Are You For Or Against Boost?
If turbo was that bad, I'd wonder why NISMO runs turbo motors in the GT500 class. It doesn't seem to me that there are any lag issues or problems coming out of corners. Like any car if you fall out of the power band you go slower.
Also remember that our car won't behave like a car that was designed with turbo. Since most people are not lowering the compression ratio, the car will feel stock until the FI kicks and and you'll go faster. So "lag" in a Z is a little different than in an EVO.
I wouldn't say it's the "cheaper" way to do anything. I think it's a different way. Turbo cars also put more power down in the upper revs, something that you will want in racing when you're at the upper levels of the car.
The M5 has 500hp but little torque, which is why it has to rev so high to get that number.
Also remember that our car won't behave like a car that was designed with turbo. Since most people are not lowering the compression ratio, the car will feel stock until the FI kicks and and you'll go faster. So "lag" in a Z is a little different than in an EVO.
I wouldn't say it's the "cheaper" way to do anything. I think it's a different way. Turbo cars also put more power down in the upper revs, something that you will want in racing when you're at the upper levels of the car.
The M5 has 500hp but little torque, which is why it has to rev so high to get that number.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: San Jose
I think here is a summary of the arguements posted so far, and it comes down to personal preference:
N/A
-If producing same power as an FI, will be a much better built engine.
-Reliable
-Easy to cool
-Costs more to upgrade/get significant power boost
-offers linear, controllable throttle experience
Turbo
-is cheaper than N/A for same hp
-potential turbo lag/unpredictable throttle depending on size of turbo
-harder to cool
-unreliable in the long run. Reliability is inversly proportional to boost pressure.
-Generally faster than N/A cars.
I have to agree with someone who posted before, it's disheartening to see cars, who will not be named, with massive turbo's churning out the same hp as N/A engines in much better cars, suchas the S54, which in my opinion is an engineering marvel. The turbo engines are brutally effective, I'm not arguing that, but they're just not elegant. What happened to the beautiful engines of the good old days?
N/A
-If producing same power as an FI, will be a much better built engine.
-Reliable
-Easy to cool
-Costs more to upgrade/get significant power boost
-offers linear, controllable throttle experience
Turbo
-is cheaper than N/A for same hp
-potential turbo lag/unpredictable throttle depending on size of turbo
-harder to cool
-unreliable in the long run. Reliability is inversly proportional to boost pressure.
-Generally faster than N/A cars.
I have to agree with someone who posted before, it's disheartening to see cars, who will not be named, with massive turbo's churning out the same hp as N/A engines in much better cars, suchas the S54, which in my opinion is an engineering marvel. The turbo engines are brutally effective, I'm not arguing that, but they're just not elegant. What happened to the beautiful engines of the good old days?
Originally Posted by Johnny225
I think here is a summary of the arguements posted so far, and it comes down to personal preference:
N/A
-If producing same power as an FI, will be a much better built engine.
-Reliable
-Easy to cool
-Costs more to upgrade/get significant power boost
-offers linear, controllable throttle experience
Turbo
-is cheaper than N/A for same hp
-potential turbo lag/unpredictable throttle depending on size of turbo
-harder to cool
-unreliable in the long run. Reliability is inversly proportional to boost pressure.
-Generally faster than N/A cars.
(
N/A
-If producing same power as an FI, will be a much better built engine.
-Reliable
-Easy to cool
-Costs more to upgrade/get significant power boost
-offers linear, controllable throttle experience
Turbo
-is cheaper than N/A for same hp
-potential turbo lag/unpredictable throttle depending on size of turbo
-harder to cool
-unreliable in the long run. Reliability is inversly proportional to boost pressure.
-Generally faster than N/A cars.
(
I think I just had a de-javu!!! I swear I read this exact same post in the past! Did you copy it from somewhere or did I really had a de-javu moment? 
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
From: Caribbean
I'm not necessarily "pro-boost" but some of what you said is inaccurate:
I agree to an extent..
this is not accurate. first of all, do not compare the engine in the 350z to the engine in the m3. the m3's engine would be like a nismo engine since bmw motorsport did it, and bmw m is a different company legally. to compare apples to apples, nismo vq35s are producing just as much power, if not more, than bmw m's s54. see here for example:
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157508
as far as revving goes, sure the S54 may rev higher but the VQ gets out to 7,2xx which isnt bad. IIRC performance nissan got it to 7800rpms. That's not bad either. Also consider the reliability factor: how many problems has bmw had with S54s? At first they were blaming owners for the failures! I think it's safe to say the VQ at least as reliable, if not more so. And as far as the money factor goes- you can get a Z for nearly half the cost. So even if it took $10k, you'd still be "ahead". Note that I'm not saying the Z is a better car than the M3, but I am saying that the VQ has just as much potential as the flat six BMW has employed.
Very true- one notable exception though- 911 Turbo
Thing is, the BMW M5 guys know not to mess with any AMGs that are at all modded...but really they respect each other- two totally different cars.
in terms of raw performance you can't beat turbo... but imo the engineering behind high revving high output NA engines is pretty sexy too
Originally Posted by SB Track
Here's why I hate boost:
It's the trendy, and hip thing to do. It's a relatively cheap way of making your engine much more powerful than it will ever be in NA form. This is why a $20 SRT-4 can slightly outrun a Z. Turbo is the easy way out of things.
It's the trendy, and hip thing to do. It's a relatively cheap way of making your engine much more powerful than it will ever be in NA form. This is why a $20 SRT-4 can slightly outrun a Z. Turbo is the easy way out of things.
Now take a look at VERY WELL tuned NA engines. The most straightforward example is the S54 engine found in E46 M3's. It basically owns the the VQ, hands down. Increasing volume and adding turbos is the easy way to squeeze out horsepower. THe S54 does neither. It takes a 3.2L I6 and throws down more than 100hp/L. And it revs passed 8000rpm to boot. Unless you add a lot of money, the VQ is not capable of this.
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157508
as far as revving goes, sure the S54 may rev higher but the VQ gets out to 7,2xx which isnt bad. IIRC performance nissan got it to 7800rpms. That's not bad either. Also consider the reliability factor: how many problems has bmw had with S54s? At first they were blaming owners for the failures! I think it's safe to say the VQ at least as reliable, if not more so. And as far as the money factor goes- you can get a Z for nearly half the cost. So even if it took $10k, you'd still be "ahead". Note that I'm not saying the Z is a better car than the M3, but I am saying that the VQ has just as much potential as the flat six BMW has employed.
If you examine all the exotics cars, they are mostly NA, with the exception of Porsche 911's, which are heavy in my opinion. The current 997 with the x51 power package puts down 381hp with its 3.8L flat 6. INSANE. This is real world tuning. Be sure to check out the specs on the Enzo, F430, Carrera GT, Gallardo, and Muciellego while you're at it. All NA.
Finally, I'll leave off with the M-series vs AMG rivalry. Mercedes concentrates only on adding huge brakes, superchargers and turbos, and adjusted suspensions on their AMG versions. BMW chooses only select cars to tune, and adds VERY HIGH performance NA engines. The new V10 in the E60 M5 is insane (thing redlines at 8k+rpm). The M5 eats the boosted CLS 55 all day.
Moral of the story: boost is the cheap way out. Efficient, high revving NA engines are MUCH harder to come by and represent much higher terms of performance.
I really don't think it is the easy way out. It is just a different way out. I hear what the NA guys are saying but it is still hard to beat the bang for the buck that a good turbo gets you and you don't even have to tear your engine apart and have you car out of comission for long periods of time to do it. It all comes down to what the car is intended for really. To each their own...
I am suprised that nobody mentioned the Ford GT, it runs a roots style supercharger and I would hardly call it cheap or weak...
I am suprised that nobody mentioned the Ford GT, it runs a roots style supercharger and I would hardly call it cheap or weak...
Boost.
If you've seen the Best Motoring video where the Z went against the S2000, boxter, etc., the GTR rated at 280bhp (camera car) blew by the Z at will. With 7 less bhp, and AWD at that...blew past the Z...from a roll (straightaway on a track).
If you've seen the Best Motoring video where the Z went against the S2000, boxter, etc., the GTR rated at 280bhp (camera car) blew by the Z at will. With 7 less bhp, and AWD at that...blew past the Z...from a roll (straightaway on a track).
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
From: Caribbean
Originally Posted by nitrouz
Boost.
If you've seen the Best Motoring video where the Z went against the S2000, boxter, etc., the GTR rated at 280bhp (camera car) blew by the Z at will. With 7 less bhp, and AWD at that...blew past the Z...from a roll (straightaway on a track).
If you've seen the Best Motoring video where the Z went against the S2000, boxter, etc., the GTR rated at 280bhp (camera car) blew by the Z at will. With 7 less bhp, and AWD at that...blew past the Z...from a roll (straightaway on a track).
the skyline is no way 280bhp
its more like 350 but just under claimed to meet japanese regulations...
yeah ya know what?
for a skyline to cost 100 grand and a z to cost 30 grand...
it better blow past it like if the z was standing still
its more like 350 but just under claimed to meet japanese regulations...
yeah ya know what?
for a skyline to cost 100 grand and a z to cost 30 grand...
it better blow past it like if the z was standing still
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,906
Likes: 1
From: jacksonville, FL
you know where i stand, just check my sig. for all the lag haters; a properly set up car will not experience lag nearly as bad as you make it out to be. my car has full boost under 4k rpms. that leaves me with nearly 4k more rpms to play with. you only lag the first time you get on it, when you upshift if youre quick your still in the boost. so basically you just get a 1 second delay at the start of the race, from there its all gravy.
there is no na motor that can compete with a f/i in shear terms of power output, its just impossible. how many na motors with only 2.0 liters of displacement come anywhere near where my car is now? and thats stock baseline numbers in my sig. with my new mods im sitting around 300whp, roughly 350 crank hp. you wont find any with that sort of power.
there is no na motor that can compete with a f/i in shear terms of power output, its just impossible. how many na motors with only 2.0 liters of displacement come anywhere near where my car is now? and thats stock baseline numbers in my sig. with my new mods im sitting around 300whp, roughly 350 crank hp. you wont find any with that sort of power.
Originally Posted by SB Track
Here's why I hate boost:
It's the trendy, and hip thing to do. It's a relatively cheap way of making your engine much more powerful than it will ever be in NA form. This is why a $20 SRT-4 can slightly outrun a Z. Turbo is the easy way out of things. Now take a look at VERY WELL tuned NA engines. The most straightforward example is the S54 engine found in E46 M3's. It basically owns the the VQ, hands down. Increasing volume and adding turbos is the easy way to squeeze out horsepower. THe S54 does neither. It takes a 3.2L I6 and throws down more than 100hp/L. And it revs passed 8000rpm to boot. Unless you add a lot of money, the VQ is not capable of this.
If you examine all the exotics cars, they are mostly NA, with the exception of Porsche 911's, which are heavy in my opinion. The current 997 with the x51 power package puts down 381hp with its 3.8L flat 6. INSANE. This is real world tuning. Be sure to check out the specs on the Enzo, F430, Carrera GT, Gallardo, and Muciellego while you're at it. All NA.
Finally, I'll leave off with the M-series vs AMG rivalry. Mercedes concentrates only on adding huge brakes, superchargers and turbos, and adjusted suspensions on their AMG versions. BMW chooses only select cars to tune, and adds VERY HIGH performance NA engines. The new V10 in the E60 M5 is insane (thing redlines at 8k+rpm). The M5 eats the boosted CLS 55 all day.
Moral of the story: boost is the cheap way out. Efficient, high revving NA engines are MUCH harder to come by and represent much higher terms of performance.
It's the trendy, and hip thing to do. It's a relatively cheap way of making your engine much more powerful than it will ever be in NA form. This is why a $20 SRT-4 can slightly outrun a Z. Turbo is the easy way out of things. Now take a look at VERY WELL tuned NA engines. The most straightforward example is the S54 engine found in E46 M3's. It basically owns the the VQ, hands down. Increasing volume and adding turbos is the easy way to squeeze out horsepower. THe S54 does neither. It takes a 3.2L I6 and throws down more than 100hp/L. And it revs passed 8000rpm to boot. Unless you add a lot of money, the VQ is not capable of this.
If you examine all the exotics cars, they are mostly NA, with the exception of Porsche 911's, which are heavy in my opinion. The current 997 with the x51 power package puts down 381hp with its 3.8L flat 6. INSANE. This is real world tuning. Be sure to check out the specs on the Enzo, F430, Carrera GT, Gallardo, and Muciellego while you're at it. All NA.
Finally, I'll leave off with the M-series vs AMG rivalry. Mercedes concentrates only on adding huge brakes, superchargers and turbos, and adjusted suspensions on their AMG versions. BMW chooses only select cars to tune, and adds VERY HIGH performance NA engines. The new V10 in the E60 M5 is insane (thing redlines at 8k+rpm). The M5 eats the boosted CLS 55 all day.
Moral of the story: boost is the cheap way out. Efficient, high revving NA engines are MUCH harder to come by and represent much higher terms of performance.
As someone else mentioned, I dont think its fair to compare BMW M with 350Z VQ. Just like I wouldnt compare M engines to Formula 1 engines (its a little extreme, but you get the drift).
I have to say, I am for engineering in NA, it triumphs over shortcuts or easy way out like the superchargers or turbos.
Veyron is completely different class. For producing 1000Hp, even at 100Hp/Liter, you need 10 liter engine, there are so many other issues to worry about. So in that case its justifiable to use turbo for a smaller displacement engine.
If you think S54 is a engineering feat, then wait till you see the specs of 911 GT3RS and Ferrari 360SC engines, now that is engineering marvel. Honda S2000 engine for what it does is a great achievement.
Last edited by spacemn_spiff; Dec 6, 2005 at 06:25 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Miami
Originally Posted by spcemn_spiff
I agree to the NA part. Current F1 cars are NA, rev 19000 rpm producing over 900Bhp with a 3.0 liter displacement. The whine of those engines is just melodious, nothing compares to that. Turbo cars make bad track cars because of uneven power delivery.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: San Jose
Originally Posted by bamyi
I think I just had a de-javu!!! I swear I read this exact same post in the past! Did you copy it from somewhere or did I really had a de-javu moment? 
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: heel toein it in scottsdale AZ
Originally Posted by Johnny225
I think here is a summary of the arguements posted so far, and it comes down to personal preference:
N/A
-If producing same power as an FI, will be a much better built engine.
-Reliable
-Easy to cool
-Costs more to upgrade/get significant power boost
-offers linear, controllable throttle experience
Turbo
-is cheaper than N/A for same hp
-potential turbo lag/unpredictable throttle depending on size of turbo
-harder to cool
-unreliable in the long run. Reliability is inversly proportional to boost pressure.
-Generally faster than N/A cars.
I have to agree with someone who posted before, it's disheartening to see cars, who will not be named, with massive turbo's churning out the same hp as N/A engines in much better cars, suchas the S54, which in my opinion is an engineering marvel. The turbo engines are brutally effective, I'm not arguing that, but they're just not elegant. What happened to the beautiful engines of the good old days?
N/A
-If producing same power as an FI, will be a much better built engine.
-Reliable
-Easy to cool
-Costs more to upgrade/get significant power boost
-offers linear, controllable throttle experience
Turbo
-is cheaper than N/A for same hp
-potential turbo lag/unpredictable throttle depending on size of turbo
-harder to cool
-unreliable in the long run. Reliability is inversly proportional to boost pressure.
-Generally faster than N/A cars.
I have to agree with someone who posted before, it's disheartening to see cars, who will not be named, with massive turbo's churning out the same hp as N/A engines in much better cars, suchas the S54, which in my opinion is an engineering marvel. The turbo engines are brutally effective, I'm not arguing that, but they're just not elegant. What happened to the beautiful engines of the good old days?
i think this goes deeper then to turbo vs. NA. it goes into a sociological effect i think it may have on someone. ive grown up an automotive performance car crazy kid. ive spent years boosting friends hondas and 240s. one thing comes to mind... at the end of the day someone else is still going to be faster thus this comes back to a personal issue of being happy with what u have. i see people with boosted cars having a sort of mentality as i once did when i was younger. power power and more power... i beat u, im faster, i drive more hardcore... at the end of the day it makes some people happy but not me. i value reliability. i dont care if the car next to me is faster because i am happy with my car. it satisfies me, thats why i bought it. i didnt buy it to outdo, outrun, or overpower another persons car.
so to turbo or not... i guess its up to you and your needs. im a relativly young guy in my, im in my 20s. But i feel that ive reached an automotive maturity greater than most. tho, ive been racing since i was 11 and rebuilding those old vw motors from the same age. any man can boost. it comes down to who has more money to throw at their car? who needs more power to be satisfied? im already satisfied because i get so much more out of NA then boost and im damn glad i can feel that way.
what does it take to satisfy you?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
From: heel toein it in scottsdale AZ
also just real quick. when i was a bit younger i would ask my dad why dont u boost your car etc. and hed always say "why would i want to do that?"
i always thought he was crazy. but i understand now...
and one thing i didnt mention every single one of my friends with boosted hondas blew all their money trying to be the fastest. now all their cars are either totalled or sold because they couldnt keep up with their own money pits. boosted cars break... alot. why boost just to blow your motor, tranny, diffs, axels... do u live for those fast and furious 10 seconds of boosting by another car on the freeway? is it worth all the money? in another thread just up recently. to everyones suprise someone blew their motor... whats new? ah nothing just another power crazy person wasting more money.
i always thought he was crazy. but i understand now...
and one thing i didnt mention every single one of my friends with boosted hondas blew all their money trying to be the fastest. now all their cars are either totalled or sold because they couldnt keep up with their own money pits. boosted cars break... alot. why boost just to blow your motor, tranny, diffs, axels... do u live for those fast and furious 10 seconds of boosting by another car on the freeway? is it worth all the money? in another thread just up recently. to everyones suprise someone blew their motor... whats new? ah nothing just another power crazy person wasting more money.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by iamgus_gus
i somewhat agree. its an automotive maturity.
i think this goes deeper then to turbo vs. NA. it goes into a sociological effect i think it may have on someone. ive grown up an automotive performance car crazy kid. ive spent years boosting friends hondas and 240s. one thing comes to mind... at the end of the day someone else is still going to be faster thus this comes back to a personal issue of being happy with what u have. i see people with boosted cars having a sort of mentality as i once did when i was younger. power power and more power... i beat u, im faster, i drive more hardcore... at the end of the day it makes some people happy but not me. i value reliability. i dont care if the car next to me is faster because i am happy with my car. it satisfies me, thats why i bought it. i didnt buy it to outdo, outrun, or overpower another persons car.
so to turbo or not... i guess its up to you and your needs. im a relativly young guy in my, im in my 20s. But i feel that ive reached an automotive maturity greater than most. tho, ive been racing since i was 11 and rebuilding those old vw motors from the same age. any man can boost. it comes down to who has more money to throw at their car? who needs more power to be satisfied? im already satisfied because i get so much more out of NA then boost and im damn glad i can feel that way.
what does it take to satisfy you?
i think this goes deeper then to turbo vs. NA. it goes into a sociological effect i think it may have on someone. ive grown up an automotive performance car crazy kid. ive spent years boosting friends hondas and 240s. one thing comes to mind... at the end of the day someone else is still going to be faster thus this comes back to a personal issue of being happy with what u have. i see people with boosted cars having a sort of mentality as i once did when i was younger. power power and more power... i beat u, im faster, i drive more hardcore... at the end of the day it makes some people happy but not me. i value reliability. i dont care if the car next to me is faster because i am happy with my car. it satisfies me, thats why i bought it. i didnt buy it to outdo, outrun, or overpower another persons car.
so to turbo or not... i guess its up to you and your needs. im a relativly young guy in my, im in my 20s. But i feel that ive reached an automotive maturity greater than most. tho, ive been racing since i was 11 and rebuilding those old vw motors from the same age. any man can boost. it comes down to who has more money to throw at their car? who needs more power to be satisfied? im already satisfied because i get so much more out of NA then boost and im damn glad i can feel that way.
what does it take to satisfy you?
I eventually realized that with enough - time, money, and dedication - anyone can make nearly any car go fast. Someone is always going to be faster, and more powerful.
That is why I ONLY judge cars as they come direct from the factory as the manufacturer intended. Judging "modded" vehicles is futile. That is not to say I don't like the aftermarket, I love it, but I don't go around comparing those such vehicles.
What I am trying to say is that: my STi is modded and is fairly quick, but I don't go around comparing it to other STi's. Some will be faster, and many will be slower, but it's only due to the fact that I have invested more time and money into it than somebody else. There is a 808HP EVO 8 in Chicago, why would I compare my, or any other car, to that?
The Z/VQ NA set-up is plenty enough for me and I love it for what it is....
Just my 2 cents.
Originally Posted by davidv
So far 1 out of 3 members are FOR forced induction. On the other hand, 1 in 1,000 350Z owners HAVE forced induction. Hmmmm….
You're making assumption on how many people can afford to mod their cars and specifically with FI.
Given 15K to spend I'm pretty sure the number of people choosing FI would be a little different
