Turbo versus v8 for track use

Just out of curiosity.... what's better overall and long term??

Ran across this on CL.... http://raleigh.craigslist.org/cto/4683738584.html

$800 1993 v6 camaro, and then started looking at rear-mounted turbo kits. Again, not as a possible purchase, just curious.

Would a v6 car( w/ similar suspension, driver, etc ) be better from a balance standpoint, longevity, fuel and disposables usage( tires, components, etc ), etc than a v8?

What have you guys seen or experienced?

Really depends on the car and driver. A turbo engine will generally be under much more stress than a larger V8 making the same power. Weight may not be that much different when it's all done, again depending on the engines. Turbo engine will require more 'fine tuning' and maintenance, heat issues etc.

For what you're asking the V8 is the winner. Boost means more heat, more stuff that can break, and more reason for those things to break. NA all the way for reliability and low running costs.

Consumable use would be close to equal assuming similar amounts of power. If I had to place a bet for which would be more fuel efficient, I'd put it on the V8 though.

Turbo V8

Depends on the track as well. Tracks with long straights and wide sweeping turns tend to work better for turbos than shorter tracks or tracks with tighter corners where the V8's low end torque helps the car out of the corners better.

Properly sizing your turbo (or running lower boost levels and a tiny turbo) will help quite a bit with reducing lag and improving longevity at the expense of ultimate power/speed.

After using both fairly extensively, I would choose V-8. But more than that I'd choose an engine with as close to a linear power curve as possible, which wouldn't be a turbo. That said, once you are intimately familiar with the car, that becomes less of an issue.

Cool beans. Ya'll brought up some good points. I guess I never understood why v6 mustangs, camaros, etc are ignored when compared to their v8 twins. I didnt understand why a suspension and turbo would fix all of the "issues" and make them race-worthy.

Thanks for the brain cycles!!

bravenrace wrote: After using both fairly extensively, I would choose V-8. But more than that I'd choose an engine with as close to a linear power curve as possible, which wouldn't be a turbo. That said, once you are intimately familiar with the car, that becomes less of an issue.

The Holset VGT has been cracked.. http://www.4btswaps.com/forum/showthread.php?29441-Universal-HE351VE-Controller or http://www.ubertechnics.com/VGT-PRE.aspx or http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/112691-my-electronically-controlled-holset-vgt/

Having good throttle response and big power now available with a turbo. Cost effective, probably not as good as a good v8, but cool.

Regarding the VGT, it's been a holy grail for a very long time but has never materialized. It always seems to fail due to exhaust deposits jamming up the moving parts (at least on a gas engine), not about what controller is running it. I also see that this controller is to be released "Sept 2013"...

I would choose V8 but the cars I like the most all are turbo. That's why LS swaps exist I guess but I like to keep stock engines when possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkbi-W2xulE

I've experienced a great many missed track days because turbos are inherently less reliable than naturally aspirated cars. And I mean that there is an exponential factor. Like twice as much plumbing means four times as likely to fail. I've had the turbo for 5 years, but that engine will be out before next season, reaplace with either a 968 powertrain or an S powertrain if I can get the weight down (SP3 allows a 2500# S, 2750 S2, 2875 Turbo, 2900 968, or about 3050 Turbo S).

I don't ever see myself with another turbo track car. And 6 of my 9 cars are turbocharged!!!!! Great for the street.

Holy crap, V6 camaros can sound good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohYuoPVfiyM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNhl4KJP5CM

kb58 wrote: Regarding the VGT, it's been a holy grail for a very long time but has never materialized. It always seems to fail due to exhaust deposits jamming up the moving parts (at least on a gas engine), not about what controller is running it. I also see that this controller is to be released "Sept 2013"...

Right so.. Someone on this board was part of the initial launch of that holset.. and maybe he knows something about the coking issues and knows a little bit of how to solve them.

maybe the aftermarket controllers don't have jam clearing nor blockage detection built into their software..

and maybe.. the assembler of the turbine housing isn't following the vane centering procedure.

There is an austalia company that makes VGTs. They make a lot of bolt on stuff for Skylines and other cars.

They use a manual boost controller to control it. http://www.hypergearturbos.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=72&product_id=67

Over there they call VGTs VNTs for whatever reason. http://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/261613-hypergear-hiflow-service-continued/ - has a index of posts, look up vnt

http://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/261613-hypergear-hiflow-service-continued/page-395#entry6854443

http://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/261613-hypergear-hiflow-service-continued/page-390#entry6846283

Grizz wrote: Holy crap, V6 camaros can sound good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohYuoPVfiyM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNhl4KJP5CM

So basically only at idle with a big cam. Gotcha.

Grizz wrote: Holy crap, V6 camaros can sound good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohYuoPVfiyM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNhl4KJP5CM

They can sound good at idle but still sound like haggard ass under load. That's one of the worst sounding engines ever!!!

MCarp22 wrote:

Grizz wrote: Holy crap, V6 camaros can sound good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohYuoPVfiyM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNhl4KJP5CM

So basically only at idle with a big cam. Gotcha.

Yeah, but why would you do anything but idle it? It's a v6

kanaric wrote: Over there they call VGTs VNTs for whatever reason.

VNT = Variable Nozzle

VGT = Variable Geometry

Basically different verbiage for similar(but different) technology.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

kanaric wrote: Over there they call VGTs VNTs for whatever reason.

VNT = Variable Nozzle VGT = Variable Geometry Basically different verbiage for similar(but different) technology.

Ah good to know.

I kind of want one of their VNT turbos for my Skyline.

kanaric wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

kanaric wrote: Over there they call VGTs VNTs for whatever reason.

VNT = Variable Nozzle VGT = Variable Geometry Basically different verbiage for similar(but different) technology.

Ah good to know. I kind of want one of their VNT turbos for my Skyline.

The VNT's use a variable vane setup.

http://turbo.honeywell.com/our-technologies/vnt-turbochargers/

VGT's use a sliding ring/nozzle.

http://www.myholsetturbo.com/vgt.html

They both do the same effective thing.

Powerful naturally aspirated cars with big flat torque curves are more satisfying to drive over the limit on a road course if you are the sort of person who wants the power EXACTLY when you want it. They are also less likely to be the smoking hulk parked in the infield with the fire extinguisher pointed at it.

Not that boost isn't fun... but it's not really novice friendly on a race track and it's not terribly reliable for years on end unless you really know your E36 M3 when putting it together (or you bought a Porsche). The ebay-built boost buggies are like magnesium. They burn very bright but... they are burned out in a flash.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Powerful naturally aspirated cars with big flat torque curves are more satisfying to drive over the limit on a road course if you are the sort of person who wants the power EXACTLY when you want it. They are also less likely to be the smoking hulk parked in the infield with the fire extinguisher pointed at it. Not that boost isn't fun... but it's not really novice friendly on a race track and it's not terribly reliable for years on end unless you really know your E36 M3 when putting it together (or you bought a Porsche). The ebay-built boost buggies are like magnesium. They burn very bright but... they are burned out in a flash.

Are you talking turbo cars from a "i built this to be turbo" perspective or "this car is stock turbo"?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Powerful naturally aspirated cars with big flat torque curves are more satisfying to drive over the limit on a road course if you are the sort of person who wants the power EXACTLY when you want it. They are also less likely to be the smoking hulk parked in the infield with the fire extinguisher pointed at it. Not that boost isn't fun... but it's not really novice friendly on a race track and it's not terribly reliable for years on end unless you really know your E36 M3 when putting it together (or you bought a Porsche). The ebay-built boost buggies are like magnesium. They burn very bright but... they are burned out in a flash.

I would argue that a proper turbo setup should build torque off idle. Check out these torque curves on an ecoboost 1.0.

Or this Ecoboost 3.5 vs. the 5.0 v8. @ 1500 RPM they build the same torque and then at 2,000 the v6 has more than the v8.

There are a few cars that have a sequential turbo setup for wide as possible torque curve.

The 20B Mazda Cosmo apparently has massive torque from 1800RPM i've been told. Sequential setup.

A JDM Subaru Legacy GT, 90s-early 2000s version, is sequential as well. There is a STI version of that car.