Why A Naturally-aspirated Skyline?

[Spunky Munky]

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

[Spunky Munky]

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.

[thorpe84]

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?

[are33]

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

[SKiT_R31]

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

[scathing]

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 May 28, 2007 by scathing

[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 May 28, 2007 by scathing

[DivHunter]

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?

[NA_R33]

This thread needs a LOCK.

[EVILTD]

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.

[Reggi34dr]

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.

[Yawn]

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.

:laughing-smiley-014:

[ish]

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

[Eug]

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?

[ish]

u got me eug

[scathing]

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.....?

[scathing]

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.

[ish]

it was a shit stir fluffy

[ztuned]

quote me

Edited May 29, 2007 by ztuned

[nismo_GTST]

Ah dude, stock for stock, an S2000 will kick a GTST's ass. Also think that you would have no chance in hell up against an NSX. Both these cars are VTEC.

Great argument mate