Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by emma18
in my experience people believe that because a car has a turbo its gonna be 'rapid' R5 GTT is a prime example.
take it there are no fans of the soon to be classic pocket rocket. 
For what it is theyre pretty nippy.
And the turbos overrated comment 
|
ChazSXi
Member
Registered: 26th Jan 03
Location: Waterlooville, Hampshire
User status: Offline
|
what bout the fairlady version from japan isntt that supercharged?
|
Bonzai
Member
Registered: 25th Mar 03
Location: Cardiff, Wales Drives: 205 GTi 1.9
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marc
quote:
Originally posted by emma18
in my experience people believe that because a car has a turbo its gonna be 'rapid' R5 GTT is a prime example.
take it there are no fans of the soon to be classic pocket rocket.
For what it is theyre pretty nippy.
And the turbos overrated comment
id rather have an e36 m3 evo than an evo 8 fq 320 mr 
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
raced a 300zx fairlady in my 106 gti, above a ton there was no stopping the fucker
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by GSiSteve
raced a 300zx fairlady in my 106 gti, above a ton there was no stopping the fucker
and some prick in a rover 600 on the m5 tried to take him on
|
emma18
Member
Registered: 10th Mar 04
Location: Daventry, Northamptonshire
User status: Offline
|
awsome cars 300's my mate has just bought 1. import £4000.
|
dinosaur
Member
Registered: 21st Apr 04
Location: Bolton, not London
User status: Offline
|
What Nissan Z we on about ?
the New (ish) 350Z or the older 300ZX and the Fairlady Z (essentially the same car called different names in Japan and elsewhere).
The old 300ZX had the 24v version of the old VG30 (found in the Maxima and 80's 300ZX) in NA form it pumps out 222 bhp and in Turbo something about 300, but claimed 276 in Japan as most were labelled at 276 (Supras, Skylines etc) to meet an agreement not to produce cars that were too powerful with 276 as a ceiling power output).
The NA model is a decent 24v lump never available in UK except on import, the twin turbo model was though, but the NA model does 145 mph and 0-60 in under 7. The Turbo depending on manual or auto is under 6 secs to 60. I mean a friggin Maxima v6 with the older 12v VG30 lump and an auto box is a rapid car, easily matching a 325i Bimmer.
|
Sinth
Member
Registered: 5th Oct 03
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
the newish 350z, my cousin claims u can get a turbo for 4000-6000 dollars? is this true?
|
nik
Member
Registered: 19th Jun 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzai
quote:
Originally posted by nik
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzai
why would you want to turbo an already powerful N/A car? IMO turbos are over-rated
and by all accounts the car isnt that good, a friend of mine test drove one and ended up buying a mercedes benz cossie instead 
why are turbos overated?
in my experience people believe that because a car has a turbo its gonna be 'rapid' R5 GTT is a prime example. yeah its fun to have the impact of boost when your driving, being in both of mikes Evos and a mates 300bhp pulsar have been the most exhillirating drives of my life. but when you get down to the nitty gritty of driving, more particularly track driving, balance is the key, and turbos upset balance. This is probably why you'll find the mclaren F1 uses a naturally aspirated BMW v12 iirc. not something i expect everyone, if anyone to agree on, just my poin of view
I think a 600k car will be quick weather it uses a turbo or not  and I wouldn't call a number of Turbo cars rapid either - R5 GTT being one of them. However, Turbos are good to extract more power from a small bloke engine - take the Evo or Impreza for example. Most N/A cars will need a 3.0 V6 or bigger to obtain these kind of BHP figures. Then comes torque..
|
nik
Member
Registered: 19th Jun 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sinth
the newish 350z, my cousin claims u can get a turbo for 4000-6000 dollars? is this true?
Maybe but then you have costs of fitting, mapping, arsing about to and from the tuners to get it running remotely well. Don't forget if your importing from overseas your be liable for tax, import duty etc etc so it ends up costing just as much without the bonus of warrentys/tech help from the UK
|
nik
Member
Registered: 19th Jun 00
User status: Offline
|
id rather have an e36 m3 evo than an evo 8 fq 320 mr
Fair enough if you like overated out dated pose machines The MR is an amazing car, had a good look around one today and saw it in action
|
DAYZEE
Member
Registered: 13th Nov 00
Location: Stevenage, MR2 Turbo, 328i Coupe, CBR600F
User status: Offline
|
You can hardly call it a pose machine, the M3 Evo happily trounced the NSX of the same year in every catagory you could mention, one of the mags did a head to head and the Evo kicked arse.
|
nik
Member
Registered: 19th Jun 00
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAYZEE
You can hardly call it a pose machine, the M3 Evo happily trounced the NSX of the same year in every catagory you could mention, one of the mags did a head to head and the Evo kicked arse.
The new M3 is a VERY good machine and the CSL is chuffing quality  Not keen on the 36s though too dated now imo and there are better cars for the money. Would much rather have the MR over one and thats not being biased 
|
DAYZEE
Member
Registered: 13th Nov 00
Location: Stevenage, MR2 Turbo, 328i Coupe, CBR600F
User status: Offline
|
There are not many cars better than an M3 Evo for 10K.
There are very very few cars better than an E46 M3 for any price.
|
Bonzai
Member
Registered: 25th Mar 03
Location: Cardiff, Wales Drives: 205 GTi 1.9
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by nik
id rather have an e36 m3 evo than an evo 8 fq 320 mr
Fair enough if you like overated out dated pose machines The MR is an amazing car, had a good look around one today and saw it in action
like i said, just my opinion! im a big admirer of M3s and one day id love to posess an e36 or e30 (as a 2nd car)
whilst im well aware of the capabilities of mitsi evo's, i believe id much rather enjoy an M3 evo
and yes your right about the advantages of turbos RE the huge power and torque gains to be had, but seriously, the M tech evo engine has got to be one of the best youll ever find. 321bhp out of the box from a 3.2 straight 6 with one of the most beautiful sounds in automotive history. i believe the e46 m3's are around 340bhp from the same lump? and then some stupid fools go on to turbo them  silly buggas
|
vibrio
Banned
Registered: 28th Feb 01
Location: POAH
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzai
quote:
Originally posted by nik
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzai
why would you want to turbo an already powerful N/A car? IMO turbos are over-rated
and by all accounts the car isnt that good, a friend of mine test drove one and ended up buying a mercedes benz cossie instead
why are turbos overated?
in my experience people believe that because a car has a turbo its gonna be 'rapid' R5 GTT is a prime example. yeah its fun to have the impact of boost when your driving, being in both of mikes Evos and a mates 300bhp pulsar have been the most exhillirating drives of my life. but when you get down to the nitty gritty of driving, more particularly track driving, balance is the key, and turbos upset balance. This is probably why you'll find the mclaren F1 uses a naturally aspirated BMW v12 iirc. not something i expect everyone, if anyone to agree on, just my poin of view
PMSL - you talk crap. turbo's upset the balance if they are designed wrong. check out 90's F1 cars 1.5Lengines runing 5bar of boost or rallye cars, or the touring cars RS500 etc. the problem with turbo is heat. the McF1 used large cc's to give it power. if you had a turbo in there you'd be generating a shit load of heat.
turbos are not over rated. turbos give high power and torque from smaller CC's. modern day cars like the leon cupra's or the volvos etc produce a decent power from low pressure units; this means they can have samll engines which give good mpg off boost but power/torque on boost. also low pressure turbos are more efficent and have lower CO ratings compared to a similar powered larger CC engine
|
Bonzai
Member
Registered: 25th Mar 03
Location: Cardiff, Wales Drives: 205 GTi 1.9
User status: Offline
|
like i said above, not somethin id expect people to agree on. and its too late at night for me to continue the discussion with reasonable points so i think ill leave it there for now
|
Ditch
Member
Registered: 29th Nov 02
Location: St Albans Drives: JDM Celica GT4 WRC
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by nik
id rather have an e36 m3 evo
Fair enough if you like overated out dated pose machines
Pose machine, yes! But it is not overrated or out dated.
Fact is, its a powerful, very well balanced car, and if there werent so many look-a-likes I might like the styling too!
Its a fcuk load of car for very little money and there is no denying that!
|
micra_pete
Premium Member
Registered: 23rd Apr 03
Location: West Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by vibrio
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzai
quote:
Originally posted by nik
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzai
why would you want to turbo an already powerful N/A car? IMO turbos are over-rated
and by all accounts the car isnt that good, a friend of mine test drove one and ended up buying a mercedes benz cossie instead
why are turbos overated?
in my experience people believe that because a car has a turbo its gonna be 'rapid' R5 GTT is a prime example. yeah its fun to have the impact of boost when your driving, being in both of mikes Evos and a mates 300bhp pulsar have been the most exhillirating drives of my life. but when you get down to the nitty gritty of driving, more particularly track driving, balance is the key, and turbos upset balance. This is probably why you'll find the mclaren F1 uses a naturally aspirated BMW v12 iirc. not something i expect everyone, if anyone to agree on, just my poin of view
PMSL - you talk crap. turbo's upset the balance if they are designed wrong. check out 90's F1 cars 1.5Lengines runing 5bar of boost or rallye cars, or the touring cars RS500 etc. the problem with turbo is heat. the McF1 used large cc's to give it power. if you had a turbo in there you'd be generating a shit load of heat.
turbos are not over rated. turbos give high power and torque from smaller CC's. modern day cars like the leon cupra's or the volvos etc produce a decent power from low pressure units; this means they can have samll engines which give good mpg off boost but power/torque on boost. also low pressure turbos are more efficent and have lower CO ratings compared to a similar powered larger CC engine
spot on, turbos over rated, lmfao.
|
Jodi_the_g
Member
Registered: 7th Aug 01
Location: Washington D.C
User status: Offline
|
Its already been done, you can twin turbo charge the engine which gives you the following stats
Stock 350Z Twin Turbo 350Z
Horsepower: 280hp / 244.4whp 370hp / 334.2whp
Torque: 238.5 ft-lbs 339.2 ft-lbs
1/4 Mile: 14.02 @ 101.89mph 12.79 @ 106.53mph
I can see you the above kit from www.evocarsuk.co.uk just have to fill in a contact form for around 5k
[Edited on 07-06-2004 by Jodi_the_g]
|
