Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I think 'any NA' is taken out of context in this case.

Spunky please clarify.

Damn, what have I started.

Ok, any NA = any naturally aspirated, non-turb, not supercharged vehicle.

Read my above post. I think the intention of the poster was that we discuss why most people buy a NA Skyline not why or how it can compare to a GST-T or GT-R.

Guys, settle down please. We're all brothers in this crib yo; if your ride has a first name that's SKY and a SURNAME that's LINE. God damn it; even if you're black, yellow, white, cream or chocolate - you're part of the family! LMAO

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fellas, if all you NA owners are so content with being NA(ed) then why the heck, besides this post, are they so many people flocking to the HOW TO TURBO YOUR NA thread?

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...howtopic=159859

Something has to give her bros.

why? because power is something people usualy want more of. and a turbo upgrade is the most practical answer?

with that said, has anyone ever supercharged an RB25DE? if so what kind of power would you be looking at and how much would this cost?

Why? Some of the most enjoyable cars to drive are 4 cylinders, assuming you want to drive fast and you're not just interested in cruising around.

The fastest "production" car around the Nurburgring is a NA 4 banger, and it runs a time the next GT-R hasn't got a hope in hell of beating.

Your doing exactly what i said people shouldnt do...

I dont give a rats arse what is the fatest car around the namborging or whatever the hell it is.. because i dont care about circuit racing, No sideways, no care.

I told you, thats MY opinion, and im not going to force it upon everyone else, and dont want it back in my face, because i dont care

roflpuke.gif

lol its prob time for lock

look people, saying that FI is always faster than N/A is just stupid

yes FI can easily make more power, but it doesn't mean a f**king stock 20det would come near a worked 30 n/a just because its turbo

when i was saying what i've come up against, i mean people that want to have a go, i always drive sedately, because i prefer the lumpy throb and purr of low rpm, and the economy.

you can tell when someone wants to or is dragging you, the revs, the wheel spin take off, high revving/limiter in gears, chirping 2nd (because thats normal for cruisy take off) and tearing off after you stop accelerating at speed limit.

why is it so hard to comprehend, whats low comp 25det with a front mount, stock turbo and a 3" exhaust got? 150kw? thats being generous, then the heavy ass 33, delinquent driver, lag on take off, taller gearing. most speed limits at traffic lights are 60 to 80.

its ignorant to refuse to believe that a short geared lighter car with over 150 at the wheels, couldn't touch close to a stock turbo, infact its just stupid, and this being off cams shit, you'd have to have some pretty serious cams to actually be laggy, i make 60rwkw at like ~ 2200rpm, hardly laggy

anyway its a stupid discussion, its like saying 8's versus 6's in the olden days, yeah you could build a 6 to flog a stock 8, and even a mildly worked 8, but build the 8 up and the 6 cant touch it. More cubes means more potential, just like boost

its a fact they CAN BE faster, but it is not a fact that all turbo's ARE faster, apart from of course, out of the factory :bunny:

Ok fellas, now; NA's do have advantages or PRO's if yo will. 1) They are more fuel-efficient (in today's world, damn I wish mine was more fuel-efficient); 2) No Turbo Lag; 3) Less hard to maintain, 4) You can't blow your turbo or have it die on your because you don't have one; and lucky last 5) You won't really drag much people (Which will endanger your life) because you know in your gut that if you drag a turbo/supercharged vehicle they will rip you up for dead.

You left out the fact that NA cars also have a lower kerb weight, and that weight is taken out from the front of the vehicle so the car's also less nose heavy.

But then, you'd have to be interested in cornering for that to be considered a "pro" (which you evidently aren't, since you're only ever talking about "dragging" people).

Horses for courses.

Edited by scathing
I dont give a rats arse what is the fatest car around the namborging or whatever the hell it is.. because i dont care about circuit racing, No sideways, no care.

So what you're saying is you bought a good handling grand tourer, but you have no interest in actually driving it in the way the engineers set it up for.

Fair enough.

Edited by scathing

well.. theres a reason why the NA is the BASE MODEL.. and theres a reason why its called the BASE MODEL... because its not as good as the other models.

Seems too many people have their head so far up their extractors they just don't get that the engine having or not having FI has nothing to do with final drive ratio, nothing to do with driver skill, bugger all to do with weight distrobution, suspension, tyres, aerodynamics. All it has to do with anything is more power and slightly different power delivery.

If FI makes cornering so hard how many WRC cars are NA?

Ok, since everyone is so worked up about this thread...

If you had the choice between a NA Echo and a NA Skyline - which would you pick?

Now let's go a bit further... if you have the choice between a NA Skyline and a Turbo one which would it be?

Ok, so now we're on the turbo path to glory... if you had a GST-T would you love to own a GT-R? Now for the ultimate, so you're cruising in your GT-R - you see a EVO IV or something... would you want that.

You see my point, it's never-ending. However, I have to say, when I or anyone hears the words SKYLINE - it's automatic that people think - damn, a fast beast of a car - turbo all up your rectum. That's it.

So yeah, NA Skylines are still Skylines but with out the wooosshh as I said before, as long as you love your Skyline, doesn't matter what it is.

so 109 posts later YOU come to a round-about answer to YOUR original question after reading the emotion based/sh*t stirring replies in YOUR thread? you couldn't see this was gonna happen?

I own a NA Skyline and didn't post (until now) why I bought a non-turb'd Skyline because I could see this is where the thread was headed.

who gives a pooo .. turbos are more efficent power ... na's are for pussies and fuel savers and its about time you all traded your bombs in on FI

haha i bet you're just loving the stir up... got any circuit times?

If FI makes cornering so hard how many WRC cars are NA?

None, but they're custom built race cars so their packaging options are different within the engine bay. And they also run anti-lag, which means they retain NA-like throttle response which no street legal car is ever going to replicate.

WRC cars only make 220kW at the flywheel as well. Considering an S2000 makes 180kW and that's a street car with emissions control and doesn't require a rebuild after every week of driving, I guess by your (il)logic turbo engines must just be unreliable nuggets that barely make any more power than a well made NA engine.

Or maybe such a simplistic comparison don't work since there are a myriad of other factors.....? :/

who gives a pooo .. turbos are more efficent power ... na's are for pussies and fuel savers and its about time you all traded your bombs in on FI

Define "efficient".

Making more power out of the same displacement, but where the turbocharged engine is using a lot more fuel to make its lots more power, isn't "efficient" unless your idea of efficiency is calculating the ratio of power against engine size.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...