Choice: Turbo or n/a v8
Discussion
There's no right or wrong, and mostly will be down to personal preference/how you drive.
So for similar power/torque levels if that is actually the case, there won't be much difference other than the feel of power delivery, and noise.
Of course if tuning etc, there is no question a turbo setup has far far more potential.
As to general reliability, ease of working on etc....minefield in either direction.
I'm sure either version on a BMW will be enjoyable to drive though
So for similar power/torque levels if that is actually the case, there won't be much difference other than the feel of power delivery, and noise.
Of course if tuning etc, there is no question a turbo setup has far far more potential.
As to general reliability, ease of working on etc....minefield in either direction.
I'm sure either version on a BMW will be enjoyable to drive though
Don't go from a 170 bhp car to an M5 without trying it.
You're speculating about differences between two driving experiences, neither of which you have any concept of.
Whatever it is you buy, it will feel insanely, brutally fast compared to your current drive, but if you drive it daily then after 6 months you won't notice the performance.
You're speculating about differences between two driving experiences, neither of which you have any concept of.
Whatever it is you buy, it will feel insanely, brutally fast compared to your current drive, but if you drive it daily then after 6 months you won't notice the performance.
Tmx78 said:
ok, that's nice, but that doesn't answer the question? the power delivered will be different, that is to say? I asked a specific question with a concrete example (first gear etc) concerning the n/a v8 facing the turbo. precisely I am looking for something at least impressive in the field of acceleration and according to the statements, I am afraid of being disappointed by the sensations of the engine n/a even large displacement
Because there is no answer. Every setup will be different, every persons perception can be different. And using a low gear for comparison is largely pointless, as with less load, turbos tend to spool a little slower in such gears, which can be a good or bad thing.But yes, largely n/a disappoints. I would always opt for forced induction.
People who try and claim n/a is faster, are usually deluded, or it is only the case because the lower power of the n/a has more traction, easier to handle etc, so it's easier for amateurs to go fast, more safely simple because there is less power.
Of course the obvious thing, is to test drive whatever you want to buy. Only you can decide what you want.
Going forward, the n/a will likely be very hard to tune to get any more power....the forced induction vehicle very easy
I’ve gone from E39 M5 to 335i and then 440i, the 440i is remapped to 420BHP and has oodles of mid range torque, but the M5 engine was sublime and I prefer it to the B58 engine in the 440i even though it is a corker, there is something undefinably satisfying about the delivery of a naturally aspirated V8, I would buy a new one in a heartbeat if they still made them. Personal opinion, YMMV.
Dave
Dave
Tmx78 said:
I am interested in buying an m5 e39 car that I have liked for a long time, I have never been able to try it. that said i have seen a lot of stories lately that turbo cars always feel faster than na cars like a mitsubishi evo feels alot faster than the m5 etc. apparently it's related to what is called (jerk) if I remember correctly or somehow the rate of change of acceleration which produces more effect than the acceleration itself? so if this is true when the turbo kicks it go fast than a big v8? if I do a first gear pull around 3000 rpm or more with the m5 and I put my foot down, there is a rate of change (jerk) am I right? because I go from a stable speed with little power to a lot of power instantly? does its push back into the seat with a punch like what is said of the turbos kicking in (evo, sub, saab aero, gtr etc)
I have a 3.0 v6 na 170bhp car I tried first Gear ans 2nd Gear pull at 3000/3500 rmp but there is no thrust felt, that said I have less than 300nm of torque and very little power. when is it for the m5 v8 and its torque is 500nm 400hp, or other na car with lots of power and torque.
You should feel acceleration with a V6, hell even a 50hp inline 4!!!! Something wrong with your butt meter!!!!I have a 3.0 v6 na 170bhp car I tried first Gear ans 2nd Gear pull at 3000/3500 rmp but there is no thrust felt, that said I have less than 300nm of torque and very little power. when is it for the m5 v8 and its torque is 500nm 400hp, or other na car with lots of power and torque.
As for turbo's feeling faster.. depends entirely on the car.
Something like an Evo or similar era car will likely be flat as a fart at 3000rpm as you may not even have reach the boost threashold.
Anything should rip in 1st gear when flooring, esp a BMW M5.
Nearly all (99%) of road going turbo cars will suffer turbo lag. Modern electronics and autoboxes can hide it a bit better. But manual anything will still have lag. So no turbo is realistically going to give you the same throttle response and they'll always feel a big sluggish until you build boost, while the n/a or supercharged engine will be off ahead.
No real right or wrong on any preferences. But there isn't one law or rule that will fit every situation.
AntTPIV8 said:
Why on earth do you want 1000hp? Hp per litre as an argument, as I say, you've got the wrong engine then, as it's not the litre giving you the power if you're wanting a turbo 
Why not ? Any more for road use is just getting silly. But when racing the more the merrier.And nonsense....the very reason why most performance cars these days are turbocharged. It's all win win.
Are there any quick super or hyper type cars that are n/a ?
Porsche, Audi, McLaren, BMW etc etc etc....forced induction does things n/a simply cannot do.
I much prefer the throttle response of a n/a car. I do have a few turbo cars and they are necessary evils imo.
Diesels need a turbo.
High revving n/a is great but a turbo car feels faster due to the torque surge and ultimately they make more power.
The M5 e39 is brilliant, they go really well and there is another 100hp to be had with tuning.
Diesels need a turbo.
High revving n/a is great but a turbo car feels faster due to the torque surge and ultimately they make more power.
The M5 e39 is brilliant, they go really well and there is another 100hp to be had with tuning.
300bhp/ton said:
Not many I'd guess. Although it may depend how you define them.
Corvette C8 is n.a I think.
It is n/a, although would be among the slower of the super type cars. It is a great looking car though, and a lot cheaper than most...well at least in the US. It is a good base to work from.Corvette C8 is n.a I think.
Fortunately there people upgrading with turbo and supercharger kits out there.
n/a is decent....but to get power, refinement, and meet emissions, noise etc...boost is the way to go. n/a is just lacking.
If throttle response is the only thought....then superchargers deal with that aspect with ease, although are a little less efficient than a turbo setup. Pros and cons either way, but both can make plenty of power.
stevieturbo said:
Why not ? Any more for road use is just getting silly. But when racing the more the merrier.
And nonsense....the very reason why most performance cars these days are turbocharged. It's all win win.
Are there any quick super or hyper type cars that are n/a ?
Porsche, Audi, McLaren, BMW etc etc etc....forced induction does things n/a simply cannot do.
Forced induction is like plastic tits, didn’t have what you want to begin with, fake it with a turbo……And nonsense....the very reason why most performance cars these days are turbocharged. It's all win win.
Are there any quick super or hyper type cars that are n/a ?
Porsche, Audi, McLaren, BMW etc etc etc....forced induction does things n/a simply cannot do.
stevieturbo said:
It is n/a, although would be among the slower of the super type cars. It is a great looking car though, and a lot cheaper than most...well at least in the US. It is a good base to work from.
Fortunately there people upgrading with turbo and supercharger kits out there.
n/a is decent....but to get power, refinement, and meet emissions, noise etc...boost is the way to go. n/a is just lacking.
If throttle response is the only thought....then superchargers deal with that aspect with ease, although are a little less efficient than a turbo setup. Pros and cons either way, but both can make plenty of power.
I guess, although I'm not sure I'd personally call it slow. The new z06 has a 5.5 litre flat plane crank V8 with something like 670bhp and claimed to do 0-60mph in 2.6 secs and the 1/4 miles in 10.5 sec @ 131mph.Fortunately there people upgrading with turbo and supercharger kits out there.
n/a is decent....but to get power, refinement, and meet emissions, noise etc...boost is the way to go. n/a is just lacking.
If throttle response is the only thought....then superchargers deal with that aspect with ease, although are a little less efficient than a turbo setup. Pros and cons either way, but both can make plenty of power.
AntTPIV8 said:
stevieturbo said:
Why not ? Any more for road use is just getting silly. But when racing the more the merrier.
And nonsense....the very reason why most performance cars these days are turbocharged. It's all win win.
Are there any quick super or hyper type cars that are n/a ?
Porsche, Audi, McLaren, BMW etc etc etc....forced induction does things n/a simply cannot do.
Forced induction is like plastic tits, didn’t have what you want to begin with, fake it with a turbo……And nonsense....the very reason why most performance cars these days are turbocharged. It's all win win.
Are there any quick super or hyper type cars that are n/a ?
Porsche, Audi, McLaren, BMW etc etc etc....forced induction does things n/a simply cannot do.
The new car by Gordon Murray design, the T50 is normally aspirated, built by Cosworth.
Tmx78 said:
If I do a first gear pull around 3000 rpm or more with the m5 and I put my foot down, there is a rate of change (jerk) am I right? because I go from a stable speed with little power to a lot of power instantly? does its push back into the seat with a punch like what is said of the turbos kicking in (evo, sub, saab aero, gtr etc)
I don't have an E39 M5, but have had a 400bhp NA V8 of similar weight that's slowly made its way to 600bhp.If you are in 1st at 3000rpm at partial throttle, so maintaining a constant speed, and you floor it, then you're going to spin the wheels and not feel much acceleration. 2nd you'll probably be fine if it's not cold out.
Going from constant speed to full throttle is going to give you a decent 'jerk'. Arguably, the NA jerk will be as good as instant, so you'll go from almost no power to say 300ish almost instantly, so a good amount of initial jerk, but then a fairly constant level of pull as it climbs the rev range and ultimately makes its ~400bhp peak.
A turbo car if also 400bhp say, you'll floor it, and not a huge amount will happen whilst the boost builds briefly. During that period, you won't accelerate very much at all, so arguably, less instantaneous jerk. The power and acceleration you'll feel will build with the boost, and so you'll have gone from almost no power, to say an initially flat feeling 100bhp or so, and then it'll quickly build to 150, 200, 300 and then climb up to its 400bhp peak.
You'll thus get a longer feeling of 'jerk' as you'll get a sense of the constantly increasing rate of acceleration, whereas the NA will give you an instantaneous bootful and then maintain a fairly smooth amount of pull.
You really do seem to be labouring this point of what's going to get you the maximum feel of acceleration. As someone alluded to above, whatever you end up with, within a month or so (if that) it'll feel normal, your brain recalibrates to this stuff really quickly, and all that happens is other cars feel slower
Curiously, you could probably replicate that 'constant surge' feeling of a turbo by simply progressively pressing the throttle down in a large capacity NA (assuming they made similar peak power). Certainly it can trick your brain in to feeling like you're going faster by the way you can constantly increase the rate of acceleration with progressive throttle application, but you do need a big ol' NA engine (or a comparatively light car) to have the low down / part throttle torque reserves to make this effective.
AntTPIV8 said:
stevieturbo said:
Why not ? Any more for road use is just getting silly. But when racing the more the merrier.
And nonsense....the very reason why most performance cars these days are turbocharged. It's all win win.
Are there any quick super or hyper type cars that are n/a ?
Porsche, Audi, McLaren, BMW etc etc etc....forced induction does things n/a simply cannot do.
Forced induction is like plastic tits, didn’t have what you want to begin with, fake it with a turbo……And nonsense....the very reason why most performance cars these days are turbocharged. It's all win win.
Are there any quick super or hyper type cars that are n/a ?
Porsche, Audi, McLaren, BMW etc etc etc....forced induction does things n/a simply cannot do.
Edited by Boosted LS1 on Monday 30th January 17:18
stevieturbo said:
Are there any quick super or hyper type cars that are n/a ?
Do you keep up with new cars at all? As mentioned in the supercar class there is the C8 Z06 (not slow at all), Audi R8 V10, Lamborghini Aventador, Lamborghini Huracan, Ferrari 812 Superfast and probably others that I've forgotten about.In the money-no-object hypercar class with a clean sheet design many manufacturers have ditched turbos and went completely NA, see the Huayra R, Aston Valkyrie, GMA T50, McLaren Solus etc.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff