FWD Turbos

[egcivic]

Whats everyones opinions on FWD turbos? Or more generally high powered FWD cars

I don't like them, due to traction issues, torque steer and bad handling characteristics.

How many FWD turbos came out of the factory compared with RWD and 4WD? High powered turbo (and NA) applications are better suited to RWD or 4WD in my opinion!

RWD's don't have the extra hassle of the power wheels having to steer the car too (ie FWD) so can handle more power- examples being BMW's, Skylines (GTR not included- although it is only part time 4WD) and HSV and Ford V8's, Ferraris... The list goes on and on! Also they don't wheelspin as much in a launch and accelleration- When you accelerate in a FWD the load is lifted off the driving wheels causing loss of traction. In a RWD the weight transfer means weight is pushed onto the driving wheels.

From car reviews I've read, it seems that the limit for a FWD car with good handling characteristics is around 190ish kW at the fly sometimes less. Proof of this? Virtually every car, from factory which has a power rating of more than 190-200 kW is either 4WD or RWD.

I think that low(er) powered FWD turbos can be great cars- an example being VW Golf GTi- with 147 kW at the fly

I'm not saying FWD's are bad cars, I own one! They have the advantage of less complicated drivetrains, less drivetrain loss, they cost less to make, more interior space, higher directional stability, and good suitability to low powered applications.

Would like to hear other peoples opinions and theories!

[Haydz]

It depends on your application... in most cases a high powered FWD is going to be a drag racer.
You also have to take into account that the majority of FWD cars are lighter and therefore don't need as much power to go just as fast (both around a corner and in a line).

All really comes down to application and personal preference..

[Grin-T]

Originally Posted by Haydz

All really comes down to application and personal preference..

Pretty much sums it up.

[INTGRR]

egcivic is absolutely right. No matter what the "application and personal preference" the dynamics of weight shift under acceleration puts a limit on the ability to get traction through driven front wheels in high power applications. This begins to be a significant problem over about 150KW and reaches a practical limit around 185KW.

Examples of this are: Saab Griffen (165kw), Alfa 147 GTA (184KW)and Ford Focus RS (160kw) - all suffer big time from torque steer and either wheelspin or performance sapping traction control override - most marked in slippery conditions.

Compare these to the ITR (146KW), Renault Clio 180 (132KW) and VW Golf GTI MKV (147kw) - all superb handling involving drives.

Hondas achievment with the ITR and CTR is exceptional and they are considered to be the best handling FWD cars ever produced, pushing the limits of how much power can be transmitted through FWD only. The LSD is a key component in this.

Performance improvement through weight reduction can be significant but remember that most weight reduction removes weight from the rear half of the car leaving weight over the front wheels pretty much unchanged.

So while an involving high performance drive can be had in a FWD car, ultimately, if you want more you have to go to either AWD or RWD. AWD provides best traction but RWD provides the most fun - throttle controlled oversteer.

Why did Honda move the engine back and drive the rear wheels for the NSX?? I rest my case.

Cheers

[defy]

I think its great, its something someone should have the chance to own once in their life.

its stupid, completely inappropriate, scary fun! Who cares about weight shift dynamics blabla

[EVLEVO]

You've only got to look at ITR / CTR / BZR to see how it should be done. All naturally aspirated, all under 2 litre, and all under 150kw.

If you turbo a front wheel drive you might not end up with that much more power (180kw - 200kw), but you can potentially double the torque. That's where your problem lies trying to get traction out of corners etc.

Don't get me wrong I'm not against ZC, B16, B18 turbos (hell I used to have one!), but to end up with a car which is a pleasure to drive you have to be sensible about it.

[Hayce]

Originally Posted by defy

I think its great, its something someone should have the chance to own once in their life.

its stupid, completely inappropriate, scary fun! Who cares about weight shift dynamics blabla

Absolutley

My first car was a fwd tubo familia... now that was a shit car to drive due to being a single spinner.
The current car has a shit load more power and 550nm of torque throught the front wheels with an LSD. As EVLEVO said you just have to be sensible of how you apply throttle.
That said the same power in a rwd would be much more useable and will be my next car.... always easier to push than pull.

[egcivic]

Originally Posted by INTGRR

Why did Honda move the engine back and drive the rear wheels for the NSX?? I rest my case.

And the S2000 Cheers INTGRR well said.

Originally Posted by Hayce

That said the same power in a rwd would be much more useable and will be my next car.... always easier to push than pull.

I agree with that too... It seems such a waste to turbo for example a type r, get a massive power figure, and then not be able to use any of that power due to the dynamics of a FWD. For the same money, you can have fun going down the N/A road and end up with an awesome well balanced car where the power matches the chassis :thumbsup:

Hondas should be left N/A the way they were made!

[osirisboi]

I used to own the only turbo charged mazda astina in the country.. all aftermarket done and it featured in NZPC, it went dam hard. No a gtx engine wasn't used at all.. all done using the standard 1600 astina engine with of course diff pistons, cams etc etc.











Tourque steer was a big problem / lot of fun.. also driving in the wet was a problem too.

Great car, worst luck I went through 5 gearboxes in 6 months as i can't breaking the spider gears.

But gave many cars a suprise.

[Hayce]

Originally Posted by egcivic

Hondas should be left N/A the way they were made!

Nope disagree...
A low to moderate boosting honda is a very well rounded car as it gives it a whack of much needed torque.
Hondas that are pushing a shit load of power and torque are potenitally a different story but again its up to the driver.

Just curious, you ever been in a turbo honda?

[Steve-O]

My mate had a 88' Mirage Cyborg hatch FWD with a VR4 4G63 turbo motor in it. I know its not a honda but still a FWD turbo. Absolutely stupid, the thing would wheel spin and torque steer all over the place, but once it eventually gained traction (around 4th gear lol) the thing was a rocket. Fun times but not very practical (sill fun to own Evos 8) ), ask PLYBOY about his Turbo Astina he used to own

[egcivic]

Originally Posted by Hayce

Nope disagree...
A low to moderate boosting honda is a very well rounded car as it gives it a whack of much needed torque.
Hondas that are pushing a shit load of power and torque are potenitally a different story but again its up to the driver.

Just curious, you ever been in a turbo honda?

Does a Honda City Turbo II count? 8)

I disagree again... the internals in a honda aren't designed for boosting, the majority of honda engines are high compression (not boost friendly) and have VTEC cams (also doesn't work well with boost). All these are a great base for a high performance N/A application however.

I'm not saying these problems can't be solved (they have been in many cases) but i don't see why, when there are better suited cars to do it to.

SR20DET's and the RB series are made to turbo... How many Nissan owners rip off the turbos, raise the compression and put high lift cams in? They don't because its not what the engines are designed for...

Is it the "to be different" factor? That reason doesn't rate very highly in my books...I would rather have a car that provides me with a better drive

[Hayce]

Originally Posted by egcivic

Does a Honda City Turbo II count? 8)

hell's no shiiit

Your points are valid in regards to turbo'ing something that is designed for it, it is far easier. And before driving/owning one myself I would have probably agreed with you.
You should really go for a blat in one before you start a thread about it though... better to know both sides of the point no?

And whats this about VTEC cam dont work well with boost? If thats the case why do the people with serious hp hondas not change them? When VTEC kicks in the motor sucks in more air which makes the turbo boost more, this is my experiance anyway.

Originally Posted by egcivic

SR20DET's and the RB series are made to turbo... How many Nissan owners rip off the turbos, raise the compression and put high lift cams in? They don't because its not what the engines are designed for...

Yeah not really the same thing here is it. I get your point but the too dont really compare.

Im going to leave this alone for a while... get some other opinions beside my blantly biased one.

[egcivic]

Originally Posted by Hayce

You should really go for a blat in one before you start a thread about it though... better to know both sides of the point no?

I'd love to if anyone would offer!

Originally Posted by Hayce

And whats this about VTEC cam dont work well with boost? If thats the case why do the people with serious hp hondas not change them? When VTEC kicks in the motor sucks in more air which makes the turbo boost more, this is my experiance anyway.

The high lift cam doesn't work well with high boost...Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the valves are still open during compression stroke, so the boosted charge escapes before the valves close? Defeating the point of having VTEC with high boost. I think specific turbo vtec cams from after market companies are more suited

Originally Posted by Hayce

Im going to leave this alone for a while... get some other opinions beside my blantly biased one.

All good, interesting to hear the story on the other side of the fence!

[spooned]

city turbo II = hella mad FWD skids and torque steer, real art to driving a city turbo II like a race car going around corners using torque steer on purpose soo fun!

i gotta admit, my fiat uno turbo MKII was an awesome boxxy litle turbo fwd. it was standard, but had no trouble taking on 4wd turbos, rwd turbos, anything turbo 8)

[WATUGT]

i agree with Hayce, you have to have owned a turbo vtec or been in one.

When i got my integra back from being turbo it was better to drive with 200kws at the wheels, I use to drive it daily with no probs. And it was far better then N/A.

egcivic wrote:
The high lift cam doesn't work well with high boost...Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the valves are still open during compression stroke, so the boosted charge escapes before the valves close? Defeating the point of having VTEC with high boost. I think specific turbo vtec cams from after market companies are more suited

And with the cams ive never heard of that all ive heard is when they are turned the graph tends to go a bit up and down when vtec switches on.

Although I've never had a turbo vtec Honda, I have had a turbo fwd mazda, and although it was a piece of crap, wheelspun in 1st gear no matter if it if dry or wet, and had some serious factory boost going through it, it was a shitload of fun to drive!!

Testdrove a Honda City Turbo II once, fantastic little car, if one popped up again, I'd buy it in a second. Bang for buck, they are amazing.

I love turbo cars no matter if they are FWD, RWD or 4WD (even though I've never owned a RWD turbo, soon on the list!! )

I know a lot of people disagree with turbocharging vtec hondas, but if it's what they want to do, don't knock them for it. I personally don't like wasting my money modifying cars, and prefer to buy modified cars already, where someone else has spent their money on it and I reap the benefits, but each to their own, and although I don't think turbocharging an '88 Si EF3 civic with over 200,000kms on the clock constitutes a $6,000 price tag (see guy on trademe), I think people can achieve some very impressive results.

My 2c

[Matty]

As INTGRR mentioned it's more the torque that's the problem with high-powered FWD cars rather than the peak output, and this can be catered for to some extent with a good LSD. If you read reviews of turbo Volvos and SAABs (both FWD) you'll find the general consensus is that the cars themselves would be great if they didn't have so much low rpm torque trying to yank the car into the cabbage.

I'd suggest an NA FWD car with (say) 150wkW would be much more driveable than a turbo FWD car with the same output, purely because you don't have the same sudden torque swell, and acceleration is much more linear, with the torque peak much higher in the rpm range. You get more of a chance to steel yourself for the torque rather than suddenly have the steering wheel tug to noe side.

But it's horses for courses really. I love high-powered FWD NA because it means you can actually feel the engine's power right in your hands, and using throttle control you can tame it enough to turn it into a fun drive. If you've got a decent LSD it certainly helps.

[tarmac-]

who cares about understeer etc.. it aint as if your pushes a car to its limits around the streets.. if your on the track for proper racing, youd invest in a lsd which would help, not cure.

hondas are shit to drive without turbos.. turbos give them so much more torque and top end. wacking big turbos on them also helps, as the boost doesnt come on till later.

vtec cams work well with turbo applications. i found that around 5500 on a b16a1 is good to have it set.

torque steer is fun anyway.

Originally Posted by tarmac-

torque steer is fun anyway.

:thumbsup: Too-fucking-right it is!!

[Dezigns]

Originally Posted by osirisboi

I used to own the only turbo charged mazda astina in the country.. all aftermarket done and it featured in NZPC, it went dam hard. No a gtx engine wasn't used at all.. all done using the standard 1600 astina engine with of course diff pistons, cams etc etc.

Maybe the only original engined turbo astina... in '99 a friend in rotovegas had an SR20DET powered astina.. albeit rwd

I think most turbo hondas are built with being a drag weapon in mind.


FWD or RWD, if your tyres aren't up to the job either treadwise or in sheer width... you are going to have 'problems' with traction.
The added bonus of most rwd cars, is they have wider rear wheel arches and can cater for much wider rubber under there... hell, I can fit 295's under my rear arches before requiring flares.

What it comes down to is what the cars were originally designed for/aimed at. Your every day Honda was designed to be a cheap shopping cart, where most RWD vehicles had being somewhat of a 'sports car' in mind.

Originally Posted by Dezigns

Maybe the only original engined turbo astina... in '99 a friend in rotovegas had an SR20DET powered astina.. albeit rwd

I think most turbo hondas are built with being a drag weapon in mind.


FWD or RWD, if your tyres aren't up to the job either treadwise or in sheer width... you are going to have 'problems' with traction.
The added bonus of most rwd cars, is they have wider rear wheel arches and can cater for much wider rubber under there... hell, I can fit 295's under my rear arches before requiring flares.

What it comes down to is what the cars were originally designed for/aimed at. Your every day Honda was designed to be a cheap shopping cart, where most RWD vehicles had being somewhat of a 'sports car' in mind.

Completely agree with you.

Originally Posted by Dezigns

Your every day Honda was designed to be a cheap shopping cart

But watch out, some dicks on here will come on and say "What about the NSX-R type 4000 JDM Nur spec 2 RA model?!?!" - TO THOSE PEOPLE, AN NSX IS NOT AN EVERYDAY HONDA!!

[Antz]

I can definitely see both sides of the picture
I looked hard into staying N/A or turbo'ing my DC2
And for the money instead of having a 140kw honda I have a 172kw honda which as pointed out above has a lot more torque (i think 215nm for me at the mo)
This is without changing pistons or rods and using the same VTEC cams etc.

The funny thing is if I had gone down the N/A route I am sure the cars would be doing the same times down the strip however they would both be very different to drive.
I have no probs with torque steer I have an LSD and manage my acceleration round corners - which I am sure a high powered RWD car has to do as well (if they don't want to go sideways)

So I would not agree with the "never" turbo a honda statement. I plan on doing more to my car and with the turbo platform it gives me far greater range of power and torque numbers to aim for - which do change the characteristics of the car. Some modifications do come with set backs or compromises. Similar isues would be relevant for any car modification be it RWD, AWD ot FWD.

And yes you definitely need ot go ride in a high HP Honda, they are sooo much fun ESPECIALLY when vtec kicks in wooo hooo.

[turbozxi]

Repost we have had this arguement a few times now I think....

Don't forget multistage boost controllers lower the boost when traction is going to be a problem, I normally would run low boost in 1st and 2nd switch to high after that.

In the rain they can be hard hook up in the lower gears but RWD turbo cars scare me more even with a lower power to weight ratio.

Factory turbo car well a car closer to factory standard will always be more comfortable to drive.

Its all been said before.

Originally Posted by turbozxi

Repost we have had this arguement a few times now I think....

Its all been said before.

Does it matter it's been said before?

What if people have changed their opinions?

What if people have had new experiences that have influenced their thinking on it?

What about the new members that want to give their opinion, and hear what people have recently done and achieved RE FWD turbos?

This is a debate, not instructions on how to do an oil change.