Had a ride in the TD turbo car...

[Nicebiscuit 655]

Went up to Warrington today to have a chat with Mike and book the car in for a manifold and tune, but whilst I was there it'd be rude not to have a ride out in the turbo car.

Very impressed. Muscular without being OTT. Feels like I'd imagine a factory Turbo variant would have been. I may start saving up...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark-in-Stoke 488]

I really love mine!.

[ALB453 51]

Have a go in a supercharged one too annnnd before you look into getting the turbo kit, look at the FA20 turbo that subaru make now for the new forester/ XT, bolts right in and costs the same as a greddy turbo kit brand new, aaannndd has 300bhp in stock form

[Nicebiscuit 655]

Main reason I'd go turbo rather than supercharger, is this doubles as practical work transport, and turbos don't kill the economy on a gentle throttle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ALB453 51]

On gentle throttle i get around 44mpg on a 220 mile round trip to pick my girlfriend up and being her home from university I averaged 56mpg, thats with a nasty-ass angry fuel map too (running 50bhp more than this kit usually does).

I've found that with alot of modern engines supercharging can actually increase fuel economy. Look at the k20 lumps, they go way up in economy!

My BRZ is my daily driver to and from work, and I actually use less fuel that I did in my previous car (2010 1.8 honda civic type s gt)

I was astonished to see that I actually did the trip to my gf's and back cost me around £25 rather than the £35/40 it used to 

[Kodename47 446]

6 hours ago, ALB453 said:

Have a go in a supercharged one too annnnd before you look into getting the turbo kit, look at the FA20 turbo that subaru make now for the new forester/ XT, bolts right in and costs the same as a greddy turbo kit brand new, aaannndd has 300bhp in stock form

Er.... does it? All I'd read was that the FA20DIT wasn't compatible for a number of reasons.

 

5 hours ago, ALB453 said:

On gentle throttle i get around 44mpg on a 220 mile round trip to pick my girlfriend up and being her home from university I averaged 56mpg, thats with a nasty-ass angry fuel map too (running 50bhp more than this kit usually does).

I've found that with alot of modern engines supercharging can actually increase fuel economy. Look at the k20 lumps, they go way up in economy!

My BRZ is my daily driver to and from work, and I actually use less fuel that I did in my previous car (2010 1.8 honda civic type s gt)

I was astonished to see that I actually did the trip to my gf's and back cost me around £25 rather than the £35/40 it used to 

I'm aware that a centi charger may be kinder to fuel consumption at low end however I'm not sure how economy increases based on more parasitic load on the engine and as the charger is constantly flowing more air then to meet the same AFR you will need more fuel. Maybe you just get on the pedal less..... Oh and the fuel map will only be more aggressive when going for it, not for normal driving,

I agree a turbo is more economic, I still wouldn't let one near my car though.

[Nicebiscuit 655]

Yep - it was the parasitic load I was referring to. Can't see that there's any way round that, all other things being equal.

I can see why people would prefer the supercharged option. Depends what you're after and which direction you arrive at the 86 from I think.

Firstly I'm a long time Saab fan, so turbo 4 pots always appeal, and then there's the Subaru heritage in the car...

It's just a case of pick your set of compromises.

My main conclusion though, in the knowledge that decent supercharger installations are in the same financial ball park is what an awesome back road weapon you can build either way for what is really not a whole lot of cash, considering the price of the base car.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark@Abbey M/S 235]

All the SC system we have fitted use a by pass valve so even at high rpm (spinning the charger faster) at small throttle openings the by pass opens and the air bypasses the SC unit. So no boost is used when cruising.

You do need to drive a SC car thou. Your welcome to have a drive in our demo car.

 

[Nicebiscuit 655]

I certainly will when I'm next in your part of the world. Thank you for the kind offer.

As I noted above, we're properly spoiled in the GT86 world with a number of decent options for what is really not a lot of cash in the big scheme of things...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S18 RSG 429]

Still nobody offering realistic NA offerings, something along the lines of ITB's. Sure, they don't offer the same gains, but there seems to be a big jump between from NA (200-230hp) up to boosted (280hp upwards) and nothing filling that gap.

Personally, if I could keep the 86 NA and still have around 250-260hp, I think that would be my choice.

[Kodename47 446]

7 minutes ago, S18 RSG said:

Still nobody offering realistic NA offerings, something along the lines of ITB's. Sure, they don't offer the same gains, but there seems to be a big jump between from NA (200-230hp) up to boosted (280hp upwards) and nothing filling that gap.

Personally, if I could keep the 86 NA and still have around 250-260hp, I think that would be my choice.

That's because ITBs are going to be expensive as you'll more than likely need an aftermarket ECU. A full bolt on package for NA is also expensive. To make more NA power than the average you really need to increase the RPM that max power is made at, you'll need better flowing heads and new cams, expensive. To do all that well, you'd need to spend far more than the average FI package. Then you start questioning whether more £ for less power is really worth it. I get the appeal of an all motor engine, I come from a Honda background,but the FA20 needs a lot of work.

[Ade 517]

3 minutes ago, S18 RSG said:

Still nobody offering realistic NA offerings, something along the lines of ITB's. Sure, they don't offer the same gains, but there seems to be a big jump between from NA (200-230hp) up to boosted (280hp upwards) and nothing filling that gap.

Personally, if I could keep the 86 NA and still have around 250-260hp, I think that would be my choice.

Me too but from my discussions with the cosworth engineers, it would take a lot of work to go beyond 230hp.

I'd need to rev past 9k rpms which would require a lot of work. You'd need the engine better balanced, and the valves springs oscillate and break at about 8k rpms. You need better flowing valves too and the oil pump start to leak a lot of pressure much past 8k rpms too. 

There is a lot more to it that that, but you get the jist that it will be very expensive interms of parts and labour. 

There is a chap, Celek, on the FT86club attempting an N/A build though if you were interested. 

[S18 RSG 429]

19 minutes ago, knightryder said:

That's because ITBs are going to be expensive as you'll more than likely need an aftermarket ECU. A full bolt on package for NA is also expensive. To make more NA power than the average you really need to increase the RPM that max power is made at, you'll need better flowing heads and new cams, expensive. To do all that well, you'd need to spend far more than the average FI package. Then you start questioning whether more £ for less power is really worth it. I get the appeal of an all motor engine, I come from a Honda background,but the FA20 needs a lot of work.

I know why it's not available, I'm just saying I would prefer NOT to have to change the fundamentals of the car just to make it drive like it perhaps should. After spending years surrounded by Renault owners who loved the purity of an NA engine, and experiencing multiple high horsepower NA builds, that would be awesome from our motors.

17 minutes ago, Ade said:

Me too but from my discussions with the cosworth engineers, it would take a lot of work to go beyond 230hp.

I'd need to rev past 9k rpms which would require a lot of work. You'd need the engine better balanced, and the valves springs oscillate and break at about 8k rpms. You need better flowing valves too and the oil pump start to leak a lot of pressure much past 8k rpms too. 

There is a lot more to it that that, but you get the jist that it will be very expensive interms of parts and labour. 

There is a chap, Celek, on the FT86club attempting an N/A build though if you were interested. 

As above, I'm fully aware of the costs, development and work needed to produce something like this, and I'm sure there's someone out there with the money, time and skill to get an all motor build running good numbers, that isn't me, but it would be great to have an all motor 86 running in the high 200's.

ITB kits for Clio's, for example, run around £2,500 with an ECU, and give an instant 30-40hp. With a little more work, and around £5k (the price of a good turbo/supercharger kit for our cars), one of those engines can gain almost 50% stock power on NA (cams, pistons, rods, manifold, ITB, exhaust and ECU). The Clio 172/182 era, some cars were running 250-260hp on NA, one was even fairly close to 300, although it wasn't awfully streetable in fairness.

Similar kits for an 86 at a similar price bracket would be highly tempting I'm sure, but perhaps these cars need a little more development time before kits like that become available, if at all.

[Mark@Abbey M/S 235]

Look at it this way thou;

 

NA motor making 100bhp per litre capacity is pretty awesome, this means the car will have a very good head design to flow those numbers.

Add a small amount of boost will make a very good Boosted motor like we get when we either Super charge or turbo charge the FA20

[S18 RSG 429]

20 minutes ago, Mark@Abbey M/S said:

Look at it this way thou;

 

NA motor making 100bhp per litre capacity is pretty awesome, this means the car will have a very good head design to flow those numbers.

Add a small amount of boost will make a very good Boosted motor like we get when we either Super charge or turbo charge the FA20

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree, and my two experiences of forced induction so far prove that you're exactly right.

There's just something about NA that I love. That sound of pure induction noise from ITB's, coupled with a flat four burble of the FA20 with a UEL manifold. I can imagine that being quite the event.

[Nicebiscuit 655]

To put it in context the 2.7 litre flat 6 in the iconic Porsche 911RS of the seventies made 210bhp. But was also rather lighter...

Not really fussed about chasing expensive extra horsepower. I wonder whether someone with the sort of £s to make 250-260bhp from a n/a car would be better off leaving the engine alone and embarking on a hardcore programme of lightening the car instead...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nicebiscuit 655]

20 minutes ago, Mark@Abbey M/S said: Look at it this way thou;

 

NA motor making 100bhp per litre capacity is pretty awesome, this means the car will have a very good head design to flow those numbers.

Add a small amount of boost will make a very good Boosted motor like we get when we either Super charge or turbo charge the FA20

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree, and my two experiences of forced induction so far prove that you're exactly right.

There's just something about NA that I love. That sound of pure induction noise from ITB's, coupled with a flat four burble of the FA20 with a UEL manifold. I can imagine that being quite the event.

I suppose you could still put the ITBs on. It might not be much quicker but it would sound lovely

[Varelco 211]

I love the NA aspect of my car, even after driving a supercharged one. I don't think its hugely difficult to make it a quick(er) and a more enjoyable car in NA form if you don't concentrate on chasing the peak figures of a FI engine and look at some of the other aspects of it. For example stick on the typical bolt on mods (full exhaust, intake etc) have a remap for more engine power and to ditch that poxy torque dip, attempt to shed a bit of weight (probably not that feasible but its usually overlooked) and stick in a shorter final drive and think it would be a winner.

[Deacon 1357]

The ultimate incarnation of an NA 86:-

230hp and weighs under a tonne (980kg if my memory serves me correct). Anyone that knows Tsukuba will now that 58.407 is an insanely quick time.

[Mike@TD.co.uk 467]

On 4/16/2016 at 3:21 PM, Nicebiscuit said:

Went up to Warrington today to have a chat with Mike and book the car in for a manifold and tune, but whilst I was there it'd be rude not to have a ride out in the turbo car.

Very impressed. Muscular without being OTT. Feels like I'd imagine a factory Turbo variant would have been. I may start saving up...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was nice to have a chat with you Joe, glad your impression was good on the car and thank you for the kind words  

 

Its proving to be more and more popular now too which is nice to see  See you soon!

 

Thanks

 

Mike

[S18 RSG 429]

3 hours ago, Deacon said:

230hp and weighs under a tonne (980kg if my memory serves me correct). Anyone that knows Tsukuba will now that 58.407 is an insanely quick time.

Not only is 58 seconds insanely quick, but to me, almost unrealistically so. The production car lap record last time I checked was over a minute, and that was a Radical with 370hp/ton and slicks. Even a 650hp AWD time attack spec Evo which weighs under a ton laps only slightly quicker than 58 seconds. Something seems a bit fishy there.

[Deacon 1357]

55.926 is the 86 record set recently by the Bandoh 86:-

 

[Ade 517]

35 minutes ago, Deacon said:

55.926 is the 86 record set recently by the Bandoh 86:-

 

I wonder of a TMG car could do it in 1minute.

[Nicebiscuit 655]

The ultimate incarnation of an NA 86:-

230hp and weighs under a tonne (980kg if my memory serves me correct). Anyone that knows Tsukuba will now that 58.407 is an insanely quick time.

Phwooooaaaaar.

(That is all)

[Lauren 2259]

2 hours ago, S18 RSG said:

Not only is 58 seconds insanely quick, but to me, almost unrealistically so. The production car lap record last time I checked was over a minute, and that was a Radical with 370hp/ton and slicks. Even a 650hp AWD time attack spec Evo which weighs under a ton laps only slightly quicker than 58 seconds. Something seems a bit fishy there.

Not really 30 year old N2 AE86's have been lapping in under a minute for quite some time. It's a long vid, but start at 7 minutes in and turn the volume up for the qualifying runs. No GT yet can rival the sound of a hot 4AGE. Or treat yourself and watch the lot!