Surely a turbo is only good with a manual engine. "I'm not going to wait for the boost to come in half way through a corner... I'll change down and have it now, thanks" (Delta Integrale fan here)
I have owned turbo cars when I was younger but I’m sticking to natural aspiration. It’s just more satisfying to have the na response. Agree with Camissa.
Except for the BMW B58 engine which is epic despite being a 3.0 twin scroll turbo inline 6. It's ridiculous. I has near zero lag, tons of torque at any rpm, can produce tons of power too, is versatile with a bunch of factory tunes between 300 and 400 hp (and aftermarket way over 600 without changing anything but the tune), barely any vibrations because an inline-6 is naturally balanced, it sounds good and ... it's actually really refined, very smooth turbine-like delivery too. I didn't know a turbo engine could be even close to being that good before I got a X3 M40i. I was coming from a big NA car, and had tried a bunch of turbo cars and hated them all. Not the B58...
JasonCammisa because that is what Honda people love haha. Instant throttle response, higher revs, linear powerbands… plus I believe VW and Honda people are interchangeable and it just depends on what they tried first.
@@jose7777777777777777 Ha - my theory is similar but slightly different. I think VW and Honda people are the same except for their tolerance for how often the car breaks. :)
Great show and love the conversation! But would be cool if you put pictures of all the cars/engines you are talking about to make the video more interesting.
I just really like turbos. When I grew up everything cool was ”turbo”. I was poor with a naturally aspirated engine in my car, but a turbo button on my PC. I went to watch rallies, with the Group B cars whistling and banging at incomprehensible speed. The first Quattro rally drivers learned to slide around corners in a turbo car - you just never let the bloody revs drop so you’re on boost all the time. Rally cars have had turbos ever since, and they can still slide around corners. On ice. In 6th gear. Taking the corner flat while hitting the rev limiter. Like last weekend in Sweden: ua-cam.com/video/_dUgFxrqayY/v-deo.html
I love my built MK3 Supra in all of it's laggy greatness. I have an E46 M3 for when I want some NA goodness, but when my Supra rolls into boost violently with 456wtq, it feels like I'm going into hyperspace. That being said, it's a GT car, not a sports car, so it's fine.
I'm with you. Turbos get a lot of crap from people, especially content creators, but I love them and always will. For similar reasons. I love the sound of a blow off valve, and think many engines are only improved both sound and performance wise from turbs. Especially with modern ECUs, Turbos themselves etc.
Best episode yet! Instead of enjoying the drive, the chassis and happily work for the performance, people complain about “only” 200hp on ~1250kg BRZ/GT86, a car with an engine that has ~100hp/liter and does good fuel ecomony (even if the sound it’s far from the best na engines).
I would love to get their thoughts on the C6 Z06 and where it ranks/if it’s on their radar at all. 7L N/A V8 w/ 505hp 470lb-ft torque. Good looks, incredible exhaust sound (ok LS-sewing-needle mechanical sound), relatively low production (29k), lightweight and RWD. Pretty fun formula
I do love me some LS7. And I liked the C6. The combo was good - the car is pretty intimidating at first, but actually doesn't try to kill you. And any pushrod V-8 that sounds that good and revs to 7k is A-Ok with me.
I owned two. Love them except for a few issues. My seat broke and occasionally it would recline on hard acceleration. The electronics would randomly fail, resulting in unplanned drifts. And the potential engine failure from poorly designed two piece valves that can fail. It’s like a $2500 fix, but make it $4500 for a headjob while it’s out anyway. (If you want more power) The C7 fixes all the issues.
Only thing more fun is when you destroke the LS7 and throw in a flat plane crank and rev it out to 8300 RPM, with an S2000 shaped torque curve. It's truly mental.
I like the way Ferrari manages the boost in the California T and the Portofino. They made it feel very linear the way the V12s feel, just not quite as gloriously screamy. They drive very well, and I'm looking forward to trying out the SF90, as well.
You guys have nailed the 911 Turbo here for sure (been a Porsche/911 fan for ages but the 911 Turbo has never been the one I wanted...to look at sometimes, sure, but not to own), and your typical mainstream eco-turbo is usually lame too, but I don't have any complaints against a hot hatch with a decent turbo 4; it's a good format that balances weight, cost, performance, economy, and packaging. I have no problem getting into a VW GTI, Focus ST, Veloster N or something like that and having a blast on a twisty road. (Totally biased because I loved my MkIV GTI 1.8T I had for 12 years; I drove the crap out of that thing on twisty roads and trackdays and the turbocharger didn't stop me from enjoying the hell out of that car)
I own a 2016 GTI, with the amazing paddle shift auto. It goes quickly with no effort. It is impressive, but the joy is limited. I also own a 1970 Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV, 4 speed manual. It ALL JOY, all the time! and I am going slowly...
Jason, You have made the same mistake that so many people in the industry make about engine temperature Vs air-fuel ratio. It is true that the stoichiometric ratio of 14.7:1 is the correct ratio for a gasoline engine. However under load engines are not fed with 14.7:1 air-fuel ratio. Under load a traditional designed ICE is supplied with a rich air-fuel ratio. The extra fuel is used to keep the combustion temperatures down - the latent heat of vaporization of the fuel absorbs the heat caused by combustion. So if you lean out the air-fuel ratio that is used under load so that it becomes 'less rich' you will find that the combustion temperature does increase. The point here is that the engine is still technically running rich on the basis of having more fuel than the 14.7:1 air-fuel ratio. If you keep on leaning out the air-fuel ratio under load to make the engine run 'less rich' then you find that the less rich it runs the higher the combustion temperature. And at the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio of 14.7:1 the combustion temperature will be at the maximum. If you then lean out the mixture even more so than it is now technically running lean then you will find that the combustion temperatures actually start to go down.
They get a lot of things wrong on this show. One show they said Americans dont buy wagons anymore. The Suburban is a station wagon and GM sales 1000s each year.
Pretty much you've said everything, there's a great video done by Engineering Explained that covers this exact topic in great detail: ua-cam.com/video/vcgmEKhCFTs/v-deo.html
When doing fuel mapping I remember another reason for running rich (apart from having to keep the engine from detonating), was to keep the pre-cats cool enough. The emission regulations, required that pre-cats had to be close to the engine for them to get hot quick enough to reduce cold emissions but the flip side is you have to throw fuel at them to keep them cool, once engine warms up. That was for the V12s I worked on, I remember setting lamba ratios to 0.75 at WOT to my amazament! I am not sure if that's relevant for smaller engines, but it's funny that to keep emissions "low" 25% excess fuel had to be burned(I should say wasted and not burned as it won't burn)..
"Hubraum ist durch nichts zu ersetzen" actually is a common phrase amongst car people here in germany, wich is translated to "Displacement cant be replaced by anything".
I live at 2600m (like 8000ft) over sea level, air density here means that a stock Golf GTI is about as fast in a quarter mile as a E92 M3 or a V8 Audi R8, so... Turbos are a huge thing around here and yeah, I used to think they were "the way".
I love these discussions man, Derek is hard to watch because he’s always looking down or not making eye contact like a 14 year old trying to talk to a crush.
I love turbocharged old cars, but I was born and bred on them. I'm not a fan of modern "efficient" turbos. There is a fun "theater" to older turbo'd cars, but you have to swap out the fuel system, spark system and other items to make the turbo'd car run well.
I grew up in the 80s. My Dad had a pair of sunglasses with Turbo on the side. All these things come from F1 usually. But turbos first came from planes. The spitfire was supercharged.
As a Kiwi I'm fascinated by the difference in attitudes around the world when it comes to cars, and the discussion around modern turbo charging is right on point. Here turbo'ing was merely a tool to give you extra torque in your diesel ute. Our attitude around cars is dominated by the war between Ford and Holden and our access to Japanese cars, so our experience of 'turbo' came from them. Both Ford and Holden dabbled with turbos, but until the legendary XR6 Turbo in 2002 they were never peak, the highest performaning, most expensive and most exclusive car was always a V8. As for the Japanese cars, the cost of the really interesting stuff like the Starion Turbo or original 300zx just wasn't worth it compared to a locally built V8 or even a euro. So traditionally our attitude was generally 'turbos are for offloading and towing', BUT the big difference between us and the US is that we got easy, and cheap, access to the amazing Japanese turbo cars of the 90's. So unless your old like me lol turbo is considered a tier above NA, in fact that is reflective in our new car sales, sports car and diesel sales etc. for us now turboing is peak.
Jason is correct in describing the Mercedes AMG GT53 engine. It’s an in-line 6 with turbocharger, electric supercharger with an electric motor at the flywheel. The handoff between the electric motor and the forced induction is never noticeable. It’s a very German way of solving the turbo lag problem. I laughed at the dealer who tried to convince me that the in-line 6 would have the response akin to a V10. I ate my words. It was a sublime experience. It sounded like a purr compared to the roar from the V8 in the AMG GT 63 however…..even in sport mode.
It's funny Jason's never owned a turbo car. Somewhat by accident all four of my cars are turbocharged. My 240SX was SR swapped like 14 years ago, so that was my first turbo. Now it's a medium sized upgrade so still a bit laggy. Then I got a Fiesta ST daily driver...great fun car, tiny turbo, drives rather like a V6. My wife wanted a Flex, and I made her get the ecoboost...Twin Turbo V6 - 365hp! Lastly I impored a Suzuki Cappuccino. Tiniest turbo of all, but a very fun car. Drives like a Miata but lighter. I have had some nice N/A cars including a Camaro Z28 (old iron LT1, T56), and a Honda Beat (slower than the cappuccino, but glorious sounding...videos in my channel).
Had a blown turbo on my (very far from being a sports car) ‘03 e46 330d last summer, looks like 240Mkm was its limit... never had anything to do on it other than that. 😊 The only turbo exception would on diesel where non-turbo cars are insanely slow and sluggish. Btw I loved your french impression, pretty accurate 😄
Like almost everyone, y'all have gotten the running lean leads to running hot thing wrong. If you run actually lean (>14.7 a/f), the engine will run cooler than stoichiometric. Engines run at their hottest at 14.7. The issue is that there has never been an engine outside of racing designed to run at 14.7, most N/A operate between 14 and 14.5, most turbos between 13.5 and 14. So if you lean out from there, you get closer to stoichiometric ratio and will run hotter. But adding more fuel effectively acts as a refrigerant. Manufacturers do this because running above stoich sacrifices power and responsiveness, so you'd feel like you're driving a diesel. Running slightly below stoich actually doesn't sacrifice anything - you can still burn all the fuel, but with the side effect that some of it will produce carbon monoxide rather than dioxide thus requiring more emissions controls. Running richer than 14.0 will lead to unburnt fuel and massive drops in efficiency.
What I understood from this is that running a leaner fuel mixture takes away from responsiveness? Can you explain why that is? And how come doing the opposite and running rich has no performance disadvantages? In that case then why do racecars as you say run at 14.7, wouldnt that be less responsive than making it run richer?
Maybe these 2 should drive some good 90s Japanese turbo cars, not as laggy as the really old stuff (Porsche and Audi) but don’t have the ridiculous power of modern cars unless you want to spend the money. My R32 GTR makes boost from 2500rpm, fullboost at 3900rpm, revs to 8000rpm, fun power delivery, super reliable and sounds great!
This is a great topic....I honestly would like to see you guys revisit this on the show again, as things seem to have changed a lot in the last four years. There's definitely something to be said for that "mechanical romanticism" that a naturally aspirated engine gives you, but at the same time, classic turbocharged cars were so wild and in uncharted territory that manufacturers were really having fun with it (will throw in an honorable mention for Japan - bubble era turbo and supercharged cars were amazing!). I can definitely see both sides of the argument.
I’m a chemist and I’ve never thought to associate stoichiometry with turbos. Thank you Tam-Scott, my friends will be buckling in for a whole new level of boredom.
Buick 231 in a T-type, GN or GNX, Ur Quattro's, etc. vs 426 Hemi, Stage 1, Super Cobra Jet, LS6, W-30, SD.455, Caddy 472 and 500. What a wonderful and difficult decision.
If I can interject at 9:40 seconds. The reason Lancia delta intergrale engines implode is NOT because they are turbo charged. They implode because early series engines didn’t have baffling in the sump. You go round a fast right hand bend, alls good, you go round a fast left hand bend and your oil pressure disappears.
I'm not sure whether I should disagree, or simply say I have a caveat. A car with a turbo that is properly-sized to the engine (all factors, from turbine housing A/R to wheel trims and sizes, etc) with good plumbing (short runner exhaust manifold, preferably twin-scroll, short intercooler pathway, etc) can still be quite responsive. Especially the direct-injected engines, since the direct injection allows for things like a 10:1 compression ratio AND a turbocharger in the same engine, which improves off-boost response and helps spool the turbo quicker than a lower-compression engine would. It will likely still have a moderate *Boost threshold* , but the transient response over that threshold will be barely noticeable. That's what a lot of casual car guys, and even many journalists, fail to take into account: they use "lag" to describe both phenomenon. A car with a high-ish boost threshold can still have quick transient (off/partial/on throttle) response, and car with an early boost threshold can still be transiently laggy. I've owned an SR20-swapped 240SX (small ball-bearing stock turbo, better computer control with short exhaust manifold and intercooler plumbing), a stock 1987 Volvo 740 turbo wagon (old turbo and computer tech, small turbo for quicker response), and a medium-big turbo STi (365 AWHP, modern ball-bearing turbo design with billet compressor wheel and second-to-latest tech turbine wheel geometry, as well as a build bottom end with headwork and cams). Growing up in high school and college, my dad also had a 1986 Porsche 944 turbo with a decent amount of modification but stock turbo (and I put probably 5x the miles on it that he did). So I've run the gamut in regards to turbo tech and sizing. I also got to drive a pre-LCI M2 in Spain for a few days, but not enough time to run it through it's paces like the ones I've actually owned. With the SR20DET car, the turbo lag was barely perceptible. The STI has a high-ish boost threshold -- probably the upper limit for my own personal preferences, but transient response above that is better than stock, and I'd say better even than the small-turbo Volvo with its older tech turbo and computers. On the NA side, I've owned an early S2000 (9,000rpm!) and I currently own a "Euro-engine" E36 M3 (six throttle bodies). While a well-designed sporting NA engine can't be beat for total response, with the right mix of ingredients it is possible to get damned close with a turbo engine.
A well sorted turbo charged engine is extremely vulnerable to turbo failure from a host of simple performance modifications. Unsettle the turbos equilibrium at your peril.
Stoichiometric balance is done in moles, so moles per kilogram. You can look at them as mass, too, but it's a question of molecule ratios, not a mass or weight ratio.
FYI Jason - Vacuum/Boost leaks in turbo cars make it run rich in most cases. In most cars with mass air meters the incoming air is measured before the turbo, so if there is a vacuum leak after that point it's leaking measured air, which it's already added fuel for. I had a huge boost leak when a hidden boost coupler got torn, and the hole kept getting bigger. The car would just break up, and the spark plugs would come out wet. Now if you have a leak behind the throttle body then it will run lean any time the car is under vacuum, and rich when it is under boost.
I've only ever owned turbo cars apart from my current mustang and I can't say I totally agree. Turbo AWD is amazing and I think you need to have a manual go even notice to the difference of NA
I’ve owned three BMWs w the N54/55 twin scroll turbo 3.0 liter 6. There is virtually no lag. Beautiful motor. Just found the car around it to be getting a little too heavy and insulated from the road.
With modern cars you barely feel any lag, well at least with modern Porsches. Having said that, I do drive N/A, but don’t mind a good turbo. Everyone is hating on 718 4cyl turbo, but I found it quite fun, definitely not as good sounding as the flat six, but not as bad as everyone is saying.
As a Lancia Delta Integrale Evoluzione owner, who has just had the engine blow up in it, this one hurt lol I wouldn't change it for the world though. It's not fast, but it is quick. No way can I keep up with everyone else above 100, but up to that, boy is it fun, and hard work to keep up with the Ferraris, Porsches, McLarens etc. Especially off the highway.
As a young teen, my dad took me for a "test/taste" drive of his new Mazda 626 turbo (midnight blue with a thing red line on the side panels w nice looking wheels) and Iremember giggling like crazy as the turbo kicked in... quite fun. Years later, I drove a 944 turbo with 5 speed manual while living in L.A. Got pretty boring real fast. The next vehiicle I used in L.A. was an old "ATSU" pickup (ATSU somce the letters "D" and "N" were "erased" on the tailgate from being utilised as a "workhorse") with a long shiftstick & you know what? I had a lot more fun driving this old pickup tham the Porsche 944 Turbo! Go figure. (In fact, I loved tossing that pickup over any roads even during rainy nights as it felt light & like a Go-Kart. Just Fun! Sinnce then, No more turbo cars for me. PS I also really like my first car which was an old/used 1979 267 V-8 Chevy Impala. Just fun as I drove from coast to coast. :) PPS I agree with Mr. J. Camissa : A fun car for me is light with normal aspirated engine and if possible a manual gearbox. No turbo or gimmicks. Oh and I also need a twisty country road to enjoy it. Cheers! M :)
To Derek's Point "There's no replacement for displacement" not being used in other places than the US: The German Version is "Hubraum ist durch nichts zu ersetzen als durch mehr Hubraum" (the only replacement for displacement is even more displacement).
You fail to mention that intercooled turbo charged engines can make rated horsepower @ high altitudes and air temps. Naturally aspirated engines can only make rated power on a cold day at sea level. A 300hp non turbo engine will only make 250hp in Denver on a hot day. Science......
Jason, I feel ya. I bought an 86 Mustang SVO with a 5.0 swap plan in mind. The project was kicked to the curb numerous times but it's now on the road...with the original turbo, intercooled 2.3. I'm determined to trick this thing into making semi-instantaneous boost down low. Call me crazy.
I own an Eagle Talon Tsi AWD (Mitsubishi Eclipse Gsx) and wouldn't trade it for the world. Now saying that, when I first got it it had that on/off turbo feeling (turbo lag) but when I got a cyclone set up from Japan. It made the torque and boost curves a more usable experience.
Very interesting points in this episode. I always had a thing for turbo cars growing up, particularily 90's Japanese variety, yet I don't think I clearly understood on a really technical level, nor took time to really consider how much at times turbos actually took away from a pure sports car experience, or at the very least interfered with it. The very end part about the 959 really spoke to me because of all the cool things I've heard about it over the years, being a sort of pioneer to modern hypercars and technological performance advancements, but really in a weird way it did kind of spell disaster for the future of genuine pure sports car experiences in favor of overly complex revolutionary technology to make performance faster and better, which of course can also be a great thing on the other hand, but bittersweet. Very enlightening info. Great video guys!
Dandre Davis I love the sound of turbos with the blow off valves and the intake sounds I have never driven and liked a single turbo call but I really love twin turbo cars and trucks
I think Jason's lag times are pretty out there. I'm not a fan of the modern 2.0t love, but they absolutely will make full boost under 2000 RPM in under a second. At high RPMs, I dare say the lag is undetectable when tuned right. Certainly nowhere near 0.8 seconds. I had a 2006 S60R, which is not exactly bleeding edge anymore and had a low compression, port injected 2.5 making 300 HP. It was rated for full torque at 1950 and it would come on boost very quickly...under a second below 2500 RPM (hard to say at 2000 RPM, given the stall being like 2300 RPM). Boost was definitely usable all the way down to around 2100ish RPM with the TC locked (below that, it would unlock).
Another great show, however I will disagree with you gents on one point. Sound! Yes, true turbos and superchargers do remove the classic induction sounds, but then they bring about their own. I enjoy both personally, the whine of large volume twin scroll superchargers, the unloading of wastegates or the woosh of a high revving turbo sound as exciting to me as an L28 on trip weber carburetors revving to the red line. What kills sound to me is efi on a single maf and low revs. Like you've stated, if it's too easy it's probably not worth doing... I'm still grateful to all you engineers out there btw, so don't hate!
WW2 aircraft engines had centrifugal superchargers with turbos acting as "turbonormalizers" that compensated for altitude rather than increased manifold pressure.
I grew up riding 2-strokes for almost 10 years before I ever touched a 4-stroke in a car. So for me, I like something that revs very high, revs very quick, and does exactly what the throttle tells it on a nanosecond basis. I'm not a big fan of turbos. Give me that snappy zappy. Long live VTEC (yo).
Guys... you gotta get rid of that yellow camera. Maybe it’s a running gag that I’m not aware of because I don’t read the comments, but jeez! Two inexpensive cameras with matched sensors, matching color, matching lenses. Cutting back and forth will no longer induce seasickness. Please.
The turbo car you should have drove but probably can't find one anymore is the late 80's Pontiac Grand Am with the 2 liter turbo motor. Had one in high school and it was just as fast as a mid 90's Camaro or Firebird. The boost came on around 2500 RPMS.
Agreed on the 930 and Saab turbo lag.... I wonder what his take is on the Xr4ti? I think Jason's a fan. Thunderbird turbo and mustang SVO had a similar powertrain too.
I had a 2005 Saab 9-3 Aero - being my first car I loved it. But the more I learned about cars and driving, the more things about turbos bothered me like heat soaking and general reliability. It was fuel efficient on the highway, just not in the city when it's on the boost a lot. After that I had a 2015 Mazda6 and I loved that NA powertrain and its throttle response - very satisfying to wring out the engine. I now have a BRZ and I don't think I would enjoy it turbo-charged.
Adam Sandler really knows his cars. Great episode.
His name confuses me with the actor.
Shampoo is better, i clean the hair. No conditioner is better, i leave the hair silky smooth.
@@BobbyDazzler888 Billy Madison. Nice.
Lol
As an American, I must say your French and German accents are spot on
As a man of the world, I thank you. :)
As a Swiss guy I do think so too 👌🏻
@@JasonCammisa I sink ve need zis much fuel.
As a German I agree.
💀
Jason: “We can agree that turbo’s suck and blow.”
Jason, you’re a genius.
Bart Simpson made this joke over 20 years ago.
in other words; he hates competition!
Suck, squeeze, bang, blow!
Surely a turbo is only good with a manual engine.
"I'm not going to wait for the boost to come in half way through a corner... I'll change down and have it now, thanks"
(Delta Integrale fan here)
Like he said, and I can confirm... diesels don't have this problem. Turbo + diesel -> match made in heaven. (My other car is supercharged.)
I have owned turbo cars when I was younger but I’m sticking to natural aspiration. It’s just more satisfying to have the na response. Agree with Camissa.
Except for the BMW B58 engine which is epic despite being a 3.0 twin scroll turbo inline 6. It's ridiculous. I has near zero lag, tons of torque at any rpm, can produce tons of power too, is versatile with a bunch of factory tunes between 300 and 400 hp (and aftermarket way over 600 without changing anything but the tune), barely any vibrations because an inline-6 is naturally balanced, it sounds good and ... it's actually really refined, very smooth turbine-like delivery too. I didn't know a turbo engine could be even close to being that good before I got a X3 M40i. I was coming from a big NA car, and had tried a bunch of turbo cars and hated them all. Not the B58...
I’ve come to the conclusion that Jason is a Honda guy that just bought a VW instead of a Honda.
Jose Fernandez Old honda
Oh jeez, THIS I want to hear. How, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?
JasonCammisa because that is what Honda people love haha. Instant throttle response, higher revs, linear powerbands… plus I believe VW and Honda people are interchangeable and it just depends on what they tried first.
@@jose7777777777777777 Ha - my theory is similar but slightly different. I think VW and Honda people are the same except for their tolerance for how often the car breaks. :)
JasonCammisa LOL I’m using that
Haven't even watched it yet, but the Delta in the thumbnail is certainly a favourite "clickbait".
WOOT! Y'all easy.
You guys need a beverage sponsor. That table is empty!
Molson Canadian ?
Absolutely agreed!
Could you IMAGINE how intolerable I'd be drunk?!
Or a fast food sponsorship!
@@JasonCammisa Tamhyphenscott may have an issue with it, but we certainly won't! 😂
Great show and love the conversation! But would be cool if you put pictures of all the cars/engines you are talking about to make the video more interesting.
Yes! Please do an episode on Saab. I drove a brand new 900 Turbo and loved it. Unfortunately, I was just out of high school and couldn't afford it.
1997 Jetta TDI. The painfully long turbo lag before the RIDONK wave of torque on boost is one of my favorite things about the car.
I could listen those two for hours and never get bored
I just really like turbos. When I grew up everything cool was ”turbo”. I was poor with a naturally aspirated engine in my car, but a turbo button on my PC. I went to watch rallies, with the Group B cars whistling and banging at incomprehensible speed. The first Quattro rally drivers learned to slide around corners in a turbo car - you just never let the bloody revs drop so you’re on boost all the time. Rally cars have had turbos ever since, and they can still slide around corners. On ice. In 6th gear. Taking the corner flat while hitting the rev limiter. Like last weekend in Sweden: ua-cam.com/video/_dUgFxrqayY/v-deo.html
I love my built MK3 Supra in all of it's laggy greatness. I have an E46 M3 for when I want some NA goodness, but when my Supra rolls into boost violently with 456wtq, it feels like I'm going into hyperspace. That being said, it's a GT car, not a sports car, so it's fine.
I'm with you. Turbos get a lot of crap from people, especially content creators, but I love them and always will. For similar reasons. I love the sound of a blow off valve, and think many engines are only improved both sound and performance wise from turbs. Especially with modern ECUs, Turbos themselves etc.
Best episode yet! Instead of enjoying the drive, the chassis and happily work for the performance, people complain about “only” 200hp on ~1250kg BRZ/GT86, a car with an engine that has ~100hp/liter and does good fuel ecomony (even if the sound it’s far from the best na engines).
I would love to get their thoughts on the C6 Z06 and where it ranks/if it’s on their radar at all. 7L N/A V8 w/ 505hp 470lb-ft torque. Good looks, incredible exhaust sound (ok LS-sewing-needle mechanical sound), relatively low production (29k), lightweight and RWD. Pretty fun formula
That right there is the only Corvette I would own. The best engine ever put in a vette
I do love me some LS7. And I liked the C6. The combo was good - the car is pretty intimidating at first, but actually doesn't try to kill you. And any pushrod V-8 that sounds that good and revs to 7k is A-Ok with me.
I owned two. Love them except for a few issues. My seat broke and occasionally it would recline on hard acceleration. The electronics would randomly fail, resulting in unplanned drifts. And the potential engine failure from poorly designed two piece valves that can fail. It’s like a $2500 fix, but make it $4500 for a headjob while it’s out anyway. (If you want more power) The C7 fixes all the issues.
Only thing more fun is when you destroke the LS7 and throw in a flat plane crank and rev it out to 8300 RPM, with an S2000 shaped torque curve. It's truly mental.
@@Rltvader1 c4 lt5 is the best vette engine, to me.
I like the way Ferrari manages the boost in the California T and the Portofino. They made it feel very linear the way the V12s feel, just not quite as gloriously screamy. They drive very well, and I'm looking forward to trying out the SF90, as well.
Best show ever
You guys have nailed the 911 Turbo here for sure (been a Porsche/911 fan for ages but the 911 Turbo has never been the one I wanted...to look at sometimes, sure, but not to own), and your typical mainstream eco-turbo is usually lame too, but I don't have any complaints against a hot hatch with a decent turbo 4; it's a good format that balances weight, cost, performance, economy, and packaging. I have no problem getting into a VW GTI, Focus ST, Veloster N or something like that and having a blast on a twisty road. (Totally biased because I loved my MkIV GTI 1.8T I had for 12 years; I drove the crap out of that thing on twisty roads and trackdays and the turbocharger didn't stop me from enjoying the hell out of that car)
I’ve had my 08 911 turbo for a year now. It’s my first turbo car ever and I love the sound, especially with all the bolt on mods I’ve done 😆.
yep had one too catless exhaust does wonders
I own a 2016 GTI, with the amazing paddle shift auto. It goes quickly with no effort. It is impressive, but the joy is limited. I also own a 1970 Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV, 4 speed manual. It ALL JOY, all the time! and I am going slowly...
Jason,
You have made the same mistake that so many people in the industry make about engine temperature Vs air-fuel ratio.
It is true that the stoichiometric ratio of 14.7:1 is the correct ratio for a gasoline engine.
However under load engines are not fed with 14.7:1 air-fuel ratio. Under load a traditional designed ICE is supplied with a rich air-fuel ratio. The extra fuel is used to keep the combustion temperatures down - the latent heat of vaporization of the fuel absorbs the heat caused by combustion.
So if you lean out the air-fuel ratio that is used under load so that it becomes 'less rich' you will find that the combustion temperature does increase. The point here is that the engine is still technically running rich on the basis of having more fuel than the 14.7:1 air-fuel ratio.
If you keep on leaning out the air-fuel ratio under load to make the engine run 'less rich' then you find that the less rich it runs the higher the combustion temperature. And at the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio of 14.7:1 the combustion temperature will be at the maximum. If you then lean out the mixture even more so than it is now technically running lean then you will find that the combustion temperatures actually start to go down.
They get a lot of things wrong on this show. One show they said Americans dont buy wagons anymore. The Suburban is a station wagon and GM sales 1000s each year.
Pretty much you've said everything, there's a great video done by Engineering Explained that covers this exact topic in great detail: ua-cam.com/video/vcgmEKhCFTs/v-deo.html
90s Japanese cars are the turbo cars with character.
All turbo cars have character. But diesel turbo cars are reliable.
When doing fuel mapping I remember another reason for running rich (apart from having to keep the engine from detonating), was to keep the pre-cats cool enough. The emission regulations, required that pre-cats had to be close to the engine for them to get hot quick enough to reduce cold emissions but the flip side is you have to throw fuel at them to keep them cool, once engine warms up. That was for the V12s I worked on, I remember setting lamba ratios to 0.75 at WOT to my amazament! I am not sure if that's relevant for smaller engines, but it's funny that to keep emissions "low" 25% excess fuel had to be burned(I should say wasted and not burned as it won't burn)..
Wow ! 40 mins boys 😃 Keep up the good work 👍 Can you do a worst cars review please, this would tickle many of us especially when you both disagree 😂
"Hubraum ist durch nichts zu ersetzen" actually is a common phrase amongst car people here in germany, wich is translated to "Displacement cant be replaced by anything".
I live at 2600m (like 8000ft) over sea level, air density here means that a stock Golf GTI is about as fast in a quarter mile as a E92 M3 or a V8 Audi R8, so... Turbos are a huge thing around here and yeah, I used to think they were "the way".
Derek has the most calming voice I've ever heard.
I love these discussions man, Derek is hard to watch because he’s always looking down or not making eye contact like a 14 year old trying to talk to a crush.
sidekickchuck well, he is talking to his crush, so...
2 words to settle the debate. Free energy!
I love turbocharged old cars, but I was born and bred on them. I'm not a fan of modern "efficient" turbos. There is a fun "theater" to older turbo'd cars, but you have to swap out the fuel system, spark system and other items to make the turbo'd car run well.
Turbo cars are fun because of the high amount of torque but naturally aspirated petrol engines are more efficient.
I grew up in the 80s. My Dad had a pair of sunglasses with Turbo on the side. All these things come from F1 usually. But turbos first came from planes. The spitfire was supercharged.
As a Kiwi I'm fascinated by the difference in attitudes around the world when it comes to cars, and the discussion around modern turbo charging is right on point.
Here turbo'ing was merely a tool to give you extra torque in your diesel ute. Our attitude around cars is dominated by the war between Ford and Holden and our access to Japanese cars, so our experience of 'turbo' came from them.
Both Ford and Holden dabbled with turbos, but until the legendary XR6 Turbo in 2002 they were never peak, the highest performaning, most expensive and most exclusive car was always a V8. As for the Japanese cars, the cost of the really interesting stuff like the Starion Turbo or original 300zx just wasn't worth it compared to a locally built V8 or even a euro.
So traditionally our attitude was generally 'turbos are for offloading and towing', BUT the big difference between us and the US is that we got easy, and cheap, access to the amazing Japanese turbo cars of the 90's.
So unless your old like me lol turbo is considered a tier above NA, in fact that is reflective in our new car sales, sports car and diesel sales etc. for us now turboing is peak.
I'm mostly a miserable cynic. But I love the sincerity of the carmudgeon show and lack of pretensions, and the accuracy and detail
As an FR-S driver I can relate to not having any power below 3500 RPM... And it's not even turbocharged!
You can solve this problem with new headers, exhaust and a retune.
Jason is correct in describing the Mercedes AMG GT53 engine. It’s an in-line 6 with turbocharger, electric supercharger with an electric motor at the flywheel. The handoff between the electric motor and the forced induction is never noticeable. It’s a very German way of solving the turbo lag problem. I laughed at the dealer who tried to convince me that the in-line 6 would have the response akin to a V10. I ate my words. It was a sublime experience. It sounded like a purr compared to the roar from the V8 in the AMG GT 63 however…..even in sport mode.
Mr Camissa, didint know ur a world rally champ battling for .001 secs. That turbo lag subject is deep. lol All the best.
It's funny Jason's never owned a turbo car.
Somewhat by accident all four of my cars are turbocharged.
My 240SX was SR swapped like 14 years ago, so that was my first turbo. Now it's a medium sized upgrade so still a bit laggy.
Then I got a Fiesta ST daily driver...great fun car, tiny turbo, drives rather like a V6.
My wife wanted a Flex, and I made her get the ecoboost...Twin Turbo V6 - 365hp!
Lastly I impored a Suzuki Cappuccino. Tiniest turbo of all, but a very fun car. Drives like a Miata but lighter.
I have had some nice N/A cars including a Camaro Z28 (old iron LT1, T56), and a Honda Beat (slower than the cappuccino, but glorious sounding...videos in my channel).
One of the best parts of the 930 is how scared the engineers thought that turbo was
27:00 "It's a liger. It' my favorite animal. It's a lion and a tiger mixed .... bred for its skill in magic."
Had a blown turbo on my (very far from being a sports car) ‘03 e46 330d last summer, looks like 240Mkm was its limit... never had anything to do on it other than that. 😊
The only turbo exception would on diesel where non-turbo cars are insanely slow and sluggish.
Btw I loved your french impression, pretty accurate 😄
Like almost everyone, y'all have gotten the running lean leads to running hot thing wrong. If you run actually lean (>14.7 a/f), the engine will run cooler than stoichiometric. Engines run at their hottest at 14.7. The issue is that there has never been an engine outside of racing designed to run at 14.7, most N/A operate between 14 and 14.5, most turbos between 13.5 and 14. So if you lean out from there, you get closer to stoichiometric ratio and will run hotter. But adding more fuel effectively acts as a refrigerant. Manufacturers do this because running above stoich sacrifices power and responsiveness, so you'd feel like you're driving a diesel. Running slightly below stoich actually doesn't sacrifice anything - you can still burn all the fuel, but with the side effect that some of it will produce carbon monoxide rather than dioxide thus requiring more emissions controls. Running richer than 14.0 will lead to unburnt fuel and massive drops in efficiency.
What I understood from this is that running a leaner fuel mixture takes away from responsiveness? Can you explain why that is? And how come doing the opposite and running rich has no performance disadvantages? In that case then why do racecars as you say run at 14.7, wouldnt that be less responsive than making it run richer?
Thanks for talking me out of a second turbocharged car. For now, I'll enjoy the foreplay you guys call "lag". Great video !!
Did you just convince me that the 959, my 2nd favorite car ever, is the harbinger of the doom of good cars?
yesss plss make a episode where weird cars are so special. like saab 😙😬
Maybe these 2 should drive some good 90s Japanese turbo cars, not as laggy as the really old stuff (Porsche and Audi) but don’t have the ridiculous power of modern cars unless you want to spend the money.
My R32 GTR makes boost from 2500rpm, fullboost at 3900rpm, revs to 8000rpm, fun power delivery, super reliable and sounds great!
This is a great topic....I honestly would like to see you guys revisit this on the show again, as things seem to have changed a lot in the last four years. There's definitely something to be said for that "mechanical romanticism" that a naturally aspirated engine gives you, but at the same time, classic turbocharged cars were so wild and in uncharted territory that manufacturers were really having fun with it (will throw in an honorable mention for Japan - bubble era turbo and supercharged cars were amazing!). I can definitely see both sides of the argument.
I’m a chemist and I’ve never thought to associate stoichiometry with turbos. Thank you Tam-Scott, my friends will be buckling in for a whole new level of boredom.
Had a tuned Audi 100 (5000) turbo, the boost was pretty crazy. Never exploded the turbocharger or the engine, but it was crazy fast!
Buick 231 in a T-type, GN or GNX, Ur Quattro's, etc. vs 426 Hemi, Stage 1, Super Cobra Jet, LS6, W-30, SD.455, Caddy 472 and 500. What a wonderful and difficult decision.
If I can interject at 9:40 seconds. The reason Lancia delta intergrale engines implode is NOT because they are turbo charged. They implode because early series engines didn’t have baffling in the sump. You go round a fast right hand bend, alls good, you go round a fast left hand bend and your oil pressure disappears.
I'm not sure whether I should disagree, or simply say I have a caveat. A car with a turbo that is properly-sized to the engine (all factors, from turbine housing A/R to wheel trims and sizes, etc) with good plumbing (short runner exhaust manifold, preferably twin-scroll, short intercooler pathway, etc) can still be quite responsive. Especially the direct-injected engines, since the direct injection allows for things like a 10:1 compression ratio AND a turbocharger in the same engine, which improves off-boost response and helps spool the turbo quicker than a lower-compression engine would. It will likely still have a moderate *Boost threshold* , but the transient response over that threshold will be barely noticeable. That's what a lot of casual car guys, and even many journalists, fail to take into account: they use "lag" to describe both phenomenon. A car with a high-ish boost threshold can still have quick transient (off/partial/on throttle) response, and car with an early boost threshold can still be transiently laggy.
I've owned an SR20-swapped 240SX (small ball-bearing stock turbo, better computer control with short exhaust manifold and intercooler plumbing), a stock 1987 Volvo 740 turbo wagon (old turbo and computer tech, small turbo for quicker response), and a medium-big turbo STi (365 AWHP, modern ball-bearing turbo design with billet compressor wheel and second-to-latest tech turbine wheel geometry, as well as a build bottom end with headwork and cams). Growing up in high school and college, my dad also had a 1986 Porsche 944 turbo with a decent amount of modification but stock turbo (and I put probably 5x the miles on it that he did). So I've run the gamut in regards to turbo tech and sizing. I also got to drive a pre-LCI M2 in Spain for a few days, but not enough time to run it through it's paces like the ones I've actually owned. With the SR20DET car, the turbo lag was barely perceptible. The STI has a high-ish boost threshold -- probably the upper limit for my own personal preferences, but transient response above that is better than stock, and I'd say better even than the small-turbo Volvo with its older tech turbo and computers.
On the NA side, I've owned an early S2000 (9,000rpm!) and I currently own a "Euro-engine" E36 M3 (six throttle bodies). While a well-designed sporting NA engine can't be beat for total response, with the right mix of ingredients it is possible to get damned close with a turbo engine.
Thursday is becoming my favourite day of the week.
That's good to know. We actually aim for Wednesday, but ISSIMI is a bunch of Italians. So lately, Thursday it is! #ItalianChaosMachine :)
A well sorted turbo charged engine is extremely vulnerable to turbo failure from a host of simple performance modifications. Unsettle the turbos equilibrium at your peril.
Naturally aspirated high revving V8 is the best engine in any sports car! New Shelby GT350 is one example.
NA Straight-6 makes a compelling argument.
Depends on the car
[Laughs in waterless flat six]
Flat or straight 6, really a straight 6 is simply just correct
@@qtrfoil exactly, make the same horses don't need a giant engine hoist to work on it
I've been watching a lot of these and "hyphen" has very kind and gracious body language
So we spell it Derek Tamhyphenscott?
Doug Robinson Jason does in his phone!
@@Dtamscott Why does that not surprise me?
@@dougrobinson8602 Because it's effin hilarious when Siri reads it out loud, that's why!
JasonCammisa👏👏👏👏👍👍👍👍
Hubraum ist durch nichts zu ersetzen, ausser durch mehr Hubraum. We had that saying in Germany as well back in the day
Stoichiometric balance is done in moles, so moles per kilogram. You can look at them as mass, too, but it's a question of molecule ratios, not a mass or weight ratio.
I dunno. Hitting peak boost and hearing turbos spool, waste and BOV.... Addicting. I've never had as much fun as I have in boosted vehicles.
Yes I agree. I have a turbo rotary. I also own a na engine car and it is cool also.
I love this series! Last week i watched 8 episodes in one day!
I'm so, so sorry. :)
FYI Jason - Vacuum/Boost leaks in turbo cars make it run rich in most cases. In most cars with mass air meters the incoming air is measured before the turbo, so if there is a vacuum leak after that point it's leaking measured air, which it's already added fuel for. I had a huge boost leak when a hidden boost coupler got torn, and the hole kept getting bigger. The car would just break up, and the spark plugs would come out wet.
Now if you have a leak behind the throttle body then it will run lean any time the car is under vacuum, and rich when it is under boost.
I've only ever owned turbo cars apart from my current mustang and I can't say I totally agree.
Turbo AWD is amazing and I think you need to have a manual go even notice to the difference of NA
I’ve owned three BMWs w the N54/55 twin scroll turbo 3.0 liter 6. There is virtually no lag. Beautiful motor. Just found the car around it to be getting a little too heavy and insulated from the road.
Holly shit Jason's mom had cool cars in the 80s
Seriously tho, right?
Another Master Class by Carmudgeon... :)
The Porsche 930 is well known for being hard to drive fast, meaning it's tough to plan ahead thanks to the crazy turbo lag.
With modern cars you barely feel any lag, well at least with modern Porsches. Having said that, I do drive N/A, but don’t mind a good turbo. Everyone is hating on 718 4cyl turbo, but I found it quite fun, definitely not as good sounding as the flat six, but not as bad as everyone is saying.
34:56 ... if I'm not mistaken, the first mass produced twin-charged engined car was the JDM K10 Nissan March Super Turbo
The other problem with burning at 14.7:1 is NOx's.
As a Lancia Delta Integrale Evoluzione owner, who has just had the engine blow up in it, this one hurt lol
I wouldn't change it for the world though. It's not fast, but it is quick. No way can I keep up with everyone else above 100, but up to that, boy is it fun, and hard work to keep up with the Ferraris, Porsches, McLarens etc. Especially off the highway.
Turbos really need to be paired well with a good transmission and a good engine
As a young teen, my dad took me for a "test/taste" drive of his new Mazda 626 turbo (midnight blue with a thing red line on the side panels w nice looking wheels) and Iremember giggling like crazy as the turbo kicked in... quite fun.
Years later, I drove a 944 turbo with 5 speed manual while living in L.A. Got pretty boring real fast.
The next vehiicle I used in L.A. was an old "ATSU" pickup (ATSU somce the letters "D" and "N" were "erased" on the tailgate from being utilised as a "workhorse") with a long shiftstick & you know what?
I had a lot more fun driving this old pickup tham the Porsche 944 Turbo! Go figure.
(In fact, I loved tossing that pickup over any roads even during rainy nights as it felt light & like a Go-Kart. Just Fun!
Sinnce then, No more turbo cars for me.
PS I also really like my first car which was an old/used 1979 267 V-8 Chevy Impala. Just fun as I drove from coast to coast. :)
PPS I agree with Mr. J. Camissa : A fun car for me is light with normal aspirated engine and if possible a manual gearbox.
No turbo or gimmicks.
Oh and I also need a twisty country road to enjoy it.
Cheers!
M :)
To Derek's Point "There's no replacement for displacement" not being used in other places than the US: The German Version is "Hubraum ist durch nichts zu ersetzen als durch mehr Hubraum" (the only replacement for displacement is even more displacement).
I got that Turbo book back in the 80’s , great guide at the time.
You fail to mention that intercooled turbo charged engines can make rated horsepower @ high altitudes and air temps. Naturally aspirated engines can only make rated power on a cold day at sea level. A 300hp non turbo engine will only make 250hp in Denver on a hot day. Science......
more car reviews please! i know you guys are working on it but plz!!! i'm ready to watch n number of car reviews on this channel everyday.
I personally love that NA is all the rage cars like the GT3RS just tingle me the right way with the sound of their NA engines
Hi from fellow Audi 100 Turbo owner =)
So what your turbo experience 😅
Jason, I feel ya. I bought an 86 Mustang SVO with a 5.0 swap plan in mind. The project was kicked to the curb numerous times but it's now on the road...with the original turbo, intercooled 2.3. I'm determined to trick this thing into making semi-instantaneous boost down low. Call me crazy.
I own an Eagle Talon Tsi AWD (Mitsubishi Eclipse Gsx) and wouldn't trade it for the world. Now saying that, when I first got it it had that on/off turbo feeling (turbo lag) but when I got a cyclone set up from Japan. It made the torque and boost curves a more usable experience.
Very interesting points in this episode. I always had a thing for turbo cars growing up, particularily 90's Japanese variety, yet I don't think I clearly understood on a really technical level, nor took time to really consider how much at times turbos actually took away from a pure sports car experience, or at the very least interfered with it. The very end part about the 959 really spoke to me because of all the cool things I've heard about it over the years, being a sort of pioneer to modern hypercars and technological performance advancements, but really in a weird way it did kind of spell disaster for the future of genuine pure sports car experiences in favor of overly complex revolutionary technology to make performance faster and better, which of course can also be a great thing on the other hand, but bittersweet. Very enlightening info. Great video guys!
Thanks!
Don't forget naturally aspirated engines also sound SOOOOOO good
Dandre Davis I love the sound of turbos with the blow off valves and the intake sounds I have never driven and liked a single turbo call but I really love twin turbo cars and trucks
But sometimes twin turbo cars sound like vacuum cleaners
Turbofan lag is a real consideration, especially in older biz jets...
I think Jason's lag times are pretty out there. I'm not a fan of the modern 2.0t love, but they absolutely will make full boost under 2000 RPM in under a second. At high RPMs, I dare say the lag is undetectable when tuned right. Certainly nowhere near 0.8 seconds. I had a 2006 S60R, which is not exactly bleeding edge anymore and had a low compression, port injected 2.5 making 300 HP. It was rated for full torque at 1950 and it would come on boost very quickly...under a second below 2500 RPM (hard to say at 2000 RPM, given the stall being like 2300 RPM). Boost was definitely usable all the way down to around 2100ish RPM with the TC locked (below that, it would unlock).
2 Masters of The Automotive Universe!
Another great show, however I will disagree with you gents on one point. Sound! Yes, true turbos and superchargers do remove the classic induction sounds, but then they bring about their own. I enjoy both personally, the whine of large volume twin scroll superchargers, the unloading of wastegates or the woosh of a high revving turbo sound as exciting to me as an L28 on trip weber carburetors revving to the red line. What kills sound to me is efi on a single maf and low revs. Like you've stated, if it's too easy it's probably not worth doing... I'm still grateful to all you engineers out there btw, so don't hate!
WW2 aircraft engines had centrifugal superchargers with turbos acting as "turbonormalizers" that compensated for altitude rather than increased manifold pressure.
As someone who's owned multiple high-compression NA cars so much Yes Jason
It’s time for the 80s and 90s “turbo” badge craze to turn to a craze of “N/A” badges for drivers cars now!
I grew up riding 2-strokes for almost 10 years before I ever touched a 4-stroke in a car. So for me, I like something that revs very high, revs very quick, and does exactly what the throttle tells it on a nanosecond basis. I'm not a big fan of turbos. Give me that snappy zappy. Long live VTEC (yo).
Guys... you gotta get rid of that yellow camera. Maybe it’s a running gag that I’m not aware of because I don’t read the comments, but jeez!
Two inexpensive cameras with matched sensors, matching color, matching lenses. Cutting back and forth will no longer induce seasickness.
Please.
I learned so much from this one
VW Twin charged 1.4 engine are: BLG, BMY, CAXC
Geez…I sold my 930 because I also didn’t get it. Oddly, I loved the 300zx twin turbo. I oddly can follow along this very long discussion !
They forgot that the Acura Legend also had a longitudinally mounted engine although it was front wheel drive!
The turbo car you should have drove but probably can't find one anymore is the late 80's Pontiac Grand Am with the 2 liter turbo motor. Had one in high school and it was just as fast as a mid 90's Camaro or Firebird. The boost came on around 2500 RPMS.
Jason, you need an EV, no throttle lag at all. @31.05 don't forget the Nissan March Super Turbo, a turbo and supercharged 1000cc 4wd
Well EVs are much better than ice
@@dragospahontu and boring
@@claudiomarangone614 how? Please justify.
As kid I have seen Vanilla Ice taking delivery of a Gemballa Porsche. That was a sensation back in the days.
Agreed on the 930 and Saab turbo lag.... I wonder what his take is on the Xr4ti? I think Jason's a fan. Thunderbird turbo and mustang SVO had a similar powertrain too.
I had a 2005 Saab 9-3 Aero - being my first car I loved it. But the more I learned about cars and driving, the more things about turbos bothered me like heat soaking and general reliability. It was fuel efficient on the highway, just not in the city when it's on the boost a lot. After that I had a 2015 Mazda6 and I loved that NA powertrain and its throttle response - very satisfying to wring out the engine. I now have a BRZ and I don't think I would enjoy it turbo-charged.