I wouldn't say it's a rediculous stereotype. Most turbo 4's are peaky and have narrow power bands....even a lot of turbo 6's are (mine is...relatively speaking). Your car is the exception, not the rule.

Jason

 

Your engine makes it's torque in a fairly narrow, mid-RPM power band, relative to an LT1 or LS1. Before you get upset, it's still only about 3,000 RPM wide. Better than 2,500 RPM, but still nowhere near 4,000 RPM wide like an LT1. That is an objective way to look at it as a comparison.

So Dodge moved the driveable RPM range lower, which I think is cool. It looks to me like the fun is over by more like 5,500 RPM. Do keep in mind that my orignal quote, that you chopped up, also specifically said these turbo 4-bangers, which meant the ones I was talking about using specific dyno sheets and ETs. The SRT-4 still has a relatively narrow power band, as compared to a SBC, it's just at lower RPM than most 4 cylinders. I'm not knockin' your car and I hope you have big fun driving it. But your approach is still subjective, based on personal preference. For instance, I wouldn't call 250 lb-ft of torque in a 3000 lb car "torquey", but you would. Neither of us is "right", it's just personal preference.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just pointing out some facts, using hard numbers and some simple math.

 

Ooooooo....I'm shakin' in my loafers. After all, this guys talking **** on the internet, he MUST have a fast car

Please, pull out your pocket calculator and go back to pushing pencils, or whatever it is you do.


Hell, I don't even have a streetcar right now!! My Z's gone you non-reading goober (and it's been faster than what's in the sig), and the Altima is BY NO means a fast car, mearly a toy that I like to use to take $$$ from the local 15sec ricers on the weekends. And you wanna race ME??? What a loser...



Jon

 

I read just fine. I can wait 2 weeks for your stang to show up. The one right there in your sig. Not a problem, since I need that long to finish up some loose ends and get the dynotune done.

But don't you find it ironic that you're schoolin' me on street racing at this exact point in time and talkin' smack about people over 30? Come on, it's at least a little bit funny that I'm driving a stroked Z, you're driving an Altima, but you're the self proclaimed expert on street racing and I'm supposed to "pull out your pocket calculator and go back to pushing pencils, or whatever it is you do"? And you think I'm the guy talkin' tough on the internet? That sounds kind of backwards to me, at least at this point. Maybe not in two weeks, though.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it yourself. And one more thing. If you're going to post an ET in your sig, try to make it your fastest time, so you don't have to say. "Oh, I've run faster than that". Because that just doesn't seem right, when you think about it.

Hey, I can be friendly. Try me.

 

An SRT-4 does not weigh 3,000 lbs. So your facts are incorrect. Mine weighed 2850 with a full tank of gas, full interior, as it rolled off the showroom floor.

It amazes me how you consider an LT1's powerband torquey compared to an SRT-4, yet my SRT-4 outguns them left and right and you don't consider it's powerband torquey.

Another thing to consider is that I also have a 500hp Mustang, along with a low 11 second bike. I know a thing or two about torque, so your story about the 427 and your perspective doesn't impress me.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Red Jim
An SRT-4 does not weigh 3,000 lbs. So your facts are incorrect. Mine weighed 2850 with a full tank of gas, full interior, as it rolled off the showroom floor.

You need to let Dodge know, so they can straighten out their info. From www.dodge.com on the SRT-4 specification page.

Base Curb Weight - with Manual Transmission [lb] 2970
Fuel Tank Capacity [gal] 12.5
Weight Distribution - Manual Transmission - % Front 62.0
Weight Distribution - Manual Transmission - % Rear 38.0

They think their car weighs within 30lbs of 3000 lbs. Are you sure about your numbers? Maybe a disagreement in scale calibration?


Another thing to consider is that I also have a 500hp Mustang, along with a low 11 second bike. I know a thing or two about torque, so your story about the 427 and your perspective doesn't impress me.

I wasn't trying to impress you. I was just trying to point out that anybody's opinion is based on their own personal experience. BTW, your Mustang sounds like a nice ride. And aftere all these discussions, there's no way I'm askin' about it's ET. My poor flame suit is getting hot to the touch.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MyZb383

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Red Jim
An SRT-4 does not weigh 3,000 lbs. So your facts are incorrect. Mine weighed 2850 with a full tank of gas, full interior, as it rolled off the showroom floor.

You need to let Dodge know, so they can straighten out their info. From www.dodge.com on the SRT-4 specification page.

Base Curb Weight - with Manual Transmission [lb] 2970
Fuel Tank Capacity [gal] 12.5
Weight Distribution - Manual Transmission - % Front 62.0
Weight Distribution - Manual Transmission - % Rear 38.0

They think their car weighs within 30lbs of 3000 lbs. Are you sure about your numbers? Maybe a disagreement in scale calibration?


Another thing to consider is that I also have a 500hp Mustang, along with a low 11 second bike. I know a thing or two about torque, so your story about the 427 and your perspective doesn't impress me.

I wasn't trying to impress you. I was just trying to point out that anybody's opinion is based on their own personal experience. BTW, your Mustang sounds like a nice ride. And aftere all these discussions, there's no way I'm askin' about it's ET. My poor flame suit is getting hot to the touch.

Do you really put that much stock into what a manufacturer claims? Or do you honestly believe that LS1s really only made 305 horsepower in the F-body? For what it's worth, I've weighed my car at three seperate locations, and they were all within 40 pounds of each other. Not only that, but the SRT-4's gas tank is 10 gallons, not 12.5.

 

As much as I'd like to race you in that stang in sig, I found out that it got bought out from underneath me a couple of days ago, so it'll be a little longer. BUT, if you want to make the drive to VA, then I'll be more than happy to take your money.


So you think because you've got a 383ci LT1 and I currently drive an Altima for my daily transportation, that you're somehow the ****? You have no idea what I've had in the past or my knowledge of cars, but yet you take the liberty to assume you can possibly figure me out based on the fact that I drive an Altima to work??


Your posts give you away Milton...




Jon

 

A well setup turbo car should have a reasonable spool and little-to-no lag.

The Evo is geared perfectly for its powerband. The car makes a damn-near perfectly FLAT torque curve from 3000-7000 (With bolt-ons). The car never feels laggy or you're waiting for boost because of the gearing.

I can't speak for backyard turbo kits on Integras though.

 

I think everyone is talking about 4 cylinders in a Honda/whatever with a large turbo on it making 500+whp being high-rpm only power that they speak of. Not turbo from factory cars like yours.

 

Next.

 

COMNBYU -

I wouldn't be concerned with the rantings of a newb who obviously just wants to argue. Oops, I have an import. Guess I should be quiet now.

In the "anything can be fast" category, check out these recent dyno results for Crown Vics:

455 rwhp, 472 rwtq
http://www.supermotors.org/getfile.p...-3-5_16_04.jpg

Or, in a simple bolt-on blower package on an otherwise stock car (mine will have this setup one day):

308 rwhp, 392 rwtq (not bad torque for a 2v 4.6)
http://www.sovapid.com/dynograph051604.gif

True car guys race all their cars. My Stealth needs a clutch so I'll be racing my Grand Marquis this weekend at an otherwise all-import event

 

Well, if you want to race "that" bad, I CAN find a car to drive. You probably won't like the choices, but I'll let you decide- '80 Malibu w/ 400sbc, '93 Mustang Coupe w/ 306, '67 Camaro w/ 383, or maybe I should just call up my old buddy Joey O'....you might have heard of his ragged old LT1 T/A (no, he won't let me drive it but I just thought I'd throw that out there to try and scare you off).


I hope your 383 F-body runs better than half the ones I've seen at the track...




Jon

 

so where exactly is the problem with high rpm power? in my educated opinion, i would rather have a civic with a large turbo making power from say 4500-9800 rpms than a civic making power from say 3500-8600. yes the second example makes more low end power but you try to hook up a civic with more low end. it wont happen. whereas a civic makin power in the 5000+ range is already hooked up and pulls hard when the power hits.

 

There are only about 4 people in this thread who have bothered to post any hard numbers, then argue their postitions with facts. And those people have all made good points, IMO. Whether I agree with them or not, as in the case of Big Red Jim, I respect the fact that they are not just name calling or telling their favorite track yarn, but are intelligently stating their opinion, then backing it up with a dyno graph or some sort of legit specification. That's cool, whether I agree with them or not.

At least Big Red Jim countered Dodge's weight spec with his own personal experience of *a specific weight reading* on more than one set of scales. That makes me think he might have a valid point. COMNBYU has yet to quote a single fact or objective reference about much of anything. The total basis for his arguments is his own personal streetracing experience, which is supposed to be the absolute reference point, as though no one else in the thread has spent a couple of *decades* racing cars. He gets challenged on something, and then he goes personal, in a hurry. So I'm the one "talkin' tough on the internet" while he's the guy talking about racing in cars he doesn't even own. Gimme a break.

There is nothing wrong with debating opinions. That's how thinking people learn and solve problems. But when they aren't able to articulate a position based upon any kind of objective data to back it up, some people immediately drop into the old standby of name calling. A poor substitute for facts and the intelligent discussion of them to back up your position. So what you do is call somebody a "pencil pusher" or a "newb", then happily go on your way feeling like, "Hey, I showed HIM!". But all you really showed is that you can spell "newb".

Whatever.