Everybody loves boost, but if I'm looking for appx. 300 whp, would it be cheaper to go all motor or stage 3 turbo?

The all motor would definitely have less maintenence, right?

If there were 2 eclipses with 300 whp, one turbo and one all motor, which would be faster in the 1/4, either?

Just curious, TIA.

'98 Talon Esi
Apex'i N1 Catback Exhaust|Greddy 4-1 Header|Bosch Platinum +4 Plugs|Iceman CAI|Upper Front & Rear Strut Bars|

___________________________________

>>>>>appx. 300 whp, would it be cheaper to go all motor or stage 3 turbo?
The all motor would definitely have less maintenence, right?>>>

in theory, ya.. but tuning would be a nitch on the n/a car, and to get the 420a to pump out 300whp w/no turbo or nitrous will be far from easily accomplished

>>>>If there were 2 eclipses with 300 whp, one turbo and one all motor, which would be faster in the 1/4, either?

i think the n/t woul be faster cuz the added low end torque as to the turbo car waitin to spool in the low rpm range...but it really depends on the driver.

03 srt-4 13.130@112.47mph (n2o, stock turbo, 10/2003)
now: 20g, portfueler, bpu+++ (track/dyno times tbd...)

i farted on your wiki

...but at say 250HP more things come into play. Although a fully worked over swap with 300 ponies I think would be slower it would also make compromise with a significant loss in low end TQ BUT would only affect the NA driver in 1st gear and affect optimum repeatable launching. In 2nd and 3rd (for quarter mile purposes) and staying above 4500rpms it wouldn't matter. Now that turbo would be on full boil and much more TQ through out the entire rpms the whole way down the track. So at 300+ I'd give it to the Turbo. High HP NA motors all sacrifice TQ. Even F1 cars keep a sick idle and have to peel from a stop to go anywhere (they don't just do it for sho ).

At about 250HP each the turbo would be ahead because of the TQ they posses but then the extra weight of the turbo system and even spool up could possibly get the best of them in 2nd and 3rd gear but none of this matter if the turbosystem is using a small turbo. Then again I have no TQ loss at low speed whatsoever. With a T3/T4 the NA would have the power advantage and instant throttle response so I'd give it to the NA. So in general I would say the turbo is more feasible for adjustable power and mileage but on a roadcourse with our low gearing and given the fact that the NA 250 is always on tap and the drop of a gear or staying in higher revs will always ensure instant power.

The only thing left to point out is that the turbo requires more maintenance and special attention like making sure you warm it up, overheating, extra gauges and I would say fuel management is a little more important. You run too lean NA and you simply encounter fuel cut but run too lean with pressure and you may end up watching several thousand dollars go down the drain (since they have FCD's). Turbo replacement is in the picture as well since NA an engine overhaul isn't required for several thousand miles past the life of a turbocharger. Or you could remember that with a turbo 300-600HP is easily a reality and worth the small nit picks of auto upkeep when compared to NA and a cap of around 300HP (maybe 350 with psycho 2.6L
2.4block)

*Skrilla
"Honest officer, I thought you were trying to race me"
Talon: 1st 2.4L
'97 Prelude
'04 350Z

Originally posted by etx
Good luck man! Project 'STFU Brian your talon is dead meat' should be on it's feet soon!

welcome back Jo.

______________________________
If a sentence found online has 35% misspellings or greater and includes at least two racially charged expletives, chances are it is a YouTube comment.

'95 Eclipse TurboGS (garage deco)
'95 TSi AWD (restoring a survivor)
'97 Talon ESi-T (poor impulse control)
'99 Eclipse RS-T (daily beater)
'13 Evo X (mostly stock)
'17 Sienna (Middle Aged Dad Mobile)



Factory Service Manuals: http://nawdu.de/files/

skrilla u need to hit us up with pics fo the 2.4 man =P

You can have it cheap, fast or good. Pick any two.

If you want it cheap and fast, it's not going to be good.
If you want it cheap and good, it's not going to be fast.
If you want it good and fast, it's not going to be cheap.

all motor is alright and stuff..but once you try turbo..it's so fun. once that boost builds and you feel it kick in..you will get flung back in your seat and feel the pressure. and getting 300whp of an all motor is quite hard considering you don't want nos or turbo. to get 300whp with turbo is quite easy. if you're a gst/gsx..all you would really need is a little bit bigger turbo..exhaust system, straight pipe, intake..maybe a front mount..and get an AFC and tune it. NA..i don't know how you will pull off 300hp..

Mark

'95 Eclipse GST - gone
'00 Jetta GLS

I'm not totally sure how I would hit 300 whp either, but my dad has a camaro with 350 HP, and I've driven some nice turbo's, so I know how they both feel...both are a hell of a lot cooler than what I have. My dad is also a mechanic and he does a lot of engine building and he has a couple ideas he wants to try out when I get some cash and he thinks we can hit 300 (if not whp, at least flyHP). I just can't decide which to have...turbo is cool, but all-motor pulls like a 'sumbitch too!

'98 Talon Esi
Apex'i N1 Catback Exhaust|Greddy 4-1 Header|Bosch Platinum +4 Plugs|Iceman CAI|Upper Front & Rear Strut Bars|

___________________________________

300 whp all motor car would be fun to drive imo. Also when racing I am not sure how you guys launch but on my mx6 (turbo) I never let it drop below 3500 rpm on launch so I am always at full boost. So if a 300whp turbo car raced a 300whp all motor car it would depend on gears, where the top hp is on each car, and drivers I am sure there are more factors but thats all I know. In an all motor car top HP is almost always at or near red line however in a turbo car this is not true and depends alot on the size of the turbine wheels (though most race cars it is also at or near red line).

Slacker Motorsports
Some stuff......

i dont think you could ever get 300 HP out of an all motor 4 cylinder...at least without putting in MAD amounts of cash, and then it would prob not be very street drivable....a turbo is just the best HP per dollar out there for us..thats why so many of us go with a turbo setup...Its great that people want to be different, but when HP is concerned, turbo is where its at. I say a turbo car would win over a N/A car..torque is pretty flat over the majority of the rpm scale..A high HP N/A motor will def have dips and peeks much more severe than a turbo setup motor.

13.5 @108 MPH-2.2 60ft(stupid FWD!)
S16G @ 18 PSI/FMIC/Running on MegaSquirt II (Now with sequential
fuel injection)
My webpage: http://eclipsed4evr.home.comcast.net
-1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse RS-T- "Toy"
-1992 Plymouth Laser Turbo AWD(SOLD)
-2000 Honda CR-V(daily)

300hp out of a small displacement engine all motor is going to be made at high rpm with a sacrafice in low end, low rpm power.

I would say a turbo set up would be more streetable at the high levels of HP. But check out some of the Neon guuys running around all motor. They are turning some impressive numbers, we just need to shed a few pounds.

But you have to look at power bands, you can't compair peak hp and torque you have to look at the curves.

1997 Eclipse RS (in winter slumber for head gasket repair and other projects)

He who knows men is clever; He who knows himself has insight.
He who conquers men has force; He who conquers himself is truly strong.
-Lao Tzu

Injen CAI, AFX 55mm TB, P&P Intake Manifold, Crower Stage 2 Cams, Hooker Header, GS-T Muffler, AFX UDP, Apexi S-AFC

Firefly:
Mal: You don't know me, son, so let me put this to you plainly: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed.