| Squeezing out big numbers from a small engine is neat to see for a dyno queen, but that's all it is. It won't be very drivable. same goes for the VG, so what's your point? and these larger dyno SRs are from drag cars. But just to shoot you little theory in the ass the SR that, signel is running T88-33D turbo with over 700 hp but it’s in drag set up, in circuit car set up it used a T78-33D but has factory backed and a stroker so I didn’t use it.La-Z-Link La-Z-Link Saying it does better than a NA Z doesn't say much for a mod that's so expensive and labor intensive. I wonder what kind of power you could get out of the VG (that's already meant to fit the Z32) for that money? and parts and labor for the swap and to make the SR very high HP are cheaper then the same for the VG swap, in the HP vrs liter. It’s not very labor intensive, there is much more room to work with and much less would have to go in to body modding with the SR vrs any turbo kit on the VG that will require the frame to be notched and reinforced. And the SR with turbo would sit farther back in the bay and it’s lighter in full trim that a VG in full trim. So making a better balanced car, and easier to hook up.La-Z-Link Also, their peak torque still isn't that high. So you'll be waiting a while for that boost to kick in, and even when it does you won't have all that much torque. also i think you need to go back to the statement you made about the peak tq, that's what you where basing your micky mouse opinion on and that's where i proved it wrong. now you go a change it to the over all area under the peak. Make up your mind. You say that about bsters having much more aggressive cams. As you can see the last SR with the larger turbo suffers from the same thing. But you ignore that fact. LOL The SR's are lacking usable torque in those examples. On that Enjuko kit, the SR isn't making 300 lbs of torque until about 4200 rpm, while the VG is making it by 3100 rpm. By 4200 rpm, the VG is making about 420 lbs of torque. So comparing two engines that put out similar HP, we see that the VG would be easily pulling ahead since its onset of torque is so much sooner, plus the fact that its peak torque is much higher. While at the end of the gear both engines are putting out similar HP, the VG has put out much more average HP the entire time (more area under the curve). umm are you comparing the stock turbo VG vrs the mid turbo? cuz that’s what it sounds like, so yes it would pull ahead quicker. NOW, (sense you bitch about bster`s dyno I will do a handicap comparison. So if you reverse the situation, Ashs big HP VG barely makes 200 rwtq at 4.4k where as the stock, but tuned, SR makes 200 rwtq at 3.1k. Pretty ironic, eh? Or BOTH larger turbos motors BOTH hit 200tq at 4.35.. want to look at tq under the curve? Think I blew that one up too. please I set them up stock turbo vrs stock. Mid sized vrs mid sized, and large vrs large. There is another SR that has put out larger numbers that the one I used, just to give some what of a pitty edge to the VG. And I couldn’t find it in the time aloud. =\
how about you compare the liter per HP. that's a much better way to compare. The SRs used are 205 BHP versions. (There are 215 bhp SRs that are putting out 270 and 270 with bolt ons.) So the larger turbos on both motors come out to……..270RWHP per liter on the SR and 244 per liter on the the VG… also you seem to forget the internals on the SR are lighter and forged and rev quicker on the Stock shot block and with a 8k redline. The gearing is much more aggressive in SR tranny. While the VG’s is taller.
you are just trying to stone wall in to a comparison that can never be made. both motors are great but SR would be better for the NA to Turbo swap than the VGDETT
________________________________________________________
RIC, my spelling sux, deal with it.
max hp 207.4 max torque 188.7
 |
