[xQx]

I'm not sure what they go for in Canada, but if you can pick one up for $100k, an AMG
C63 Black Series would be hard to beat.

[Joe240]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Easy I can do that in 10 minutes, you must never have been married.

[mmmmQuattro]

Originally Posted by baege

So I'm back...

So I gave it my best shot, but I can't do it. Turbo engines just don't engage me. The lag means a real sense of disconnection for me from the driving experience. The b58 in my m240i is one of the best, least laggy turbo engines out there, which is why I felt like I might be ok with it.

Really - I mean Really ???

The b58 feels nothing like a laggy turbo engine.
I recently drove a NA 'worked' (cams, headers, tune) LS3 powered car and I thought it was responsive and all, but lacked low down torque.

Maybe you need to just drive a few different cars, ignore what's under the bonnet and then see which one you like.

Also, are you driving in sport / manual mode ?

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by baege

I am trying to stay newer with warranty. It will be the only family car and so we need something dependable and reliable.

Sorry if I missed it - what's your budget?
Most new cars, save the ones already mentioned, are going turbo.
You may be able to find a CPO CTS-V. It's a stellar car that is family friendly with an auto.

Originally Posted by mmmmQuattro

Really - I mean Really ???

The b58 feels nothing like a laggy turbo engine.
I recently drove a NA 'worked' (cams, headers, tune) LS3 powered car and I thought it was responsive and all, but lacked low down torque.

Maybe you need to just drive a few different cars, ignore what's under the bonnet and then see which one you like.

Also, are you driving in sport / manual mode ?

A worked NA engine with a cam will move the power band up the rev band and will be laggy as all hell. A friend of mine had a Fox body Mustang that wouldn't even move until 3500 rpm, but it revved to 8500 rpm and ran high 9's in the quarter mile. So there's a major trade-off to building NA HP as well.

[mmmmQuattro]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

A worked NA engine with a cam will move the power band up the rev band and will be laggy as all hell.

+1

[Red Bread]

I sense a recurring assumption that low end torque is better than a lack of it. When driven on a track, the ability to keep the revs up and torque not dropping off towards redline is much preferable to the B58 nature of torque falling off a cliff over 5k rpm.

The B58 is a great daily driver motor, but switching to the torque curve of an S55 or anything similar will likely satisfy the OP more. I gather they're more interested in a motor that revs easier but might not make as much low end torque or have as flat of a torque curve. Both common attributes of tiny little turbos.

[baege]

Originally Posted by mmmmQuattro

Really - I mean Really ???

The b58 feels nothing like a laggy turbo engine.
I recently drove a NA 'worked' (cams, headers, tune) LS3 powered car and I thought it was responsive and all, but lacked low down torque.

Maybe you need to just drive a few different cars, ignore what's under the bonnet and then see which one you like.

Also, are you driving in sport / manual mode

yes

the b58 is one of the least laggy turbos around but it still feels laggy compared to NA and for whatever reason i have serious lag sensitivity

i drive in sport with paddles most of the time

[baege]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

Sorry if I missed it - what's your budget?
Most new cars, save the ones already mentioned, are going turbo.
You may be able to find a CPO CTS-V. It's a stellar car that is family friendly with an auto.



A worked NA engine with a cam will move the power band up the rev band and will be laggy as all hell. A friend of mine had a Fox body Mustang that wouldn't even move until 3500 rpm, but it revved to 8500 rpm and ran high 9's in the quarter mile. So there's a major trade-off to building NA HP as well.

100k cdn

ctsv is a real poss but reviews indicate the paddle shifters are very laggy...

[RABAUKE]

Two AMG C63's in Toronto for under $100K....a lot of car. Turbo yes, but I don't think lag is going to be an issue with these V8's.

http://wwwb.autotrader.ca/a/mercedes...201J0&sprx=250

http://wwwb.autotrader.ca/a/mercedes...201J0&sprx=250

Having said that, you mentioned Porsche 991, I'd be on the Porsche all day long if that's what you're thinking.

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by baege

100k cdn

ctsv is a real poss but reviews indicate the paddle shifters are very laggy...

I'd get a 991. Go drive one and you'll be leaving with it.

[Red Bread]

Wait, 991 is in this hunt? There's your answer.

[baege]

991.1 base cpo is within budget and a poss...but having had 2 manual 981CS and having gotten bored of them i fear i wont be excited by a pdk base 991.1

i always wanted a multi valve v8...rs5 and rcf seem to be front runners

ctsv also interesting but i had a c7 and didnt like it...

[Red Bread]

A 991.1 S would be good, a base Carrera will be a little lacking. I personally prefer the 997.2 for the smaller size and simpler interior. Any chance of a 997.2 GTS?

The RS5 is 800 pounds heavier than a 991, has a bad weight balance and that 4.2L is sort of the model for carbon buildup.

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by baege

991.1 base cpo is within budget and a poss...but having had 2 manual 981CS and having gotten bored of them i fear i wont be excited by a pdk base 991.1

i always wanted a multi valve v8...rs5 and rcf seem to be front runners

ctsv also interesting but i had a c7 and didnt like it...

I'd go drive a 991.1 just to make sure. It's a different animal than the 981.

RS5 will weigh about 800lbs more than a 991 as stated above and will feel sluggish compared to the 991.

[baege]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

A 991.1 S would be good, a base Carrera will be a little lacking. I personally prefer the 997.2 for the smaller size and simpler interior. Any chance of a 997.2 GTS?

The RS5 is 800 pounds heavier than a 991, has a bad weight balance and that 4.2L is sort of the model for carbon buildup.

i want to stick with cpo as it will be our only car so dependability and reliability are key

cpo 991 s are well over 100k here in canada...

yes rs5 are a bit chub

[baege]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

I'd go drive a 991.1 just to make sure. It's a different animal than the 981.

RS5 will weigh about 800lbs more than a 991 as stated above and will feel sluggish compared to the 991.

I have actually looked at 991.1 base and drove 2 and walked away saying i liked my 981cs better...

but will still drive one if when one shows up to confirm

the S is more like 120K cpo....

[Red Bread]

For a non S, there's something to be said for the 991.2 and the additional torque. I know they start at $104k CAD, but can you find a light option CPO for under?

[baege]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

For a non S, there's something to be said for the 991.2 and the additional torque. I know they start at $104k CAD, but can you find a light option CPO for under?

i am now sworn off turbos

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by baege

i am now sworn off turbos

Based on the B58? At least test drive the 991.2. It's nothing like the 718.

[baege]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Based on the B58? At least test drive the 991.2. It's nothing like the 718.

i always disliked turbos...was going buy a 128i back in the day over a 135i because although way slower i liked the 128i sound and throttle response better

recent trends meant if i wanted a late model german car i would ha e to go turbo...which i did

having tried it for a bit...it is clear to me now i will go for non turbo as long as I can...991.2 might have very little lag but it still has it

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by baege

i always disliked turbos...was going buy a 128i back in the day over a 135i because although way slower i liked the 128i sound and throttle response better

recent trends meant if i wanted a late model german car i would ha e to go turbo...which i did

having tried it for a bit...it is clear to me now i will go for non turbo as long as I can...991.2 might have very little lag but it still has it

Of course it does. But think of it like this. 40% of all cars sold in 2017 had a snail. Up from around 27% in 2015. R&D isn't going towards naturally aspirated motors. It probably won't ever again.

My Mazda 3 was a truly horrible engine. No offense to the N52, as they're dead reliable and cheap, but there really isn't a single area (aside from the first three generations of HPFP) that the N54 didn't clean that things clock. Of all the things I didn't like about our 135i, the motor wasn't on the list.

I tried to resist this trend too and I'm still fighting the three pedal war. But my GTI is so much better than my Mazda 3, even with its evil turbo. And honestly, with a flash it's even better, aside from the stock clutch clearly fighting a losing battle.

Have you at least driven an F8x? Comparing an N/B motor to an S motor isn't really fair, especially if the N/B isn't flashed. I'll repeat, if you're just basing your lack of interest in turbos in the B58, a car that loses the will to live at 5k rpm, at least try a sportier turbo engine. If it wasn't so hard to flash the B motors, you'd have an easier time there.

[RM7]

The "turbo lag" present in something like the 135, 240, M2, etc., isn't going to be noticeable for normal people. Making full torque around 1500rpm, it's not the turbo lag that causes the problems, it's the throttle lag/response and transmission IMO, the gear that it's in and how it responds to throttle inputs. Driving around in sport+ all day, I would challenge someone to come back and say these are really throwing a bunch of turbo lag. The dyno numbers don't show it. The hotter (closer to actual valves/manifold) turbos these days with twin scrolls or other setups respond very well IME. Small turbos spool fast, small hot turbos spool even faster, and full torque at 1500rpm makes turbo lag almost impossible to detect.

Like it was said above, these are tuned to have a flat curve, and small turbos tend to run out of air when you spin them faster, especially when you try to spin them to higher peaks (like an aftermarket tune), so they'll drop off past a certain point. So you could go with a bigger turbo, but that will give you actual lag, so you will deal with that. Then, you need big enough engine-displacement to deal with the lag. Too small and you will bog gears when cruising and attempting to increase speed or maintain speed up a mountain.

I don't really think turbos are the problem here and the better turbo engines like BMW, Porsche, etc., do a great job of masking any traditional turbo behaviors. On the other hand, because the BMWs especially are intended to be sedate sedans at least part of the time and because they are now all controlled by electronics, you don't get to "choose" how it drives in terms of the throttle response and transmission, except that you can put it in sport+ every single time you start. These cars would get terrible mileage though if they were meant to maximize performance all the time.

A few months back I rented a 4cyl turbo camaro (which by the way is nothing like driving my current ss 1LE). It was turbo-like and there was a distinct burst of power at the border line. It was still better than many I've driven in this sense, it wasn't crazy laggy, but you could tell it was there. This was very different from my BMW and some of the better turbo setups that I've driven. If you want to take an even bigger step backwards, go to a WRX STI, where you get even more lag. I would build significant torque starting 2800 and full maybe 3500 to 5.5 or so, but buy 6 it was slowing down and despite a 7.3K redline, it really wasn't doing anything at those engine speeds, definitely out of breath.

These things also spin up almost instantly when they are in the turbo range, they are turning all the time and it only takes a fraction of a second IME to do this, to me, it's not a significant source of lag on a small turbo. Put a big turbo on a small engine like a GT35 on a 2.0 or 2.5 and sure, it's going to be crappy to spin up, it's going to make huge HP with all the supporting mods, but it's going to be laggy as heck.

The goal usually is to have a flat torque curve to give you the most area under the curve, meaning when you hit the gas, get to the shift point, and upshift, you have more torque to start with at that lower RPM setting. The car that makes the same peak torque but has to build it will have much lower torque when it does the exact same thing, so the one with the flat maximum curve will always pull away when it comes to it's redline and shifts to a higher gear. You can also have an engine that builds more torque and HP and revs to a crazy high RPM, but it's going to be more work keeping that in the torque-range, especially if it's manual.

I got the 2SS 1LE because it is a "raw" manual transmission NA car. It is definitely what I wanted in that respect and I am loving every minute of driving it, but turbo-lag was not a factor when I was comparing M2/3/4s and a few other models. Auto transmissions were.