Is Non Turbo Good?

[FAST-GT-R]

Sorry, lets talk with brains.

Nissan made a turbo model , thus being a better car.

A turbo DEAD STOCK ( im talking dead stock ) R32 will totaly ( i mean , totaly) rip a R32 N/A DEAD STOCK around anywhere, anyplace. They have better brakes,slightly stiffer chasis ( not noticble whilst driving at low speeds ) and better gearbox etc. As N/A cars that nissan made didnt have LSD's.. whereas turbo skylines did.

So , seriously... If you think a Turbo will not beat, or be very close to a non turbo R32 or be it R33, R34.. You have mental issues.

[Cubes]

Forget about the chassis/suspension etc.. Looking at a pure acceleration point of view.

The dead stock R32 GTST weighs more and only makes 10fwkw more than the R32 RB25DE N/A.

Unfortunately it will not totally 'rip' the N/A.

As said above.. weighs more but makes slightly more power.

LSD's at this power level is not really requried.

It will be very close.. lol even NA V6/VL/R31 commodores used to get the jump on my old stocker through first gear, I would then click second and slooooowllly wind past them. No doubt the N/A with basically the same power it will be much harder to catch.

Once we start looking at the R33 and R34's the difference is much greater.

[blv]

i remember johns r33 when he still had the rb25de in it. with the AVC-R it took me a fair bloody while to pull away and i had a 14.9 @ 106mph turbo mx6 at the time... NA can go if you fiddle, but same mods to turbo and they perform better. A larger exhaust on an NA will give say 5% increase of power at the wheels but a turbo will be more like 15% because its not just the exhaust, it spools quicker and it runs a few psi extra... but nothing compares to weight. i had a stock r32 turbo motor in an s13 and ran 14's flat. bit more boost than standard saw it push 153kw at the wheels and 13.6's.....

[BADR33]

some non turbos are good. some are not(rb20e grr) im building myself a rb30de with vvt and i should be able to beat rb20det powerd skylines that arnt too hard out modded.

boosted is good if you want high power cheepish. but they do cost alot more to run with gas and insurance

i get sick of everybody asking me why im not going turbo. but then how meny people these days build a rb30de? i know of atleast 3 of my mates who are in the process of building rb30dets with huge turbos like gt35/40s or somthing and there aiming for 300rwkw so i want to be differnt.

[Cubes]

The turbo's providing they are in good nick are actually not that much heavier on fuel. Mine used to see 470km/s per tank and that was always giving it stick, i never used to limp it around off boost, always up on boost in second gear out of corners, off the lights first was off boost, click second up on boost and accelerate to the speed limit.

The RB30DET is now seeing 400-430km's per tank on the pfc base map, the base map runs a little rich once out of closed loop, this can be seen by taking off lightly, a little stream of black smoke trickles from the exhaust.

Give a turbo vs a cammed up N/A the turbo will be better on fuel.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Cubes

[Eug]

why are people still comparing Turbo Vs. NA????

This thread was originally asked if NA's are good, and its just been put simply that they are good and if in the right hands are able to perform with other types of cars.

[illusiVe]

haha nar i find 33s accelerate faster, but overall its even to about top of 3rd as i've said.

[chowetime]

You know what I bought a Turboed R33 and it was a very nice car to drive and I wish sometimes that I still had it, but after having driven N/A cars for the past 20 years I wish now that I had gone for a nice straight non turboed R33 and just done some of the basic mods like bigger exhaust cams T/B and intake, because every car that I have performed these mods to I have always gotten a very nice driveable car that is cheap on fuel and very easy to drive and very forgiving if you do something stupid - turbo cars are not so forgiving if you do something stupid or even not so stupid

BTW I think you could do far worse than a N/A R33 - great choice

[fEkuaR]

You know what I bought a Turboed R33 and it was a very nice car to drive and I wish sometimes that I still had it, but after having driven N/A cars for the past 20 years I wish now that I had gone for a nice straight non turboed R33 and just done some of the basic mods like bigger exhaust cams T/B and intake, because every car that I have performed these mods to I have always gotten a very nice driveable car that is cheap on fuel and very easy to drive and very forgiving if you do something stupid - turbo cars are not so forgiving if you do something stupid or even not so stupid

BTW I think you could do far worse than a N/A R33 - great choice

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cant see you getting better fuel consumption on a worked na motor then a mild turbo motor making the same if not more power. You can easily drive a turbo car off boost offering relatively good consumption. Im getting close to 10l per 100km with alot of mixed driving in my r33 with basic mods. What exactly do you mean by the car being unforgiving even if you do something not stupid? That doesnt make any sence ?

[BADR33]

your talking about off boost driving for econimical cars. whats the point of having a turbo then? that would be boring as driving if you cant go over 3grand or so. my car(rb20e) i rev its nuts off all the time and im stil getting 10k+ a ltr. not so sure how the rb30de is going to be tho.

turbos and N/As cant be compared really. turbos arnt that great unless your wanting lots of power. i love the feeling of hitting boost when iv been in my mates cars. but then i get back in my car and even tho its way slower i still enjoy the smooth power delievery and the sound

turbos can be unforgiving as in when your driving and when your modding them if you make a simple mistake they start detonationg and other stuff.

im guessing thats what he means

in the end its each to there own. and each has there advantages and disadvantages

[Cubes]

BADR33,

your talking about off boost driving for econimical cars. whats the point of having a turbo then? that would be boring as driving if you cant go over 3grand or so.

lmao.

So we can get that siiiiik bro pssshhhht sound.

turbos arnt that great unless your wanting lots of power.

lmao.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Cubes

[lordsnipe]

your talking about off boost driving for econimical cars. whats the point of having a turbo then? that would be boring as driving if you cant go over 3grand or so.

the point of having a turbo is to have the power when we need/want it

95% of the time is off-boost driving.

[Cubes]

Looks like the RB20e has caused BADR33 to loose touch a little.

[krzysiu]

Looks like the RB20e has caused BADR33 to loose touch a little.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

feel the power of the rb20e!

[BADR33]

i guess this teaches me for posting when im half asleep.

meh im outa this. too meny "its gota be boosted to be a skyline" guys on this thread. N/As arnt that bad. well with the exception of the rb20e thats just shit.

but the other 5% of driving when your on boost is where all your gas gos quick

[Cubes]

Harmless stirring...

I think you would be suprised.. a lightly 200rwkw modded rb25det or rb20det really doesn't use much more fuel than standard.

As I said.. my little rb20det was making close to 170rwkw, I would give it a flogging for a full tank and would still manage damn close to the 10.6litres per 100km's it would achieve just normal driving.. Normal driving for me back then was always on boost through second up until the speed limit, little bit of loss of traction through second gear as I exit a corner all the way to work at 5:30am in the morning.

I've since mellowed a lot and still haven't noticed any real difference in fuel consumption.

Providing everything is in good working order there's no reason you shouldn't achieve 10.5-11L per 100km's on a mild rb20 or rb25det. Many do get it yet many also suffer the 250-350km per tank syndrome.. unsure what is wrong with those cars. Some just seem to swallow the juice.

[cogs]

Is it because with some mods, the car becomes more efficient, so even though it makes more power it doesnt really use much more petrol because it is able to produce the power more efficiently? Is that the reason?

[lordsnipe]

more power you have, more fuel you'll use. this is why mildly modded cars will drink more fuel .. cos they are driven faster.

however if you can maintain the same driving habits, the fuel consumption should be better as you are making the same power with less fuel.

[BADR33]

sweet as. im just sick of people taking the shit outa me cus im non turbo and im building a non turbo engine. thats all.

sorry if i stepped on anybodys toes.

yeah it effectively produces the power more efficiantly.

as we all know skylines run excessivly ritch with fuel. as you do more mods the air/fuel is leaned out with basic mods so you gain power

the extra fuel is used to help keep the cylinders colder so less chance of detonation etc.

when you hear about people running lean or using low octain fuel they get detonation due to the extra heat inside the cylinder due to the lack of cooling from the petrol/octaine causing the gas to explode at the wrong time

this is what i have read and been told. so it might be wrong but it seems to make sence to me. i have found a way to make my car run leaner and i found it has made it run quite a bit better.

how come my mate with 275+rwkw gts25t skyline gets 500ks off a tank when he is thrashing it the hole time? that has a gt35/40 turbo, fmic, injectors, fuel pump, cams and more. i think its just due to the tune he has on his power fc computer so i think that tuneing/servicing/mantinance is the key to getting good fuel miliage

Edited January 8, 2006 by BADR33

[Rolls]

A good tune with an aftermarket computer will do wonders for your economy, also making sure your O2 sensor and temp sensor are functioning correctly will help as well.