Turbo or N/A

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1mic
  • 30 comments
  • 1,080 views
1mic

1mic

(Banned)
Messages
2,173
i dont know if anybody has done this before but i want to know what the "PROS" think
my view is that gt3 doesnt have turbo lag, so in the end turbo is better right??? :confused:
 
Vat_man says that there is turbo lag modelled in GT3, but I've never driven identical cars that were similarly built up to the same HP level (one turbo, one NA), so I can't tell myself. Someday I'll buy another ITR and turbo it to see if they are different.

I do know that the game is biased heavily towards turbocharging. It's a very good method of making power, but in real life it is nowhere near as cost effective as it is in GT3. In this game there is no reason not to turbo unless it violates the requirements of a particular series.
 
The only car I've seen in GT3 that suffers from turbo lag is the fully tuned Escudo.

Otherwise, even the fully tuned Skylines don't exhibit nearly the lag that they should for producing that much power.
 
Originally posted by 1mic
i dont know if anybody has done this before but i want to know what the "PROS" think
my view is that gt3 doesnt have turbo lag, so in the end turbo is better right??? :confused:
Click to expand...
Well, because [as AltF8] said, only the Escudo has turbo lag, you are right in a sense. However, it truly just depends on the car... Obviously, with some, (like the Speed 12), you can't install Turbos. In cars that you can install either one though (Elise comes to mind), I would install the Turbos, because they always make more power.
 
i prefer N/A cuz it'z said that it takes more heart tuning with N/A than just turbochargin, but i also like the sound of da turbo hehe ^_^. i still like N/A more
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
Vat_man says that there is turbo lag modelled in GT3, but I've never driven identical cars that were similarly built up to the same HP level (one turbo, one NA), so I can't tell myself. Someday I'll buy another ITR and turbo it to see if they are different.

I do know that the game is biased heavily towards turbocharging. It's a very good method of making power, but in real life it is nowhere near as cost effective as it is in GT3. In this game there is no reason not to turbo unless it violates the requirements of a particular series.
Click to expand...

The lag really is only evident on Stage 3 and 4 turbo mods. Also, with no true manual (gearchanging is basically semi-auto in nature) it's a lot easier to keep cars on boost, you don't seem to get the power ramp up that you traditionally see with big turbos.

I'm inclined to agree with you on the favouring of turbo-charging in the game - I suppose at the stage where you're buying Stage 4 turbos, an 80k credit installation is cost-wise not a problem.

GT1 seemed to have more realistic modelling. Examples:
-Sometimes a fully modded turbo-charged car would actually overheat, and not rev, so you'd be stranded waiting for the car to cool down?
-big turbo installations often meant cars would be very slow to rev when off boost. I had an R32 GT-R that would only just make it to boost-level revs when the lights went green - you had to hit the accelerator as soon as the cars appeared on the track
 
Originally posted by vat_man

GT1 seemed to have more realistic modelling. Examples:
-Sometimes a fully modded turbo-charged car would actually overheat, and not rev, so you'd be stranded waiting for the car to cool down?
Click to expand...


This brings up a point that has been mentioned in the GT4/N speculation forum. What about engine damage? It is thought that the manufacturers don't want their cars bashed up exteriorly, but what about engine damage or even failure? Surely we could use a heat gauge. Regular mantainence (beyond oil change) would be a wonderful addition to the GranTurismo series, giving us a little something extra to spend our money on. And it would make the high end race cars a little more expensive to operate.

~LoudMusic
 
Originally posted by vat_man
GT1 seemed to have more realistic modelling. Examples:
-Sometimes a fully modded turbo-charged car would actually overheat, and not rev, so you'd be stranded waiting for the car to cool down?
-big turbo installations often meant cars would be very slow to rev when off boost. I had an R32 GT-R that would only just make it to boost-level revs when the lights went green - you had to hit the accelerator as soon as the cars appeared on the track
Click to expand...

He he I remember that in Gt1 I used to have a Subaru Legacy and a Nissan 300Zx that whwn equipped with a spec 4 turbo couldnt even get the rpm`s up untill after the 1.2.3.Go and my car is left sitting there embarrisingly for another 2 seconds and then shoots off like a rocket. I remember my Supra would barely rev up in time as well. One car that has turbo lag seems to be the Suzuki Alto Works (hey maybe suzuki have crappy turbos) this is the only car that seems to have the same lag symptoms as the first highly turbocharged cars in the first GT. I just think turbocharging and N/A are both usefull in the game, but recently I have switched some of my smaller cars to N/A (treuno, integra) which has seemed to make them handle slightly better than when theyve been Turboed. Personally I prefer supercharging, gives the same power as a turbo but gives no lag because of the lower pressure. Btw I cant remember where the supercharger is usually located on the car could someone refresh my memory?
 
Well, superchargers are physically driven from the engine (from the crankshaft, I think), not driven by the exhaust, so their power delivery tends to be lower in the rev range than turbos. Must confess it's been a long time since that poor boosted up little SLK, so I don't clearly recall its power delivery.
 
I couldn't remember how it was so thats why I asked
 
Superchargers are driven from a pulley on the crank snout, rather than indirectly driven by exhuast gas.

And the SLK has no power delivery, despite being blown. I had to add Stage II turbo to get it to make competitive power.
 
If I am not mistaken, modern engines are improving the low rpm effectiveness of turbos, but I lean na because it effects a broader range and should be better for off-the-line acceleration and slow speed corners that need strong torque. Presumably that would be the case with a high rpm engine where the band is long enough that even in an early gear the engine is at an rpm significantly below the turbos effective rpm. Really, though, I think gearing and tires can balance out engine differences somewhat.
 
Engine builders are getting better with the lag. The Audi R8 has virtually none, but it also has some serious torque. I do like NA in GT3..... the GT40 just has this low grumble and the engine just has endless pull, that i havent really felt with any of my high turbo cars. And the Gt40 has only 5 gears.
 
You definitely get a better spread of power through the rev range, and much better engine response in both acceleration and deceleration. I have a fully NA tuned IS200/Altezza I love driving, just hearing that 2 litre sing its lungs out!
 
Modern cars tend to reduce the likelyness of Engine damage from Tuning, this is probably why it isn't apparent in GT3. :D

Also the manufacturers don't want players (potential customers) to get a negative view of their car and see it break down :bomb:

maybe :gt: could have an engine heat gauge :fire:, and then the car simply loses some horsepower when the red line is exceeded, though this isn't as realistic as a smoking engine I'm sure it'll keep the manufacturers would be happier?
 
The 'pre-race rev' issue shouldn't have anything to do with boost lag. Unless the quasi-automatic transmissions in the GT series allowed boost build in neutral.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
Superchargers are driven from a pulley on the crank snout, rather than indirectly driven by exhuast gas.

And the SLK has no power delivery, despite being blown. I had to add Stage II turbo to get it to make competitive power.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats it!
Ive never bothered with the SLK I hate that car. i go with my Jaguar XKR and My Aston Martin DB7 both supercharged and they seem to perform just like N/A. Although the Aston Seems a bit lacking in the mid range sometimes, oh and scince I got to drive an XKR around for about 5mins I cant get over that supercharger noise :D he he
 
yay what better place to spend your 1000th post where you started it all....
-- Gran Turismo 3 forum...
:gnasher:
 
I've only experienced the dreaded "lag" in level 3 and 4 cars. I have found that in a lot of cases I'm faster with a stage 2 turbo with gear tweeks than with a stage 3-4 turbo.
 
I prefer the NA, Turbocharging a lower end car too much makes the handling pretty wacky.(Although you can easily tune that out)
 

Similar threads

M
Car hint for neo classical
Replies
7
Views
2K
MIE1992
MIE1992
C
No Supercharger or Turbo Sounds?
Replies
20
Views
11K
Biffco
Biffco
Apocalypse211
AI engine failures yes they happen
Replies
3
Views
3K
Beezer215
Beezer215
Interstellar9
Porsche 911 (992) Turbo S 2020
Replies
1
Views
6K
05XR8
05XR8
wheelhp
Supra mk4 flames are red now
Replies
7
Views
2K
Nielsen
N

Latest Posts

Back