how far will NA go??

i was having a discussion with my friend on this topic. . he reckons no matter what engine mods u do to a hondas its a waste of money as it will never be as good as skylines, 200s and rexies

even though honda engines rev high, if u turbo civics, crx, tegs and ludes ur gonna lose most of the power as they are FF. and if u go the NA path, then ur not gonna have enough power to keep up with the boost. this is for street purposes. . .

so im wondering as i would prefer NA over a boosted car, how far will NA mods take you. i mean if u did the full works to it, exhaust, extractors, cams, ecu, value springs, clutch

open for discussion - no flaming pls :)

well, tell your mate that by his logic, 200's and skylines are a waste of time because you can get more power out of v8's.

it's amazing how little respect some people have for people that choose a different path.

don't worry about what you are going to "beat" because there will always be someone faster than you. worry about the package YOU want. what you will enjoy.

At the end of the day, any car is what you make of it - if you just want "really fast in a straight line", buy a $7000 R32 GtsT and spend $18000 on making it go really fast.... and look like all the others, get defected every other week, have it off the road for weeks at a time when something brakes or you spend money on making it go faster... etc etc...

If you want "really fast everywhere" get an R32 GTR for $16000 and spend $15,000 on making it go really really fast everywhere, and have the hassles of insurance, defects, rego, theft, HWP rape and tailgating, no licence, and people wondering if it is a real GTR or a fake with a bodykit...

Personally, I like something different.
Quick, reliable, simple to modify on weekends, no time off the road for modifying, a little bit of comfort, security, style....

It is all about what you really want from your car. I didn;t want a supercar, I didn;t want a theft target and I wanted something different and comfortable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ginganggooly

don't worry about what you are going to "beat" because there will always be someone faster than you. worry about the package YOU want. what you will enjoy.

---

I couldnt' have said it better myself :shock:

Adrian from Toda Australia did a reply to the same question you asked, talking about flywheels and gear ratio's in an N/A engine which is very important if you want to get the best out of a built N/A engine.And it is not just about what you bolt to the engine you have to build a COMPLETE package.
Regards Dyno Dave

NA will take you to a point... and then FI will take you a little further. But its a saying used SSOOO much, how long is a piece of string.

A close friend of mine's Dad had a torry that ran 9s. It was NA with NOS, I wrote about it in the drag section under people that defeat us. That was a street legal car... So tell ya Mate His Skylines WRX's etc DONT GOT SHIT on NA!!! Theres a good old saying. No Replacment for Displacment, you wont here it on here often at all coz Honda engines are tiny :P and they do AWSEME but suck when it comes to torque.

Basicly Your friends an unducated Idiot and unfortunetly if you know even the slightest basics of cars and how physics works you will meet these fools every day. The worst thing is they will always have some dumb arse response.

its started as he just bought a skyline, but plannin on getting a t3 highflow turbo, then i go im plannin on getting a teg type r as soon as i find one. which he goes y dont ya get a boosted car. . . coz i find FI as cheating

v8s were bought up in this discussion, which he goes they are quick of the line but there isnt any top end power

i mean if u did have the money to build a NA engine, i would be just as quick as any other car rite. . . .?? i guess thats what i was getting at. hondas are light cars and im sure u'll get the street creed when u open the bonnet and theres no FI. . . just sit back and :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeuroX

im sure u'll get the street creed when u open the bonnet and theres no FI. . . just sit back and :)

---

It is more fun when you refuse to open the bonnet - My mate does and states "Perkins' Secret" on his VS commo...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McChook

It is more fun when you refuse to open the bonnet - My mate does and states "Perkins' Secret" on his VS commo...

---

im sure that could work too

turbo and N/A very different..

although on track and all round performance N/A seems to b better..

and plus most JGTC cas use N/A power not turbos

supra.skylines,NSX 's and so on..

best sports cars of the world is N/A not turbo

deleted

The sound of a hi-po NA engine is much better then that of a hi-po FI engine.
Every man andhis dog has a skyline, requires no skill to modify. With NA packages u generally get less power and have to concerntrate on other things to keep up with the competition (sussy/handling gear, weight(flywheel, interior), wheels, gears etc etc)
It a totally different beast.

In the end though, bang for buck, ur mate will outpower u with his skyline cause its generally alot more labour to modify NA engines. Its the nature of the beast as installing turbos/coolers etc etc is very easy when compared, and htats were themoney is saved.

In regards to the original question of this post.

Put simply HP = torque multiplied by R.P.M. / 5252.

Therefore to increase the horsepower of your engine your either need to increase its torque or increase its R.P.M. or both.

Forced induction (Turbo's, superchargers or Nitrous) creates H.P. by increasing the torque.
Thoretically increasing the displacement of the engine.
Hence the aphorism "There is no replacement for displacement".
Yes there is and that's R.P.M.

To increase the R.P.M. of an engine (reliably) and get it to start making power higher in the rev range there is a lot more work needed to be done.
Which is were the extra cost is.

Dollar per H.P. F.I. will always be cheaper than N.A.
However your choice on which route you chose to follow should come down to what you want your car to do and why you bought it.

The power curve of a Naturally Aspirated engine is much more linear than that of a large Turbocharged vehicle hence why N.A. cars are better suited for circuit/track racing.
If you have ever tried to push a rear/front wheel drive car with a large turbo charger fast around corners you will know what i mean.

As McChook and DynoDave previously stated it is also important to build a complete package i.e. engine/transmission/sussy e.t.c.
It is no good having all the power in the world if you can't get it to the ground and keep it to the grouund through corners.

There is more to driving than straight lines, and most nice roads i know off go for longer than 400 metres.

On the subject of efficiency Honda produes THE most efficient engines in the world.
They are also the single largest manufacturer of Internal Combustion engines in the world.

As for how far you can go with N/A......
All the way, here's an example.

http://www.ericksracing.com/racecar.htm

Regards,
James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIKCVC

A close friend of mine's Dad had a torry that ran 9s. It was NA with NOS,

---

Sorry dude but if it had NOS it is FI not N/A.

Posts like crx_16x's and ginganggooly's, just make me so motivated about my car. boys i thank you!

if only i could remember all this when other people bag out hondas :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ts0nda

Posts like crx_16x's and ginganggooly's, just make me so motivated about my car. boys i thank you!

if only i could remember all this when other people bag out hondas :\

---

four years in denial and still going strong :)

It's all about budget too :D

How many people buy a car for it's "potential to have x amount of hp" but never actually get there - plan for this this and this, but end up selling the car before they've made some noise?

I have a fairly competitive rivlary with my mate with an S15 :D fortunately he's ran out of money and not willing to run more than 10psi without further mods, so I'm faster at the moment both straightline and track :D - it kills him to see a lil honda pull away from him.

Just take'm for a touge battle for pink slips mate!!! that will separate the men from the boys.

I disagree, around the track, turbos will still own NA. Its just that NA is more linear in poewr delivery, but Turbos CAN be too, the only disadvantage that Turbo has on the track before NA can be worked out, and in the case of the Hondas, the only reason NA is better is because they are FF layout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pornstar

and in the case of the Hondas, the only reason NA is better is because they are FF layout.

---

care to further explain this point?
i always thought that FF is almost always a disadvantage

he means NA is only good on hondas cos its suitable for the FF layout... not that FF is good

if u had a turbo FF, ur going to get torque steer every time u get boost... and u'll just go straight... understear would be in funni amounts

Yes yes,

Touge battle :o :o .

yeah FF is always disadvantagoues comapred to the FR layout. Why do u think all professional Race cars choose FR?

The argument is that torque steer comes into play with turbos on FF layout cars, however in my experience it is a disadvantage cos of torque steer, but more so that in the differnt layouts, around the track, the FF is very different to FR.

FF goes into a corner much harder and faster than FR, but past the apex, and u cant power out as hard as the FR. Hence having a massive increase in torque is not that advantagous as the inherent way that FF drives around the track means that u cant use the acceleration advantage of the turbo.

In reality, a turbo in this day and age has so many advantages over NA, but hey, as much as i support turbos etc, i still love the sound of high revving NA motors that really can do some damage on the track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pornstar

yeah FF is always disadvantagoues comapred to the FR layout. Why do u think all professional Race cars choose FR?

---

just because i feel like being a pedantic **** ;) ...

there are plenty of ff racers around, ever seen btcc?
the more hardcore race cars i.e. race cars designed from the ground up tend to be MR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiddoDC2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pornstar

and in the case of the Hondas, the only reason NA is better is because they are FF layout.

---

care to further explain this point?
i always thought that FF is almost always a disadvantage

---

I give you the ice-racers in the US and Canada. Made up mostly of early highly modified Hondas, they had to create a FF class because the RWDs were totally owned by them.

If FF is not that good with forced induction, why do manufacturers make so many good ones?

Traction is an issue yes with the weight transfer being a big issue. Thats about it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pornstar

yeah FF is always disadvantagoues comapred to the FR layout. Why do u think all professional Race cars choose FR?

---

BTCC - want to check how many FWDs there were?

So your saying with the same money and budget, ud choose an FF for the track?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pornstar

So your saying with the same money and budget, ud choose an FF for the track?

---

i'm wondering how you managed to extrapolate that from what was said.

you made a statement which implied that there were no ff race cars, setanta and i were merely pointing out that this is not the case.

and depending on the track in question, the racing conditions and the cars in question, i might well pick a ff car.

i didnt say there were none, sorry if i sounded like that. just said that they are disadvantaged, and hence why in professional motorsport u see most cars are FR or MR.

ill take FR or MR over FF anyday of the week.

Last time I checked, the BTCC was professional motorsport with budgets that leave Australia's only REAL motorsport (V8 Falcodores) looking like poor cousins.

Want a best case scenario? In the late 80's Glen Seton raced one of two Leyton House CRX Si's in a professional race. Mods were limited by the rules except for suspension and redline mods although the motors could be balanced and blueprinted. The stock ZC powered (Seyton blew the B&B motor the day before, so a crate one was used from Honda) CRX's came 2nd and 3rd to a Supra (RWD note) by less than a second between 1st and 2nd and about 2 seconds for the second rex - only because the Supra was holding out the line. Behind the 3 cars were a variety of RWD and FWD cars including 8's, 6's and 4's.

Please don't talk to me about disadvantage, you are making a gross generalisation.

It is not a generalisation, its physics. FF is disadvantaged compared to FR or MR. The CRX in your case happened to be a better handling car than the Supra, yeh thats great. But would a FR or MR CRX not beat a FF CRX around a track, both cars setup up to their maximum potential?

Im sorry Setenta, but according to ur definations then wouldnt indy cars and other cars be running FF? If there is no disadvantage and if it is only a generalisation, why not go FF?

Ill put it quite simple for u understand, just so that u dont misread or misinterperate what i think. I dont think that FF is shit, or bad in any way. Not my point. My point is that FF is disadvantaged compared to an FR or an MR.

Actually if you know abit about honda history, you should read the articles about the NSX. Now the NSX is a supercar, why is it that Honda even with an NA engine choose MR layout instead of FF? its simple, MR and FR is almost always more advantageous. This DOES NOT mean that FF cars cant be fast or cant win, but in physics and engineering, they are at a disadvantage.

I could put up a whole thesis and even a whole RnD effort by someone in Alfa Romeo GT cups about the advantages and disadvantages of FF and other layouts. Im not going to cos its a waste of bandwidth, think what u will, its my opinion and if u dont agree u can have ur opinion too. I dont quite care.

Pornstar, Setanata and Gingangooly were merley replying to your statement.

"yeah FF is always disadvantagoues comapred to the FR layout. Why do u think all professional Race cars choose FR?"

You said that no professional race cars use FF.
They were merely refuting that statement and providing facts as basis for their refutals.

In the same way that a heart surgeon would not use a broadsword to create an incision in a patient you would not use a scalpel to fight an enemy facing you with a broadsword.

Hence the aphorism "Horses for courses".

Yes your point that FF is at a disadvantage to either FR or MR is correct. However only in an ideal world where you comparing an egg to an egg and not a basketball.

But then again in an theoretically ideal world AWD is the winner.

Yes the "CONCEPT" of FF is theoretically at a disadvantage to FR or MR.
However in the real world how the manufacturer designs the car around the FF/FR/MR setup is what counts.

In design environments or an ideal world such as F1 or Indy where there are no such constraints such as budget or space manufacturers can utilise every concept to their advantage.
However everything on the car is designed as part of a complete system.

By comparing a FF, FR or MR CRX is senseless as unless the car is designed around the concept (FF FR or MR) the original FF car will always win as the car was designed around that layout.

My point is that yes the concept of FF is at a disadvantage to FR or MR but however only in an ideal world and yes an ideal world includes F1 or indy.

In the real world of production cars it depends upon the complete package of the car and how the car is designed around the layout. Whether that be FF, FR, or MR.
In some circumstances and situations FF will be more suitable (read not better) that FR or MR and vice versa.

Regards,

James.

As this thread is titled "How far will NA go",
I wil now go back to topic.

As the technology involved in internal combustion engines continues to increase i believe we will see the relegation of turbochargers to the use of the aftermarket.

You only need to look at the decisions of major Japanese vehicle manufactures to see this trend quite clearly.
For example Nissan has replaced its turbocharged SR20 S15 with a higher displacement VQ35 NA 350z.
Mazda have replaced their turbocharged 13b with the renesis engine in the RX8.
Honda have never really used turbochargers except for a few silly abbhorations like the City Turbo and I cannot see them using them in any more production cars.
That really only leaves Mitsubishi and Subaru still using turbos.

In most circumstances the advances have been possible due to variable valve timing technology which allows an engine to rev higher, create power in the rev range and yet also remain streetable and able to be driven by old ladies. If you have driven a car with a large lumpy high duration high lift cam you will know what i mean.

Something that i have been thinking about lately is actuating the valves in an engine by hydraulic or electric means.
Either using some short of a solenoid or hydraulic system.
This means that the duration or lift of the valve would be infinitely variable throughout the enitre rev range.
To control this you would simply have a third map in your ecu and a crank angle sensor.
This would remove a hell of a lot of reciprocating mass in the engine assembly (i.e. camshafts, gears, belt etc) thereby making it more efficient.

I believe that technology such as this is already in use in F1 and certain motorcycle applications.
Can anybody confirm this?

That's just food for thought anyway......

well in terms of IDEAL conditions ok, and lets not go into motorsport for a second ok? lets look at it IDEALLY...

IN MY >>>HUMBLE<<< opinion, a NA car is better b/c there is no lag. No waiting for the turbo to spool enough pressure, or the centrifugal supercharger to spin fast enough....

NA is better in the ideal sense in that it can provide you with the INSTANT reponse in torque anytime u want, when u want.

2 points

1. around twisties i would think NA would be a bit better as everytime u break hard, u'll probably have a bit of chance ot fall outta boost, hence the long wait before ur power switches back on

2. around track, perhaps turbo would be better as corners tend ot be predictable (no unpredicted braking) and faster corners allows u to stay on boost.

SO THEORETICLALY go NA cos u'll be driving on streets more

BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT when the real world comes in the result changes

cos to get power outta na (as we all know) is bloody expensive, go turbo for bang for your buck, keepur turbo smallish so u dont lag too much

and yes i realise in motorsport its exactly the opposite boys, rally cars in twisties use turbo and Shuey in F1 uses NA, but i reckon these are irrelevant comparisons in a sense. I mean can YOU or all of us combined afford a rally car turbo that can maintain low rpm AND high boost? NOPES,

OK in reply:

But then again in an theoretically ideal world AWD is the winner

From what you have said James, Im sure you can give me some good technical information as to why AWD is the winner in an ideal world. Cos going by alot of engineering calculations around, factoring in power, weight, drivetrain loss, traction advantage, driving characteristics, top speed, outright power, MR would be best and not AWD... But Im open as to why in an ideal world the AWD is better. Im not the be all and end all of this debate, so please do enlighten me.

Yes if those responses were in reply to my post, but as I have re-iterated in my later post, Im NOT saying FF cars cannot be made to be fast or competitive to FR or MR or even AWD, but the fact remains that if all things remain constant, the FR or MR has an advantage EXCEPT where power delivery from engine to wheels is concerned, in that case, FF loses less power thru the drivetrain.

as for turbo lag on the street, theres an easy way to fix that, and thats run high compression with low boost, like most turbo hondas that only run 6 psi, the so called "lag" is not really lag, its like u driving a stock car until u hit boost.

Hope that helps

well maybe we can look at this in terms of price ranges....

100,000 dollar budget... u'd spend it on developing something NA, michael shuey style, that has the balance of a NA car, no sudden hike in power, but with enough grunt to hand it down to nething FI

10,000 u go for the for force induction no doubt, as 10,000 in a NA wotn really get u that much... i/e/h/ will set u back 3000 already, an aftermarket ECU another 1000. then a set of pistons, rings, etc to the internals to increase compression or even spend the remaining on a swap and u'd still maybe be making around 20% mor NA power...

compare with

spend the same money on a good turbo kit...

don't argue...
who the hell says that turbo are the best?
put in your minds from now on...
F1 is the fastest track car in the world...is N/A...and V10...just around 800++hp...

bring up your dumb ass skyline about 1300hp...and race it on track with an F1...will over lap you easily...

turbo...N/A...different class..

and to some idoit that always comparing a GTR and a Civic..look at the engine side la...one is Straight 6..with twin turbo...one is just 4 cilinder...
with NOTHING...just the CAMS that do the work..

do not comparing a different categories...

you're just like comparing a bicycle with a bike....


though i know that turbo's are great in making HP...and is good in speed...but don't forget...N/A does a better breaking and cornering speed than those bloody turbo's....

not tru pgclee, They are the fastest cars in F1, but thats not cos NA is faster, its the rules that restrict turbos. Im sure u know that before this rule was implemented, hondas turbo engines were conquering the F1 scene....

F1 are the fastest track car not just because of the power.............. but they have millinons spent on chassis and millions spent on aerodynamics........... not to mention low weight and brake systems.

its all chassis design in F1 really, i mean the turbo engines were making damn near double what the current NA engines are making power wise yet the NA versions are a lot quicker around the track. Thats all due to chassis design, tyres, aero packages etc

See Poid thinks I'm right! ;)

sigh...if all uni's assignment are about vtec n turbo...u guys will get straight A's ;)

but still...F1 still quicker than any other track car available...though turbo are not allowed anymore...is better that to see it that way i think...

f1 cars? wasnt this thread started about street cars?

there will always be someone faster but there will always also be some one slower than you, just race the right people and you will feel fast all the time. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by egSi

f1 cars? wasnt this thread started about street cars?

there will always be someone faster but there will always also be some one slower than you, just race the right people and you will feel fast all the time. ;)

---

LOL you said what i was thinking...

v4 vs v10.... that's motorbikes vs bicyles my friend...

lol, goldfish vs. sharks

...........compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, but not apples with oranges.............(my 2cents contribution to the topic.......hehehe)

Na man here in europe u see lots of N/A cars with NoS just that its a Dry kit somthing like that. Civics and Celicas are the most prefered 4 N/A nitro. regards to all (lol)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPEEDCORE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIKCVC

A close friend of mine's Dad had a torry that ran 9s. It was NA with NOS,

---

Sorry dude but if it had NOS it is FI not N/A.

---

put a GTR against a the new lambo´s or a Enzo ferrari. both them are NA and would kill the gtr anny day. but then again to upgrade a lambo or ferrari is virtually inpossible for us ppl. a lambo (new 1s wif weired name) does arround 320kph a skyline does round 260kph (stock)
In handleing the Lambo goes better.
its got a better power delivery because its RWD and doesnt have to pass the power through all 4wheels like d skyline.

in overall i think N/A is better.

the engines are more reliable.
And have does have turbo but its not petrol its diesel.

sorry if u guys didnt understand my english isnt as good as 5years ago.

Quote:

---

Sorry dude but if it had NOS it is FI not N/A.

---

Its still an NA engine... and reguardless it ran low 12's without it. His gemmy does low 12s... not to mention another friends dads car runs high 12s stock... damn AC cobra's ;) NA clubmans would be doing stupid times with the S2000 engine in there.

bottom line... it depends on the car, and the aplication. In the end the fastest cars are FI :P but they never see the road. So again it comes down to aplication. And what YOU want. but sinces its a debate about the bottom line... a combustion engine sucks anyway, why use that when you can use jet turbines? Where do you draw the line :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sushi

In handleing the Lambo goes better.
its got a better power delivery because its RWD and doesnt have to pass the power through all 4wheels like d skyline.

in overall i think N/A is better.

the engines are more reliable.
And have does have turbo but its not petrol its diesel.

---

If you are talking about the Murcielago or Gallardo, both are 4WD. Hell even a lot/most of the Diablo's were 4WD.

All i see in this thread is comparing apples with oranges :)

yeha
lambos are 4ws..howevre the 4wd only kicks in when the rear starts to slip

other than that..iuts mainly a RWD

i think this thread got sidetracked somewhere. . . how far would NA go, i was refering to street practical applications. . . its no good talking about NA F1, ferraris and lambo, since 98% of us will never get the chance to get behind the wheel of them

'street application' defined as - not slick tyres, has to be roadworthy to some degree, stop start @ lights, some highway touge and day to day driving etc. . .

but i think i got my answer. . having a full NA car would not be as cost effective as a turbo, but it would be more reliable. by cost effective, i mean bolting on a turbo as compared to rebuilding the NA. i think thats y there are so many turbo cars out there. . . as for driveability NA would probably win hands down, but i think the layout (ff/fr/mr/awd) might have some effect for street. . .

if i had a choice between a stock s14/15 and a stock ITR and had about $15-20k for mods, i still would get the ITR and go the NA path. . . just to be different

Hell yeah :P more fun to drive... Just put your car on a strict diet. You'll spend a bit there though :P

if i had a choice between a stock s14/15 and a stock ITR and had about $15-20k for mods, i still would get the ITR and go the NA path. . . just to be different[/quote]


not different... its an honorable path to take... :) some might consider it the high road...

hey i got s 97 cxi.. i dropped a vtec box into it last week and iv noticed alott more top end with my car.. i lined up agianst a VL holden calis and chopped him by about half a car length. :> topping out at about 150kmp/h in 3rd before body roll got hte better of me around the bend and had to back off :) go d hondaz!

why dont everyone get back to basic,

lets compare washing machine, they come in turbo and NA aswell !
i got a LG turbo, and my clothes are clean as, only takes 30mins !

LOL me too.... bought it about 4 weeks ago!

Turbo drum technology! Drool!

"Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I can feel the 4 different fabric softeners"! :D

OMG Speedcore and EXIT needs to stop sniffing the washing liquid!!

HAHAH

Damn my secret is out.......

I do the cooking and the washing and I'm allowed to race the G/F's EK4. :D