BNR34

iTrader: (1)

You beat me to it

Especially compare to a pushrod motor. Many turbo 4 set up weight the same as a Chevy small block V8. Just look at all the latest drift car, they are all running LS swap instead of the old turbo 4 that they all had. And why? Displacement!

fly2low

Still static mass compared to moving momentum of the extra cylinders. I must admit that a bigger engine with more cylinders gives that smoother drivability well suited for a luxury car though.

BNR34

iTrader: (1)

0.8L high revving NA just won't make much of a drastic differences

ST430

You've driven an FQ? And lag compared to? Have you driven a properly tuned Evo thats 400WHP?

Maybe I missed your point, because your opinion was pointless (re: Evo) in the first place? Unless, you care to back up your statement?

BNR34

iTrader: (1)

You win, I don't care anymore. I shouldn't have post in the 1st place. My opinion was pointless, if you think about it, everything in life is pointless.

ST430

That's on a Dynocrap...RoadRace (where the other dyno figure comes from) utilizes a Mustang dyno, which is typically much lower and more indicative of WHP (as opposed to Dynocrap, which is more like bhp).

Here's an N55 with the following mods on a Mustang Dyno:

jb4 stg2 with iso running Map 5
ar 4 " nocts
bms intake
cpe chargepipe




Compare it to my custom (self) tuned Evo IX w/ intake/exhaust/DP:



My old little 4 banger has more hp and more torque (at almost the same low rpm as well)...

SteVTEC

I can't even read that.

ST430

What's your point again?!

ST430

Read what?

Here's the original N55 Mustand Dyno post: http://www.n54tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18020

BNR34

iTrader: (1)

Idk, it was pointless, there was no point

What is the purpose of life? Nobody knows!

ST430

Guess that's all we need to know about the validity of your "point"....

SteVTEC

Okay so lets put both on a Dynapack then, tune to about equal power, hold them at specific RPMs, and then time how long it takes each engine to go from completely unspooled to max torque. Slow roll in 4th gear at about 2000rpm, it'll take my 3.0L a few seconds to get up to full boost. What about a 2.0L? What about a 1.0L all at equal power levels? Then compare with a 6.0L NA with no "lag" or turbo to spool at all.

I've been giggling at these torque specs for some turbo engines including BMWs advertising maximum torque at only 1250rpm, a completely unrealistic loading situation that's never going to happen in any sort of situation with the cars unless they're being driven stupidly with manual transmissions, and HOW LONG would it take them to reach full torque at only 1250rpm, a minute??

ST430

Why a dynopack? You already have the dynosheets of both the N55 and 4G63 above? We're now nitpicking about spool and lag and not necessarily "replacement for displacement". Fact is, a 4 banger can can be tuned quite effectively to put out six cylinder HP and that's my point. Now, if the same scenario happened above on the highway, I'd downshift to get in optimal range (who wouldn't unless you don't know how to drive). Besides, if you want to see how effective "tuning" is, then you can always look at quarter mile times. I understand you guys like to diss the smaller displacement vehicles because of subjective "feel", but look at things objectively and you'll understand. Heck, the fact you praise the N55 so much instead of the S65 is a testament to that....

mmarshall

Not just manuals, but also some automatics, both conventional torque-converter and of the automanual SMG/DSG twin-clutch type, also allow a surprising amount of engine-lugging at low RPMs without an automatic downshift.

Byprodrive

iTrader: (1)

& low rpm torque & durability & reliability & cost