying "in all aspects better" makes YOU the ignorant one? Not to mention YOU said your car sounds like a V8, how am I the one that is "just concerned about making noise"?

Variable vane turbos is actually a good point, but take your head out of your Neon's ass every once in a while. Actually out this time.

Jesse Shaffer > Milky 11/19/2014 at 12:42

0

Woah, bro - I don't mean to make you all butt-hurt. The neon is a crap-can that happens to be stiff enough for this build. I just like the power-plant. Do I get misty-eyed at it every once in a while - sure. It took a lot of work.

I conceded on the sound thing as soon as I listened to your (well) selected videos. How's my heat up my butt? I used the word ignorant because you're literally ignoring every point I'm making to cling to 8 jugs, which is cool - i get it - but you're missing the point.