VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,441 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Why do most people consider forced induction as "cheating" when talking performance cars? When comparing a FI-engined car and a (comparable) normally aspirated one, the "yeah, but the [insert car] is turbocharged/supercharged..." will always some up, as if talking about a 'doped' sprinter, versus a non-doped one...
Why would forced induction be a 'less-honorable' way of achieving performance??? Isn't it all about efficiency? (getting more with less...) Why should it matter then what engineering approach is used to achieve high numbers?
[flame suit on] I always thought of big displacement engines as 'cheating', as there is hardly any engineering involved in sticking a 5.0 liter V8 under a hood, and calling it a day... (I'm not dissing Mustangs here, just using the numbers as an example...) [flame suit off]
Care to share your opinion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,641 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

Quote, originally posted by LuvVDubs »

Care to share your opinion?

Sure:
Why diss anything?
We're all automotive enthusiasts, wether we express that by slapping a fart can on a Kia or building a Lotus 7 replica in our garage. Why does there need to be any hate between groups of enthusiasts?
-Nate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

Well, people will always argue in favor of what suits them. In my opinion, turbo/super chargers are becoming more socially accepted,even though forced induction was first patented by Daimler back in 1900 (although it was Francis Roots concept, aka Roots Type) and has been used for over 100 years in the automotive world.

I would think nitrous makes a good argument for 'cheating'. More so than other types of forced induction...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,607 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

Doesn't seem like cheating to me- these are probably the same people who talk about HP per liter or whatever defends their current automotive choice or preference.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,253 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

my opinion is that most people don't discredit forced induction. Most people, however, does not include fanatical Honda S2000 owners and others who seem to think HP/L has a big bearing on performance or bragging rights in general.

If you honestly think that about 5.0s after you just went off about how achieveing numbers is more important than the egineering approach, well I just don't know what to say to you.
Unless the 5.0 part was tounge in cheek, you might as well look in the mirror, that was pretty hypocritcal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,608 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (Piper_VW)

Quote, originally posted by Piper_VW »
Doesn't seem like cheating to me- these are probably the same people who talk about HP per liter or whatever defends their current automotive choice or preference.

i was just about to say the same thing! some people seem to fanatical to defend something absolutely silly. forced induction is all about efficiency... get the MOST amout of "free" power out of an engine. it works on cars, and it works on 30,000 lb trucks. if it's "cheating" then fuel injection is "cheating" too.

obin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,441 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (MGQ)

Quote, originally posted by MGQ »
If you honestly think that about 5.0s after you just went off about how achieveing numbers is more important than the egineering approach, well I just don't know what to say to you.
Unless the 5.0 part was tounge in cheek, you might as well look in the mirror, that was pretty hypocritcal.

No, I'm just saying that some approaches to achieving high numbers require less engineering effort - increasing displacement, IMO, being the simplest way of getting high numbers - and some require more. Forced induction, contrary to popular belief, isn't simply slapping a turbocharger/supercharger to a normally aspirated engine, and calling it a day - there's A LOT more thinking behind it. That's why I thing it's unfair to think of it as cheating...
I shouldn't have called high-displacement approach cheating, you're right - because it isn't. It too requires a lot of thinking. My only argument against high displacement is that it's a 1940s approach to getting big numbers out of an engine - low eficiency, if you will...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

While I wouldn't necc call 'forced induction' cheating, I do think it's a lot more impressive to make the max power per given displacement, and/or have a really consistent, responsive powerband.
I'm not actively involved in competitive racing, but I've heard a lot of classes prohibit forced induction or motor displacement, but rarely are there restrictions on say compression ratio, cams, etc. I could see how a really well tuned N/A could be more popular in the motorsports
On the other end of the spectrum, I suppose it might be really hard not to make power if you have tons of displacement. To some I guess displacement would be cheating too. I dunno.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,441 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (ronaldmcdonald)

Quote, originally posted by ronaldmcdonald »
I'm not actively involved in competitive racing, but I've heard a lot of classes prohibit forced induction or motor displacement, but rarely are there restrictions on say compression ratio, cams, etc. I could see how a really well tuned N/A could be more popular in the motorsports

As far as I know, it's the other way arround - no restrictions as far as forced induction, but the displacement is limited... Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,777 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

Quote, originally posted by LuvVDubs »

No, I'm just saying that some approaches to achieving high numbers require less engineering effort - increasing displacement, IMO, being the simplest way of getting high numbers - and some require more. Forced induction, contrary to popular belief, isn't simply slapping a turbocharger/supercharger to a normally aspirated engine, and calling it a day - there's A LOT more thinking behind it. That's why I thing it's unfair to think of it as cheating...

Actually, I believe you have it backwards, especially when looking at it from a consumer's perspective - it's almost always much easier/cheaper to slap on a turbo or supercharger for extra power than it is to open/swap the engine.
As far as the manufacturer's go, FI is still easier IMHO. The Ford GT is a good example of this. A supercharged V-8 instead of a V-10 is much less impressive to me - I can add a supercharger to a V-8 but I can't create two more cylinders.
My last car was a WRX (turbo) and my next car is a MINI Cooper S (SC), so I'm not against FI - I know it has it's place in budget performance applications. But FI can't hold a candle to the excitment of an engine like an M3's 333 HP 3.2L



Modified by fueledbymetal at 12:04 PM 2-12-2004
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,628 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (fueledbymetal)

I agree with the nitrous is kinda cheating. Its almost like its too easy to get that power out of an engine and as an enthusiast, I like to see some hard/interesting work done to an engine.
Its the same when there's a street race with say, I dont' know, maybe a 2.0 and a mustang 5.0 If the 2.0 wins, it means the dub owner must have worked hard to get his car all nice and fast. I think other people feel the same when its equivalent motors (base) and one guy has a turbo, its cool that a NA car can keep up, hence bragging rights. Its like voting for the underdog, the NA car is just cooler.
I have nothing against FI, would love it myself, but its neat in a way to be competitive w/out FI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,479 Posts
If I was looking at two fast cars, one was FI and one was NA and said "yah, but that one has a Turbo on it". Its not so much a diss on the turbo car, but props to the NA car for doing more with less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

All NA engines have to work with atmospheric pressure being a given - one atmosphere or 14.7 lbs/sqin. That is all that will draw in more air for combustion and power.
Designing and tuning an NA engine for performance is an art.
-Open the intake and exhaust, but not too much since you don't want to kill your torque
-increase valve lift and duration enough to give you plenty of overlap for high rpm power.
-Give it a high compression ratio, and lighten and strengthening the moving stuff to allow manic engine speeds.
When you turbocharge, you will typically make modifications that would hinder the performance of a NA engine such as lowering the compression ration, retarding ingnition, and reducing overlap on cams.
All of these measures are taken in order to all more boost without the engine being damaged. They are not for horsepower themselves. Well, the cam timing is obviously for horsepower, but doesn't increase flow in the same way you would with an NA engine.
Designing a turbocharged engine is, to me, more like going to war with a tank rather than a honed sword. Sure the technology is impressive, but it's mostly there to keep things from blowing up when the engine's little helper (boost) shows up in a big way. Most turbo engines have meaty torque curves AND high horsepower ratings. Try that with an NA engine of normal capacity.
So, as you can see, there are reasons why people might say that FI si cheating in some contexts.


Modified by SVTFecus at 5:57 PM 2-12-2004
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,441 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (fueledbymetal)

Quote, originally posted by fueledbymetal »

Actually, I believe you have it backwards, especially when looking at it from a consumer's perspective - it's almost always much easier/cheaper to slap on a turbo or supercharger for extra power than it is to open/swap the engine.

Yeah, I agree with you on this one - from tuner's/enthusiast's perspective it is, indeed, a lot simpler/cheaper to boost performance by FI, rather than increasing the displacement, but that's not what I meant when I compared FI & high displacement engines.
Quote, originally posted by fueledbymetal »
As far as the manufacturer's go, FI is still easier IMHO. The Ford GT is a good example of this. A supercharged V-8 instead of a V-10 is much less impressive to me - I can add a supercharger to a V-8 but I can't create two more cylinders.

Sure it's easier, when you're borrowing parts from other/older platforms, to cut the costs of the R&D (it's much cheaper to supercharge/turbocharge an existing motor, rather than start from scratch, and design an all-new engine...). How about develompent of a new engine? Would you still think that it is cheaper to design/build a FI engine than a NA one?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,813 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

Quote, originally posted by LuvVDubs »

Why do most people consider forced induction as "cheating" when talking performance cars? When comparing a FI-engined car and a (comparable) normally aspirated one, the "yeah, but the [insert car] is turbocharged/supercharged..." will always some up, as if talking about a 'doped' sprinter, versus a non-doped one...
Why would forced induction be a 'less-honorable' way of achieving performance??? Isn't it all about efficiency? (getting more with less...) Why should it matter then what engineering approach is used to achieve high numbers?
[flame suit on] I always thought of big displacement engines as 'cheating', as there is hardly any engineering involved in sticking a 5.0 liter V8 under a hood, and calling it a day... (I'm not dissing Mustangs here, just using the numbers as an example...) [flame suit off]
Care to share your opinion?

Forced induction isn't cheating...but I do think using nitrous is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,008 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

people who whine about turbos as cheating are jealous...even nitrous isnt cheating if u ask me...its about wut power u can get out of an engine that counts...doesnt matter wut u use... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,816 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (snuffyboy3)

i usually think of it in terms of driveability, i dont really care for a lot of turbo charged cars for day in day out driving, theres something about having a pretty precise feeling of throttle with NA cars, it feels nice and generally smooth, turbos on the otherhand, feel pretty bouncy in daily driving, but when you wanna rip on a road or track a little bit, it feels fantastic, kinda like a game you play with the car to see if youre good at putting the power on when its time...its fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

I don't care if anyone thinks it's cheating. You don't get very far in this world by following the rules.
I never fight fair.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,777 Posts
Re: Why diss forced induction??? (LuvVDubs)

Quote, originally posted by LuvVDubs »

How about develompent of a new engine? Would you still think that it is cheaper to design/build a FI engine than a NA one?

Starting form scratch, I think it would depend on the relative size & output of the engines you're working with:
- A twin turbo 300ZX 3.2L engine (300 hp) probably cost more to develope & manufacture than the 4th gen Corvette's 5.7L LT1 engine (300 HP)
- The Honda S2000 2.0L engine (240 HP) probably cost more to develope & manufacture that the Dodge Neon SRT 4 2.4L engine (230 HP)
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top