Old vs. New ...

[LateNightCable]

At the request of Carpassion member BIGpassion, this poll is to see which cars - old or new, you prefer, in regards to your personal taste in styling and performance.

Since overall performance of newer cars is very often superior to older ones, and would present a simpler conclusion, ( like prabably 99.9% of users would say they prefer the performance of new cars ) the main poll question will regard styling, which is much more of a gray area.

If you have a particular opinion concerning new versus old performance, write a post about it. So here it is ... New vs. Old

- LateNightCable

[Anzeige eBay]

Hallo LateNightCable,

 

kennst du schon Old vs. New ... (Anzeige)? Dort ist vieles zu finden.

 

Sportwagen Kaufberatung Ersatzteile (Anzeige) | Sportwagen Kaufberatung Zubehör (Anzeige)

[wEstSide]

I hate this new "futuristic" car styling. Only new car that has new styling that I like is the Scion tC, probably because it bears a resemblance to a Skyline GTR (front fascia).

[bleh]

somewhere in between. i like mid to late 90s and early 00s styling the most. regardless of make or model.

so generally from 94-03ish

[skyline_r34v]

At the request of Carpassion member BIGpassion, this poll is to see which cars - old or new, you prefer, in regards to your personal taste in styling and performance.

Since overall performance of newer cars is very often superior to older ones, and would present a simpler conclusion, ( like prabably 99.9% of users would say they prefer the performance of new cars ) the main poll question will regard styling, which is much more of a gray area.

If you have a particular opinion concerning new versus old performance, write a post about it. So here it is ... New vs. Old

- LateNightCable

Everybody knows what my vote is

[BIGpassion]

in my opinion, i am slightly inbetween....i would refer to the old period as a more "raw" and "savage" era of cars, and i like that. but in the styling area it has to be new cars. when i first see the new extravagant body shape i dont really thing they are that good looking but they do grow on me very quickly....one thing i really would hate is electric cars that have the same stupid noise of a hoover.

[LateNightCable]

I agree with Bleh, I like the mid-90's to early 00's. I prefer this era stylistically to most new cars. These cars were modern, without being spaced out. As an exception, I think the big Chrysler sedans have come into their own with the 300 model.

As far as performance numbers, most new "driver's" cars out perform the older ones, but I think the feel of older cars can offer less isolation, and more interaction and involvment for the driver. A more pure driving experience with flaws and all, and often more enjoyable overall. Older BMW M3's are a prime example of this. Too much electronic intervention these days.

As BIGpassion pointed out, while electric cars have a lot of potential as eco friendly transportation, I doubt they could ever elicit the passion that a gas burning car could. The sound of pistons pumping and snorting, fuel and air being sucked into the chamber, and gears changing are music to a car lover's ears, the car is alive in your hands. Unless humans develop a true fetish for the sound of an electric motor, the music of a gas engine can't be beat. The sounds of a hot car can be sexual. I don't see electric being compared to that.

[bleh]

yea man, i love hearing a charger whine sounds sooo badass. or the sound of a turbo spool hard like you can just hear as the car climbs in the rpms that the rpms suddenly go by faster. i am sooo addicted to it, even though my car is stock. 3rd gear pulls from 15mph own me.

best impersonation online:

bauuuooOOAAAAAAAT kshh

^2-spool^@3--^4--^6--^8 and ^shift

numbers are through the rpm band, i love a good turbo gsr or type r

and of course behind this you have the sound of a circular saw increasing in frequency as it climbs rmps: zhzhZHZHZHZH

the lag may be a major flaw. care? i do not!

[skyline_r34v]

If you go with a E-boost device you can shut the wastegate off or minimal to allow a low set psi or higher set psi to hit through low-RPMs then let it fully open up allowing full boost right after your RPMs climb higher. You don't have to settle for turbo lag sometimes .

[bleh]

or you could just go higher compression or a smaller turbo to get rid of lag.. it is a much more efficient and safer way, but that is a totally different subject.

[LateNightCable]

This brings us to another element of our discussion - new versus old performance. Old style turbo lag never increased acceleration times, but I think the kick in the ass boost added a lot to the experiance. In this sense, it is a trait that will be missed.

What is everyone elses take on this?

[Anzeige eBay]

Hallo LateNightCable,

 

schau doch mal hier zum Thema Zubehör für Sportwagen Kaufberatung (Anzeige)? Eventuell gibt es dort etwas Passendes.

[bleh]

fwd cars need turbo lag!! unless they have some other means of traction control.

split personality says: electronic traction control ... shut up jared

[iroc-z89]

Old cars, big block motors, loud as hell, with a few changes will shut up any Lambo on the street, though I love the feel they give in riding in the bumpy feel every rock in the road exprience the cars from the sixties and such need a more stable suspension. Then on the strip and off, I feel they could handle any modded supercar, from any manufacturer.

As far as the blower discussion went, I prefer the superchargers more than than the turbos. They dont break, less plumbing, and easily fixed.

[LateNightCable]

V12 Lambos are fairly "big block" in their own right and sound like it too from inside - Nothing under 6.0 liters for some time. But even still, as far as exhaust pipe music goes, how can they compare to some American V8 of over 7.0 liters?

I'm quite fond of old style cars myself, I always have those to turn to. That's why I'm not discouraged if there aren't any good new cars. If we didn't have old cars, the car hobby would be quite sad.

[wEstSide]

LNC, you're an anachronism. Let's see some pics of the E36! I heard the new 330ci is going to be faster than the E36 M3.

[bleh]

As far as the blower discussion went, I prefer the superchargers more than than the turbos. They dont break, less plumbing, and easily fixed.

im not going to touch the rest of what you just said. but with this i had to say something. less plumbing, yea ok thats your only good point, but only if you dont have it aftercooled.

if they dont break then how are they easily fixed?? that makes no sense. and turbos only break when they are misused. so if you get the proper turbo for the setup and desired performance, nothing should go wrong, unless the user makes a mistake.

but all this 'extra plumbing' is totally worth it cus psi for psi you will make more power with a properly sized turbo. this is of course, generally speaking, and there are many other circumstanced causing exceptions.

in all reality superchargers really are dyno queens.

[LateNightCable]

LNC, you're an anachronism. Let's see some pics of the E36! I heard the new 330ci is going to be faster than the E36 M3.

I don't care how fast the new 330 will be if it looks like piss. It might very well be faster, but to me, it's no more exciting. Old cars just have more soul in my opinion, faster or not. But I try to see the good in new and old alike.

[iroc-z89]

im not going to touch the rest of what you just said. but with this i had to say something. less plumbing, yea ok thats your only good point, but only if you dont have it aftercooled.

if they dont break then how are they easily fixed?? that makes no sense. and turbos only break when they are misused. so if you get the proper turbo for the setup and desired performance, nothing should go wrong, unless the user makes a mistake.

but all this 'extra plumbing' is totally worth it cus psi for psi you will make more power with a properly sized turbo. this is of course, generally speaking, and there are many other circumstanced causing exceptions.

in all reality superchargers really are dyno queens.

My point is that a supercharger follows to power band if well tuned a turbo well yeah, a supercharger can break but not from just being run, its a fairly simple device its a giant fan, but it works and when something does go bad ie bearing, fan blade, you dont need a new one.

Turbos generally have to be replaced every few years especially when the are run hard on cars that aren't worth it. Examples of such cars. But as far as they go if you talk about Japenese cars, and the ricer mobiles. Take the STI for example, now take a 1989 Pontaic firebird TTA or Buick GN, tta has an old iron duke, impossible to kill this motor. Subie has well ick, The tta has well over 350hp, (rated @ 250) and made gobs of torque, the STI has the same 300/300 ratio. Now besides the launch who will come out on top? You say sti your wrong, newer cars aren't always the best and when both are manual its a drivers race. TTA is a 12 second car. GN is a 13

My point is I dont hate turbos, but I would rather a nice vortec.

As far as the supercharger go take what ever you have find a 1970 Challenger, with a blower ask for a race you will have him up to about 20mph

[bleh]

if your not overspooling your turbos they wont blow....i still dont know what your talking about. some of them die, cus they are pushed to hard, but that happens with most things. and superchargers are a lot more complex than fans. after all, a turbo is just 2 fans. you cant tell me a roots supercharger is more complex than a turbo.

are we talking about motors? or the types of forced induction??

i dont personally know anyone that has broken 12s with a super charger, however i have a friend who has a wrx that runs 11s all day long and another friend who runs low 12s with the occasional high 11 in 2nd gen eclipse. a friends grand national ran 9s.

these are the fastest examples i can think of that i have seen and know the drivers well. i dont know many supercharged cars that can produce those numbers. just your average lightening or svt cobra... 13s and 12s.

my car is n/a so how would that compare to a 1970 charger? this is nothing personal.

[iroc-z89]

my point was turbos have alot of little tiny parts, in my exprience turbos tend to die. They usually last 3 to 5 years and its time for a new one. That might be because they are pushed but superchargers are out of common use, they are extremely expensive and require alot of knowledge to pick your gearing. Where as now a days the turbo is pretty much picked for your engine. Plus they are cheap at about 2500 to 3500 a piece. They were originally designed for diesels and are somewhat over rated. A roots type supercharger is the most simple of the three but the most commonly used. This is your low powercharger and tends to not do a whole lot, a centrifugal is a little bit better but gets hotter than the roots at quicker pace. If you hang with alot of older cars you will see more of the superchargers. They can be extremely quick and are commonly used in drag racing on 8 second cars. Most 4 cylinders do not use them because they require more money for the initial purchase and most that are made would give a 2.5L engine an ass kicking. Most wont even fit my car, and I am an 8 cylinder. For example to see a 6-71 on a 2.0 honda would be a joke, but to see it on a 383 would be quite common, the 383 make mores than 30 ft lbs of torque at the crank N/A, (sorry had to do it) and has the capability to run it with actual power gains.

[bleh]

Most wont even fit my car, and I am an 8 cylinder. For example to see a 6-71 on a 2.0 honda would be a joke, but to see it on a 383 would be quite common, the 383 make mores than 30 ft lbs of torque at the crank N/A, (sorry had to do it) and has the capability to run it with actual power gains.

there are supercharger kits for hondas, but they never ever get above 300whp

as far as the other stuff, you lost me. i dont know what 6-71 and 383 are but i think a centrifugal supercharger is simpler than a roots supercharger, just because it has a compressor housing identical to a turbo, haha. i dont know what you are talking about with little parts though. turbos really are simple: compressor, turbine, wastegate.

[iroc-z89]

a 6-71 is a generic super charger, it can be used on most any car, it is a roots type, you mentioned the roots type so it is the one I picked. A 383 is a size of motor, it can either have a very large bore with a short stroke or a 350 bored over with a 400 crank and 6.0" connecting rods.

Your honda can have a supercharger and it will produce more horsepower with a supercharger than with a turbo, with a supercharger to increase psi you change the pulley.

[bleh]

a 6-71 is a generic super charger, it can be used on most any car, it is a roots type, you mentioned the roots type so it is the one I picked. A 383 is a size of motor, it can either have a very large bore with a short stroke or a 350 bored over with a 400 crank and 6.0" connecting rods.

alright i learn something new everyday. cool.

Your honda can have a supercharger and it will produce more horsepower with a supercharger than with a turbo, with a supercharger to increase psi you change the pulley.

thats a big F for false. to increase psi with a turbo you push a button(electronic) or turn a knob(mbc). this of course depends on the setup.

i mean seriously how much power can you make on a stock honda block with a supercharger, without blowing the motor? cus i know how much a turbo can make with whatever motor. the reason i say stock block is because there are many many 400+whp civics out there with built motors and that wouldnt be a fair comparison.

its funny how you found out that im a honda junkie.

[wEstSide]

iroc, you're joking right? Turbos don't need to be replaced nearly as often as you claim. Do you even know how much a turbo costs? Even a nice 16G in good condition shouldn't cost you more than 300 dollars. When a car is maybe 8-10 years old you will need to consider changing the turbo. Not all turbos are the same, either. For example, the turbos on the Audi S4 are notorious for going bad quickly, as are the turbos on the RX-7.

I think some MBCs (such as the Hallman Pro Evo RX or whatever they call it) have in cabin control now.

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but I'll reiterate the point. A SUPERCHARGER WILL KILL A HONDA. On a small displacement motor (<4.0L) a supercharger will be hurting you at higher RPMs, mainly because the engine is losing too much power. Hondas have no torque, so they lose a lot of their top-end to parasitic drag when a supercharger is installed. A turbo uses energy that's otherwise wasted, meaning it won't cause you to lose any power (other than the low compression pistons you'll need to buy for higher boost). This is great because small displacement engines need to rev in order to make good power.

You know what, you just reminded me of this guy who had these little kids ask him if he had nitrous, and when he said he had a turbo, they said, "you should've gotten nitrous, my dad said turbos are unreliable." Welcome to the 21st century.

[bleh]

For example, the turbos on the Audi S4 are notorious for going bad quickly, as are the turbos on the RX-7.

cus they are too damn small!!! you cant even fit your thumb into the compressor housing of a k03 hahahaha.

[iroc-z89]

I looked just looked into a vortech system for my car it was around 5K, others went up to 6K, turbos were extremely expensive as well, but a turbo was about what I listed for another name brand. base kit no supercharger is 1,833.95

a full system listed is $3,939.95

last time I looked it was as high as the LS1 chargers, 6K.

Turbos.....

My car, this is listed for an LT1 but its basicially the same $3795 MSRP from STS.

Another quote on them is 400+ HP on a stock TPI 350!! Best of all, we guarantee the turbo kit with a 6 MONTH WARRANTY against defects. Pricing starting under $4000, 4K is for a single turbo, try that price on a dual so that I have the spin up you do.

Keep in mind the car weighs around 3600lbs. give or take 100lbs.

be happy your a tuner, cheap engine, light car, easy on insurance.