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

**4agze** · December 17th, 2009 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

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?

Nothing, I even rebuild it last year to see if I can improve the performance added milder duration/higher lift cams, ported & polished intake/exhaust w/ fuel regulator and a S-AFCII only made 155whp that's not a lot for me sorry my friends SR20DET stock 7psi made 250hp fairly not noticeable turbo lag I want that.

**ghosthunter** · December 17th, 2009 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by 4agze

Nothing, I even rebuild it last year to see if I can improve the performance added milder duration/higher lift cams, ported & polished intake/exhaust w/ fuel regulator and a S-AFCII only made 155whp that's not a lot for me sorry my friends SR20DET stock 7psi made 250hp fairly not noticeable turbo lag I want that.

I just added APEXi S-AFC, intake/exhaust and ignition timing adjustment to reach over 150whp on my SR20DE. For a 2.0L n/a engine making 170-180hp at the crank, that can be said to be pretty good already.

Of course if you want to make well over 200hp from a 2.0L engine, you will have to go turbo.

I have to option to go turbo but I stopped at my current configuration. I enjoy the car's handling manners when I go out driving, plenty of torque for a light chassis. I feel that adding more power would actually hurt it's street performance. I am a sucker for balancing power with handling.

**4agze** · December 17th, 2009 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

I just added APEXi S-AFC, intake/exhaust and ignition timing adjustment to reach over 150whp on my SR20DE. For a 2.0L n/a engine making 170-180hp at the crank, that can be said to be pretty good already.

Of course if you want to make well over 200hp from a 2.0L engine, you will have to go turbo.

I have to option to go turbo but I stopped at my current configuration. I enjoy the car's handling manners when I go out driving, plenty of torque for a light chassis. I feel that adding more power would actually hurt it's street performance. I am a sucker for balancing power with handling.

Wow very nice, sad part about it is US SR20DE was only rated 140bhp i know its sad but it was my daily car back then, oem intake and oem exhaust. My car is heavy oem weight was rated 2600lbs so thats another sad fact of this car, but if i want to go fast ill have my track toy for that

z

**Type 100** · December 17th, 2009 06:55 PM

One other consideration I guess when talking about NA vs. turbo:
drivetrain and weight placement.

The problem with big NA engines is they're not really suited for front-drive cars, which at least 80% of us will drive. With NA, you generally gain power/torque either by trick technology (e.g. VTEC, MIVEC, VVT-i, VTC) or displacement (more liters). If you go by the displacement route on a front-drive car, the tendency is for all that weight to corrupt the weight and handling balance by putting it all up front. Not only will the front tires have more power and torque to contend with, but they also have to defy gravity and the laws of physics.

Suddenly, what was an exciting FWD car to drive with just a 2.0L engine in the hood is now sluggish to direction changes and unwilling to go round bends with a 3.0L engine.

A turbo'ed small-capacity engine retains the lighter weight of its engine block. The turbo, intercooler and piping will definitely add some weight at the front, but it's nowhere near as much bloat as a large-capacity engine will give you. That preserved lightness will pay dividends on a FWD car.

**babkalakal** · December 18th, 2009 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by EQAddict

all i know is this: I wish all my NA cars had a turbo!!!!!!!

haha agreed!

**babkalakal** · December 18th, 2009 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by ghosthunter

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.

Sir i wasn't directly comparing a 3.0 twin turbo engine to what we normally drive i am merely trying to point out that a good modern turbocharged engine can act like a very good NA engine to a certain degree and still retain the good characteristics of a turbo. I whole heartedly agree with 4agze that specific engines need to be kept NA and others work better with a turbo or two.

i agree that a small turbo engine can give good fuel economy but from first hand experience e90 325i 218hp gives the same mileage if not a little better that an audi a4 tfsi 211hp even if the fact of the advantage of the audi in torque. on actual driving the fuel economy is just isn't there. that being said i'm not entirely certain if a 1.6 turbo will have better mileage than a comparable 2.0 NA.

**leopaul** · December 18th, 2009 07:43 AM

In the past, I think Toyota developed a lot of turbo engines, now do you think Toyota's ditching turbo engines for good?

We all know that Honda doesn't make turbo engines

And Nissan remains only one turbo engine, for the R35 GTR.

What's happening to the Japanese automakers of today who were used to make turbo engines?

That was just boring...

**ghosthunter** · December 18th, 2009 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by leopaul

In the past, I think Toyota developed a lot of turbo engines, now do you think Toyota's ditching turbo engines for good?

We all know that Honda doesn't make turbo engines

And Nissan remains only one turbo engine, for the R35 GTR.

What's happening to the Japanese automakers of today who were used to make turbo engines?

That was just boring...

The reason is economic recession. People do not buy expensive cars or fuel guzzling cars or expensive to maintain cars in bad economic times.

**4agze** · December 18th, 2009 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by leopaul

In the past, I think Toyota developed a lot of turbo engines, now do you think Toyota's ditching turbo engines for good?

We all know that Honda doesn't make turbo engines

And Nissan remains only one turbo engine, for the R35 GTR.

What's happening to the Japanese automakers of today who were used to make turbo engines?

That was just boring...

actually Toyota in other country like Australia and UK is going back to its supercharger roots like the 4agze, 4 cylinder direct injection super charged powered cars vs turbo, more efficient no lag. I don't think all this cars or trucks are sold in Phil.

Toyota corolla Tsport compressor