ludeboom

well lets not overlook the fact that those older cars you just mentioned are turbo charged. the new Z is NA, so is the RX8.
these manufacturers are trying their hand at making a fast NA engine. the new 3.5 motor as jkan im sure can tell you, is a real monster.
ive driven both the rx8 and new Z and am not impressed with the rx8 at all, except for the redline.
however the Z just goes, there is almost no hesitation
great car

~boom


~boom

yellow civic ex

i wonder why most companies shy away from turbochargers these days...it just doesn't make sense. modern turbochargers are VERY reliable and drastically increase performance.

madhandles03

Yeah I dunno...only reason I can think of is insurance rates possibly? Of course, for people over 25, all insurance is around the same price.:dunno:

yellow civic ex

i dont think a turbo makes any difference with insurance. i think it just has to do with trends in accidents for various car, year of the car, and # of seats and doors.

madhandles03

Well Im sure the turbo aspect has something to do with trends in accidents...because my friend was looking to buy an eclipse... and the gst insurance was much more than the gs insurance, but Im not an insurance agent so I really have no idea, your guess is as good as mine.

yellow civic ex

probably true. it might also be though that the gst is just worth more.

Fast-Ford

This is a good idea on their parts because it drasticaly increases their potential for speed and aftermarket support. In fact, the 350Z has some great help from one of the big names in domestic V8 aftermarket accessories....PROCHARGER. Believe it or not but the new Z has found a friend in the good ol' supercharger that us domestic guys are so loyal to.


The RX8 was a large scale disaster under the hood. There is no excuse for Mazda needing to reasearch how to make NA horsepower being part of the Ford umbrella - they just didn't use their resources I guess.

Fast-Ford

Turbo is a good way to make more power when you are restricted by space for a bigger engine. However, the old saying that bigger is better is true and there is no hiding from that. I think you may see some more NA 6cyl power on the way to play on that theme. It also increases aftermarket potential by having an engine that isn't already juiced from the factory.

I read recently that Ford engineers put together a modular 10 cylinder engine on a shoestring budget that ran in the 11 sec range in a 2000 GT Mustang. Now that's NA power for you. Wonder what that thing would run on a bottle of nitrus?

ludeboom

or ford didnt use their resources h:

how does building an NA engine vs building a turbocharged engine, mean there is more aftermarket support and speed for NA?

i take it you are still waging your anti-turbo war

sure on a huge motor with a "screwed" blower (as you call it) there is going to be a lot of horsepower available

like i said b4, a turbo by nature will always develop more horsepower versus a supercharger on the same motor.

a supercharger's maximum efficiency is about 50% (and thats a "perfect" number)
while a turbo operates on average around 70%, (where as 100% would be its "perfect" number)

unfortunately for the supercharger, it uses some of its own energy to power itself, so therefore it is very inefficient compared to a turbo.

its retarded that you think a 9.08 @ 157MPH in a stock chassis car with interior, street tires and a 2.0 liter turbo is a shitty time compared to your "screwed blower".
how much more displacement are these friends of yours using?

~boom

Integrity

Yeah, I do know it... too bad you're not yellow civic EX. His car actually runs.



I had 2.0-2.2 60' times. Not great, but not bad either.