risktypeS

I knew what you referring to.. i was referring to my car.

blueshark123

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by risktypeS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I knew what you referring to.. i was referring to my car. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Oh misread it..

st00pid

Having built my fair share of cars, I would have to say the theory of twice the hp turbo to go as fast as NA is ridiculous. The main reason you see big power turbo cars not running as fast as an NA car at half the power is because of traction. NA cars on slicks will hook really well.. they make nowhere near the power. If a boosted car is dialed in it will run MUCH faster.

STEVE-O7

very clean and nice ride man

blueshark123

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by st00pid &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Having built my fair share of cars, I would have to say the theory of twice the hp turbo to go as fast as NA is ridiculous. The main reason you see big power turbo cars not running as fast as an NA car at half the power is because of traction. NA cars on slicks will hook really well.. they make nowhere near the power. If a boosted car is dialed in it will run MUCH faster. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks for your input Jason

Pat_S

I skimmed through this thread and read both sides of the story. In the end, I have to agree with risktypeS on this one, but his attitude. Instead of you quoting me then me quoting you back and forth, I rather show you a thread that has risktypeS and my reasoning exactly (GO-FIGHT-KILL's posts and others that agree). I could of just summed it all up for you and give you my input, but I rather not quarrel.

Here's the thread you should look at. I believe it's 18 pages long, so jump into the important parts of it and ignore the unnecessary posts... It's definitely worth reading in my opinion.

You guys remind me of those two going at it. 187Chor (you) and GO-FIGHT-KILL (risktypeS).

Just for fun, take a look at it too risktypeS. I'm glad there are people like you that think the same way I do and actually get deep into it. Not just saying that this is better than that. Anyway, I thought these type of topics died already. I apparently thought wrong.

risktypeS

Thank you Pat_S.

i was skimming thru it and reading it and i 100% agree with GO-FIGHT-KILL. Ya gotta think deep into this stuff if you truly are an enthusiest ya know? Glad I am not the only one who thinks this way and knows that it's true. If Jason knows about the traction issue this is all i want to quote go-kill-fight because he hits the nail right on the head about jasons statement:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GO-FIGHT-KILL &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Traction's not a problem if you take the necessary steps to make it work (Traction bars, stiffer rear suspension/lifted rear, slicks, and a good driver).</TD></TR></TABLE>

But in the end if you're making any true power traction will become an issue regardless N/A or Turbo.

risktypeS

Jason you can't argue that a 400hp turbo'd car will run even close to the same times of a 400hp N/A car. That N/A car will kill and i mean KILL a 400hp turbo'd car with no remorse.


Modified by risktypeS at 6:03 PM 2/19/2008

simonEp3

OP, looks like you have a nice, clean car, as for the N/A and boost arguments, IMHO N/A is more reliable, and the power is always there. N/A all the way , but to each his own I guess.

Goodluck with w/e route you choose to go!

Pat_S

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by simonEp3 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">as for the N/A and boost arguments, IMHO N/A is more reliable</TD></TR></TABLE>

Totally agree with you. It's all motor reliable, so one will never have to work on it. That's if he or she doesn't screw up and forget what gear their supposed to switch to.

mannydc5

Nice!! I like!!

NJslvrtypes

dude not to be a dick but hp is hp no matter what.... somebody please overlay a 300hp NA graph over a 300hp small ball bearing turbo graph. with a similar powerband please explain to me in detail how an "NA" car is going to kill a turbo car... hp is hp, tq is tq, and with a similar powerband these cars are going to run similar times. there is no magically power that a NA rsx posses nor a turbo rsx.

low to mid 200 hp full weight rsx's are running mid to high 13's... same w/ turbo rsx's
300 hp rsx's 12's both turbo and na
never seen an NA rsx over 350 unless on Church's dyno

just as Stoopid says its traction. i've seen 500hp RSX's run mid 12's, does that mean a mildly built k24 barely touching low 12's is faster? hell no... it means the turbo rsx needs to learn how to drive or invest in not just forged internals, fuel and a crazy turbo kit but suspension, etc.

also focus more on TRAP speeds and not times.. thats a better indication of what a car is capable of w/ traction. blueshark may have ran a 12.6 but look at that trap speed and find me a full wieght NA RSX even close to that lmao. yet i could find plenty of na rsx's w/ better than a 12.6

also, full weight rsx in puerto rico. 10's w/ low 500hp, i think he can pull 10's w/ 654 and trapping 120's on pump lmao

Pat_S

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NJslvrtypes &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">dude not to be a dick but hp is hp no matter what.... somebody please overlay a 300hp NA graph over a 300hp small ball bearing turbo graph. with a similar powerband please explain to me in detail how an "NA" car is going to kill a turbo car... hp is hp, tq is tq, and with a similar powerband these cars are going to run similar times. there is no magically power that a NA rsx posses nor a turbo rsx.

low to mid 200 hp full weight rsx's are running mid to high 13's... same w/ turbo rsx's
300 hp rsx's 12's both turbo and na

just as Stoopid says its traction. i've seen 500hp RSX's run mid 12's, does that mean a mildly built k24 barely touching low 12's is faster? hell no... it means the turbo rsx needs to learn how to drive or invest in not just forged internals, fuel and a crazy turbo kit but suspension, etc.

also focus more on TRAP speeds and not times.. thats a better indication of what a car is capable of w/ traction. blueshark may have ran a 12.6 but look at that trap speed and find me a full wieght NA RSX even close to that lmao. yet i could find plenty of na rsx's w/ better than a 12.6

also, full weight rsx in puerto rico. 10's w/ low 500hp, i think he can pull 10's w/ 654 and trapping 120's on pump lmao

</TD></TR></TABLE>

All-motor power is different from turbo power. That's all I have to say.

Pat_S

I would cut your post into pieces and comment them, but I don't want to argue.

Believe what you want to believe. I'm sticking to my reasoning.

st00pid

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by risktypeS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Jason you can't argue that a 400hp turbo'd car will run even close to the same times of a 400hp N/A car. That N/A car will kill and i mean KILL a 400hp turbo'd car with no remorse.


</TD></TR></TABLE>

No sir, Unfortunately the 400hp NA car doesnt have the most important mod for any car to get the win.. a boost controller.

Pat_S

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by st00pid &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

No sir, Unfortunately the 400hp NA car doesnt have the most important mod for any car to get the win.. a boost controller.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Is there even a 400 hp car that's N/A out there? Lets think realistically.

st00pid

There are too many factors to say one will win over the other.. I would say 300whp NA vs 300whp turbo in 2800lb RSXs the turbo will win, in a real world race, the turbo car will end up making a little more boost in 4th gear and will end up making more power. Generally, a turbo car will make more torque. To say it would take double the turbo horsepower to beat an NA car is just crazy talk at least with traction being equal.

WhiteOnRice

I don't know how anyone could think a 300 whp boosted would beat 300 whp na... I guess these guys haven't heard of spool.

simonEp3

Anyway....the OP asked what we thought of his car, not if he should go turbo or N/A....*Thinks to self--Damn everything on H-T ends up getting argued over*

thathondaguy

Actually I was reading some posts on clubrsx and some of those turbo guys have such a tight tune that there is no lag at all.

Stoopid has this right, it's about traction and power delivery. 300 hp na car with 'perfect' traction vs 600 hp turbo car with 'perfect' traction .... na car gets raped, hands down. duplicate cars at x hp race, well then it's all about traction, powerband, and driver skill. There are way to many variables to say who would win in the real world, but typically the na will have better power delivery if it is set up correctly.

Let's face it, if you are making over stock hp on the rsx these cars are bitch when it comes to traction, I couldn't imagine how hard it is to get traction when you are pushing over five hundred hp on this platform.

Still from the guys I have talked to turbo seems like a better option, one dude on club rsx was pushing over 400whp and his gas mileage went up instead of down, I think he said he averaged 36+ mpg, try to do that with n/a.

John

risktypeS

these are just examples:
It takes what ~400hp in a N/A built car to run 9's. now what does it take for the same car with same weight to run 9's in a turbo built car.. roughly ~800hp. N/A power is different then Turbo power and that's one thing that can't be argued.

i'm going to have to disagree with you on the 300whp turbo built vs 300whp N/A built car. On the track the 300 N/A would outperform the 300whp turbo built car by far.

Pat_S

This is my last post in this thread and will leave it to you guys quoting each other. I honestly thought my first post above will end this feud and finally let us all come to a consensus. I guess I was wrong and that this is one of those topics that will actually live forever.

risktypeS

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NJslvrtypes &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">dude not to be a dick but hp is hp no matter what.... somebody please overlay a 300hp NA graph over a 300hp small ball bearing turbo graph. with a similar powerband please explain to me in detail how an "NA" car is going to kill a turbo car... hp is hp, tq is tq, and with a similar powerband these cars are going to run similar times. there is no magically power that a NA rsx posses nor a turbo rsx. </TD></TR></TABLE>
hp is hp yes but when it comes to a N/A built car vs. a turbo built car, the N/A will outperform the turbo built on lower HP. N/A power is DIFFERENT compared to a turbo built car.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NJslvrtypes &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
low to mid 200 hp full weight rsx's are running mid to high 13's... same w/ turbo rsx's
300 hp rsx's 12's both turbo and na
never seen an NA rsx over 350 unless on Church's dyno</TD></TR></TABLE>
again i am not talking just your "mildy" built (bolt on) rsx i'm talking fully built vs fully built. If a fully built n/a makes lets say 300hp and a fully built turbo'd makes 300hp the n/a will walk the turbo all day long. N/A power is different to turbo'd power again.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NJslvrtypes &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
just as Stoopid says its traction. i've seen 500hp RSX's run mid 12's, does that mean a mildly built k24 barely touching low 12's is faster? hell no... it means the turbo rsx needs to learn how to drive or invest in not just forged internals, fuel and a crazy turbo kit but suspension, etc.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes traction plays a factor in it but it would play a factor in both setups regardless. Again i am not talking "midly" built cars here i'm talking Fully built, can no one comprehend that? If we are talking a mildy built car vs a turbo'd car there is no comparison. the turbo'd car will win because it still has the factory specs + turbo. Now when we talk build vs. build the playing fields change and can be leveled out. That's where N/A power is different then turbo power. 300hp on a N/A built car will surpass 300hp on a turbo'd car. Same car, same driver same weight.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NJslvrtypes &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
also focus more on TRAP speeds and not times.. thats a better indication of what a car is capable of w/ traction. blueshark may have ran a 12.6 but look at that trap speed and find me a full wieght NA RSX even close to that lmao. yet i could find plenty of na rsx's w/ better than a 12.6

also, full weight rsx in puerto rico. 10's w/ low 500hp, i think he can pull 10's w/ 654 and trapping 120's on pump lmao

</TD></TR></TABLE> Yes trap speed is a tell tale.
I must of misread something on the 12.6 run @ 123 i apologize on that i thought i read 103 somewhere which equates to a high 12 run. Again i apologize blueshark. To run a 10.9 he's got to run 124ish + trap so he has the possibility there but do you have the driving skill? lol

blueshark123

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by risktypeS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">these are just examples:
It takes what ~400hp in a N/A built car to run 9's. now what does it take for the same car with same weight to run 9's in a turbo built car.. roughly ~800hp. N/A power is different then Turbo power and that's one thing that can't be argued.

i'm going to have to disagree with you on the 300whp turbo built vs 300whp N/A built car. On the track the 300 N/A would outperform the 300whp turbo built car by far.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Im not flaming nor name calling just having a discussion. Please find me a 400hp NA car that runs 9s without nitrous. Then find out its weight and trap. Also you never explained how compression came into the picture.

st00pid

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by risktypeS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">these are just examples:
It takes what ~400hp in a N/A built car to run 9's. now what does it take for the same car with same weight to run 9's in a turbo built car.. roughly ~800hp. N/A power is different then Turbo power and that's one thing that can't be argued.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well to run 9s in a 400hp car, it would have to e a 1600lb bucket. If you were to take the same chassis and drop in a turbo motor, guess what will put it back in the 9s.. 400hp.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
i'm going to have to disagree with you on the 300whp turbo built vs 300whp N/A built car. On the track the 300 N/A would outperform the 300whp turbo built car by far.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

You can disagree all you want. That doesnt change the real world physics. Youre not looking at all the factors. It sounds like you are comparing Norris' insight to the clutchmasters sfwd car. Theres about 700lbs difference between the cars. If you want to be fair about it just pull up two equal power cars, one NA, one turbo, same weight, same tires, same driver. Now depending on the setups and the powerbands, The car with the broader powerband should win. from the cars I have seen the turbo cars making the same power make more torque, they make a high average horsepower throughout the rpms.

If you want to continue to argue this based off of cars you have seen that arent in the same class or weight then you will never see the big picture.

Oh, and if you were to take norris 400hp insight and drop an 800hp motor in it it would probably go mid 8s, at probably around 180mph.. thats about a second quicker and 40mph faster. That class used to be called hot rod.