Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger
Throw a tune on the turbo 4 and suddenly your looking at TQ numbers closer to 400.
|
For 400-ish numbers (and even 350's), you're better off with a little more displacement combined with a little less boost and a safer tune. Some years ago, Subaru and Mitsubishi went in opposite directions on this, and for all of those times where you aren't on boost (think about being caught sub-2000 rpm in 3rd gear or higher) the car will be more responsive with the larger, lower boost combination.
Seems to me that acceptability of a smallish displacement engine in a ponycar is predicated upon it having at least 'good' throttle response under as wide a variety driving conditions as reasonably achievable. Trust me on this - I
know what even 2.5L off-boost in the wrong gear in a 3400-ish lb car feels like, and it's no better than "barely adequate for a daily driver or winter beater".
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM
Would rather see a turbo 8 option
|
That much of it would be a good topic starter for wondering about how a future ZL1 would be configured, but is irrelevant here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy
I agree, still can't figure why no one will compare turbo V6 to turbo 4 on this thread. Any performance (HP and TQ) you get from FI of a 4 banger, you can get with FI V6 or FI V8.
|
It doesn't make sense to compare engines that would not compete against each other. There is no common ground for consensus, and it would become just another big waste of free electrons (just like V8 vs V6 and MT vs AT already are).
Remember that the only reason for discussing turbos here at all is because NA fours have even less chance of being found acceptable.
Norm