CC differance to make a NA car equal to a Turbocharged car for performance - Saxperience

VTS_16v_Boy · 28th June 2007, 08:52

A was talking to a mate last night and we was talking about turbocharged cars and that his BMW Mini Cooper had struggled to keep up with a pretty standard look Renualt 5GTturbo the other week.

And discounting the obvious weight difference and gearing of the older lighter 5GTturbo we came to the general rule that if tow cars where totally standard out the factory these days the difference in power out puts between a NA engine and a turbocharged engine could almost (alsmost not always) be leveled out by the NA car having a bigger engine by as little as 200cc ie

A 1400cc turbocharged car would be about on par with a 1600cc NA car

Now I know it wouldnt work everytime but whats other peoples views on this?

How much of an increase in cc would a general NA engine have to be to level out performance wise to a turbocharged engine IF it was in the same size/class/weight/layout car.

After a few beers this went on for quite a while, neither of us are experts but it did throw up some interesting questions.

Im not comparing stuff like Civic Type Rs to Astra VXR's etc as thats not what the question was.

So what du think?

Ryan^p · 28th June 2007, 08:57

depends on to many variables, weight, transmission, etc......

not just the engine under the hood yo

KamRacing · 28th June 2007, 09:16

motorsport works on a 1.4 multiplier for capacity so a 2 litre turbo is in the same class as a 2.8n/a and a 1.6 turbo same as a 2.2 n/a

CampDavid · 28th June 2007, 09:21

I was chatting to a bloke in Germany, his M3 CSL has the same engine size and configuration as his wifes R32 Golf (3.2 6 cylinder)

The BM has 100BHP more. There's more to it than just capacity and induction!

(M3 CSLs rock my cock though, as do old school Rennie 5 Turbs. PUSHROD FTW!!)

Chris^p · 28th June 2007, 09:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

motorsport works on a 1.4 multiplier for capacity so a 2 litre turbo is in the same class as a 2.8n/a and a 1.6 turbo same as a 2.2 n/a

So my 2.0l Turbo should keep up with a BMW 328i???

Chris

CampDavid · 28th June 2007, 09:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

So my 2.0l Turbo should keep up with a BMW 328i???

Chris

Nope. It should be a fair bit quicker due to weight, and it is.

328is are not THAT quick. They are great though

Chris^p · 28th June 2007, 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by CampDavid

Nope. It should be a fair bit quicker due to weight, and it is.

328is are not THAT quick. They are great though

So, what about a 330i as I think me and the missus might be looking at them in the next year or so??

Chris

KamRacing · 28th June 2007, 09:31

google their stats lol
0-60 is a waste of time as you are looking at a RWD and FWD car, but their in gear times could be similar

vtr_driver · 28th June 2007, 09:35

Thing is that doesn't really work. I mean what about Charade GTti's 1.0 3 cylider turbo's and quicker at 30-50mph than a Porsche 944!!

Ryan^p · 28th June 2007, 09:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtr_driver

Thing is that doesn't really work. I mean what about Charade GTti's 1.0 3 cylider turbo's and quicker at 30-50mph than a Porsche 944!!

yet handles like a drugged up hooker with the clap on 12" stillettos

KamRacing · 28th June 2007, 09:44

you are never going to get a situation where the performance is exactly matched but the 1.4x rule works well in motorsport. A porsche 944 will no doubt dick all over th Charade after 50mph.
A moped can accelerate faster than a ferrari to 30mph but they are not equal...
For example a saxo vts turbo can get a good 350bhp. I know of a 205 with a 305bhp mi16 n/a engine, with the extra weight of the turbo kit and ancilliaries I would imagine in a straight line they could be similar.

n/a has an advantage of instant throttle response and many other benefits to make it still a worth while performance car...

VTS_16v_Boy · 28th June 2007, 10:23

I know there is alot of variables thats why I said if two cars where in the same class.

For arguements sake lets imagin a E46 BMW 2door coupe

Now take a 1800cc 4pot engine and turbo charge it now compare that to the existing models available, how high up would you have to go in cc to match the perfoamce of a 1800cc turbocharged engine? 325? 328? 330?

Its easy to say a this is better than that but that wasnt the question

I said if they where in the same car/platform/class etc what jump in cc ruffly would you have to incease an engine to match the performance not nessecarly 0-60times of cornering etc just performance as the weight of the extra cc in the NA engine would kill it everytime.

VTS_16v_Boy · 28th June 2007, 10:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itsafastworld85

yet handles like a drugged up hooker with the clap on 12" stillettos

Where do you think these up! or have you been with a Drugged up Hooker with the Clap on 12'' stillettos

I bet you have - BUSTED

So did the cream work ok then Ry?

Scott^p · 28th June 2007, 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTS_16v_Boy

For arguements sake lets imagin a E46 BMW 2door coupe

Now take a 1800cc 4pot engine and turbo charge it now compare that to the existing models available, how high up would you have to go in cc to match the perfoamce of a 1800cc turbocharged engine? 325? 328? 330?

Impossible to say, still to many variables. I mean if the turbo is running high boost it might make 400 bhp, low boost conversion may range from 200bhp to who knows what.

KamRacing · 28th June 2007, 12:27

well i know of a 1.8 turbod ibiza with at least 550bhp on high boost lol
Thats pretty much a balls out racecar and is particularly fast though unreliable
apparently I am mistaken, its actually a 1.7 multiplier. I think the 1.4 multiplier is for diesels so they can run against smaller engined petrols. That seems much more fair now lol

So a saxo turbo would run against a tuned 2.7litre n/a
Seems much fairer

GrantW · 28th June 2007, 17:34

Is the Punto GT not a rough match for the VTS? 1.4 Turbo V 1.6 N/A?

Karl · 28th June 2007, 19:30

In a straight line i guess.