A turbo car or a naturally-aspirated engine-powered car?

**Type 100** · December 17th, 2009 10:44 AM

In terms of personal preference...I'd opt for NA.

An NA engine usually doesn't bring you nasty surprises when driving - its power and torque delivery characteristics are predictable and exploitable. The power rises and falls linearly along the RPM band, and Niky is correct that it needs work keeping it on the boil - but the reward is consistent response.

Another thing I like about NA cars is that they tend to lend themselves better to driver skill and input - they let you be the boss. It takes skill to drive around a track quickly without relying on the boost of a turbo, so your attention is focused on increasing your corner entry speed and improving your line through turns. With turbos all you have to do is let the boost work for you and take you out of the corner - not very fun IMO.

I like showing the car who's boss. :D

If I absolutely had to have boost, a supercharger is the next best thing for me.

**ghosthunter** · December 17th, 2009 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by emms1121

Sir GH, for drag racing you would recommend turbocharged engine?

Generally yes because you can get more power from a lighter engine package.

But there are problems associated with a turbo engine including hook-up during launch and turbo-lag.

**ghosthunter** · December 17th, 2009 11:04 AM

BTW, driving a RWD turbo car can be dangerous if you aren't prepared.

Example: if you floor the gas pedal just before the apex of a curve, power delivery will be delayed because the turbo has to spool up. A second later, the turbo spools and delivers huge power suddenly to the rear wheels. The car ends up with it's rear end sliding, resulting in oversteer.

This already happened to me a couple of times. First time (200SX) I was able to catch it. The other time caught me by surprise (4x2 turbo pickup).

Modern cars with traction control should prevent such from getting out of control, like my experience with the Genesis Coupe & Subaru Legacy GT sedan/wagon, pushing it to get the rear end to slide out on a fast corner.

**4agze** · December 17th, 2009 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

BTW, driving a RWD turbo car can be dangerous if you aren't prepared.

Example: if you floor the gas pedal just before the apex of a curve, power delivery will be delayed because the turbo has to spool up. A second later, the turbo spools and delivers huge power suddenly to the rear wheels. The car ends up with it's rear end sliding, resulting in oversteer.

so true specially if you have 2 way LSD keeps you on your toes

thats why I love RWD cars

**babkalakal** · December 17th, 2009 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

Generally yes because you can get more power from a lighter engine package.

But there are problems associated with a turbo engine including hook-up during launch and turbo-lag.

on the top fuel dragsters i think this is the reason why they prefer superchargers rather than turbos on their 6000hp sleds. The superchargers works just off idle and doesn't have the dreaded turbo lag epecially when shifts occur.

**babkalakal** · December 17th, 2009 12:28 PM

tama lahat ng opinion but i would not say one is necessarily better than the other. case in point ang bagong bmw 335i. tons of low end torque but still revs to 6800-7000rpm. kahit turbo sya lag is not perceptible. barely at most when you are looking for it. Another good point for the NA case is yung RS4 audi with the 4.2 V8 direct injection na ata ito. Max torque is developed at a reasonably low 2750rpm yet it still revs to 8000rpm very flexible engine.

**ghosthunter** · December 17th, 2009 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by babkalakal

tama lahat ng opinion but i would not say one is necessarily better than the other. case in point ang bagong bmw 335i. tons of low end torque but still revs to 6800-7000rpm. kahit turbo sya lag is not perceptible. barely at most when you are looking for it. Another good point for the NA case is yung RS4 audi with the 4.2 V8 direct injection na ata ito. Max torque is developed at a reasonably low 2750rpm yet it still revs to 8000rpm very flexible engine.

Come on, you are comparing a 3.5L engine vs what we normally drive?

Maybe if you were to compare the Hyundai Genesis Coupe versions (2.0T vs 3.8L), then maybe it would be better...

But if I were to have the choice of a 4.2L V8 muscle car vs a 3.0T V6 ... definitely I would go for the all motor choice.

Turbo charged options do have advantages. A small turbo engine will have good fuel economy yet can deliver the same performance of a large displacement motor.

**4agze** · December 17th, 2009 02:30 PM

I want to add not all motor are good in NA and vice versa, example SR20DE without the turbo it sucks (I have the NA

trust me its sad) RB20,25,28DE without the turbo skyline wont be a monster. 13B without turbo in FC3S & FD3S RX7 will just be a RX8

and 2JZGE without the turbo in a supra is just another metal with 4 wheels, some cars are born to have turbo some needs to keep NA.

**ghosthunter** · December 17th, 2009 02:34 PM

To put it down to something most of us can relate...

Choice of:

1.6L w/ turbo = 150 to 160hp

or

2.0L n/a = 140 to 150hp

Assuming the car would be a typical civic, sentra, corolla, lancer, etc.

**ghosthunter** · December 17th, 2009 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by 4agze

I want to add not all motor are good in NA and vice versa, example SR20DE without the turbo it sucks (I have the NA

trust me its sad) RB20,25,28DE without the turbo skyline wont be a monster....

SR20DE sucks? Aw come on, I have a SR20DE and I get over 150 wheel HP from it (factory spec was 122whp). (The car is a Sentra b14 with carbonfiber hood and trunk.)

What have you done to your SR20 motor?