I dont disagree.... when the boost would hit in an evo, my buddys mk2 supra....buddys GSX
I disagree, after you drive a great TURBO motor, there is no going back. It ruins everything else. My Tdi was as hockey stick, dead under 2200 and then power from 2500-3500, and it was not great. On and of switch, = dead no balls or peeling out at a red light.
The m3/335i were wonderful in comparison, as is the mini to be honest. Power comes on at 1500-1800rpm, and doesn't fall off, it just feels like an engine with 2x the displacement. And on the freeway you get decent MPG.. and at altitude the cars don't feel like DOGS. The variable boost and compensating for exterior air pressure issues is the best feature.
Gbergs R felt like it had a V6 under the hood. Power everywhere. But it lacked the manic nature of the EJ on boost. Both are fun.
I will say that if the car makes peanuts for power without the turbo it’s annoying as shit to have lag. If it makes acceptable power off boost and then turns into a screamer on boost that’s fun. The MK6 GTI fell into the first camp. The STI fits into the second.
Like, throwing more turbo lag at the Honda 1.5T wouldn’t improve it IMO.
I miss real turbo lag from old 80's products.
My 951 was like a switch at 4.5k RPM. It was mild under that, then it hit 4.5k and it was a manic rocket. Terrible for drag racing, but epic for
Modern cars don't exhibit that kind of lag. DI and modern engine controls do a good job of filling in the gaps.
Agreed that the base engine needs to have some balls before the boost kicks in, otherwise it's more frustrating than fun.
Modern cars that knocked for lag (STi, WRX, GLA45) are nothing like that stuff. The old stuff lag rates highly in the giggle factor arena. Kinda like a 2-stroke motorbike
As the only published author in a well-known motorcycle publication in the room...
max225 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:50 am
I am going to be here but I didn't perceive the STI to have some sort of immense lag. Same goes for the WRX.
Depends what you consider "lag"
Compared to modern cars, there's certainly some lag. Compared to old turbo cars, they have NA like power delivery.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm
My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
I dont disagree.... when the boost would hit in an evo, my buddys mk2 supra....buddys GSX
I disagree, after you drive a great TURBO motor, there is no going back. It ruins everything else. My Tdi was as hockey stick, dead under 2200 and then power from 2500-3500, and it was not great. On and of switch, = dead no balls or peeling out at a red light.
The m3/335i were wonderful in comparison, as is the mini to be honest. Power comes on at 1500-1800rpm, and doesn't fall off, it just feels like an engine with 2x the displacement. And on the freeway you get decent MPG.. and at altitude the cars don't feel like DOGS. The variable boost and compensating for exterior air pressure issues is the best feature.
But is the Mini’s engine that much fun?
Maybe the JCW is different but the B38 and B48 engines I’ve driven are diesel-like and torquey around town, but hardly much fun to wring out as power dies of quick.
Talking about 2.0T or smaller engines now, not turbo 6s like the B58.
I disagree, after you drive a great TURBO motor, there is no going back. It ruins everything else. My Tdi was as hockey stick, dead under 2200 and then power from 2500-3500, and it was not great. On and of switch, = dead no balls or peeling out at a red light.
The m3/335i were wonderful in comparison, as is the mini to be honest. Power comes on at 1500-1800rpm, and doesn't fall off, it just feels like an engine with 2x the displacement. And on the freeway you get decent MPG.. and at altitude the cars don't feel like DOGS. The variable boost and compensating for exterior air pressure issues is the best feature.
But is the Mini’s engine that much fun?
Maybe the JCW is different but the B38 and B48 engines I’ve driven are diesel-like and torquey around town, but hardly much fun to wring out as power dies of quick.
Talking about 2.0T or smaller engines now, not turbo 6s like the B58.
Is the engine that much fun, I'll be honest here, NO- in a traditional sense. But it is quite a bit of fun with the tuning that mini put it through. It crackles/pops etc... so in a lot of ways it is fun. I also like the fact that it always has power, and the car never ever feels even a little bit slow, with super sharp throttle response and no lag.
The same motor in a heavier 3 series is really crappy in comparison because it has different tuning, is dead silent and it pushes 200-1200 extra lbs around, depending on model.
The only car that I thought had a better 4 cylinder is the Focus RS. It was my favorite of the bunch.
Still it isn't as fun as a proper high rev'ing mustang V8 of course. Everyone has their own preferences of course as to what they consider fun.
Maybe the JCW is different but the B38 and B48 engines I’ve driven are diesel-like and torquey around town, but hardly much fun to wring out as power dies of quick.
Talking about 2.0T or smaller engines now, not turbo 6s like the B58.
Is the engine that much fun, I'll be honest here, NO- in a traditional sense. But it is quite a bit of fun with the tuning that mini put it through. It crackles/pops etc... so in a lot of ways it is fun. I also like the fact that it always has power, and the car never ever feels even a little bit slow, with super sharp throttle response and no lag.
The same motor in a heavier 3 series is really crappy in comparison because it has different tuning, is dead silent and it pushes 200-1200 extra lbs around, depending on model.
The only car that I thought had a better 4 cylinder is the Focus RS. It was my favorite of the bunch.
Still it isn't as fun as a proper high rev'ing mustang V8 of course. Everyone has their own preferences of course as to what they consider fun.
Mine was so boring in stock form, with the exhaust/pops/whooshes, it's kind of fun. Not an interesting engine but it moves the car well and has some cackle worthy noises. I also have the poverty-spec lightest 3 series powered by this motor.
Is the engine that much fun, I'll be honest here, NO- in a traditional sense. But it is quite a bit of fun with the tuning that mini put it through. It crackles/pops etc... so in a lot of ways it is fun. I also like the fact that it always has power, and the car never ever feels even a little bit slow, with super sharp throttle response and no lag.
The same motor in a heavier 3 series is really crappy in comparison because it has different tuning, is dead silent and it pushes 200-1200 extra lbs around, depending on model.
The only car that I thought had a better 4 cylinder is the Focus RS. It was my favorite of the bunch.
Still it isn't as fun as a proper high rev'ing mustang V8 of course. Everyone has their own preferences of course as to what they consider fun.
Mine was so boring in stock form, with the exhaust/pops/whooshes, it's kind of fun. Not an interesting engine but it moves the car well and has some cackle worthy noises. I also have the poverty-spec lightest 3 series powered by this motor.
Imagine that same motor in a 3800lb convertible or .... a 4200lb suv
Gbergs R felt like it had a V6 under the hood. Power everywhere. But it lacked the manic nature of the EJ on boost. Both are fun.
I will say that if the car makes peanuts for power without the turbo it’s annoying as shit to have lag. If it makes acceptable power off boost and then turns into a screamer on boost that’s fun. The MK6 GTI fell into the first camp. The STI fits into the second.
Like, throwing more turbo lag at the Honda 1.5T wouldn’t improve it IMO.
I miss real turbo lag from old 80's products.
My 951 was like a switch at 4.5k RPM. It was mild under that, then it hit 4.5k and it was a manic rocket. Terrible for drag racing, but epic for
Modern cars don't exhibit that kind of lag. DI and modern engine controls do a good job of filling in the gaps.
Agreed that the base engine needs to have some balls before the boost kicks in, otherwise it's more frustrating than fun.
And the unboosted 2.5 Porsche 4 was a SWEET engine.
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm
Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm
Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.
And the unboosted 2.5 Porsche 4 was a SWEET engine.
But is it still sweet today, now that i has been ragged as the red headed stepchild to a "true" rear engined porsche over 30 years.
944 is a great driver and I would love to take a 951 in decent condition and build that thing to 400whp with epic tons of lag. During my high school days, 87-91, a 944 Turbo was pretty king shit as new cars go, and that is etched in my mind like the C5 is etched in Chris' mind. I had a couple of friends whose parents had 944s (non turbo) and compared to most everything else out there they handled like F1 cars. Want. You can't beat it out of me. If the right 951 came along I would consider offing the C6 for it.
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm
Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm
Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.
But is it still sweet today, now that i has been ragged as the red headed stepchild to a "true" rear engined porsche over 30 years.
944 is a great driver and I would love to take a 951 in decent condition and build that thing to 400whp with epic tons of lag. During my high school days, 87-91, a 944 Turbo was pretty king shit as new cars go, and that is etched in my mind like the C5 is etched in Chris' mind. I had a couple of friends whose parents had 944s (non turbo) and compared to most everything else out there they handled like F1 cars. Want. You can't beat it out of me. If the right 951 came along I would consider offing the C6 for it.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:05 pm
I went to HS from 84-87. College was 87-91.
Some of the kids had E46 M3s in HS... which explains why I got one when I could ... And don't meet your heroes.
There were three epic cars in my high school lot. One was a 67 Camaro with black stripes and built 327. The next was a rotisserie 68 Camaro with a TPI 350.....goddam that was a sweet car. Next up was a red 78 Trans Am 6.6 4 speed. There were two 71 Mustangs......a Mach 1 that looked cool but ran kind of shitty. Bob Whitehead had a red 71' Mustang with a 351 Cleveland and C6 he and his old man built.......550hp with a huge cam that idled like a dragster. But holy fuck was that thing fast. No question the quickest car in the lot after it hooked up.
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm
Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm
Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.
But is it still sweet today, now that i has been ragged as the red headed stepchild to a "true" rear engined porsche over 30 years.
944 is a great driver and I would love to take a 951 in decent condition and build that thing to 400whp with epic tons of lag. During my high school days, 87-91, a 944 Turbo was pretty king shit as new cars go, and that is etched in my mind like the C5 is etched in Chris' mind. I had a couple of friends whose parents had 944s (non turbo) and compared to most everything else out there they handled like F1 cars. Want. You can't beat it out of me. If the right 951 came along I would consider offing the C6 for it.
944 is a great driver and I would love to take a 951 in decent condition and build that thing to 400whp with epic tons of lag. During my high school days, 87-91, a 944 Turbo was pretty king shit as new cars go, and that is etched in my mind like the C5 is etched in Chris' mind. I had a couple of friends whose parents had 944s (non turbo) and compared to most everything else out there they handled like F1 cars. Want. You can't beat it out of me. If the right 951 came along I would consider offing the C6 for it.
I have driven this car you describe. Frightening.
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm
Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm
Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.
But is it still sweet today, now that i has been ragged as the red headed stepchild to a "true" rear engined porsche over 30 years.
944 is a great driver and I would love to take a 951 in decent condition and build that thing to 400whp with epic tons of lag. During my high school days, 87-91, a 944 Turbo was pretty king shit as new cars go, and that is etched in my mind like the C5 is etched in Chris' mind. I had a couple of friends whose parents had 944s (non turbo) and compared to most everything else out there they handled like F1 cars. Want. You can't beat it out of me. If the right 951 came along I would consider offing the C6 for it.
The 951 still remains one of the only cars I regret selling. Mine was maybe mid 200 WHP but was absolutely nuts. Especially with the straight pipe after the cat, it would pop, bang, and snarl with the best of them. The sound also completely changed when boost came on and it was absolutely worthy.
My painter picked up an 87 951 in Guards Red last spring from a dude that wanted it gone for $4k. Needs a new clutch, but the car is mint with 80k miles on it. He thinks it's worth $20k because of the miles, I'm trying to convince him it's worth $10k and he should sell it to me. I'm in his good graces after paying him yesterday for the garage job...he said he has 5 outstanding invoices that have ghosted him. Hoping to swoop up the 951 at a steal when he needs the money more than a car.
It's pretty much the only car I honestly desire.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm
My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
Looks like it made between 160-187 HP.
Forester makes 182 from a revvy motor.
Wiki says a 944 was somewhere between 8-9 seconds 0-60. About the same as a Forester.
the 2.5 Crosstrek would likely be faster.
Yea, the Porsche 2.5 really wasn't a powerhouse. It was buttery smooth and really enjoyed revving, which I can't imagine the 2.5 Subi motor does, but the performance would likely be similar.
Desertbreh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm
My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.