triggerc

What do you guys think is better for track? I've heard that with a high-revving NA engine you can more finely adjust the torque to the wheels while driving, but a turbocharged engine will be less heavy given the same power output. What do you guys think?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

What kind of track are you talking about? Drag or tracks with corners? I am assuming the latter one.

Theoretically, a high revving NA engine is more fun to drive and is usually the number 1 choice for drivers. But with the turbo technology now, you can increase power and torque without introducing too much turbo lag. In short, as long as turbo lag is not obvious, then I think both (NA and Turbo) would work great on a track. Besides it depends a lot on how a car is designed. I personally prefer NA because of its instant response. Formula 1 cars used to have turbochargers, but a lot of drivers didn't like it because they find that the car was harder to control (always a slight delay due to turbo lag), however gotta keep in mind that those cars have very high boost (1.5L but over 1000hp).

Now a turbo engine doesn't necessary mean it's gonna be heavier. Take the S2000 and Nissan Silvia S15 for example, both have 2.0L engine making roughly 240-250hp. They weigh about the same and will do 0-60 in around 5.5s and 1/4mile in 14s. It's how they deliver the power that differentiate them. The S2000 rewards the driver with great performance as long as he keeps the rpm high; on the Silvia, with the abundance of torque, sometimes you can be lazy and stay in a higher gear without losing too much speed.

So it's really a preference and what you enjoy.

F23A4

I am not certain about the weight reference but, I think it is all subjective. Both can do very well on the strip (assuming you are referring to drag racing) Both motor types are very tunable with ultimate output dependent on a myriad of factors.

Are there any cars in particular that you are referring to?

I hate cars

Forced induction is much more "tunable" but addictive. It starts out with pump gas. Then you want more boost for a hard race so you "try" race gas once. Then you want that kind of power all the time and before you know it you're driving to work on C-16 every day.

Your choice in turbos can make or break a combo. Throw a T-88 turbo on a stock 3.0L (Supra crowd) and you get a peaky powerband that does great on the dyno but doesn't make much usable hp until it's 100rpm shy of redline. That's how you get 12 second timeslips at 130mph.


If done right (like the 335) you get one of the broadest powerbands known to man. Peak torque around 1,500rpm and pulls strong to redline. No NA motor will do that.

You learn how to race with a turbo just like anything else. If I need to accelerate and take a turn fast, almost instinctively I push the gas nearly halfway and quickly back off as the boost comes in. If you've never driven a big turbo car the transition to boost will probably scare you but it becomes almost instinctive after a while. I could be just a little bias though.

Edward'TLS

But are you gonna miss the apex driving like that when the turbo boost finally kicks in ? The key to driving fast is smoothness, because the race driver is always driving the car to the limits. Any sudden movement, such as steering wheel jerks or engine power flutuation to the wheels, will bring the car over the limits causing spins. Unless the turbo can remain on all the time from start to finish during races, it won't be an easy task to prevent the sudden rush of power to the driving wheels while exiting a corner or hairpin as quick as possible.

XxAfG786xX

superchargers dont have this turbo lag do they??

Edward'TLS

No, but superchargers rob a lot of engine horsepowers at the upper rpm band - horsepowers that could have been used to make the race car faster and achieve a higher top speed.

BraveDemon

No. Turbo lag is specific to turbo chargers.

However, Superchargers do exhibit something else called parasitic loss/drag; which many consider a disadvantage to superchargers when weighing between going SC or Turbo.

I could explain the dynamics of parasitic loss in SC's... but doing a simple search in wikipedia would probably get you your answer and save me 15 minutes.

I hate cars

Yes and no. With the new turbos on the market and engine management available, turbo lag is almost a thing of the past.

On my car with a second or so of lag, I could take you for a ride and you would never be able to tell that I'm modulating the pedal as boost comes in. Let someone who has never driven the car dive into the gas thinking that's all there is and two seconds later they're going to be facing the wrong way. You learn how to drive around the turbo.

There are exceptions to everything but a properly sized turbo set up right will have virtually no lag. Mine has some because I don't road race and the slight delay is not a bad thing when on street tires. If I'm going from a roll, I drag the brakes with the gas on to bring up the boost beforehand.

Edward'TLS

It's more than turbo lag. It's the sudden rush of power when the turbo kicks in that will upset the balance of a car racing at the limits of adhesion. This is for real racing when a fraction of a second in lap time determines winning or losing. Ordinary drivers who usually don't push their cars to the limits will never envision such problem.

F23A4

I am not an expert but have driven various turbocharged cars (including my sons boosted Civic), I think you are both correct.

Newer turbo cars like the VW GTi/Audi A3 2.0T seem to exhibit little lag and have a fairly steady torque curve:



However, older cars like the 1G/2G Eclipse GS-T/X do exhibit some lag characteristics:



So even within the turbo group, the performance characteristics can vary notably.

In the scenario detailed by Edward, I would be more inclined towards having the GTi instead of the GS-T. Though both are 2.0L inline 4s that are turbocharged to the tune of 200hp and ~200lb-ft, the new GTi clearly has a more even power delivery.

I hate cars

I understand exactly what you're saying and you're right. NA is usually the way to go for road racing.

I've taken my car to an event just to see how bad it would do and there was no problem with the turbo coming online and spinning me out. Like I said before, I dip into the gas pretty hard and immediately start backing out as the boost comes in for a linear power response. The "sudden rush of power" is for people who are not expecting it and don't compensate with the pedal. I've had the car on the "edge" exiting a few turns with the rear wanting to break free and I always managed to keep it there without going over even with the boost coming in.

Again, you learn to drive around the turbo. This is assuming a correctly setup system. I never had a condition where there was not enough power due to turbo lag on the course. The only change to my driving style I made was trying to get on the gas just a little sooner to get the hairdryer rpms up for the exit.

triggerc

Most of the guys here guessed right, I was thinking about tracks with corners. The reason I asked was that I'm starting to fund my next car. It probably would just be a weekend driver at the track, or Schenley Park at 3 in the morning. I was wondering if I should aim for something naturally aspirated like a Z06 or something turbocharged like the new GT-R.

I hate cars

Easy choice... Z06. Not much out there that can touch it in any category for under $200K.

triggerc

I was thinking something like those two, doesn't have to be one or the other. I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the body on the Z06, and the interior is just meh. If they came with better interior it would increase my interest in them a lot more. I guess i'll just have to test drive both types of cars when it's time to figure out with one i prefer.

I hate cars

When I think of Corvettes I think of pot bellied old men going through a mid-life crisis. Where I lived they would always talk crap but knew better than to race me. I hated that crowd.

But still, a Z06 is a set of tires and good driver away from 10 second timeslips and it corners and it stops with the best of them. Interior isn't great but it's not that bad. I've wondered how hard it would be to swap the Cadillac XLR's leather interior over since they're the same car. My biggest problem to owning a Corvette would be getting lumped in with the Corvette crowd.

To your original question of tracking these cars, with 427" you will have power everywhere on the tach. Combined with the curb weight of a Civic, downshifting will be done more for fun than necessity.

triggerc

That leads to my next question: RWD or AWD? RWD is obviously going to be lighter, but AWD makes you corner like you're on rails, more specifically i'm thinking about the ATTESA ETS. Is that the reason why the GT-R did a 7:35 on the Nurburgring with 480hp when it took the Z06 7:42 with 505hp? On top of that the track was partially wet when the GT-R made its run, too. One of the reasons why I'm heavily considering the GT-R is because I don't have to leave it in the garage when winter comes.

I hate cars

With two identical cars with great drivers on a dry course, RWD will always outhandle AWD. In perfect conditions, AWD will hinder performance. Throw a little water or sand in the mix or a "less than perfect" driver and it changes. AWD is a little more forgiving of driver error.

triggerc

I'm guess that only applies to front biased or 50/50 AWD systems right? The ATTESA ETS varies between 50/50 and 2/98 front-rear bias, so given a competent driver shouldn't it be just as good as RWD?

Eoanou

Well some AWD systems are more advanced than others and some AWD systems vary the power distribution to the point where the vehicle behaves like a RWD vehicle.

fiveoh-tl

+1