sab wrote:
My thoughts on the whole debate is the following...
For me, Nitrous cannot be regarded as a serious form of tuning as it isn't designed for any particular make or model but for the internal combustion engine itself.
Is that not true of pretty much anything. A cam is just a metal shaft with pre-designed lobes. The same lobes will then be used on cams for other engines, just the shaft and sprocket will be different.
Is a k&n induction kit really purposely made for only one vehicle, or do they use the same filter and associated components for a 100 different models?
sab wrote:
I can only see the uses of nitrous as more of an add-on fun thing which one does in addition to conventional tuning... I mean how many racing teams use nitrous as part of their car prep?
I think it depends highly on the nature of the motor sport the race team competes. these all use nitrous as part of the car prep:
sab wrote:
When one starts to tune the car in n/a form, there are a number of advantages, the main being that the power is always there... If you're running a absurdly high shot of nos (e.g. 3 - 400), how long will that last? At most possibly a minute? What use is that if you want to use it on a track?
I agree n/a tuning should not be forgotten, although depending on engine and application it carries different merits. Take the Ls1 in my car, it's fairly easy to chuck some bolt on's at it with a sensible cam and some budget heads and take it from ~350hp to 450hp and retain streetability and mpg. Other engines like the Jaguar V12 cost far too many ££££ for the somewhat limited gains so n/a tuning is largely a waste.
sab wrote:
There are also benefits to n/a tuning... one does really get a real personal satisfaction knowing that you've extracted more power without cheating (i.e. FI),
I can't understand this view that using a power adder is cheating....
Does that mean that anyone n/a tuning a DOHC over a OHV is also cheating because of greater breathing ability offered by multivalve setups?
sab wrote:
Ofcourse there are cases in which nitrous is a very good option... For example some n/a engines are relatively untunable, e.g. my VQ35DE engine... ->Without spending ludicrous amounts of money. It is like drawing blood from a stone I tell you.
I can't really see any reason why nitrous would not be a viable option unless limited by some sort of motor sports regulatory body.
I guess the only reason would be if you had a vehicle already deemed quick enough for its use. Example a built and ProCharged LS1, even at 346ci can still produce an everyday 700rwhp. For a street car thats probably enough, although nitrous would only enhance it further.
sab wrote:
Other cars I wouldn't think to take nitrous anywhere near.. e.g. the FQ400 (400bhp from a 2.0 engine!!), or a p1 for example which has a short lifespan as it is.
Nitrous will still do it's job = make more power. The fact that these engines in this trim may not be strong eough built is not a fault of nitrous. BTW - there are guys in the US running Evo's at 2.3 litres and over 600whp.
sab wrote:
I think nitrous has to be considered on a case by case basis.
Yep so do I
If you want to go fast - reach for the nitrous
sab wrote:
With the growing number of inherently weaker engines coming to market (my VQ35DE included), the use of large shots of nitrous will be an even bigger concern.
Awaits flame...
Weaker engines?
Lets see a 2.0 DOHC Ford 4 pot nowadays will happily make 240bhp n/a. Try attaining that from one of the old cross flow units. Add nitrous and the old motor stands no chance.
I think new engines are taking the older ones by storm:
-Chevy LSx series of engines
-Ford mod V8's
-Dodge Hemi's
-Dodge V10
-Cummins 5.9
-most of the modern 4 pots
-all Common Rail diesels
-Jaguar V8