-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Larry Garcia's TURBO
- Thread starter CoolToy
- Start date
disclaimer: ScienceofSpeed is a distributor of the BaschBoost
Unlike many NSX owners, I'm very happy with the power from the stock NSX. I've found that the stock NSX is a better learning tool, as you succeed by smooth driving without the extra power to pull you out if you mess up. When I finally considered adding more power, I wanted a solution that delivered linear power above all else. NA power is nice, however, I didn't feel that the expense required for building up a stock motor was worth it, especially due to the usable power envelope shifting to the top end. I drove a couple turbo'ed cars (although I have not driven the Larry turbo) and found that despite the nicety of the usable low-end torque, the car still behaved like a turbo, with a mass of power defined like black and white as the turbo came online. This negated by appreciation of the NSX. Lightweight and linear power delivery. I've driven several supercharged equiped cars including Comptech's standard and 9psi kit. However, when I drove the BaschBoost car, I knew it was the solution I was looking for. If you compare the power curves of the BaschBoost and stock NSX, you'll see what I mean. The graphs look identical on the stand point of linear power delivery. The BaschBoost does make the NSX into something it is not. Instead, it gives you an NSX with the what feels like a larger engine with the same power delivery characteristics. Just more ;-)
I've promised myself to get into karting to continue to grow my driving abilities. Because now on the track, I have that extra power (all 380 RWHP of it) to get me out of a corner that I maybe over braked for, or lost speed on by approaching wrong. I've never missed driving my car more than I have now with the BaschBoost.
-- Chris
------------------
www.ScienceofSpeed.com - Click for more info
[This message has been edited by ScienceofSpeed (edited 27 November 2001).]
Unlike many NSX owners, I'm very happy with the power from the stock NSX. I've found that the stock NSX is a better learning tool, as you succeed by smooth driving without the extra power to pull you out if you mess up. When I finally considered adding more power, I wanted a solution that delivered linear power above all else. NA power is nice, however, I didn't feel that the expense required for building up a stock motor was worth it, especially due to the usable power envelope shifting to the top end. I drove a couple turbo'ed cars (although I have not driven the Larry turbo) and found that despite the nicety of the usable low-end torque, the car still behaved like a turbo, with a mass of power defined like black and white as the turbo came online. This negated by appreciation of the NSX. Lightweight and linear power delivery. I've driven several supercharged equiped cars including Comptech's standard and 9psi kit. However, when I drove the BaschBoost car, I knew it was the solution I was looking for. If you compare the power curves of the BaschBoost and stock NSX, you'll see what I mean. The graphs look identical on the stand point of linear power delivery. The BaschBoost does make the NSX into something it is not. Instead, it gives you an NSX with the what feels like a larger engine with the same power delivery characteristics. Just more ;-)
I've promised myself to get into karting to continue to grow my driving abilities. Because now on the track, I have that extra power (all 380 RWHP of it) to get me out of a corner that I maybe over braked for, or lost speed on by approaching wrong. I've never missed driving my car more than I have now with the BaschBoost.
-- Chris
------------------
www.ScienceofSpeed.com - Click for more info
[This message has been edited by ScienceofSpeed (edited 27 November 2001).]
- Joined
- 3 February 2000
- Messages
- 3,942
The Comptech supercharger graphs I have seen follow the shape of the stock power curve extremely closely. If anything, judging by the graph you posted the other week, the Basch unit appears to vary from the shape of the stock torque curve more than the Comptech.
I am not saying this is bad; in fact since the torque keeps climing all the way to redline instead of dropping off a bit over 7000 like the OEM torque curve, it's probably good. But it appears to me at this point to differ from the stock curve more than Comptech.
Certainly a turbo graph will look quite different. That is the nature of turbos.
I am not saying this is bad; in fact since the torque keeps climing all the way to redline instead of dropping off a bit over 7000 like the OEM torque curve, it's probably good. But it appears to me at this point to differ from the stock curve more than Comptech.
Certainly a turbo graph will look quite different. That is the nature of turbos.
Sounds like you want reasons to get Larry's Turbo. JMHO
------------------
1995 NSX-T
1999 3.2TL
2001 Odyssey
1992 SC400
------------------
1995 NSX-T
1999 3.2TL
2001 Odyssey
1992 SC400
You don't have a city/state in your sig.
If you're in Southern Cal you can check it out for yourself at one of the meetings.
Search for a thread a few weeks back. There are some impressions of both the turbo and SC there.
If you're in Southern Cal you can check it out for yourself at one of the meetings.
Search for a thread a few weeks back. There are some impressions of both the turbo and SC there.
Linear power isn't important to me. In fact, I like the turbo rush. I figure more area under the power curve is only bad if you don't learn how to utilize it. Besides, the NSX turbo options are pretty tame in terms of abrupt power.
a bit off topic, but I guarantee karting will improve your driving (see avatar).
Lud --
I wasn't contrasting the BaschBoost vs. the CT system, rather, the anticipated power delivery of the turbo system.
-- Chris
------------------
www.ScienceofSpeed.com - Click for more info
I wasn't contrasting the BaschBoost vs. the CT system, rather, the anticipated power delivery of the turbo system.
-- Chris
------------------
www.ScienceofSpeed.com - Click for more info
Get a membership at SyKart down in Tukwila, and go in on tuesday and thursday nights. The members on member night are a good benchmark as to how well you're driving.
Also, you might consider hitting some local autocrosses next year. Get one of the local hotshoes to drive your car (I can name a bunch that would probably love to drive an NSX with 380 rwhp), and you'll understand just how badly you suck (no offense intended, as that comment is spoken from my own experience in finding out how much I suck). Granted, your car will be kind of out of its element at an autocross, but it certainly won't be undriveable, and if your brain can keep up with an autocross course, it makes any road course look like cake.
(Not that road courses don't present their own unique challenges, just that if you can find and drive a clean fast line through an autocross course in only 3-4 tries, the pace at which corners come up, the number of corners there are, and the number of times you get to drive through them, all make learning a road course a WHOLE lot easier. I've seen people with tons of track experience come to autocrosses, and it's embarassing how badly they do at first.)
Yeah, so hurry up and get your car back up to seattle. I want a ride. =)
-Mike
[This message has been edited by grippgoat (edited 28 November 2001).]
I don't see it that way. Learning fast is great, while you're learning, but I've been on a lot of autocross courses and with a regular car (as opposed to a cart or small formula) there is precious little room for finding a clean, fast, smooth line compared to a poor one. Personally, I see very little transfer between (solo 2 style) autocross and full track road racing for someone already even reasonably good at the latter.
Justin, any relation to Jim Hall? As in Jim Hall Kart racing schools.
Let me try again to explain what I mean. General driving skills like car control, looking ahead, thinking ahead, putting the car *exactly* where you want it, heel/toe downshifting, being smooth on the inputs, etc, are shared between autocross and track driving. Some of those things, however, are MUCH more challenging on an autocross course. For example, Road America is 14 turns in 4.x miles, at like 3 minutes a lap. Your average autocross course is probably 20+ turns in well under a mile at 40-60 seconds per run. The pace at which your brain needs to keep up and analyze what's going on at an autocross is much, much faster than doing simple lapping days or time trials. (NOTE: I do understand that wheel-to-wheel racing puts all kinds of new demands on your brain that have nothing to do with anything you'll see at an autocross, however, I'm not talking about wheel-to-wheel racing, but as far as I know, Chris doesn't do any wheel-to-wheel racing either, and I was responding to his post)
Also, I can't speak for your autocross courses, but the ones we run on (we've got a couple designers who regularly design courses for national-level events), are usually very technical, and leave a LOT of room for taking a good line versus a bad one, which makes all the difference in the world. I've also had instructors who do road racing, and have said that the people who started with autocross end up better road racers (because of the mental conditioning needed to get GOOD at autocross, not just competent, mind you, but GOOD).
I also can't speak for your driving skills, or those of people you've seen autocrossing. However, in my region, it's not uncommon for someone who is by all accounts an above-average driver to post an above-average time, and then still have someone else, who is a VERY good autocross driver come along and beat that person by 1 or 2 seconds (out of 40-60) in the same car, because they drove it better.
-Mike
[This message has been edited by grippgoat (edited 28 November 2001).]
Mike -- I started out autocrossing, and was at the Boeing Kent location nearly every other weekend for awhile. In the NSX, it is my opinion that so much effort is put into fighting the car than working on driving skills. Autocrossing is a blast in something more on the lines of a Miata, NSX autocrossing just isn't for me.
I've found that skills in autocrossing have little to do with skills of road racing. JMO.
To tell you the truth why I quite: I got sick of chasing cones when I was not running and almost being hit my cars spinning out.
My car will likely reside in the Bay Area from now on...
-- Chris
------------------
www.ScienceofSpeed.com - Click for more info
[This message has been edited by ScienceofSpeed (edited 29 November 2001).]
I've found that skills in autocrossing have little to do with skills of road racing. JMO.
To tell you the truth why I quite: I got sick of chasing cones when I was not running and almost being hit my cars spinning out.
My car will likely reside in the Bay Area from now on...
-- Chris
------------------
www.ScienceofSpeed.com - Click for more info
[This message has been edited by ScienceofSpeed (edited 29 November 2001).]
I figured that would start a debate. I hope no one minds…
OK, now let me try again to explain what I mean. I'm not talking about wheel-wheel either, just driving on the same tracks. I understand all your points and don't deny that learning to process data and react quickly is a plus, but mostly to the extent of not suffering overload. For example, it takes awhile to get past the "sea of cones syndrome", but no matter how much better you get at it there is limited relevance at the track. (It might help you to spot markers and judge distances for example.) You want quick reaction times and sensory overload? Play some video games. I don't think car control skills honed by thrashing in an autocross will be much help to a reasonably experienced track driver, and what it takes to put a car exactly where you want it in each case is very different. The dynamics are very different. Yes of course, a good driver still beats a less good one in an autocross. I never said it was easy. On the contrary, in many ways it's at least as difficult if not more so. I just think the differences make the skill transfer minimal. Again, IF the driver is already competent on the track. By all accounts, Chris, whom as you say was the focus of your comments, is well beyond merely competent.
As for my background, I grew up with a bunch of guys who started by autocrossing and some had the $ to move on to the big tracks. One of them is now a long-time Skippy instructor and another is Dorsey Shroeder. (If you don't know the name, search Google) I've never seen one of these guys go back to an autocross to hone their reaction times.
To tell you the truth why I quite: I got sick of chasing cones when I was not running and almost being kit my cars spinning out.
I did a few autocross events at first, too. I hated standing around all day so that I could get 3-5 runs through a 1-2 minute low-speed parking lot course. The first time I did a drivers school on a real track, with ~90 minutes of actual high-speed track time on a course that had camber and hills and blind spots, I was hooked and never looked back.
No disrespect intended towards those who enjoy autocross and especially those who have gotten to be good at it.
(How the heck did we get onto this topic when we started talking about Larry's turbo?)
I did a few autocross events at first, too. I hated standing around all day so that I could get 3-5 runs through a 1-2 minute low-speed parking lot course. The first time I did a drivers school on a real track, with ~90 minutes of actual high-speed track time on a course that had camber and hills and blind spots, I was hooked and never looked back.
No disrespect intended towards those who enjoy autocross and especially those who have gotten to be good at it.
(How the heck did we get onto this topic when we started talking about Larry's turbo?)
Just as an FYI...
I started racing in the Pro 7 class in SCCA about a year ago...2 rookies that are running in the top 10 consistently out of a field of 35+ have autocross experience. Most of the top 10 runners have karting experience. The only 2 guys i know running in the top 10 that does not autocross or kart...1 has been racing for 30 years and the other has been racing in for 6 years and have driven more laps than most people at our local regional tracks...
As i am told by the top runners...
More seat time equals faster lap times.
Oh, and less brake more gas...but i think that was just personal tip for me...
Terry
[This message has been edited by tc29 (edited 29 November 2001).]
I started racing in the Pro 7 class in SCCA about a year ago...2 rookies that are running in the top 10 consistently out of a field of 35+ have autocross experience. Most of the top 10 runners have karting experience. The only 2 guys i know running in the top 10 that does not autocross or kart...1 has been racing for 30 years and the other has been racing in for 6 years and have driven more laps than most people at our local regional tracks...
As i am told by the top runners...
More seat time equals faster lap times.
Oh, and less brake more gas...but i think that was just personal tip for me...
Terry
[This message has been edited by tc29 (edited 29 November 2001).]
Disclaimer: I'll admit that sometimes I continue to debate just for the shear enjoyment of it.
I'm not surprised by your example, I just don't read quite the same cause/effect from it. People who have been into racing since they were kids but didn't have the silver spoon almost always start in autocross or karts. But a huge number of current SCCA racers took it up much later and simply skipped the preliminaries. They enrolled in a school like Skip Barber or did a BMW club event, whatever, and decided to go racing. Just because they can enter a series such the Pro 7 class doesn't mean they've been at it a long time or are particularly talented. That seems to support your theory, but in these examples it is just as likely that the people with autocross background have also been learning every day on the street since they were kids, playing aggressively on the back roads. It may not be 10/10ths, but it is valuable seat time. Again, autocross is a great place to start and learn about many things, but once you are competent at the track I don’t see an autocross as valuable seat time, particularly in bursts of a few minutes every week or two.
BTW, I don't discount the value of cart experience for anyone, and especially for guys looking to do open wheel racing. It allows far more seat time and all the other important aspects for transference to the track.
I started out auto-xing. After 2 days of auto-x, I thought it is fun but really didn't give me anything. Although I'm not a top runner, I was always in the mid pack.
I started hitting the track short after that. Read a lot of books about car dynamics. Go to lots of school. Went back to auto-x , and end up in top driver. Get invited back in a top driver shoot out this year just from 1 auto-x.
IMO, understanding how cars behave is really the key to drive fast. Follow by experience. Going out there and practice, getting more seat time without understanding the car dynamics is just a waste of time IMHO. You will end up practicing the wrong thing over and over again, thinking that it is the right thing to do. Maybe eventually u will get it right, but when is the question.
IMO, auto-x will not directly responsible to make u able faster in the track. Like SJS said, the dynamics are very different. It is mostly a tool to learn car control skill and looking ahead. However, with high car control skill, U will have the confident to drive the car 10/10th in the track, thus resulting in better lap time (still take same balls since u will be going at much faster speed).
I also agree that no good track driver hone their skills by going to auto-x. Kart-ing on the other hand is a different story. Here is where u want to hone your reaction time. No suspension/stiff means instantaneous weight transfer. And the shifter karts with 2 stroke engine will teach u a lot about feathering the throttle.
Just my 2cents
I started hitting the track short after that. Read a lot of books about car dynamics. Go to lots of school. Went back to auto-x , and end up in top driver. Get invited back in a top driver shoot out this year just from 1 auto-x.
IMO, understanding how cars behave is really the key to drive fast. Follow by experience. Going out there and practice, getting more seat time without understanding the car dynamics is just a waste of time IMHO. You will end up practicing the wrong thing over and over again, thinking that it is the right thing to do. Maybe eventually u will get it right, but when is the question.
IMO, auto-x will not directly responsible to make u able faster in the track. Like SJS said, the dynamics are very different. It is mostly a tool to learn car control skill and looking ahead. However, with high car control skill, U will have the confident to drive the car 10/10th in the track, thus resulting in better lap time (still take same balls since u will be going at much faster speed).
I also agree that no good track driver hone their skills by going to auto-x. Kart-ing on the other hand is a different story. Here is where u want to hone your reaction time. No suspension/stiff means instantaneous weight transfer. And the shifter karts with 2 stroke engine will teach u a lot about feathering the throttle.
Just my 2cents
A picture is worth a thousand words.
That would be Schuey on ice. nuf said
That would be Schuey on ice. nuf said
B
Black&Tan97Tnewportbeach
Guest
di·gress (d-grs, d-)
intr.v. di·gressed, di·gress·ing, di·gress·es
To turn aside, especially from the main subject in writing or speaking; stray.
(or something)
intr.v. di·gressed, di·gress·ing, di·gress·es
To turn aside, especially from the main subject in writing or speaking; stray.
(or something)
Similar threads
- Locked
