Quote by Skylines lil brother
man you are NEW. if you take a car with 300 N/A power, and the same car with 300 forched induction power. the N/A car is going to blow the shit out or the other. THINK ABOUT IT.
any forced induction has some sort of lag or downside. see a turbo charged motor, may have 300 horsepower, but shit all for tourqe. thats because of the lag. N/A has no lag ya , so this means that its got more power at lower RPMs therefore better. man you gotta think before you write.
but if you wanna argue your way into a deeper hole go ahead. it may say im a sorta newbie to this forum, not to cars and hop ups. you have no idea what i know
i just didnt know how the QR25 worked. now i got info and i got her all figured out.
So do u want to get told sum more or what???
Now, who else here has the same problem, that since they have all sorts of crazy lag, they have no torque?
Skylines lil bro....here's a pic of my dyno. You tell me how little torque I had:
Wait a second. Do you understand that an NA build up means you make more hp but torque isn't increased much? The only way to keep making torque is to use forced induction (better to say turbos since superchargers dont create max boost until max rpm).
__________________
Zpooled Zo Zya
Last edited by JAMESZ : Apr 28th, 2004 at 03:22 PM.
This Skylines lil brother character is a joke. Skylines lil brother, get some actual schooling before making comments on motors and cars! And no, Super Street is not a good way to start!
__________________
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist".
Wait a second chimmike. Do you understand that an NA build up means you make more hp but torque isn't increased much? The only way to keep making torque is to use forced induction (better to say turbos since superchargers dont create max boost until max rpm).
I think you have it the other way around... Mike is arguing your point and SLB is arguing the other way around...
But even with Superchargers your still creating more tq on a lower end than NA...
For the last century, horsepower has been used to describe the power output of the internal combustion engine. The horsepower unit was created by James Watt in the 18th century. Its origin is based from how much power a horse could lift in foot pounds, 33,000 ft-lbs to be exact in one minute. The unit is derived from torque, which is the true measurement of the engine physical power production.
What is strange about the units of horsepower is that it has no physical meaning. Its an arbitrary unit that has no real signficance in describing the characterisitc of the engine. For those that are curious to calculate horsepower:
Horsepower=(rpm/5252)*torque
From this equation you can see that horsepower is nothing more than a contrived unit that is based purely from torque and rpm. You'll notice the number 5252 in the equation, this represents the point at which every dyno graph must intersect horsepower and torque. Its a mathematical relationship, both strange and interesting since horsepower is a function of torque and rpm.
There has been much confusion and rumors across the internet about gaining more horsepower. In essence, gaining more horsepower is gaining torque. If you are after "peak" horsepower, you are interesting in carrying the torque curve as high in the rpm range without falling as possible. You can see from the equation that as the rpm's increase, and the torque remains the same you get a higher horsepower number.
What phsycially is happening is that the engine is able to produce enough torque to overcome frictional forces through the air, tires, etc. As you are able to keep the torque from falling off on the top end, you are able to maintain a steady torque curve that will "pull" the car through the mph you are trying to reach. So people who are after "peak" horsepower really want to extend their torque curves as far towards redline as possible, without letting the torque fall off. Check out some dyno graphs and see what I mean. Horsepower doesnt describe the true nature of how the engine performs, its the torque curve.
From a tuners perspective, I dont tune off of the horsepower curves. The physical relevance towards the engine performance is arbitrary, since the torque is truely what is effected by the fuel, timing, breathing, etc of the engine. The horsepwer is merely a concocted unit of measure, showing no true characteristics of the engine power output. A good tuner will only make changes from the torque curves, see what increase/decrease the curves show from the changes. So next time you are thinking horsepower, think "what would I want my torque curve to be"?
I think you guys are partially right. Look at it from this way. You have two motors: Since we are talkin Nissan lets use an sr20. Ones turbo, and ones not. Now to put a turbo on a car whats something that has to be done in some instances? Answer: lower compression. So Its safe to ssay that a lower compression motor will have less torque, right? Right. Now, where we lose in torque by lower compression, we can then slap on a turbo, make some torque back, and a lot more horsepower.
Basically, your comparing apples and oranges. While the NA will have more torque down low. WHo the FUCK races at 2000 RPM? this is the same arguement I get from rednecks and their tree-fitees
__________________
ASK ME ABOUT MY TRIANGLE PISTONS
yeah that's true about the compression ratio... but most everyone who turbos their motor doesn't drop the compression well... unless their engine blows the first time around
well... unless their engine blows the first time around 
Linear Mode
