No replacement for displacement? Or a stonking great turbo

[Onzlouk]

At the minute i am hankering after another V8 and have been researching the GT40 kit car options, however the other day i watched a youtube clip of a Skyline doing the kind of standing start that just leaves you speechless.
So how do we all feel about the the time old question?

Massive turbo on a relatively small engine?

7L big block with enough torque to pull down a house?
How about the noise? you cant beat the V8 rumble surely?

Over to you:

[MrFlibbles]

Massive turbo on a big engine please!

[Mr Darcy]

Big turbo, big turbo, big turbo.

[killsta]

Big engine and a few turbos?

Veyron!

[snoopstah]

Depends on the car. I had a 300+bhp VX220 turbo, and while it was stonkingly quick, it simply wasn't the right engine for the car.

Equally on something like a super-saloon I suspect I'd be quite happy with a turbocharged engine.

[neil_bolton]

If you want to do it properly, and without cheating, then the first, a honking great engine.

However, if you want to do it efficiently, then a turbo.

[MX7]

snoopstah said:

Depends on the car. I had a 300+bhp VX220 turbo, and while it was stonkingly quick, it simply wasn't the right engine for the car.

A friend is thinking of doing something very similar to that. Out of interest, what would you say would be the right engine?

[havoc]

neil_bolton said:

If you want to do it properly, and without cheating, then the first, a honking great engine.

Naturally aspirated all the way. Ideally with a nicely balaned crank and a rather high rev limit...

[chevy-stu]

Big ish V8, with 2 turbos..... (the next plan)

[T84]

I like bloody great big engines because they sound lovely but also like turbos because there's more tuning potential usually.

I NEED to own a car with an LS series engine at some point though.

[Dracoro]

More power is generated by the following three mechanisms

• High revs
• More displacement
• Forced induction

Generally speaking though, whether larger size/forced induction or not, I want the thing to rev! I would have a preference for a high revving large engine than a high revving turbo though. i.e. I would MUCH rather the type of engine in an M3/RS4 than a 2/3 litre boosted engine. Sadly, with the stupid EU/eco regulations we've seen the last of brilliant high revving pure n/a engines.

[anonymous-user]

Have a go in a 7 litre, 500bhp Corvette Z06. It feels like a turbo on boost the whole time!

[Colin 1985]

Things like radicals wouldn't be the same if they had a 2 litre VAG turbo engine rather than a 1.5 screamer.

[Dift]

MX7 said:

snoopstah said:

Depends on the car. I had a 300+bhp VX220 turbo, and while it was stonkingly quick, it simply wasn't the right engine for the car.

A friend is thinking of doing something very similar to that. Out of interest, what would you say would be the right engine?

Honda K20's are popular in Elise' (supercharged and NA). So gives a range of 210-400+ bhp, and retains the high reving nature of a track/fast car.

[busta]

Having all the power accessible at low revs is great for lazy driving and wafting about, but a bit disappointing when you want to give it that bit extra and there's not much more to give. I love the way a good NA engine pulls harder and harder in a crescendo, right up to the redline. Enough capacity to waft easily at low revs, and then to pile on 4x more power towards the redline would be my ideal, so it's capacity for me.

[Twincam16]

Depends. I see V8s as a wonderful, but rather old-school way of going fast. 'No replacement for displacement' (depending on the engine of course - if it's a compact, lightweight V8 like Ferrari's or Lotuses it's a different story) is often an admission that the rest of the car is a bit of a boat-anchor and it needs the V8 to make up for the heavy engineering elsewhere.

I personally prefer the car to be designed as a whole, coherent package, with every part working harmoniously with the rest, which usually means an engine with just enough power for the chassis to cope with without electronic interference, as light and aerodynamic as possible. The refrain of 'just stick a V8 in it' is fine if you want to go drag-racing, or want a big GT with a nice burble about the tailpipes though.

Obviously cars like the Ford GT40 and deTomaso Pantera are designed purely to work around the Ford V8, but there is an awful lot of lazy engineering out there where V8s are concerned.

[Slinky]

The old victor engine produced 1000hp N/A, with the turbos it was about 2400hp.. seemed to work well..

[XitUp]

MrFlibbles said:

Massive turbo on a big engine please!

This.
Or a SC.

killsta said:

Big engine and a few turbos?

Veyron!

For a car with 8 liters and 4 turbos, it's really not very powerful.

[300bhp/ton]

Onzlouk said:

At the minute i am hankering after another V8 and have been researching the GT40 kit car options, however the other day i watched a youtube clip of a Skyline doing the kind of standing start that just leaves you speechless.
So how do we all feel about the the time old question?

Massive turbo on a relatively small engine?

7L big block with enough torque to pull down a house?
How about the noise? you cant beat the V8 rumble surely?

Over to you:

Both are good when combined together!!!

At the end of the day, they are similar ideas though. A turbo forces in air, so creates a larger displacement engine inside the same physical restrictions. Hence why turbo's usually make huge torque too.

[300bhp/ton]

busta said:

Having all the power accessible at low revs is great for lazy driving and wafting about, but a bit disappointing when you want to give it that bit extra and there's not much more to give. I love the way a good NA engine pulls harder and harder in a crescendo, right up to the redline. Enough capacity to waft easily at low revs, and then to pile on 4x more power towards the redline would be my ideal, so it's capacity for me.

A turbo can do similar though, all depends on configuration and setup.