Turbo or NA, which do you prefer and why?

Turbo or NA, which do you prefer and why?

Poll: Turbo or NA, which do you prefer and why?

Total Members Polled: 487

Turbocharged: 35%
Normally Aspirated: 65%
Author
Discussion

TameRacingDriver

Original Poster:

18,048 posts

271 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
Following the thread about daily driver turbo cars, and noticing that some people say they prefer the way they drive compared to N/A cars got me thinking about this thread.

I normally seem to see people preferring the drive of N/A cars, stating better sounding, often revvier, better throttle response, no lag, less potential for reliability issues, easier to maintain etc.

Obviously turbo cars offer more shove so feel quicker, are easier and better tune and potentially offer better fuel economy for a given power level.

So which do you prefer and why? I must admit I generally prefer an N/A car, speed isn't everything and I feel more involved in the act of driving, as you have to work harder to go fast (more gear changes etc) and I like the noise they make (although the whoosh of a turbo is quite nice to listen to as well).

pti

1,694 posts

143 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
Probably NA. However, I just bought my first petrol turbo due to the ease of tuning (and financial constraints). It's excellent but I will have to own a V-Tec before everything is a turbo.

cirian75

4,245 posts

232 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
there is just something about the whooooooooomm of the turbo coming on boost that I love.

rsox87

151 posts

153 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
NA all the way for me. Turbos and torque are very convenient and "easy" fast, but even silly amounts of lag then boost don't give me the same grin as wringing an NA motor all the way to the redline. But then I am a two stroke kart racing, wankel driving heathen....

Slow

6,973 posts

136 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
The sound of the dump valve + the whoosh of turbo <3

Also much easier to get higher power.

Honestherbert

579 posts

146 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
Turbo engines beat everything hands down in my opinion, but it is just that, my opinion. It's a very subjective thing and I just "get on" with turbo's more than any other engines I have driven.

Crusoe

4,068 posts

230 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
N/A every time though I can see why people like a 2lr Turbo compared to a 2lr N/A as they aren't really comparing two equals. If they were to compare a 2lr Turbo to the real N/A equivalent (a 3.5lr petrol N/A or larger depending on how high the boost was turned up) the N/A would win for most other than the potential for larger fuel bills.


kambites

67,462 posts

220 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
For a sports car - normally aspirated for me. I can't stand turbo lag and I don't like engines whose torque falls off substantially before the red-line.

For a motorway barge, turbos make a lot of sense, though.

Edited by kambites on Friday 9th August 11:27

V8RX7

26,766 posts

262 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
NA or supercharged - both give a nice linear power delivery - you know exactly how much power you are going to get.

I hate the dollop of torque dished up by the majority of turbos - obviously lesser tuned and bigger engined turbo cars are far better in that respect.




TACottle

184 posts

152 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
Crusoe said:
N/A every time though I can see why people like a 2lr Turbo compared to a 2lr N/A as they aren't really comparing two equals. If they were to compare a 2lr Turbo to the real N/A equivalent (a 3.5lr petrol N/A or larger depending on how high the boost was turned up) the N/A would win for most other than the potential for larger fuel bills.
Probably this.

A N/A engine would have to be much larger in terms of equal power to a turbocharged unit.

I loved my Mondeo ST220 and the 7k RPM redline, but I also enjoy the boosty effortless torque that comes with my Focus ST.

Rawwr

22,722 posts

233 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
A peaky normally-aspirated engine for me. I'm a total freak in that I don't like power/torque to be available low down.

Dave Hedgehog

14,541 posts

203 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
for a road car - turbo's, better low down grunt and better economy than a S/C engine when your off power

for track thou N/A, better response and far better throttle control

C.A.R.

3,967 posts

187 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
Never driven a turbo-petrol car so can't comment frown

I much prefer the linear power delivery in my old NA Mx5 / Celica than I do all this pound-stretching turbo diesel nonsense.

CB2152

1,555 posts

132 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
Turbo for me. There is lag, but I enjoy the challenge of timing the throttle input out of a corner such that it comes on boost right when it needs to :-)

I saw a sig on a forum somewhere that said: "Turbo lag is like foreplay. You know what's coming next, and you know it's going to be good!"

My old 9-3 Aero was hilarious. 10mph, 2nd gear, foot down. Nothing would happen for a good few seconds, and people in 1.0 Daewoo Matiz's could outrun it. Then the turbo came on song, the wheels would start spinning, torque steering wildly, and the noise in the cabin was immense. Quite the sensory experience...

bmwdriver86

67 posts

147 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
NA for me. Would rather drive a big unstressed NA engine to a revvy stressed turbo engine.

There is no replacement for displacement! biggrin

Rawwr

22,722 posts

233 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
CB2152 said:
10mph, 2nd gear, foot down. Nothing would happen for a good few seconds, then the turbo came on song, the wheels would start spinning, torque steering wildly...
That sounds like a nightmarish vision of hell.

t4andgreys

49 posts

151 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
Why do people still believe modern cars and infact older ones too are "lag monsters"
Turbo for me with boost made from 2.5k all the way until 8.5k rev limit

Always take a turbo over n/a as you get the best of both worlds n/a engine when tootling round off boost then boost and power when you need it

sato

580 posts

210 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
N/a.

The throttle response and the engine sound will both be worse.
I dont particually like the sensation of turbo boost either, I enjoy the anticipation on the revs building as you keep your foot in. With a turbo it skips through this bit too quickly.


kambites

67,462 posts

220 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
t4andgreys said:
Why do people still believe modern cars and infact older ones too are "lag monsters"
Turbo for me with boost made from 2.5k all the way until 8.5k rev limit
It's not the boost threshold that bothers me about modern turbos, it's the poor throttle response caused by lag.

Rawwr

22,722 posts

233 months

Friday 9th August 2013
quotequote all
t4andgreys said:
Why do people still believe modern cars and infact older ones too are "lag monsters"
Turbo for me with boost made from 2.5k all the way until 8.5k rev limit

Always take a turbo over n/a as you get the best of both worlds n/a engine when tootling round off boost then boost and power when you need it
I don't like my power delivery to work the same way a cistern delivers water to a toilet.