RE: Let turbos be turbos: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
Totally agree. A turbo car should feel turbo'd. These golf r type hatchbacks with their bland, s
t imitations of n/a engines are dull. I want big turbo, loads of lag, loads of noise, done. A worse car if you're a statistician, a better car if you want something exciting.
I would suggest anyone who disagrees hasn't driven a proper turbo. You're magnificently dull m135i would still be magnificently dull, but the turbo 4's would all be a hell of a lot more appealing. All it takes is someone brave enough to make one. Someone brave enough to make a worse car.
t imitations of n/a engines are dull. I want big turbo, loads of lag, loads of noise, done. A worse car if you're a statistician, a better car if you want something exciting. I would suggest anyone who disagrees hasn't driven a proper turbo. You're magnificently dull m135i would still be magnificently dull, but the turbo 4's would all be a hell of a lot more appealing. All it takes is someone brave enough to make one. Someone brave enough to make a worse car.
aeropilot said:
For whatever reason, they are choosing to pursue the path they are currently taking.
I think it's because the vast majority of people who buy fast cars simply want them to go as fast as possible with as little effort from the driver as possible. I've never entirely understood why, but everything in the performance car market seems to be aiming towards that end. Strawman said:
slipstream 1985 said:
I swap between a 1.8turbo vag unit and a bmw straight 6. The straight 6 everytime i get in it gun it for what seems like an age then look at the rev counter and still another 2000revs to go with more power just seems great. Whilst the vag unit pulls instantly from when the boost kicks it fades quickly and if off the boil it has nothing. .
I'm suprised the VAG fades quickly, what is the torque curve like?On the much older 2.3 9000 Saab aero in factory tune it delivers 200 ft/lbs at 2,800 rpm and holds above this until over 5,400 rpm
Peak is only 39 ft/lbs above that so it feels pretty linear on boost until nearly the red line.
A stage one map from pretty much any tuner makes a massive difference to the mid-range performance - mine gained approx 33%
kambites said:
aeropilot said:
For whatever reason, they are choosing to pursue the path they are currently taking.
I think it's because the vast majority of people who buy fast cars simply want them to go as fast as possible with as little effort from the driver as possible. I've never entirely understood why, but everything in the performance car market seems to be aiming towards that end. SteveSteveson said:
I don't understand why someone would want to intentional compromise a car.
They don't, they just have a different definition of "compromise" to you. For me, a car which can be driven quickly with little effort is enormously compromised. To have the concept of "compromise" you have to have the concept of positive and negative attributes and they are entirely personal preference. SteveSteveson said:
I don't understand why someone would want to intentional compromise a car. Intentionally making a car more difficult to drive, or adding turbo lag when it can be engineers out, just seems insane to me. Why make a car worse than it could be?
It depends on where you want your power for example a Golf R has a small turbo thus reducing lag but at the cost of Top End a Cosworth had a large turbo which gives you lag but better top end you can't have both with a Turbo engine.So you're not engineering the trait out you're making a compromise one way or another.
kambites said:
aeropilot said:
For whatever reason, they are choosing to pursue the path they are currently taking.
I think it's because the vast majority of people who buy fast cars simply want them to go as fast as possible with as little effort from the driver as possible. I've never entirely understood why, but everything in the performance car market seems to be aiming towards that end. Sadly, I'm in the same dinosaur category that Clarkson is talking about.....I suspect a lot of us on here are.
I'm giving up on modern 'performance' cars when the time comes to get rid of the 135i, and will be going SUV type bore-fest for comfy daily wafting and then instead run something very old and mechanical for weekend fun if I can.
ZX10R NIN said:
It depends on where you want your power for example a Golf R has a small turbo thus reducing lag but at the cost of Top End a Cosworth had a large turbo which gives you lag but better top end you can't have both with a Turbo engine.
RS500 aside the Cosworth didn't have a particularly large turbo, and it was pretty much done by 6.5k. They only felt laggy because the surge of power on boost was so pronounced.SteveSteveson said:
kambites said:
aeropilot said:
For whatever reason, they are choosing to pursue the path they are currently taking.
I think it's because the vast majority of people who buy fast cars simply want them to go as fast as possible with as little effort from the driver as possible. I've never entirely understood why, but everything in the performance car market seems to be aiming towards that end. Though neither were intentionally compromised, but a car that takes time to learn is, in my opinion, better than a jump in and drive one. Take pdk/DSG. I would not like a car without a manual gearbox, even though it would be intentionally making the car 'more difficult to drive'. A toe&heel downshift is much harder than letting the car do it, but it makes me feel good when it works
But, I think the time is passing for cars like this. Normal everyday cars, then by all means, hide the turbo character.
I have an Insignia VXR.
It's not perfect: it's quite a heavy thing, and not as agile as a hot hatch.
But one of the things I love about it is "the more you rev it, the greater the thrust".
Obviously, you could also say that it's torque limited at lower revs, but I really like the way that the torque curve points upwards at 4000rpm towards the peak at 5250. The effect is similar to an aircraft gathering thrust as it rolls down the runway.
It's not perfect: it's quite a heavy thing, and not as agile as a hot hatch.
But one of the things I love about it is "the more you rev it, the greater the thrust".
Obviously, you could also say that it's torque limited at lower revs, but I really like the way that the torque curve points upwards at 4000rpm towards the peak at 5250. The effect is similar to an aircraft gathering thrust as it rolls down the runway.
I'll just leave this here... some Ferrari F40 LM sounds. Almost sounds like a Golf R! Almost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYYA2jE3Ze0
aeropilot said:
Given that turbo's (for petrol engines as we're not seriously discussing diesels here) are here to stay, there's no real reason why we can't have both, which is close to what Saab did some years back when they actually had an all-turbo engine lineup.
No reason why we can't have the torquey flexible engine route for 'normal' everyday engines which would leave the manufacturers to build oa bit of old style turbo nutterness into the performance cars in their range, rather than what we have now.
For whatever reason, they are choosing to pursue the path they are currently taking.
It's because modern turbo engines are high compression with valve timing, etc. They make more torque off boost so they don't feel as turbocharged, and turbos are smaller because the engines make more power with less turbo flow. To make them have the same turbo 'rush' you have to have less torque at the low end or a bigger turbo or less capacity. No reason why we can't have the torquey flexible engine route for 'normal' everyday engines which would leave the manufacturers to build oa bit of old style turbo nutterness into the performance cars in their range, rather than what we have now.
For whatever reason, they are choosing to pursue the path they are currently taking.
Problem is you can't have every hot hatch in the line up making 360+hp or customers don't buy the larger more expensive cars that are slower or no quicker. Also the cars become more expensive to run, insure, warranty, service, manufacture, harder to drive, etc. If that's what people want that's fine, but manufacturers can't really make every 2.0T engine in the line up have 360+hp.
Not only that but it will make the car harder to drive. The 'Turbo rush' is great in a straight line, but it makes a car harder to drive fast as you're constantly compensating for the on/off boost and lag. If you asked a WRC or BTCC driver whether they'd prefer no anti lag, they'd quietly shuffle off to call the local 'hospital'.
Edited by iloveboost on Sunday 15th March 21:19
blade7 said:
RS500 aside the Cosworth didn't have a particularly large turbo, and it was pretty much done by 6.5k. They only felt laggy because the surge of power on boost was so pronounced.
The tuned ones were obviously a different case, as illustrated by the experiences of a friend of mine. He used to have a Sierra Cosworth patrol car at work in the late 80's/early 90's. He recovered a stolen Sierra Cosworth rally car which was obviously tuned to a far greater degree than his patrol car. His recollection of the rally car was that it was completely flat beneath some silly ceiling (something like 4000rpm and up for useful boost) and that the standard car was far more tractable on the road but the tuned rally car took off like a rocket at the top of the range.That is something that we're moving away from at a pace now, as car tuning seems to become more about a cheap map on a TDi than sticking a massive turbo in the place of the old one and creating a laggy off/on boost monster. I'm not a huge fan of where the modern turbo cars are going in terms of driving dynamics. There was something very characterful about old, laggy petrol turbos. I loved the surge they produced that felt flexible and with a depth of performance. Even now, petrol turbos seem to have moved towards a diesel feeling, with a slow and soggy throttle and a sudden rush of power than tails off quickly, well before the redline.
A lot of fun in the older cars was muscling them down the road at full tilt, keeping them on boost and feeling the rush that produced. Sure, the new cars require a lot less effort to drive but they aren't half bland compared to the old ones.
ZX10R NIN said:
It depends on where you want your power for example a Golf R has a small turbo thus reducing lag but at the cost of Top End a Cosworth had a large turbo which gives you lag but better top end you can't have both with a Turbo engine.
.
Except for the fact that the modern Golf R engine outperforms the old Cossie lump at ALL engine speeds!.
The old classic "coming on boost suddenly" is simply the fact that the engines are extremely lame when off boost (low compression ratio, no variable cam timing, no direct injection, no adaptive knock control, poor turbo efficiencies, mechanical throttles etc etc), so when they come "on boost" they suddenly gain several hundred Nm all at once, and that provides a large amount of Jerk, and hence makes the car feel fast.
I owned an Evo1 big turbo Integrale for 5 years, and it felt significantly faster than my current car (335d) but the 335d is actually hugely faster at all times, burns half as much fuel, has all the toys, handles better, stops better, is quieter, and could probably be crashed a lot harder without injury. That's progress. The only thing it isn't is more fun, but tbh, these days, i don't really even notice that anymore.........
I used to have a mercedes vito 112cdi and it was a hilarious thing to drive, like an old school turbo car, nothing nothing nothing full fat boost change gear nothing.
Was brilliant as I love old school engines and cars but there were times when I was carrying something a bit more precious than normal when the kick in the back as the turbo came in was annoying or when I pulled out of a junction and needed to get a move on!
I think driving has changed. 10-15 years ago(maybe more) diesels were for vans and taxis, petrol was for cars and turbos were for fast cars. Now diesel technology has come on so much that you can have a diesel performance car, who would have thought you could have bought a convertible diesel!
Now that opinion is turning against diesel again petrol technology is galloping along behind and catching up to be more like diesel engines, effortless low down torque and higher efficiency.
People who want a car that is fun to drive, is tricky to drive and is rewarding to drive hard are such a small part of the market that it is not worth making a car for us anymore. Adverts selling cars that are fun to drive show them driving in town, how many of the people on Pistonheads have fun driving in town?
Was brilliant as I love old school engines and cars but there were times when I was carrying something a bit more precious than normal when the kick in the back as the turbo came in was annoying or when I pulled out of a junction and needed to get a move on!
I think driving has changed. 10-15 years ago(maybe more) diesels were for vans and taxis, petrol was for cars and turbos were for fast cars. Now diesel technology has come on so much that you can have a diesel performance car, who would have thought you could have bought a convertible diesel!
Now that opinion is turning against diesel again petrol technology is galloping along behind and catching up to be more like diesel engines, effortless low down torque and higher efficiency.
People who want a car that is fun to drive, is tricky to drive and is rewarding to drive hard are such a small part of the market that it is not worth making a car for us anymore. Adverts selling cars that are fun to drive show them driving in town, how many of the people on Pistonheads have fun driving in town?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff