406 V6 versus Turbo

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:20 pm

but even the Atom is available with a 2.2/2.3 turbo 5 pot, if required, and has greater displacement than an SRi. If cubes weren't an issue they'd stick with the small bore K series.

I do likee the turbo very muchee, but I think the extra pork of the V6 over the fron wheels would do no harm as even relatively low powered 406s can scrabble for grip when pulling away in the wet. I daren't use the meth spray in anything other than top in the wet cos the tyres just chirp away madly, and i'm sure mine doesn't get anywhere close to 200 brake, even with the spray.

If i were looking at a Turbo and a V6, both in good nick, then i'd buy by price, but if both had had a bit of a hard life i'd go for the V6. Still, if they'd done a V6 HDi there would be nooooo competition!

mjb · Post by **mjb** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:41 pm

ugly? I reckon the 407's absolutely stunning!

The v6 diesel only comes as an auto doesn't it?

Post by **Welly** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:17 pm

Did someone mention water injection?

If I remember your's used to be a 90 so I supose you are using the water to reduce charge temps? in lieu of an I/C

Have you noticed a decent improvement? Your boost increase will have increased charge temps without an I/C so I suppose it must be a good improvement? would like to know.

My friend has a V6 twin turbo and the Aquamist works to reduce in-cylinder temps but difficult to tell whether it has a real improvement in BHP, although the engine is pushing 360 BHP at 0.7 bar so the odd 30 BHP can go missing without noticing.

He reports though that the water keeps the turbo's on boost over a wider rev band and the engine is much smoother at higher revs.

(notice how I cunningly changed this topic to Diesel hehehehe we will take over this site, yes we will)

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:25 pm

Not much difference on just water, though when it activates the engine is sooooo much quieter and smoother. With a low %age of methanol added the mid range has grown like popeyes biceps after a dose of spinach. It really shoves hard in 4th or 5th from c.1500rpm-3000 where the grunt suits the high gearing. Dunno what bhp it is, but the seat of the pants dyno confirm a massive improvement - it's like driving a tidal wave!

Diesel will rule the world - sparkers will be first against the wall when the HDi revolution comes!

Foxy · Post by **Foxy** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:58 pm

Well they say water/methanol gives 25-40bhp more, I reckon that about right. Get it on the rollers.

Where did you get the kit from? Its something Ive been looking at.

Rick_J · Post by **Rick_J** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:33 pm

one thing always omitted when comparing these things is the turbo lag - ive had the turbo in question and moved onto the V6. The turbo was ok, fun when boost went to 22psi but it still took ages (felt like) for boost to arrive and then had to wait for at least 2000rpm. the V6 (194 bhp at least) has 84% torque from idle i.e. more torque than the turbo but straight away. makes it so much fun to drive but a pain in the wet.

just so people know, its faster than the megane sport (2.0 16v Turbo w/225break)- at least the after 100 anyway...

niz406 · Post by **niz406** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:16 am

Rick_J wrote:The turbo was ok, fun when boost went to 22psi but it still took ages (felt like) for boost to arrive and then had to wait for at least

Thats because you had problems....lol a T25 spools very quickly, the problem is with it running out quickly... and as for lag.. well if you were driving it properly you wouldn't of experienced any

lol

I've never driven a V6 so cannot comment on it...... I've raced a few coupes and saloons....never lost!.... but I did blow away a S2000 yesterday !

Foxy · Post by **Foxy** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:45 pm

S2000 of the 240bhp 1300kilos and RWD type?

Davva2004 · Post by **Davva2004** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:55 pm

From a tuning point of view, I'd always prefer a turbo car to a NA... turbos are easier to tune, as long as you do the mechanicavl work needed to strenthen the engine you can up the boost and make way more power, the BHP per £ ratio is excellent. with NA engines, it's much harder to tune as you don't have any forced induction, you have to spend much more money on breathing mods for less return.

How about a twin turbo V6, running 7.2:1 compression, forged pistons, shot peined conrods, ARP head bolts, multilayer metal head gaskets, forged crank, all steel bottom end, 20psi boost with a 100 shot of NOS.... where's me tissues...

niz406 · Post by **niz406** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:15 pm

Foxy wrote:S2000 of the 240bhp 1300kilos and RWD type?

237hp @ 8300rpm

Yep that would be the one ! The one that you have to rev high in order to get anywhere fast... he obviously has no balls or something.... he was quick to initiate the race but think after he saw the rate at which I under took someone he decided to back off.... oh no he wanted more...

I had lost him and slowed down and all of a sudden he comes from no where, so I hold about 12 p.s.i and take the clock to the never reigons and again he cannot keep up... funny thing really because the 2000 was screaming and I thought he would of passed me ! On paper it should easily ! I guess he was just too scared of going over 130...

Foxy · Post by **Foxy** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:29 pm

I had the pleasure of driving a S2000 about a year ago when one of my dads mates had one on lease for a month.
Let me say that my 306 Gti was quick, high revving fun but this thing was something else. Sub 6.5 secs to 60 standard and the noise it made...... sounded like a F1 car, was fantastic.

I almost went and bought a Civic VTi (B16a) just for the VTEC punch, but thought better of it after I looked at insurance.

It has to be said getting 240bhp from a n/a 2 litre is quite a feat.

niz406 · Post by **niz406** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:25 pm

Foxy wrote:It has to be said getting 240bhp from a n/a 2 litre is quite a feat.

Oh yeah.... racing technology ! Just like the old 2.0 406 N/A touring cars of 300hp

What about the 260hp 1.3 litre N/A Rotary

Captain Jack · Post by **Captain Jack** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:21 pm

Niz406 wrote:
Foxy wrote:What about the 260hp 1.3 litre N/A Rotary

Don't they use those Wankels in RX8?

Foxy · Post by **Foxy** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:57 pm

Yeah and they are turbo charged

niz406 · Post by **niz406** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:20 pm

Not in the RX8.... the RX7 is turbo charged well the FD2's and 3's are the 2's are single turbo and the FD3's are twin turbo!
Its 260hp N/A in the new RX8

Oh Yeah !

Here is a 400hp N/A 4 Rotor Engine ! !