why would anyone drive a car that isn't boosted?
I just bought my first turbo car yesterday and honestly it is so much more fun to drive that I will never go back.
>>13835493
Aww baby's first wrx
Watch for trees.
You'll get over the novelty soon
>>13835509
thanks babe
>>13835493
Because normal driving basically equates to beating the absolute shit out if it and it loves it.
>>13835493
Forced induction is the best way to live
>>13835493
>>13835748
No thanks, i like actually having throttle response.
I would rather supercharge
>>13835844
>has never driven a boosted car
>>13835872
>thinks turbo lag is how all cars feel
>>13835878
Define "lag"
then define "time to torque"
>>13835844
Kek your shitbox probably doesn't have enough power for throttle response to matter. Also cars aren't factory equipped with 60 trims there is no "lag" you dolt. Spooling takes less than a second.
>>13835872
>or if he did, it was a shitty single scroll turbo slapped onto a tiny 80's econobox
>>13835903
Less than a second ≠ none. Enjoy your disconnection from the car.
I bet it's an automatic too. Also, i drive an S2000, so, yeah...
>>13835921
>hasn't defined lag
Unsurprising.
>or time to torque
>torque
>s2000
I understand everything now.
>>13835921
timestamp
>>13835921
>S2000
Explains everything.
>Disconnection from the car
Shut up takumi, my sti would fuck your butt in literally every motorsport.
>>13835930
Owning an s2000 isnt even worth a timestamp, its not impressive in any way.
>>13835907
I would love a gl-10
>>13835927
lag is the time between the throttle opening and the turbo spooling up. All turbos have it, and it can be reduced to some degree on another, mainly by adding additional turbos with different sized impellers. Sorry bro, but lag is a fact of life with turbos. I've driven WRXs, and know it's pretty noticeable, if you haven't gotten used to it.
and, timestamp, sorry, it's a little wet outside right now, and i'm not home.
>>13835948
agree, but i do know a little about throttle response.
>>13835493
Oh driving it is tons of fun.
Maintaining it... that's the part where most people say "fuck it" after a while.
>>13835994
There isn't a turbo car throughout history that your car is faster than, stop bench racing.
>>13836009
you're obviously right
>>13835994
You have no idea what lag is
You're truing to describe boost threshold
>>13835921
drive by wire and absolutely gutless ass honda 4 banger
you've got no leg to stand on if all you can use against forced induction is "muh throttle response bro I drive an s2gay bro"
>>13836009
Oh come on, I don't even like the S2000 that much and that's bullshit. There are PLENTY of slow turbo cars.
>>13835994
what your are talk about is boost threshold
on the wrx big snail kicks in at 4500 rpm
>>13836032
Have you ever driven an s2000? Im almost certain that will give the s2000 a run for its money. Its PAINFUL how slow they are.
>>13836009
S2000s are faster than most turbo cars probably desu.
>>13835994
>lag is
Uncorrect.
https://turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/faq
Anything other than cars engineered at retard-U and purpose built drag cars with 2 step will have less "lag" than the amount of time you wait for vtec.
A 2.0L turbo Subaru probably makes more torque at 2500rpm than your car does anywhere in the rev range. So time to torque when you have none is kinda important.
>>13836042
Wrong as fuck, I haven't even got anything more to say.
>>13835854
>Spotted the boomer
Listen here oldtimer, you see superchargers are obsolete in cars nowdays. Maybe in competition offroading or marine craft it might still be appropriate in rare applications.. But for the most part there's just no advtanage to using a supercharger over a turbocharger in 2015. There's a reason why 99% of car companies in 2015 use turbochargers and not superchargers
>>13836041
If you think the S2000 is painfully slow then I hope to god you never drive one of those. You will probably go into traumatic shock
>>13836045
Kek anon that cuts
> f20c makes less than 150whp for 6000rpm
Top kek
> but muh 500rpm of vtak and muh instant throttle response when I stand on it and it just makes a heap of noise instantly but goes nowhere bevause lol gutless ass honda 4 banger
>>13836045
Thread over
>>13836041
>TFW you'll never know what 9000rpm sounds like.
<6 seconds to 60mph isn't painfully slow. Yes, you have to rev the shit out of them, but that's part of the fun. Also, there's a little more to performance than straight line speed.
>>13836048
Most turbo cars are slow. All the turbo cars from the 80s and 90s that are really slow today, even from the 2000s there are lots of slow turbo cars. An S2000 is even as fast an Ecoboost Mustang in the 1/4 mile. There are tons of slow turbo cars, more than fast ones.
>>13836041
>Ford EXP Turbo Coupe
>turbo 1.6, SOHC 2 valve/cyl
>120hp and 120tq
>2250 pounds
>1/4 mile: 16.7 seconds
>Honda S2000
>NA 2.2, DOHC 4 valve/cyl
>240hp, and 162tq
>2840 pounds
>1/4 mile: 14.1 seconds
Nope. If you thought it was slow, then you probably never even went over 4000 rpm...
>>13836065
You just blew /o/s mind.
>>13836066
> as fast as an ecoboost
Don't they run like low 13s though? S2000 are consistently mid 14 cars
>>13836065
I drive an STI because I think straight line performance is gay. But 80% of S2000 owners dont track their cars so highway driving and 5 minute backroading trips are all they'll see. Both of which OP's car will dominate the s2000 in.
>>13836066
>Most turbo cars are slow
This is 2015 chief, even ford GT's have turbos. So do mustangs, STI's, Evo's, S4's. And dont start with comparing turbo economy cars to sports cars. ALSO s2000's aren't geared to beat or even have enough power to beat a new or old ecoboost mustang, or ecoboost f150. No clue where you pulled that from.
>>13836089
I thought it was slow because I got pulled by a v6 accord from a dig and its only redeeming factor is that it turns half decent. If you thought it was fast you've never owned a car that makes over 150whp
>>13835921
So you've never driven a turbocharged vehicle have you?
I'm running a much larger than stock turbo on my WRX (PTE 6262) and the lag, if in proper RPM range, is barely any. Stock turbos have even far less lag that it doesn't make any difference, it kicks in so fast that N/A vs Turbo will not matter.
Wanna know the best way to beat turbo lag? Shift down!
It doesn't matter though, the only way you'll ever go fast in your s2000 is if you turbocharge it. But hey, your throttle response is still superior right?
Lol.
>>13836065
>>13836065
>muh honda
You have never driven turbo car. Or when you did you didn't know how to drive a turbo car.
You see faggot if I launch at 4k rpm, my turbo is already on boost, then I change at 6k-7k rpm.. And guess what?!?! I'm in 2nd and at 4k rpm again which means... IM ALREADY ON BOOST.. Rev 2nd out to 7k rpm.. Change to 3rd.. Guess what I'm at 4k rpm again ... And what do you know the fucking turbo is yet again on boost.
>not knowing how a fucking car works
Holy fuck you're a retard.
>>13836112
Nope, ~205whp here, assuming AWD drivetrain loss is 18%
A V6 Accord has ~40 more horsepower than an S2000 anyway.
I wonder if it's that same retarded s2000 fanboy who tried to say a 50whp advantage of the 13brew over the f20c doesn't matter because gearing Invalidates any and all horsepower differences
Oh and having more power across the entire range only helps to make the car easier to drive, not aid in acceleration
> s2000 fanboys are actuslly that retarded
>>13836129
If this is a pissing contest you lost. Your car is still slow, but still would beat the s2000 so I don't get your point.
>>13836020
>>13836032
>>13836045
>>13836059
>>13836062
>>13836100
>>13836113
>>13836115
the rage of all the faggots who pretend to drive STIs, but had to settle on a high mileage beat to shit WRX rattle traps. Enjoy that tree through your door when you over estimate your cars grip, which is more or less inevitable for WRX drivers who think AWD can cover up for their complete lack of driving skill.
>>13836153
>I cant think of a decent argument
>>13836100
>ALSO s2000's aren't geared to beat or even have enough power to beat a new or old ecoboost mustang, or ecoboost f150. No clue where you pulled that from.
S2000s run about a 14 second 1/4 mile time, same as an Ecoboost.
>aren't geared to beat
Do you have any idea what your talking about
>This is 2015
So? S2000 is still faster than most turbo cars. There are lots of turbo cars that are faster, but a lot more that are slower.
>F150
Yeah your just trolling now
>>13836148
I was responding to him saying I probably hadn't owned a car with over 150whp, not bragging. I know there's many faster cars out there. Once I get my accessport, downpipe, and uppipe it'll have around 300 horsies anyway.
>>13836153
>beat to shit
>WRX
>high mileage
>rattle trap
It's none of those things, I'll have you know
>>13836153
:^) Nice damage control.
>>13836100
> Both of which OP's car will dominate the s2000 in.
if you believe this, you literally know nothing about cars or driving. Owning an STI won't change that.
ITT: Subarufags confirm what everyone already knew about them.
>>13836177
nice car
>>13836182
>ITT: butthurt 2WD NA car owners
>>13836185
Oh thank you!
>>13836176
>WRX
>not a rattle trap
>>13836168
What turbo sports cars is an s2000 quicker than?
>2012 ecoboost f150 runs 13.9 with time slips
No im not trolling guy.
Your s2000 is slow, you bought the wrong car. Get over it.
>>13836196
>Never driven a WRX
The only thing wrong is the fucking squeaky seatbelt.
Why does it squeak?
WHY?
>>13836196
>it's not a WRX
what part of that do you not understand
>>13836196
Pay attention asshole, he's got an outback.
>>13836189
how long have you had it?
>>13836176
>downpipe uppipe
>300 horsies
On what fucking dyno
>>13836213
>He
>Outback
pick one
>>13836216
Since August 2011. Quite awhile now. It's gone through many different builds and it's getting a new build right now.
>>13836224
Fair point.
>>13836229
cool, like the wheels
>>13836222
Crank horsepower, not wheel, I should have clarified
>>13836153
Fuck off.
Don't drive a wrx but my mazdapseed with my bov sounds like sex. Zoom zoom NA fags
>>13836129
It also makes more than an E36 M3, what's your point?
>>13836203
>180SX
>Skyline GTST
>MR2 Turbo
>MazdaSpeed Miata
>Eclipse GSX
>Genesis 2.0l T
A bunch of others but they aren't "sports cars", just performance cars. I missed a lot of sports cars too, and didn't use anything from the 80s.
I don't even own an S2000 btw, I'm a different guy
>>13836203
Only a retard thinks acceleration is the most important metric.
>>13836255
I'm not him, but that key blank fits every pre-transponder chip Subaru. Could be anything.
>>13836266
In a simple straight line acceleration contest, the Accord should be able to edge out the S2000, even if only by a little bit. It makes sense that he couldn't quite keep up with it, especially since it seems like he didn't know how to drive the S2000.
>>13836269
3 of those have trim options that ARE substantially faster so im not going to count those, fuck you im cherry picking.
MR2 turbo
MPS Miata
I will accept these, but there's no such thing as a stock GSX so I cannot count that. Also the s2000 is a dedicated sports car. I can compare a GT2 porsche but that would be too easy. You see my point.
>>13836285
Make a genuine point then, retard.
>>13836300
Its raining im not that worried about proving myself.
>>13836203
the S2000 is only 0.2 seconds slower a lap than the boxster s. You should actually use real numbers instead of just saying "it's slow"
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-comparison-tests/reviews/a18528/sibling-rivalry-honda-s2000-vs-acura-nsx/
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-comparison-tests/reviews/a18530/sibling-rivalry-porsche-911-turbo-vs-boxster-s/
>>13836306
>Moving goal post this hard
Also
>Also the s2000 is a dedicated sports car. I can compare a GT2 porsche but that would be too easy
No I don't. What the fuck are you talking about
>>13836182
That they actuslly know something and aren't retarded meme spewing honda fangirls?
>>13836319
>Make a genuine point
>He already did
>>13836320
>Real numbers
>Posts website track times
Bench racing is bad for your health anon
Also the boxter isn't turbo'd if im not mistaken, I could be wrong. If it isn't that has nothing to do with the thread. Compare the 911 turbo.
>>13836269
All you could come up with were low spec cars from over two decades ago?
Not much of a list either
Isn't the s2k slower than a focus St? Kek
Because pushrod v8s are linear and more powerful without the need to be boosted.
Have fun exhausting the shit out of your engine for no real purpose
>>13836341
>Every 1000hp+ LS is turbo'd
Ok
>>13836339
I was going to name newer cars but he asked for "sports cars" which there aren't that many turbo sports cars right now that aren't 100k +.
I almost burnt my asscheak ashing a smoke into the toilet. The matter that my anus just produced has more relevance than your post to this forum. Good job anon, good job.
>>13836348
anyone who wants to make more than 500hp from a v8 uses forced induction
>>13836337
And your numbers are from...?
I get it, you've almost given up on life but want to still have some sensible fun that's still safe. Maybe scare the kids with some stoplight drag racing on the way home from soccer practice, every once in a while. I get the Subaru appeal.
>>13836341
>pushrods
>2015
>>13836337
>low spec cars.
M Roadster, Z8, 550, NSX...
>comparing a $150k car to a 40k car.
You can't be that stupid, can you?
>>13836348
>>13836363
>implying I need or want that
>>13836375
Yfw pushrods btfo everything else without forced induction
Top kek, stay keked by trendy automemes
>>13836374
Rather launch my junk from stop lights and terribly maintained drag strips, than lurk car and driver for track times that ill never reach.
I wish I could say ive never met an s2000 driver this deep in the closet about his car being slow, but I have.
>>13836401
>OHC
>a meme
>>13836401
> I don't need or want 500hp plus
Lol girly man!
>>13836403
All s2000 owners I know are fat Asian students and if I told them their car is slow they'd just agree bevause Asians aren't stupid but Americans are
>>13836401
>Pushrods
>btfoing anything
>In 1932 + 83
>>13836398
Different anon, anon. But really the comparison cant be met. Generation gap and such. My car just happens to be faster each and every year they were both offered but thats just one specific example.
>>13836403
I've actually already said it's 0-60 times are about 6 seconds. you continue to think acceleration is the most important performance metric. And no, a stock WRX wagon won't beat a s2000 around a track
>>13836420
>100K car smoking million dollar twin turboed cars
Fucking embarrassing .
>>13836426
I dont have a wagon, guy.
>>13836434
>100k car having push rods
fucking embarrassing
>>13836462
>smokes the comp
Kek, enjoy losing to pushrods
>>13836434
Smoking bevause it blew it's engine and covered the track with smoke like fog top kek
>>13836438
Some anon implied the OPs wagon would win around a track
Here are lap times. The 08 CR (which isn't more powerful than a base S2000) beat a 14, 11, 10 WRX and an 08 STI
http://m.caranddriver.com/features/lightning-lap-2014-complete-ll-times-2006-to-2014-feature
Actual numbers. You're right. It's slow. Let's see your numbers, if you don't think these are acceptable
>>13835493
Turbo cars are fun, but where I live is all twisties. Prefer my power to be NA on those roads, bit more predictable.
Also if that's your car congratulations. Not a WRX guy myself, but they're fun enough to drive.
>>13836032
>>13836041
>>13836042
>>13836065
Isn't the point of the S2000 handling? Never driven one myself (not interested), but I just assumed it wasn't really about straight line performance.
>>13836051
Not him, but I kind of like superchargers on the track and on some twisty roads. Linear power is nice and the sound is killer.
V8s with turbos are pretty hilarious though. Fun, but totally ridiculous.
>>13836266
Are US M3s really that low on power? I had one a few years ago and it made just over 300hp at the crank. Not in the US though.
>>13836363
I know a guy with a 600hp NA C4Q, but he spent an absurd amount of money on it. Should've probably gone with a supercharger... Oh well, he loves the car so who cares.
>>13836560
C4B*
When did all these subie niggers get on o
>hur dur my 300hp awd car is faster than an s2k in a straight
Congrats so is my accord
>>13836560
>Isn't the point of the S2000 handling
It is, and it handles better than any Subaru. Saying that all turbo cars are faster than an S2000 is just stupid though.
>>13836621
>surprised that subaru owners are on a subaru thread
It was that other faggot that brought up the S2000 anyway
>>13836621
>>13836647
Just confuses me. They're both fun cars to drive, but for different reasons. If you want to go fast in a straight line buy a motorcycle.
>>13836153
>He doesn't realize that the best STIs came with 2L.
Why even live?
>>13835878
>doesnt know about normal cars like Subaru and Evo whoose turbolag is barely feelable
Especialy Evo ive driven both and they feel great.
>>13835921
I'm calling bs on this. I drive both a modified wrx funbox and an s2000 and both are pretty close to the same level of fun. The s2000 feels more premium, like more "special" to drive, but nothing like sticking 5 people into their seats when dat boost hits. Also, even if the power takes longer to come on, it makes it feel more powerful than it is when it does come on, and that's more fun.
>>13835844
Turbo lag is a thing of the past, nigger. Unless you have a mega fuckhuge turbo and if you have a mega fuckhuge turbo you don't give a shit about turbo lag because you probably have over 500hp or more and then it's more like
>2k rpm
>almost in the sweet spot
>2.5k rpm
>WOT
>lag
>lag
>lag
>3k rpm
>HOOOOOOOLY FUCKING SHIT I'M FLYING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NbJ47avAwg
>WRX is a sports car
>thinking your 4 door hatchback isn't just a riced out grocery getter
OP what part of Maryland are you from? Good choice on the bay plates, I fucking hate niggermore and their ft McHenry plates that are standard.
>>13837785
WRX is pretty cool, its the rabid fanboi's that make me hate it. They fall in one of two categories
1. Really chill guy who wanted a WRX
2. Ken Block motherfucker who beats the ever living shit out of his car every drive
Every STI owner Iv met has been way more chill/responsible than most WRX owners. I hate talking to most guys in the 20-30k bracket because it always turns into "my car is better than yours!" conversation. I like most cars, except Civic SI's. I have never met a Civic SI owner who was even remotely interesting. Fucking faggots.
>>13837785
>sports car
>car used in motor sports
>rally is a motorsport
>subaru WRX is used in rally
>subaru WRX is a sports car.
>>13837838
To even further drive the point home, the WRX only existed for homologation purposes so they would be able to use their car in the WRC.
>>13836475
Cool. Posted this. Went to sleep. No reply
>dem subarufag tears.
>>13837725
No BS, that was my time stamp with the rain, watch and AP1. Yes, I've driven a WRX. Anyone who has knows there is lag, and if you don't, then you've never driven a good NA car.
>>13837881
> never driven a good n/a car
> literally own a car with one of the best n/a engines ever made
Bruh.
I know there's lag, nothing comes on until around 4 grand, but when it does it's like a fucking plane taking off. There's something in that which is as much fun as ringing out an n/a engine. Personally, I love turbo lag. I think it just adds so much drama and theatre to the driving experience.
>>13837943
Fair enough, and I do get the appeal (driven a 930 911 Turbo, so I've seen lag), I'm just fucking with these delusional fags who think their WRX wagons an foresters are track monsters.
>>13835493
Because I prefer power on demand that my V8 affords me. It regularly shits on STIs, Ecoboost Stangs, the occasional SHO, and even the local Mk3 Supra (guy is laying down 470hp from a 2j swap. ) How does it feel knowing your turbo WRX would get rekt by a 50 year old land barge?
Pic very related.
>inb4 lolcantturn because it can and does.
>>13838020
Yeah nah fuckold
>>13835493
Don't treequinox it.
>>13838230
It's alright. Be mad, I don't care
I make enough power n/a that boost isn't really a concern. I've tried it and it's fun for sure, but at the moment I don't need it. Next car maybe.
>>13838272
It's pretty funny how Subarufags get so angry when it's pointed out that no one actually respects or likes subarus. I get that buyer's remorse hit them in the face every time they get in the car, but they shouldn't take it out on everyone else
>>13838294
I have the V8. I think you replied incorrectly.
>>13836051
>But for the most part there's just no advtanage to using a supercharger over a turbocharger in 2015
Less plumbing, more compact. Roots and screw types give a nice inear powerband, good for times you don't want a violent and erratic power curve (like mid-corner).
>>13838726
>not wanting your car to occasionally try to kill you
>>13838622
Yeah. Sort of. I was trying to agree with you
>>13838950
I saw that when I read it. I agree but the statement applies to all 4cyl purists.
Because v8 faggot
>>13835493
op, how are you liking the car? was considering buying a wrx with a sti swapped engine
I used to be pretty cautious of turbo'd cars because I always assumed that it did tons of damage to your engine somehow. I never really liked the supercharger whine, but I did always like the bov sound of a turbo. I bought a boosted miata and I've never had so much fun driving a car before. I later drove a naturally aspirated miata and I just couldn't cope with not flying after 3500 rpm. I like turbos now, they're a fun and inexpensive way to get good power from otherwise powerless cars.
