well ok, i was thinking about it today, and whether all of us like forced induction or not, i'll say now i think it sucks coming from factory and alreay figured into horsepower... that said

Without looking at the numbers and someone looks over the basic specs and one saw say the Ford Mustang with a supercharger and then comparitivly saw a Camaro without a supercharger, would one base a judgement that the Mustang is faster strictly based on that? And if this were true should GM follow pursuit?

Just a thought about GM and marketing... and should they find a loop-hole in the forced indcution catagory or should they make the vehicle forced inducted?

 

what the heck are you talking about?

 

does it make a car appear faster on paper to have a turbo or supercharger?

 

I think I know what you're trying to say. And unfortunately, with today's youth and ricer mentality, having FI probably does lead to perception of being a better performer. As soon as a car is FI, they probably start thinking of upping the boost/PSI and what not.

Hopefully, people would actually look at the numbers to see what each car is packing. I my self prefer NA and the LS* series engines are obviously no slouch when it comes to performance. I'd take the better designed, more compact and lighter LS* engine than an iron block FI engine.

 

Believe it or not yes to the untrained non-enthusiast. Add anything to a car with the word "Super" or "Turbo" anything and you start conjuring images in peoples heads of speed and power.

 

Chalk me up to a typical ricer guy who would prefer to have a super charged iron block making 390hp.

Man.. I'm so not cool. he he he

 

I also love that the LSx makes a ton of power NA, and am a big fan of GM powertrains in general. This was discussed in another thread, and I must say I would now agree, that having the bulletproof bottom end that usually accompanies SCed engines is also a big+. When talking about selling to the masses (which Camaro must do to be a success), I think that the Camaro would have to be atleast on par with the the guys from "Across Town", meaning yes IMO they should roll out a SCed edition. Because I could see it now my Mustang has a SCer and your Camaro doesn't AH Ha! I would hope they would offer the good internals without the SCer so as to leave that for any of us DIYers. Maybe give all the engines the good stuff or atleast make it optional without the factory SCer. 390hp SCed was weak JMHO, AHem... LS2 No SCer 400HP. Supercharger... We no need no stinking SCer.

 

Same here. I love the simplicity, weight, packaging of the Lsx motors, but the blown Fords (4.6 & 5.4) are very potent and capable monster in their own right. Moddifing these things are so damn easy. Same with the Poopra TT, Buick Grampa National, Hypeline GTR, etc.... These cars along with the 03-04 Cobra's are in a class of their own imo. Their potential's legendary, and the engines overbuilt. Yes, Boost is quite a thing to have.

Getting back to the question, yes, "turbocharged" or "supercharged" does help market the car as a higher-performance offering. Why? Typically, these two conjur images of higher performance while N/A is just....well... N/A. So from a performance marketing standpoint, F/I > N/A.

In the tuner market, that's why Honda's are losing their cool. Sure, their N/A 2.0's 4 bangers are making 210hp in the compact RSX-S and upcoming Si, but in the eyes of the tuners, the Supercharged Cobalt SS and Scion tC, as well as the turbocharged SRT's will have more of a thing going for them because F/I gives them more flexibility than a regular N/A 4 banger.

 

If you like making power, than factory FI is very good.

 

I don't think so. In fact, one of the first things my ricer friends had to say about the Cobalt SS was "well it needs FI to get that power so Honda's are still better." That said, they almost all like the Cobalt...