Silvia Club of NSW

Yep good points. I didn't relise that the HQ would have had some pollution control on the car, even back then. Yeah my brothers VP wasn't the best example of a lot of things. Had some reliability issues over its time and that FE2 suspension that Holden ranted on about wasn't really enything special either. Oooh well, I don't like Holdens much anyway.

I guess this argument can wager on for an eternity. There will be no winners, only losers, which is all of us by arguing this as opposed to going out and driving our cars. I have had enough of this argument. It is one that cannot be won. If you like V8's fine. I like them to, but not as much, and after having some in the family over the years I wouldn't buy one any time soon. I like my 4cyl turbo or non, but yet would rather watch a V8 race anyday over those weeny super tourers.

I will still disagree about the drivability of turbo cars. My S15 is pretty damn drivable, with barley a hint of lag. Maybe we could be more constructive in this and give you a sample one day, not that it will change your mind, but maybe at least get you to see that it is not as bad as what you would expect. Maybe you could take me for a drive in your cars, and get me to think hey maybe not as bad as I thought either. I think would be a better approach. I only think this way about V8's because of the experience I have had in them.

Cheers.

the rule of v8 buying is don't buy a holden as they are chronically unreliable and have been since well before pollution control.
i have been in QIK180s 180 at all times during it's buildup. i was there the to pick it up , to get quotes on engine work etc so i have some idea about which i speak and please believe me when i say that for instant response at any speed in any gear the pre pollution v8 is a tied first with a rotary.
Other than there are no hard feelings as your entitled to put a case forward for this topic. this is a forum and you can say what you want, in fact you can even fucking swear.

With a ROTARY? Hmmm... dunno how you got to that conclusion, but suah is life

_________________
There aint no substitute for cubic inches!!!

[quote]
playing lots of catchup with your manual small capacity turbo, which has about about the pulling power of my mum's festiva below 3000rpm.

-Mate u have the best pulling power, or so ur cousin says....

As Henry Ford said, it's dangerous to drive fast around corners.

-Dumb fuck cant drive and doesnt have the suspension and handling technology that we have now


As for the 11's see you this time next year coz thats when u will be able to afford it.

_________________
"The opinions expressed by QIK180 are not necessarily the opinions of anyone"

pfftttt 11's

Yeah should probably aim for 10's eh!!!

_________________
"The opinions expressed by QIK180 are not necessarily the opinions of anyone"

Oh, one last thing, the reason that cubic inches were big in the 60's was not becuase they didnt have the technology: Paxton have been making centrifugal blowers for 50 years and fuel injection has been in use in the US since '57. The reason why they went for big cubes is because they could; clearly big cubes is the best way to increase your power; turbos etc are compromises brought about by beancounters and legislators, both of which were in short supply in the 60's.

_________________
There aint no substitute for cubic inches!!!

you DANG FOOL!
turbos were invented near the turn of the century for use in aircraft to comphensate for low atmospheric pressure allowing engines to be used at higher altitude, so lets not call them "new technology" because thats not what its about.
EFI has taken its time to get to the point where the EFI/turbo combination gets full effect. thats the technology.
and dont even get me started on early american EFI. in the 50's, ford was testing out a car driven by a fucking GAS TURBINE. deeeeeeeer
yeah i can see everyone driving cars with exhaust gases in the millions of degrees region!
and id like to ask specifically WHY a bigger displacement engine is the best way to increase power? if you can have a small engine that burns exactly the same amount of fuel and air mix, and produces the same power, weighs less and can be adjusted from say the equivalent of 5 litres displacement (2.0LT on 1.5 bar) and back to 3 litres (2.0LT on 0.5 bar)
????????????????????????????????????
so in short, nothing is new, its all been done before, but some can see where its heading and some cant.

Hey XY u stooge Renault have been usin turbo's for bloody ages pre 50's so wake up to urself u arseclown.

_________________
"The opinions expressed by QIK180 are not necessarily the opinions of anyone"

Utenvy, for a start, it was Chrysler, not Ford who researched the gas turbine... not surprisingly, as you pointed out, it was not a success. The fact is that the vast majority of the public prefer smooth power delivery to sudden spurts like you get in a turbo motor. Shit, max power is only half the story. My brother's 96 4.0 falcon had the same max power as my old 82 Ford LTD 5.8, but even though the LTD was 300kg heavier it was 1000 times nicer to drive and just as quick because it got it's power lower in the rev range.

Why do you think subaru have a twin turbo liberty? to make more power? no, it is because 2 small turbos produce less lag then one big one, and as such the car appeals to more drivers who dont want to have to rev their motor to within an inch of its life just to get some good acceleration, and who appreciate that a car with more low down torque but less high end power is a better road car because it will last much longer and is more effortless (for the car and the driver) to drive

_________________
There aint no substitute for cubic inches!!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XYGTHO on 2002-02-19 23:06 ]</font>

WHO CARES WHAT CAR IS BEST!!!! All types of cars can be appreciated and admired. I prefer turbo fours but it doesnt mean i cant appreciate the work and effort people put into other cars. A car is what u make it. Some people like their cars for power, some for stereos......just have some respect for all types of cars...

well, xygtho, that still doesnt discount the convenience of being able to adjust the potential displacement of an engine.
and as for power in the rev range, you just cant beat a worked turbo engine with a programmable computer.
"pick your peak" is the phrase that comes to mind.
dont get me wrong, my sisters boyfriend is diehard V8 and i can appreciate all nice older CARS(i drive an 86 with old-school rear end so you know thats true) but old-tech engines send a shudder down my spine.

I should add im not privy to turbo, i have more than once imagined a massive blower sticking out of the navara.

Utenvy: true, good point, and I will also admit that I do like a quick turbo car, even a 4cl one like QIK180's. But personally I prefer an engine that can chug along at 1200rpm and accelerate hard without having to change gears... I suppose it is the flexibility which I like, the high average power as opposed to high max power.

That being said, I am planning to build my 351C to make power from 3500 rpm and up, but will be using a suitable torque convertor to maximise average power.

_________________
There aint no substitute for cubic inches!!!

Thanks XY i know u love the 180!!!! Oh yeah and where the fun in drivin if u cant rev ur engine within an inch of its life????

Seems like the arguement has cooled off and everyone is happy ohhhhhh isn't that nice . To each their own......

_________________
"The opinions expressed by QIK180 are not necessarily the opinions of anyone"