Porsche Cayman Edition 1 vs Audi S3 Phase 2

Not quite how it was meant, but yes, he probably is incapable of driving it to its limits. VERY few people can drive any car to its absolute limit, and the chances are that he is in the 99.9% of people that can't, as are most people on here, including me. I'm not saying he can't drive or that he is a bad driver, just that there's a massive difference between being able to drive a car quickly and being able to reach its absolute limit of handling.
 
My 2 cents worth :
I have run my best friends Cayman S with my S3 (which only had software), and the S3 was faster :)

***** This was done at altitude of 1600m above sea-level, hence the turbo on the S3 has the advantage. NA cars lose ~ 17% at this altitude.
 
ved789 said:
My 2 cents worth :
I have run my best friends Cayman S with my S3 (which only had software), and the S3 was faster :)

***** This was done at altitude of 1600m above sea-level, hence the turbo on the S3 has the advantage. NA cars lose ~ 17% at this altitude.
Click to expand...

The way I understood it was turbo cars are affected by altitude more than NA cars as they rely on the air more!
 
No, it's the other way around Leon. NA cars rely on air making it's way into the engine naturally, and when there's less of it, they struggle to get enough in. Turbo/Supercharged cars cope better with less dense air as they force huge amounts of air in (which is why it's called forced induction).

Does that make sense?
 
staz1000 said:
The way I understood it was turbo cars are affected by altitude more than NA cars as they rely on the air more!
Click to expand...

nope - it is the other way around.

At a higher altitude the air is thiner, hence a normally aspirated car suffers more than a turbo car. A turbo car due to forced induction helps the flow of air into the engine.

Therefore a turbo car has less of performance drop off compared to a na car at altitude
 
mitch78 said:
No, it's the other way around Leon. NA cars rely on air making it's way into the engine naturally, and when there's less of it, they struggle to get enough in. Turbo/Supercharged cars cope better with less dense air as they force huge amounts of air in (which is why it's called forced induction).

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

I understand that yeah mate, but the turbocharged car is trying to force in air that's less dense in the first place. See what I mean?
 
lol, Staz.. think of it this way, Ignore the altitude for now,the engine needs air to work right? ... so WITHOUT the turbo it has to SUCK the air into the engine, whereas WITH a turbo the engine gets 'forcefed' with air, and can get more air into the engine in less amount of time. so no matter the altitude the trbo will always have an advantage. Hence the big differne in power between the same engine with and without a turbo. So now depending on altiude, the engines will both receive extra power the closer you get to the sea level, HOWEVER the normally aspirated engine will recieve more of a boost then the turbo engine.
 
S. said:
wrong
Click to expand...

Thanks for that useful post.

KeepItTidy said:
lol, Staz.. think of it this way, Ignore the altitude for now,the engine needs air to work right? ... so WITHOUT the turbo it has to SUCK the air into the engine, whereas WITH a turbo the engine gets 'forcefed' with air, and can get more air into the engine in less amount of time. so no matter the altitude the trbo will always have an advantage. Hence the big differne in power between the same engine with and without a turbo. So now depending on altiude, the engines will both receive extra power the closer you get to the sea level, HOWEVER the normally aspirated engine will recieve more of a boost then the turbo engine.
Click to expand...

I understand how turbos work mate. You're not understanding my query.
 
staz1000 said:
Thanks for that useful post.

higher you go, you get less O2, so the turbo engine will get it more than NA engine because of its "forced induction":icon_thumright:
Click to expand...
 
S. said:
higher you go, you get less O2, so the turbo engine will get it more than NA engine because of its "forced induction":icon_thumright:
Click to expand...

You don't understand my query either.
 
i understand your query, both engines will have less performance but if you imagine standing that high, you breath in normally and you will struggle to get a decent amount of air, but say if you had a high powered fan pushing air into ur lungs, you will get more air and more oxygen. the theory is the same (in a way). but i know what u mean cos both engines work on a petrol/air ratio with a turbo having more air/fuel than the N/A. i dont know the figures but turbo i think is like 15:1 n a N/A will be like 9:1, so both engines are going to loose say around 20% of power, but it will feel more on a N/A.
 
gixxer600k4 said:
i understand your query, both engines will have less performance but if you imagine standing that high, you breath in normally and you will struggle to get a decent amount of air, but say if you had a high powered fan pushing air into ur lungs, you will get more air and more oxygen. the theory is the same (in a way). but i know what u mean cos both engines work on a petrol/air ratio with a turbo having more air/fuel than the N/A. i dont know the figures but turbo i think is like 15:1 n a N/A will be like 9:1, so both engines are going to loose say around 20% of power, but it will feel more on a N/A.
Click to expand...

Nope you're not answering it either. If that fan that's forcing air into me is sucking air that's less dense than at sea level then the air coming out of it will be less dense than it would be at sea level.

Does no one follow? I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just asking why.
 
staz1000 said:
Nope you're not answering it either. If that fan that's forcing air into me is sucking air that's less dense than at sea level then the air coming out of it will be less dense than it would be at sea level.

Does no one follow? I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just asking why.
Click to expand...

Nope, i'm afraid I don't get you either :confused:

In fact, as I type I think I kinda do get what you're getting at.

Correct me if i'm wrong.....
If both the turbo and NA operate at a particular level at sea level, and BOTH are subjected to the same thinner air at altitude, then why does the NA suffer more??
Lets say that both operate at 100% at sea level, and at altitude the air is 50% thinner (for example). Therefore the turbo will only operate at 50% of it's original capacity and so will a NA.
The fact that the turbo forces air in should make no difference, as it is only forcing in less dense air.
That what you are saying staz???

I think it will make a difference though. The NA is only receiving air naturally, so kinda only gets what's on offer. The turbo is having it forced in, and at sea level could probably force in more than it needs. So at altitude with the thinner air it manages to force in that bit more that it can't at sea level, therefore allowing for performance closer to that of sea level.

I could be totally wrong though!! :)
 
Turbos rely on the difference between exhaust gas pressure and atmospheric pressure. The exhaust pressure would be the same at high altitude, with atmospheric pressure being lower, allowing the turbo to spin faster and draw in more air. This compensates for the lower density by flowing almost the same air mass (but different volumes) at different altitudes.

Better?
 
aythree said:
Nope, i'm afraid I don't get you either :confused:

In fact, as I type I think I kinda do get what you're getting at.

Correct me if i'm wrong.....
If both the turbo and NA operate at a particular level at sea level, and BOTH are subjected to the same thinner air at altitude, then why does the NA suffer more??
Lets say that both operate at 100% at sea level, and at altitude the air is 50% thinner (for example). Therefore the turbo will only operate at 50% of it's original capacity and so will a NA.
The fact that the turbo forces air in should make no difference, as it is only forcing in less dense air.
That what you are saying staz???

I think it will make a difference though. The NA is only receiving air naturally, so kinda only gets what's on offer. The turbo is having it forced in, and at sea level could probably force in more than it needs. So at altitude with the thinner air it manages to force in that bit more that it can't at sea level, therefore allowing for performance closer to that of sea level.

I could be totally wrong though!! :)
Click to expand...

Yes you're understanding me mate although I'm not totally convinced by your answer lol

I reckon you're right about it being able to force in more than it needs at sea level, otherwise it would alway be running at slightly lower power at normal level. There's obviously a maximum amount of air that the turbo can push in. This is set by the boost yes?

At higher altitudes the turbo WILL be affected no question, I just am wondering why not as much as an NA engine considering the turbocharged engine relies on the air more to reach volumetric efficiency and therefore max power.
 
Because the ECU knows that it's the mass of air that matters (not the volume) it will adjust the opening of the wastegate to get the right boost pressure (that's what the wastegate is there for) The air is less dense at high altitude because it's at lower pressure. When the ECU requests, lets say 1.2bar of boost pressure, 1.2bar is the same air mass whatever altitude you're at, it's the turbo/wastegate combo that provides the required pressure. With NA it just gets whatever pressure there is available, with no way to control it.
 
If the turbo ratio is, say 15:1 and N/A is 9:1 when up so high the turbos ratio will drop to around that of a N/A but the N/A will drop to like 5:1 which is not a sufficient amount. You are totally right that both will lack the same amount n that the turbo is suckin in air that is not there, but it's sucking more air than the N/A. I know what I mean I just can't put it into words
 
found this too, its about a plane engine but must be similar

altitude effects

A turbocharger remedies this problem by compressing the air back to sea-level pressures; or even much higher; in order to produce rated power at high altitude. Since the size of the turbocharger is chosen to produce a given amount of pressure at high altitude, the turbocharger is over-sized for low altitude. The speed of the turbocharger is controlled by a wastegate. Early systems used a fixed wastegate, resulting in a turbocharger that functioned much like a supercharger. Later systems utilized an adjustable wastegate, controlled either manually by the pilot or by an automatic hydraulic or electric system. When the aircraft is at low altitude the wastegate is usually fully open, venting all the exhaust gases overboard. As the aircraft climbs and the air density drops, the wastegate must continually close in small increments to maintain full power. The altitude at which the wastegate is full closed and the engine is still producing full rated power is known as the critical altitude.

kinda blows my theory out the window! lol
 
gixxer600k4 said:
found this too, its about a plane engine but must be similar

altitude effects

A turbocharger remedies this problem by compressing the air back to sea-level pressures; or even much higher; in order to produce rated power at high altitude. Since the size of the turbocharger is chosen to produce a given amount of pressure at high altitude, the turbocharger is over-sized for low altitude. The speed of the turbocharger is controlled by a wastegate. Early systems used a fixed wastegate, resulting in a turbocharger that functioned much like a supercharger. Later systems utilized an adjustable wastegate, controlled either manually by the pilot or by an automatic hydraulic or electric system. When the aircraft is at low altitude the wastegate is usually fully open, venting all the exhaust gases overboard. As the aircraft climbs and the air density drops, the wastegate must continually close in small increments to maintain full power. The altitude at which the wastegate is full closed and the engine is still producing full rated power is known as the critical altitude.

kinda blows my theory out the window! lol
Click to expand...


Does this mean that a plane could beat a Cayman then??? :)
 
s3 would get a quicker start, plane would be ******** if there is a corner striaght away, not too sure how well a plane can handle corners on the ground!
 
Shall we have a fuel consumption debate as well? Cayman vs S3 vs aeroplane...bet the Porsche isn't the worst :happy:
 
I think it is :lmfao: unless it's just a glider :noway:

A car with no engine rolling down a hill is pretty economical...and still a car :laugh:
 
The plane would win.

The Airbus A380 can carry 81,890 gallons of fuel and flies 8000 nautical miles, i.e., it burns approximately 10 gallons of fuel per nautical mile or 9 gallons per statute mile. The plane can seat 850 people if configured as an all-economy ship, so the mpg per person is approximately 95 (assuming the plane is fully loaded, which most planes seem to be these days).

An S3 gets around 25 mpg in real-world driving and, though it can seat 5, is typically occupied by one person, so an A380 is almost five times as economical as an S3.
 
mitch78 said:
Because the ECU knows that it's the mass of air that matters (not the volume) it will adjust the opening of the wastegate to get the right boost pressure (that's what the wastegate is there for) The air is less dense at high altitude because it's at lower pressure. When the ECU requests, lets say 1.2bar of boost pressure, 1.2bar is the same air mass whatever altitude you're at, it's the turbo/wastegate combo that provides the required pressure. With NA it just gets whatever pressure there is available, with no way to control it.
Click to expand...

Nice one, simple answer that makes total sense! :salute:

I wonder what altitude you have to be at for the turbo to not be able to maintain the right volume of air.
 
mitch78 said:
The plane would win.

The Airbus A380 can carry 81,890 gallons of fuel and flies 8000 nautical miles, i.e., it burns approximately 10 gallons of fuel per nautical mile or 9 gallons per statute mile. The plane can seat 850 people if configured as an all-economy ship, so the mpg per person is approximately 95 (assuming the plane is fully loaded, which most planes seem to be these days).
Click to expand...

Have you factored in luggage, crew, tea trolleys, and sick bags?? :tocktock:
 
mitch78 said:
And they usually over subscribe tickets to ensure planes are filled to capacity.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the BBC when they are looking for audiences for their TV shows.
The amount of times I've turned up at their studios only to find the show is already full. :mad:

So which would've got me there quicker and earlier then, ensuring I got in????
Cayman... S3... or plane????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NFox
Audi S3 vs Porsche Cayman GTS drag race!
Replies
34
Views
4K
Frankay
Frankay
D
JBS Phase 1
Replies
3
Views
853
Mikey
M
T
Audi S3 vs Porsche 911 Turbo
Replies
1
Views
2K
JohnS3
JohnS3
D
S3 Engine Mounts on Phase 2 Car
Replies
9
Views
1K
leach76
leach76
Fast,not furious
Custom Code Phase 2
Replies
0
Views
996
Fast,not furious
Fast,not furious
Top
Back