N/A versus Turbo?

Rogue · Post by **Rogue** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:05 pm

I think this answers the question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMD7oR9oGo

A couple more starts from another point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pWOG9SrXc8

$\:D/$

John145 · Post by **John145** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:13 pm

What are you trying to show...?

T.F.S. · Post by **T.F.S.** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:43 pm

John145 wrote:What are you trying to show...?

N/A owner?

alanmr2turbo · Post by **alanmr2turbo** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:35 pm

I think he was trying to end the theory that some owners on here had the thought that their n/a would live with a tubby on the track.

This video just proves they don't even come close

John145 · Post by **John145** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:47 pm

100hp difference does make things a tad biased!

T.F.S. · Post by **T.F.S.** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:57 pm

John145 wrote:100hp difference does make things a tad biased!

So you think a stock and then detuned turbo would make for a better comparison?

John145 · Post by **John145** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:00 pm

Detuned as turbo delete? Sorry I don't know the BHP figures for the turbo cars!

T.F.S. · Post by **T.F.S.** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:09 pm

John145 wrote:Detuned as turbo delete? Sorry I don't know the BHP figures for the turbo cars!

Stock rev3 turbo is around 240bhp IIRC so you you would have to run almost no boost to get it level with a stock N/A car unless you was suggesting a good comparison would be a tuned N/A Vs a detuned turbo?

You could also tie the drivers arm behind his back and make him stand on one leg too haha!!

Rogue · Post by **Rogue** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:40 am

The car in the video started life as an MR2 Championship car - the same as the ones that are overtaken. The engine fitted is forged - purely for reliability - and the power upgrades are the same as you'd do on a street car:

- BMC Carbon Dynamics air filter
- Apexi AVC-R Boost Controller
- Link G3 ECU
- ST205 Chargecooler / Radtec Pre-radiator
- Turbo Technics Stage 1 Hybrid
- Decat
- Mongoose Exhaust

It's running 294bhp and 285lb/ft at 1.3bar of boost (hub measurements). On the same dyno, a Championship car scores around 150bhp.

It's not really racing the normally aspirated Mk2s - the target is to be up with the mk2 turbo and mk3 V6 at the front of the grid. Unfortunately, the car is still equipped with the same (standard) sized tyres as the N/As so it can't go round the corners as quick as the leading pair...

Chloke83 · Post by **Chloke83** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:54 am

Turbo vs N/A?

No comparison really, the Turbo would win every time. Numbers do not lie and to say that an N/A would keep up with a Turbo on the track is like claiming you can grow a money tree in your back garden. (would be nice though)

Oh and i am not bias as i own and drive an N/A

synXero · Post by **synXero** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:15 pm

You can grow a money plant, though.

Post by **Lauren** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:15 pm

Chloke83 wrote:Turbo vs N/A?

No comparison really, the Turbo would win every time. Numbers do not lie and to say that an N/A would keep up with a Turbo on the track is like claiming you can grow a money tree in your back garden. (would be nice though)

Oh and i am not bias as i own and drive an N/A

In the wet, the turbo power advantage would be significantly reduced.

Chloke83 · Post by **Chloke83** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:20 pm

Lauren wrote:
Chloke83 wrote:Turbo vs N/A?

No comparison really, the Turbo would win every time. Numbers do not lie and to say that an N/A would keep up with a Turbo on the track is like claiming you can grow a money tree in your back garden. (would be nice though)

Oh and i am not bias as i own and drive an N/A

In the wet, the turbo power advantage would be significantly reduced.

It would depend on the track in that case (more straight lines and the turbo would still catch up pretty quick) however i would still see the Turbo outdoing the N/A, even if it was wet.

Post by **Lauren** » Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:42 pm

As I said, the power advantage would be significantly reduced given that the turbo would not be able to use it's power advantage.

Mr2ed · Post by **Mr2ed** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:52 am

power advantage would be "reduced" but, you would still have the same handling capabilities of the n/a. And then with the added turbo power even if it is "slightly reduced grip conditions" the turbo will always be in front ! and yes i am a biased turbo owner

Post by **Lauren** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:48 pm

The turbo is more difficult to balance mid-corner though due to the lag, so an NA would have an advantage in this situation.

T.F.S. · Post by **T.F.S.** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:57 pm

You are grasping at straws now...

Post by **Lauren** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:14 pm

T.F.S. wrote:You are grasping at straws now...

How so?

alanmr2turbo · Post by **alanmr2turbo** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:17 pm

End of the day whether its dry, damp or wet the tubby would always beat an N/A over a full track race.

Just accept it jeez

stephano · Post by **stephano** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:22 pm

im guessing because a 300hp mr2 has no lag? certainly not enough lag to be at a disadvantage over an n/a car with low torque figures.

i can sort of see what your saying
ok there is a point on a turbo car at high rpm where it can be a bit unstable when trying to feather the throttle but then you would just short shift and take advantage of the torque etc....

it did sound like the excuse a honda fan comes out with when explaining how v-tec is better than turbo!

www.imoc.co.uk

N/A versus Turbo?

N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?

Re: N/A versus Turbo?