Naturally aspired or Turbo?
Discussion
Non turbo for me.
I've not driven anything really expensive that had a turbo, but the cars I have always had that turbo lag which I find doesnt suit my driving, i.e. I like the power to sart when I apply the right pedal I like to have cars with decent torque.
Almost had a nasty experience with a Rover 220 turbo once that I borrowed for a day, I was turning right across traffic lights when a guy jumped the lights and was head straight for me. I floored the car in an attempt to get out of the way and the "normal" 140 BHP got me out of trouble when suddenly I had 197BHP and not much room to slow the car down.
A lot of it proberly was down to me and in-experience as I normally drive the non turbo version of the same car, but I've always prefered deep grunt than turbos.
I've not driven anything really expensive that had a turbo, but the cars I have always had that turbo lag which I find doesnt suit my driving, i.e. I like the power to sart when I apply the right pedal I like to have cars with decent torque.
Almost had a nasty experience with a Rover 220 turbo once that I borrowed for a day, I was turning right across traffic lights when a guy jumped the lights and was head straight for me. I floored the car in an attempt to get out of the way and the "normal" 140 BHP got me out of trouble when suddenly I had 197BHP and not much room to slow the car down.
A lot of it proberly was down to me and in-experience as I normally drive the non turbo version of the same car, but I've always prefered deep grunt than turbos.
quote:I love 'em both in different ways - they both reward a different style of driving - I love the whoosh & the warp drive when the turbo spools up & the way you have to anticipate by half a second when you are going to need power, which means you have to read the road ahead.
Which is best then? A turbo boost of power or the growling torque of a v8 or other naturally aspired engine? or perhaps the wizz of a supercharger........i prefer the tune of a v8.
On the other hand, there's nothing quite like the torque & the roar & the instant response of a big v8, with the tail happiness of a RWD car that most v8s tend to be....
cheers,
Craig
quote:
You just can't beat the stump-pulling torque of a big five liter V8. Except one with a supercharger pursuading it to play like an eight liter V8.
Peter are you trying to tell us something about your new project?
and found a use for the bonnet bulge on the V8S 
Harry
>> Edited by HarryW on Monday 24th June 22:51
A boring reason to go with a turbo is the tax benefits of having a car below two litres, but with the power of a three litre-ish car. Also, turbos are easy to chip'n'tune - 300 bhp out of Audi's 2.2 turbo is pretty simple and cheap to get (and the RS2 came with more than that stock). I know of guys who've got 400 plus bhp from this engine in the urS4/S6 and still use it as a daily commute car.
Having said that I do prefer a big N/A.
Having said that I do prefer a big N/A.
Spent quite a lot of time punting around New Jersey and Massechusets in my mate's old Audi 200 quattro turbo. The 5 cylinder engine was a gem, even despite its age, but in a turbo car good gearing is *essential*.
The Audi didn't have good gearing, being posessed of a yawning gap between first and second. Flooring it in first was almost too manic to handle (even being used to a 5 litre V8 TVR) and pootling through first into second left you with dangerously little power.
There is something vastly amusing about the jeckyl and hyde nature of a turbo lump though...
The Audi didn't have good gearing, being posessed of a yawning gap between first and second. Flooring it in first was almost too manic to handle (even being used to a 5 litre V8 TVR) and pootling through first into second left you with dangerously little power.
There is something vastly amusing about the jeckyl and hyde nature of a turbo lump though...
Well I'd say that a good turbo car can be just as good as any N/A, mine is a turbo after all. You just have to have a different driving style, and actually be quite good 
.
The problem with turbo engines is that some are completely crap. I have an integrale, it has had a lot of head work, cams, clutch ECU etc etc. The work on the head has made it a lot more torquey, but the real problem with a turbo is lag. To illustrate this, try starting off at a normal speed and then stepping on the pedal, see how long it takes for the car to get quick. This is more of a problem in corners, where if your turbo is not spooling, the power is unpretictable and it is easy to get too much or too little. You can get used to this though, and by keeping the revs at the right level, my car always has oodles of power just ready for me
. The starts aren't a problem either as I can just rev to 6k, get the turbo spooling and drop the clutch. There is also no problem with gears, you just need a dump valve and the ability to change gear quicker than your gran.
There is a lot to be said for a V8 and it's torque, but it's not that simple. Try getting a 5.7 V8Corvette, with MASSES of torque and power to race a Hayabusa engined Caterham. See who comes out on top, in every race, in every situation. Ok, so that is N/A but it does help towards the torque argument. I love my car and it is quicker than most cars I meet, proven to be quicker than a Griff 500 I also love the way it drives, the sound (group A integrale anyone?), everything. I may get nitrous one day to assist turbo lag at low revs. Failing that, get a turbo engine and stick an anti-lag on there, you will have no turbo and exhaust after 500 miles but imagine the snap, crackle and pop you get with it 
. The problem with turbo engines is that some are completely crap. I have an integrale, it has had a lot of head work, cams, clutch ECU etc etc. The work on the head has made it a lot more torquey, but the real problem with a turbo is lag. To illustrate this, try starting off at a normal speed and then stepping on the pedal, see how long it takes for the car to get quick. This is more of a problem in corners, where if your turbo is not spooling, the power is unpretictable and it is easy to get too much or too little. You can get used to this though, and by keeping the revs at the right level, my car always has oodles of power just ready for me
. The starts aren't a problem either as I can just rev to 6k, get the turbo spooling and drop the clutch. There is also no problem with gears, you just need a dump valve and the ability to change gear quicker than your gran. There is a lot to be said for a V8 and it's torque, but it's not that simple. Try getting a 5.7 V8Corvette, with MASSES of torque and power to race a Hayabusa engined Caterham. See who comes out on top, in every race, in every situation. Ok, so that is N/A but it does help towards the torque argument. I love my car and it is quicker than most cars I meet, proven to be quicker than a Griff 500
I also love the way it drives, the sound (group A integrale anyone?), everything. I may get nitrous one day to assist turbo lag at low revs. Failing that, get a turbo engine and stick an anti-lag on there, you will have no turbo and exhaust after 500 miles but imagine the snap, crackle and pop you get with it There are good sides to each experience. Having owned a Griff 500 and now having an Impreza I've seen both sides. Which is best, hmm....
The Griff was a straight line monster, which made the most incredible noise. My real issue with the Griff was that I felt the need to 'give it large' everywhere just to listen to the exhaust note.
Which brings me onto the Impreza. It's one of the few turbo charged cars with a decent exhaust note. That off beat burble is quite attractive, although I admit it doesn't compete with the aural Griff. The turbo performance is addictive though. The whistle of the turbo and that shove in the pants performance is nice. Unlike the Griff, though, I don't feel the need to cane it everywhere 'cos below 3k rpm it's very civilised.
In fact, I was thinking about this subject this morning, I'd like an Impreza *and* a TVR. Easy.
The Griff was a straight line monster, which made the most incredible noise. My real issue with the Griff was that I felt the need to 'give it large' everywhere just to listen to the exhaust note.
Which brings me onto the Impreza. It's one of the few turbo charged cars with a decent exhaust note. That off beat burble is quite attractive, although I admit it doesn't compete with the aural Griff. The turbo performance is addictive though. The whistle of the turbo and that shove in the pants performance is nice. Unlike the Griff, though, I don't feel the need to cane it everywhere 'cos below 3k rpm it's very civilised.
In fact, I was thinking about this subject this morning, I'd like an Impreza *and* a TVR. Easy.
I had a Calibra Turbo and it did suffer from Turbo lag. Not MAJOR lag, but defintely obvious turbo lag.
The Supra is a bi turbo and you really don't get much turbo lag at all. It is massively powerful in absolutely any gear.
My V8 is litres wise a little on the small side as it only has 3.5 litres, so that might explain lack of torque.
Comparing the two side by side, I can say that for easy quick driving the twin turbo does it for me. It just has serious amounts of torque and this helps its driveability no end. The twin turbo is something like 50BHP shy of the V8 and over 100KG heavier but has 60 FT/LB of torque more. This really shows when you are getting the car rolling.
The gearing should be matched to the cars engine no matter turbo or not. Sit in my V8 car with me and you'll see that nothing happens until something like 4000rpm. Getting a good start is also painfully difficult in the V8.
Both brilliant but in the N/A car you get a little more control.
The Supra is a bi turbo and you really don't get much turbo lag at all. It is massively powerful in absolutely any gear.
My V8 is litres wise a little on the small side as it only has 3.5 litres, so that might explain lack of torque.
Comparing the two side by side, I can say that for easy quick driving the twin turbo does it for me. It just has serious amounts of torque and this helps its driveability no end. The twin turbo is something like 50BHP shy of the V8 and over 100KG heavier but has 60 FT/LB of torque more. This really shows when you are getting the car rolling.
The gearing should be matched to the cars engine no matter turbo or not. Sit in my V8 car with me and you'll see that nothing happens until something like 4000rpm. Getting a good start is also painfully difficult in the V8.
Both brilliant but in the N/A car you get a little more control.
I've got both, Griff 5ltr and Saab 2.3 turbo, they are great fun in their own right....we all know how a Griff delivers the power but the real license buster is the Saab, it's addictive to feel a large car accelerate so aggressively like it does and the noise of the turbo/dump valve is cool (I can see where the max power lot get their kicks)but all the while you are in calm and collected, leather bound, air conditioned luxury and can overlook the daft speeds the thing gets up to. Oh I had a 2.2 quattro non turbo with sports exhaust and it was a great engine but the car was a barge
>> Edited by APACHE on Tuesday 25th June 11:36
>> Edited by APACHE on Tuesday 25th June 11:37
>> Edited by APACHE on Tuesday 25th June 11:36
>> Edited by APACHE on Tuesday 25th June 11:37
An NA engine will always be easier to control. In some cases the frantic turbo surge is too much - not helpful on country tricky lanes, or when balancing the car through fast sweepers. Given the choice I'd prefer an NA engine if your comparing it to a turbo engine of the same power output. In some situations a lack of control is the last thing you'd want.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff