Mr. Regular doesn't like our cars
10-24-2016, 08:27 PM
#16
Rainman
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
It is likely hard to find a NA with a turbo trans because of the "gearing-up fears" but if you ever got the chance, go ahead and drive it and let me know what you think...
I've been saying this for years, but with my car 100% stock (DME/AFM
) but with a 951 gearbox, vs a 100% stock with NA gearbox 944, both early 1985 models, but the "Stock box" car's driver was probably 50lbs less than me...
my 951-box car would pull away every single time from a "Drag race" start. We did at least 10 such runs, the cars are dead-even until around 60 mph, when the NA-box has to shift to 3rd but the 951-box is still in 2nd for another 1000+ rpm and just runs away.
same results were found in "testing" against a 2006 Honda Civic Si...almost identical weight, power output and gearing to a stock 944NA, but my 951 box left it behind on the highway.
I've been saying this for years, but with my car 100% stock (DME/AFM
) but with a 951 gearbox, vs a 100% stock with NA gearbox 944, both early 1985 models, but the "Stock box" car's driver was probably 50lbs less than me...my 951-box car would pull away every single time from a "Drag race" start. We did at least 10 such runs, the cars are dead-even until around 60 mph, when the NA-box has to shift to 3rd but the 951-box is still in 2nd for another 1000+ rpm and just runs away.
same results were found in "testing" against a 2006 Honda Civic Si...almost identical weight, power output and gearing to a stock 944NA, but my 951 box left it behind on the highway.
Gearing on an N/A 3.889 down to 3.375? is a HUGE difference !
Slower acceleration isn't usually seen as "better" ?
A 2.5 N/A in third gear would be gone compared to one faffing in 2nd gear waiting for @ 70mph! I bet the 0 to 60 must be 8.5 seconds?
If I fitted the S2 / Turbo 3.889 FDR gearbox to my 2.7 it would kill it, it's totally off the mark and goes up the RPM quickly and is nice and short, it's probably maxxes out at 135mph.. Which is ideal for street or track..
The 3.375 would be ideal for the Le mans Mulsanne Straight!
R
Slower acceleration isn't usually seen as "better" ?
A 2.5 N/A in third gear would be gone compared to one faffing in 2nd gear waiting for @ 70mph! I bet the 0 to 60 must be 8.5 seconds?
If I fitted the S2 / Turbo 3.889 FDR gearbox to my 2.7 it would kill it, it's totally off the mark and goes up the RPM quickly and is nice and short, it's probably maxxes out at 135mph.. Which is ideal for street or track..
The 3.375 would be ideal for the Le mans Mulsanne Straight!
R
10-24-2016, 09:26 PM
#17
Race Car
This video cracks me up! I'll share it with friends.
Mr. Regular would be well served to take a drive on the track or in the hills with Van or many other people on this forum, and he might change his tune. Another North American born and raised with a "straight line acceleration" perspective. Yawn. Maybe if he learns to drive his attitude would change.
Mr. Regular would be well served to take a drive on the track or in the hills with Van or many other people on this forum, and he might change his tune. Another North American born and raised with a "straight line acceleration" perspective. Yawn. Maybe if he learns to drive his attitude would change.
Last edited by Noahs944; 10-25-2016 at 08:56 AM.
10-25-2016, 03:38 AM
#19
Three Wheelin'
I think he carries no influence and the only reason people wach that stuff is because he's partially shocking in his expression.
There is a guy on the interweb that is the original i think Mr. Regular is trying to copy. There is this guy who does equipment reviews and he is harsh on the producs but actually funny and you cant miss the fact that the guy is a very very well educated person.
Here is what Mr. Regular is trying to copy:
10-25-2016, 06:18 AM
#20
It is likely hard to find a NA with a turbo trans because of the "gearing-up fears" but if you ever got the chance, go ahead and drive it and let me know what you think...
I've been saying this for years, but with my car 100% stock (DME/AFM ) but with a 951 gearbox, vs a 100% stock with NA gearbox 944, both early 1985 models, but the "Stock box" car's driver was probably 50lbs less than me...
my 951-box car would pull away every single time from a "Drag race" start. We did at least 10 such runs, the cars are dead-even until around 60 mph, when the NA-box has to shift to 3rd but the 951-box is still in 2nd for another 1000+ rpm and just runs away.
same results were found in "testing" against a 2006 Honda Civic Si...almost identical weight, power output and gearing to a stock 944NA, but my 951 box left it behind on the highway.
I've been saying this for years, but with my car 100% stock (DME/AFM
) but with a 951 gearbox, vs a 100% stock with NA gearbox 944, both early 1985 models, but the "Stock box" car's driver was probably 50lbs less than me...my 951-box car would pull away every single time from a "Drag race" start. We did at least 10 such runs, the cars are dead-even until around 60 mph, when the NA-box has to shift to 3rd but the 951-box is still in 2nd for another 1000+ rpm and just runs away.
same results were found in "testing" against a 2006 Honda Civic Si...almost identical weight, power output and gearing to a stock 944NA, but my 951 box left it behind on the highway.
I'm not convinced, you also need more torque to carry a lower FDR.
A shorter ratio like for like will accelerate faster that's why Race teams change gear ratios to keep the car on the Boil, longer and lower ratios are used for longer straights and you did mention the 951 box was better on the highways which make sense.
The 968 used a higher ratio (3.778) than the 944 S2/ Turbo and also had 6 gears to keep the VVT on the boil even more, if a (951 FDR) 3.375 was fitted to a 968 it would not accelerate as well but probably top 160mph!
I'm hoping to compete (Circuit Racing) next year against 944 3.0S2's which will be an interesting comparison on track to see how my smaller capacity (2.7) and higher FDR 3.889 box fares against there better at "Highway" speeds one, Looking at clips on U Tube the average maximum speed on the longest straight on UK circuits is approx 120mph which would be approx. 5000rpm in my car and probably 4000 rpm in a 951 ? or 6000rpm in 4th?
R
10-25-2016, 11:12 AM
#21
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I love AvE's channel, but no way would I relate his style to Regular's other than the not-showing-your-face aspect. AvE is probably my favorite channel. I also like Big Clive, and his brother Ralfy if you like scotch and salt flats bikes. Which I do.
Regular is more about relating cars to the zeitgeist and wordplay and personal observations (and some really weird breaks) than it is about factual car reviewing or sensible A<->B comparisons. It can be pretty fun to watch and I learn a lot about some cars that are unusual to me (Chevette Scooter was one example) or surprises like the Cobalt XFE.
I would highly doubt an NA with Turbo gearing is faster than stock NA gearing other than perhaps some edge cases where the timing of a shift is inconvenient. If you calculated the average RPM of both in 0-100 and looked up the HP at that RPM you might see your answer. Or go race.
-Joel.
Regular is more about relating cars to the zeitgeist and wordplay and personal observations (and some really weird breaks) than it is about factual car reviewing or sensible A<->B comparisons. It can be pretty fun to watch and I learn a lot about some cars that are unusual to me (Chevette Scooter was one example) or surprises like the Cobalt XFE.
I would highly doubt an NA with Turbo gearing is faster than stock NA gearing other than perhaps some edge cases where the timing of a shift is inconvenient. If you calculated the average RPM of both in 0-100 and looked up the HP at that RPM you might see your answer. Or go race.
-Joel.
10-25-2016, 11:42 AM
#22
Rainman
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
in a situation where you can run out the RPMs the 951 box is better.
though I could definitely see that in a tight track where you don't have much full-throttle run-out-the-tach time the shorter NA gearing would be an advantage, depending on the speed range required.
these are approximate top speed in gear @ redline of 6500 rpm with:
1: 35 NA / 43 Turbo
2: 58 NA / 73 turbo
3: 85NA / 105 turbo
4: 120 NA / 140 turbo
5: doesn't matter since a stock NA can't max out in 5th.
though I could definitely see that in a tight track where you don't have much full-throttle run-out-the-tach time the shorter NA gearing would be an advantage, depending on the speed range required.
these are approximate top speed in gear @ redline of 6500 rpm with:
1: 35 NA / 43 Turbo
2: 58 NA / 73 turbo
3: 85NA / 105 turbo
4: 120 NA / 140 turbo
5: doesn't matter since a stock NA can't max out in 5th.
I'm not convinced, you also need more torque to carry a lower FDR.
A shorter ratio like for like will accelerate faster that's why Race teams change gear ratios to keep the car on the Boil, longer and lower ratios are used for longer straights and you did mention the 951 box was better on the highways which make sense.
The 968 used a higher ratio (3.778) than the 944 S2/ Turbo and also had 6 gears to keep the VVT on the boil even more, if a (951 FDR) 3.375 was fitted to a 968 it would not accelerate as well but probably top 160mph!
I'm hoping to compete (Circuit Racing) next year against 944 3.0S2's which will be an interesting comparison on track to see how my smaller capacity (2.7) and higher FDR 3.889 box fares against there better at "Highway" speeds one, Looking at clips on U Tube the average maximum speed on the longest straight on UK circuits is approx 120mph which would be approx. 5000rpm in my car and probably 4000 rpm in a 951 ? or 6000rpm in 4th?
R
A shorter ratio like for like will accelerate faster that's why Race teams change gear ratios to keep the car on the Boil, longer and lower ratios are used for longer straights and you did mention the 951 box was better on the highways which make sense.
The 968 used a higher ratio (3.778) than the 944 S2/ Turbo and also had 6 gears to keep the VVT on the boil even more, if a (951 FDR) 3.375 was fitted to a 968 it would not accelerate as well but probably top 160mph!
I'm hoping to compete (Circuit Racing) next year against 944 3.0S2's which will be an interesting comparison on track to see how my smaller capacity (2.7) and higher FDR 3.889 box fares against there better at "Highway" speeds one, Looking at clips on U Tube the average maximum speed on the longest straight on UK circuits is approx 120mph which would be approx. 5000rpm in my car and probably 4000 rpm in a 951 ? or 6000rpm in 4th?
R
10-25-2016, 04:49 PM
#25
Three Wheelin'
Ave is awesome indeed, the way i see it Mr. Regular tries to be something in that genre.
I dont know what you could have learned from his videos but the fact you say you did suggests you didnt know much to begin with
Fun to watch? what? seeing some average moving pictures of an averagely worsened 944 and hearing a guy grunting in his try hard voice complaining that 944s are slow..compared to some random V8 powered dumpster? Again...if you like this stuff it suggests something about you as well.
Fwck it, even this discussion is a total waste of time.
I dont know what you could have learned from his videos but the fact you say you did suggests you didnt know much to begin with
Fun to watch? what? seeing some average moving pictures of an averagely worsened 944 and hearing a guy grunting in his try hard voice complaining that 944s are slow..compared to some random V8 powered dumpster? Again...if you like this stuff it suggests something about you as well.
Fwck it, even this discussion is a total waste of time.
10-25-2016, 05:41 PM
#27
Burning Brakes
I don't know....I thought it was kinda funny and different. Spoof on car reviews and comic relief from all the self-proclaimed professional reviewers on Youtube. On the serious side, the review is not going to change the mind of anyone who intersted in or already owns a 944.
10-25-2016, 06:14 PM
#28
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Sure, I learn about cars I'll never own and never drive but are nonetheless interesting. Sorry you are so small-minded, sheesh.
How many subscribers does your channel have?
-Joel.
How many subscribers does your channel have?
-Joel.
Ave is awesome indeed, the way i see it Mr. Regular tries to be something in that genre.
I dont know what you could have learned from his videos but the fact you say you did suggests you didnt know much to begin with
Fun to watch? what? seeing some average moving pictures of an averagely worsened 944 and hearing a guy grunting in his try hard voice complaining that 944s are slow..compared to some random V8 powered dumpster? Again...if you like this stuff it suggests something about you as well.
Fwck it, even this discussion is a total waste of time.
I dont know what you could have learned from his videos but the fact you say you did suggests you didnt know much to begin with
Fun to watch? what? seeing some average moving pictures of an averagely worsened 944 and hearing a guy grunting in his try hard voice complaining that 944s are slow..compared to some random V8 powered dumpster? Again...if you like this stuff it suggests something about you as well.
Fwck it, even this discussion is a total waste of time.
10-25-2016, 10:52 PM
#29
Three Wheelin'
LOL I laughed hard watching that vid. Its funny because its true. The first S was a slow lazy rev. My first 944 was plain but I think chipped and would pull away from the S and a host of other cars. It was the same issue with the Golf 2 GTI 8 vs 16v. The 8 was way snappier and would pull away from the 16. The S2 is a different story. Its what the 944 should have been from the beginning and the turbo punched way above its class. If Mr. Regular drove one he would be singing a different tune. I never drove a 968 but I believe only the CS would do the trick. Porsche built incredible chassis that could take a lot more power hence felt dead in the hands of drivers of other cars which were on the ragged edge of keeping their **** together, read American and Japanese cars here. Next week I will pick up a 2002 996turbo but cant see myself selling my 86-951 to make room. Here in Japan space is limited and expensive. But $80/month is worth it to me to keep, IMHO, to be the best value car Porsche ever built.
10-26-2016, 07:14 AM
#30
LOL I laughed hard watching that vid. Its funny because its true. The first S was a slow lazy rev. My first 944 was plain but I think chipped and would pull away from the S and a host of other cars. It was the same issue with the Golf 2 GTI 8 vs 16v. The 8 was way snappier and would pull away from the 16. The S2 is a different story. Its what the 944 should have been from the beginning and the turbo punched way above its class. If Mr. Regular drove one he would be singing a different tune. I never drove a 968 but I believe only the CS would do the trick. Porsche built incredible chassis that could take a lot more power hence felt dead in the hands of drivers of other cars which were on the ragged edge of keeping their **** together, read American and Japanese cars here. Next week I will pick up a 2002 996turbo but cant see myself selling my 86-951 to make room. Here in Japan space is limited and expensive. But $80/month is worth it to me to keep, IMHO, to be the best value car Porsche ever built.
Yes true the 8V against the 16V debate often includes the Golf GTi
The 944 2.5 sold well and the 3.0 s2 may never of happened so it was best that te 2.5 came and sold well first, but of course as Porsche have done with virtually every model adding more capacity with evolutions always works well and the 3.0 944 is often declared as the best of thebunch for street use, due to those large 4 pistons providing good low rpm torque and then the twin cam head for higher rpm breathing...
The 968 CS is often regarded as the daddy, but is over rated compared to the 968 coupe which was the more expensive model! The 968 coupe could of been ordered with a Mo30 suspension package and these 2 cars have exactly the same engine, the CS weight reduction wasn't that much.
R