Well lets look at it this way then: Whats a 3.1 stoker naturally aspirated capable of while still retaining driveability (ie. mild cam)?Maybe 200HP. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and put it at 220HP. Now take an L28ET. Stock internals. Stock turbo. Compared to a modified L31E on a mild cam. Guess what, the turbo motor is hitting boost very early meaning it's making its power very early. Which also means it's power curve comes on early and isn't going to be peaky. But at the same time it's making more horespower than the stroker. Well if we're making more horsepower in the lower,mid, and higher rpms with the turbo motor then where does that leave us? With a higher average. And torque isn't an issue cause the turbo will make plenty of torque as well.

Now with SHADY, the autocross theory holds true to cars using a large turbo. But a tiny little T3 is even capable of putting out upwards of 300HP. Which means you'll get super fast spool up and still be able to make more power than a n/a car. I'm still hearing arguments about lag. You DONT need a huge turbo to make power. Sure you need a huge turbo to make huge power. But on a street vehicle do you really need more than a smaller turbo is capable of producing?

Again, I see your point Frank but you keep using your terms generally (high c/r is better than turbo) and then you go on to get into specifics that make your argument onesided (most people build turbo motors wrong). A properly engineered example of both types of motor will end with the turbocharged motor being more efficient in all aspects. And all that compression doesn't do you any good if you cant get the air/fuel mixture into the cylinders. Which means a bigger cam if you want to make any power ;) 20:1 c/r wont do you any good if your valves dont open to let anything in for the engine to compress ;) My L28ET makes good power on the stock turbo and I dont experience any noticeable lag. My car idles at 1000rpms and once I give it gas it just starts going.

Naturally aspirated is good for a couple things though, dont get me wrong. I've compiled a list:
1. Racing regulations
2. Car came NA and the extra,easy power isn't a priority and/or money to upgrade is an issue)
3. Emissions (if a turbo didn't come stock)
4. Stubborness.

http://album.hybridz.org/data/500/medium/100_0680.JPG

my turbo


http://album.hybridz.org/data/500/medium/100_0681.JPG


http://album.hybridz.org/data/500/medium/100_0682.JPG

And here Frank is where the dichotomy of our relationship shines! I both agree with you and disagree with you strongly! :armata_PDT_03:

A properly built turbo will rock, but it's been my experience that high CR NA engines have a NARROWER power band derived completely from the cam grind.

My turbo running 8.2:1 static compression makes good torque under 2500 rpm and it is completely driveable off boost since this is only slightly lower than factory NA compression and the additional displacement makes up for most, if not all of that lost to lower compression.

I believe when applied to the 'average' builder, you are correct. But as J said, a properly designed turbo motor will exceed the performance of a properly designed high CR NA motor given the same performance goals.

there you go !!!! what are you running pistons and headwhise ?

I have a heavily worked N42 head and custom forged Venolia pistons.

Although, I'd hesitate to call 8.2:1 high compression... ;)

Given the opportunity, I would not build another stroker turbo. In my opinion, stroking an L6 Turbo is an unnecessary additional expense. A properly designed L28 turbo can achieve 90%+ of the performance goals of a 3.1L stroked turbo.

I agree on that having spoken to JeffP. im thinking of using my heavely modded e88 on my test car (2+2).. on MsS

LWW look at this to prove my point

http://www.zcar.com/forums/read.php?...78782&t=278782


see Dare to think out of the box

I agree completely. It absolutely doesn't take a huge AR to make good power.

That's been my premise all along and why I don't have a huge AR on my current or former exhaust and compressor housings...

A properly sized street driven turbo will make excellent power and deliver almost unnoticeable spool lag.

Ok, so after all that reading, and typing from everyone. Do you think stroking a 2+2 Auto be worth it? Just looking for a lil tourq, Not going to be used all the time, but i want to move if i have to.

Unless you can get a deal on the parts and the machine work then it's my personal opinion that your money would be better spent on a turbo motor. Plus you'll end up with more money after all is said done if you go that route. As far as whether the 2+2 is worth it, well thats up to your taste and function. As far as the Auto, toss it and find a turbo motor with a manual trans. I picked up an entire running 83 turbo for $75.00 and drove it from OH to VA. It was a badly rusted 2+2 but I was only after the motor. I just dont think the stroker is really worth the investment unless you HAVE to stay naturally aspirated.

If you're looking for "a lil torque" don't waste your $ on a stroker. Do some headwork, get a good header & cam, and call it good.

I agree with both J and Nismo. Get a turbo w/ manual & drive shaft or just get a manual and drive shaft.

The 5 speed will do more for 'gettin' outta there than just about anything else unless you're planning on a BIG build.

If you've got the money to build a stroker, spend it on a turbo swap.

there's only one turbo around here, it's for sale, but's it's an auto turbo. 2+0 T-Top

If the motor is in good shape, then I would go for it. You can swap the 5-speed out of your "Shell".

well I don't have the 5 speed from the Shell anymore, That trany went into a 77 280Z.

well get one on a yard !

Yeah a trans will be easier to find then another turbo motor. I'm running the standard Nissan 5 speed with my turbo motor. Eventually I'll hunt down a T5 but for now it's not neccessary.

do the stock turbo fubar, itll be enough with a manual trans if you looking for some get up and go. its just an easy straight swap.