why don't the big japanese 3 (honda, nissan, toyota) use forced induction?

[Doggiedog]

You are the moron.

Jap is not the abbreviation for Japan. It is JPN.

It is a racist term. Look it up for yourself.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
You are the moron.

Jap is not the abbreviation for Japan. It is JPN.

It is a racist term. Look it up for yourself.

That's nice, because we're not abbreviating Japan. Next.

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
You are the moron.

Jap is not the abbreviation for Japan. It is JPN.

It is a racist term. Look it up for yourself.

That's nice, because we're not abbreviating Japan. Next.

You do not abbreviate nationalities. Name me one that you can abbreviate.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
You are the moron.

Jap is not the abbreviation for Japan. It is JPN.

It is a racist term. Look it up for yourself.

That's nice, because we're not abbreviating Japan. Next.

You do not abbreviate nationalities. Name me one that you can abbreviate.

As previously posted in this thread: Thai, Scot, Viet

Another? Aussie...

We done yet? You're just making my point. You're all caught up making mountains out of mole hills trying to come up with straw men to fit your whacked perception that every little thing is a racist remark against you.

 

[Crappopotamus]

*shrug* doesnt matter, you can add a turbo aftermarket if you want more.

http://www.freshalloy.com/site/cars/nissan/2003/z/stillen/002/home.shtml

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
You are the moron.

Jap is not the abbreviation for Japan. It is JPN.

It is a racist term. Look it up for yourself.

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

"Jap" does not fit the first definition at all. The second definition is only true when applied to "Jap" if the user chooses to apply such a prejudice or discrimination. I don't take offense (my intellect does, but I digress) when hearing the words "n1gger", "ch1nk", "cracker", "beloved patriot", etc, if there isn't any hate applied to them.

 

[Doggiedog]

The only abbreviation I see is Scot fine.

Thai is not an abbreviation it is the actual word for a person from Thailand and also the language.

Viet is not a proper abbreviation of Vietnamese.

Aussie is slang and not an abbreviation.

Because you refuse to believe that jap is a derogatory word and you seem to not care to look it up, I took the liberty of doing for you.

Here

You can look up the rest yourself.

I don't think I am particularly sensitive but I try to be considerate for others (at least that is what people who know me think). Seriously, dealing with people like you who always think they are right and always have excuses is really tiring. Maybe you should learn the history of these things before giving us your authoritative view. Maybe you might find out that there is a lot of ill will behind certain words or terms and that using them is not merely politically incorrect but outright unacceptable. Try to be a little civil, understanding and considerate. I'm sure when you are driving and someone cuts you off or someone scratches your car in the parking lot you wonder why people are so inconsiderate? Now you might have a clue as to where it begins and stop it at the source.

Good night.

DD

Edit: And before anyone mentions, I admit being a little uncivil and riled up in my previous posts.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Actaeon

Originally posted by: geno
Because, the gentleman's agreement over there is 276HP, and with the course of development engines have taken since then, that kind of HP is easy to come by with a 3+ Litre 6 Cylindar. It used to be that Honda's NSX was the only N/A engine from there that tapped close to that number without forced induction. Wonder why the RX8 and the 350Z are so much cheaper than their earlier counterpart? Lack of complex turbo motors is a big part of it, I assure you The Z32 300ZX made 300HP with turbos, the 350Z makes almost 290 with no turbos. The Mid 90's RX7 (can't remember the model designation) made something like 250HP with a twin turbo Rotary, and the RX8 makes that with no turbos. So cost is less and they figured that turbo setups weren't necessary.

He just about hit the nail on the head.

No need for turbos when a N/A version makes enough power to hit the limit anyway.

Yes, but with a turbo, you can hit the same power with less displacement, meaning less fuel is used.

That's a pretty broad generalization, it works for the most part. I'm sure you know forced induction motors require much more fuel than their non-turbo counterparts. Fuel milage isn't always retained, as someone mentioned in the Mazdaspeed Miata thread, that 1.8t gets similar fuel milage to a Corvette...

 

[SportSC4]

Turbo adds extra cost to a car when it is being put together at a plant. People buy them and don't know how to take care of them so they end up breaking it and getting it fixed under warranty. Those are the two main reasons to why the auto industry wants to move away from turbo cars.

Superchargers are becomeing more popular because they don't add much extra complexity and they use the oil from the engine (unlike some models).

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Actaeon

Originally posted by: geno
Because, the gentleman's agreement over there is 276HP, and with the course of development engines have taken since then, that kind of HP is easy to come by with a 3+ Litre 6 Cylindar. It used to be that Honda's NSX was the only N/A engine from there that tapped close to that number without forced induction. Wonder why the RX8 and the 350Z are so much cheaper than their earlier counterpart? Lack of complex turbo motors is a big part of it, I assure you The Z32 300ZX made 300HP with turbos, the 350Z makes almost 290 with no turbos. The Mid 90's RX7 (can't remember the model designation) made something like 250HP with a twin turbo Rotary, and the RX8 makes that with no turbos. So cost is less and they figured that turbo setups weren't necessary.

He just about hit the nail on the head.

No need for turbos when a N/A version makes enough power to hit the limit anyway.

Yes, but with a turbo, you can hit the same power with less displacement, meaning less fuel is used.

That's a pretty broad generalization, it works for the most part. I'm sure you know forced induction motors require much more fuel than their non-turbo counterparts. Fuel milage isn't always retained, as someone mentioned in the Mazdaspeed Miata thread, that 1.8t gets similar fuel milage to a Corvette...

Maybe I shoul dhave just kept my mouth shut. I forgot to account for a lot of variables.

 

[AsianriceX]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Actaeon

Originally posted by: geno
Because, the gentleman's agreement over there is 276HP, and with the course of development engines have taken since then, that kind of HP is easy to come by with a 3+ Litre 6 Cylindar. It used to be that Honda's NSX was the only N/A engine from there that tapped close to that number without forced induction. Wonder why the RX8 and the 350Z are so much cheaper than their earlier counterpart? Lack of complex turbo motors is a big part of it, I assure you The Z32 300ZX made 300HP with turbos, the 350Z makes almost 290 with no turbos. The Mid 90's RX7 (can't remember the model designation) made something like 250HP with a twin turbo Rotary, and the RX8 makes that with no turbos. So cost is less and they figured that turbo setups weren't necessary.

He just about hit the nail on the head.

No need for turbos when a N/A version makes enough power to hit the limit anyway.

Yes, but with a turbo, you can hit the same power with less displacement, meaning less fuel is used.

That's a pretty broad generalization, it works for the most part. I'm sure you know forced induction motors require much more fuel than their non-turbo counterparts. Fuel milage isn't always retained, as someone mentioned in the Mazdaspeed Miata thread, that 1.8t gets similar fuel milage to a Corvette...

Maybe I shoul dhave just kept my mouth shut. I forgot to account for a lot of variables.

Yeah, you gotta have enough fuel to keep that massive amount of air the turbo is cramming into the combustion chamber in check. Never wanna run lean enough to have temperatures skyrocket.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: AsianriceX

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Actaeon

Originally posted by: geno
Because, the gentleman's agreement over there is 276HP, and with the course of development engines have taken since then, that kind of HP is easy to come by with a 3+ Litre 6 Cylindar. It used to be that Honda's NSX was the only N/A engine from there that tapped close to that number without forced induction. Wonder why the RX8 and the 350Z are so much cheaper than their earlier counterpart? Lack of complex turbo motors is a big part of it, I assure you The Z32 300ZX made 300HP with turbos, the 350Z makes almost 290 with no turbos. The Mid 90's RX7 (can't remember the model designation) made something like 250HP with a twin turbo Rotary, and the RX8 makes that with no turbos. So cost is less and they figured that turbo setups weren't necessary.

He just about hit the nail on the head.

No need for turbos when a N/A version makes enough power to hit the limit anyway.

Yes, but with a turbo, you can hit the same power with less displacement, meaning less fuel is used.

That's a pretty broad generalization, it works for the most part. I'm sure you know forced induction motors require much more fuel than their non-turbo counterparts. Fuel milage isn't always retained, as someone mentioned in the Mazdaspeed Miata thread, that 1.8t gets similar fuel milage to a Corvette...

Maybe I shoul dhave just kept my mouth shut. I forgot to account for a lot of variables.

Yeah, you gotta have enough fuel to keep that massive amount of air the turbo is cramming into the combustion chamber in check. Never wanna run lean enough to have temperatures skyrocket.

Well it's not just that, but the turbo itself uses energy. Think that doesn't matter because it's exhaust? Put a restricting plate of some kind over your exhaust pipe and try to say it doesn't matter.

 

[AsianriceX]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: AsianriceX

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: geno

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Actaeon

Originally posted by: geno
Because, the gentleman's agreement over there is 276HP, and with the course of development engines have taken since then, that kind of HP is easy to come by with a 3+ Litre 6 Cylindar. It used to be that Honda's NSX was the only N/A engine from there that tapped close to that number without forced induction. Wonder why the RX8 and the 350Z are so much cheaper than their earlier counterpart? Lack of complex turbo motors is a big part of it, I assure you The Z32 300ZX made 300HP with turbos, the 350Z makes almost 290 with no turbos. The Mid 90's RX7 (can't remember the model designation) made something like 250HP with a twin turbo Rotary, and the RX8 makes that with no turbos. So cost is less and they figured that turbo setups weren't necessary.

He just about hit the nail on the head.

No need for turbos when a N/A version makes enough power to hit the limit anyway.

Yes, but with a turbo, you can hit the same power with less displacement, meaning less fuel is used.

That's a pretty broad generalization, it works for the most part. I'm sure you know forced induction motors require much more fuel than their non-turbo counterparts. Fuel milage isn't always retained, as someone mentioned in the Mazdaspeed Miata thread, that 1.8t gets similar fuel milage to a Corvette...

Maybe I shoul dhave just kept my mouth shut. I forgot to account for a lot of variables.

Yeah, you gotta have enough fuel to keep that massive amount of air the turbo is cramming into the combustion chamber in check. Never wanna run lean enough to have temperatures skyrocket.

Well it's not just that, but the turbo itself uses energy. Think that doesn't matter because it's exhaust? Put a restricting plate of some kind over your exhaust pipe and try to say it doesn't matter.

I thought a turbocharger works on the principle that the energy used to expell those exhaust gases were being wasted anyway, so why not put it to work? Sure, it's not 100% efficient, but I don't see it being as big of a parasitic drain as a supercharger. Putting a restricting plate over the exhaust of any engine, NA or FI would piss it off.

I'd hate to see a V8 with a 1" exhaust. That would make me cry.

 

[LemonHerbWRX]

The 300zx TT in the USA did only have 300hp, but there was a reason for this. There is a stop on the throttle that stops it from opening to WOT, stopping it something like 6% short. There is a 4 minute DIY mod to go out and take a dremmel and file the thing off and the net result is 12RWHP which is more like 15 to 16 at the crank. So tenically it is 300hp stock, but realistically it is probably more like 320 but there are some half assed restrictions put on it to pass emissions in the US and to get slightly better insurance rates.

But why don't they make FI cars lately? Money, like people said before the market dried up, but now it looks like it is coming back in a big way. Horse Power is a big deal now a days, lots of companies are coming out with high powered cars.

And to those who said FI is a waste because you can get the same power with an NA car need to learn more. Of course you can get the same power, but at what costs. How much more does your 3.5liter v6 weigh compared to my h4 turbo? What do you redline stock? What can you safetly raise the rev limiter to with engine management?

And on the subject of the Miata and lowere powered cars keep in mind what they are built for. The Miata and Protoget are some of the best handling cars on the market, they don't even have that great of a weight to HP ratio. But they are AWSOME AutoX cars, same with cars like the Mini. Not everything is built to go the quarter mile in the lowest time possible, some people like to turn.

 

[flot]

LemonHerb, that is total nonsense about the 300ZX and a 4 minute 15 hp mod. In fact most cars have SOME kind of restriction at the throttle body and most could be easily improved on by a little work with a dremel - however I doubt it was intentional and it certainly isn't a 20 hp difference.

Edit: Of course, there IS a 20 minute 60 horsepower mod, which is to up the boost to ~14 lbs. As easy as putting a restrictor into a vacuum line and fooling the wastegates.

 

[Eli]

Because to them it's all about efficiency.

 

[Eli]

Also..

Many of you don't seem to understand that you can't just slap a turbo on any engine and call it good.

The engine has to be designed for the turbo. The engine has to be designed to withstand the extra power.

It also adds yet another level of complexity to the engine, which overall is going to decrease reliability.

 

[geno]

Think that doesn't matter because it's exhaust? Put a restricting plate of some kind over your exhaust pipe and try to say it doesn't matter.

Correct, a turbo *does* provide a certain amount of back pressure for the motor. Not a terribly detrimental amount, but there is some. With a turbo there's not such an effect of a restrictor plate, a turbo spins quite freely, so it doesn't choke the exhaust up at all.

The engine has to be designed for the turbo. The engine has to be designed to withstand the extra power.

Somewhat true. The engine doesn't exactly *have* to be designed to use turbos. For instance, Dodge's N/A 2.2 made 88HP when it was introduced, the same head was used with a stronger shortblock, and this same motor made 175HP a few years later.

Now don't get me wrong, there's a LOT you have to do to a motor to get it to work with a turbo, but reliability all depends on how well engineered the motor is.

 

[LemonHerbWRX]

Originally posted by: flot
LemonHerb, that is total nonsense about the 300ZX and a 4 minute 15 hp mod. In fact most cars have SOME kind of restriction at the throttle body and most could be easily improved on by a little work with a dremel - however I doubt it was intentional and it certainly isn't a 20 hp difference.

Edit: Of course, there IS a 20 minute 60 horsepower mod, which is to up the boost to ~14 lbs. As easy as putting a restrictor into a vacuum line and fooling the wastegates.

Go hit twinturbo.net and read about it in their DIY section. My friend has a 91 300zx TT and we went out and did the mod one day. Easy as pie and totally works. You can say it is nonsense all day, and I can say that the chicks dig overweight computer geeks as well. End of the day we will both be wrong.

 

Originally posted by: Lifer
in their cars that is. some of their trucks have s/c kits.

but ever since the demise of the supra, 300ZX, rx-7, 3000GT, they've gone away. the "replacement" rx-8 and 350z are both NA.
ironically the smaller japanese manufacturers, the subaru WRX and mitsu EVO have turbo's (although they're $30k probly becuz of AWD).
why don't they just pop in a turbo in a compact, small engined, $20-25k car for some instant power?
they probly already have FI engines in japan.

---

Unless you want your membership status changed to Read Only, the word is Japanese, NOT "Jap."

AnandTech Moderator

The wrx is under 30k.
The neon srt-4 is in the 20-25k range.

Consider the demographic the company would have to deal with on the warranties if they just popped a turbo in a honda.

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Also, to all the middle class white males, of course you aren't offended by anything another person calls you, because it's irrelevant to you. You are the one with the advantages. If you were poor white males, you sure as hell would be offended if someone called you white trash.

Speak for yourself. I am by any standard considered 'poor' and I don't get offended by such nonsense.

And no, I'm not saying I'm poor because I have problems paying for my new car or nice condo. I live in a 2 bedroom apartment in a seedy part of town and I'm driving a $3000 shitbox into the dirt delivering pizzas. I make enough to get by, and it allows me the ability to be home with my daughter more than if I worked full time for more money. I'm poor, but I'm happy and my daughter's happy and thats all that matters Someone who makes more money than me can call me white trash and I'll call them a materialistic wage slave. I might even throw in 'bad parent' if they're shoving their kids into daycare just so they can afford a new car.

 

[Shlong]

I, as non-japanese don't find the word Racist. But if Japanese people feel its offensive, then don't just say it. I've heard the word Japs used as in a derogatory manner in movies and such however.

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
The only abbreviation I see is Scot fine.

Thai is not an abbreviation it is the actual word for a person from Thailand and also the language.

Viet is not a proper abbreviation of Vietnamese.

Aussie is slang and not an abbreviation.

Because you refuse to believe that jap is a derogatory word and you seem to not care to look it up, I took the liberty of doing for you.

Here

You can look up the rest yourself.

I don't think I am particularly sensitive but I try to be considerate for others (at least that is what people who know me think). Seriously, dealing with people like you who always think they are right and always have excuses is really tiring. Maybe you should learn the history of these things before giving us your authoritative view. Maybe you might find out that there is a lot of ill will behind certain words or terms and that using them is not merely politically incorrect but outright unacceptable. Try to be a little civil, understanding and considerate. I'm sure when you are driving and someone cuts you off or someone scratches your car in the parking lot you wonder why people are so inconsiderate? Now you might have a clue as to where it begins and stop it at the source.

Good night.

DD

Edit: And before anyone mentions, I admit being a little uncivil and riled up in my previous posts.

Certain things are worth being sensitive over. If someone is using the word in a derogatory manner then by all means get offended. However, 'jap' in this context was just used as slang, not in a demeaning way. Certain words carry such a negative connotation that they shouldn't be uttered. I don't think 'jap' is one of those words. Its kind of like the way the word 'negro' was twisted around to be a racially offensive term when originally it was a gracious way of referring to a black person. Japs originally was slang, it only gained a negative connotation during World War II.

Also, Japanese isn't a race. Its a culture.

This sums it up quite well

'Race' is nothing more than a social construct. It holds only as much meaning as people choose to give it. There is nothing 'scientific' or 'biological' about the arbitrary lines drawn between 'white' and 'black and 'yellow'. The old-school definitions of 'Mongoloid', 'Negroid' and 'Caucasoid' as the 3 primary races do not encompass the diversity of our planet. For example, the Australoid people fall into none of these categories. Europeans may think Australians resemble black Africans, and class them as 'Negroid', but genetically, they are the most unrelated people in the world. And the Khoisan peoples of Africa are not Negroid, Mongoloid or Caucasoid. Caucasoids are characterized by 'tall stature' in dictionary definitions, but the largest people in the world are the Pacific Islanders, who hail from Mongoloid stock.

 

[Balthazar]

Hahahahahaha busted.
I love these mods

Unless you want your membership status changed to Read Only, the word is Japanese, NOT "Jap."

AnandTech Moderator

 

[Balthazar]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: geno
Well I've never seen anything in terms of proof of higher than 300HP numbers in the American version. I remember the Supra and the 3000GT being rated for 320 if memory serves correct, but the 300ZX was behind them somewhat.

Nope, the "big 3" super cars of the 90's (Supra, 3000GT, 300ZX) all had 320HP. I can see why you think the 300ZX would have 300hp though It's a common misnomer, due to the name of the vehicle. I assure you, it really did have 320hp

I was under the imprssion that the name 300Z came, not from the horsepower, but from the fact that it was a 3.0 litre engine....just like the 350Z is a 3.5 litre engine.

And I definitely dont recall the part where auto makers were allowed to lie about the performance of a car by almost 35bhp....
I know plenty of auto makers have fundged performance numbers but anything more than 10bhp and you open yourself up for some serious issues. Insurance Institute alone would eat you alive.