Turbo or NA, which do you prefer and why?

[Level 7 Boss]

Interesting results and comments especially when viewed in the PH context which bemoans 4 pot turbo and the death of N/A. I don't have much experience of turbo cars so can't really comment. Currently driving a 3.5 litre N/A and I love the throttle response and V6 roar although the linear power delivery belies the sense of speed.

I want to enjoy NA cars before they're resigned to the museum lol.

[300bhp/ton]

stevesingo said:

RWD cossie wil said:

stevesingo said:

Thanks for your detailed response!

RWD cossie wil said:

You are driving it wrong!

I find that if you are falling off the back of the torque curve, you are better off being a gear lower than you think you need to be, a turbo needs exhaust gas to drive it, people complain of lag but then keep trying to drive the car just like any other without learning where the turbo makes full boost, and where to change gear to keep it in the sweet spot.

My small turbo escort cosworth was really easy to drive, as with a T25 turbo it was on full boost by 1900rpm, so you had plenty of power everywhere up to about 6k where it started to tail off. Gear selection wasn't mega important as you had response pretty much everywhere. Throttle control isn't that important either as there is a fairly linear torque spread across the rev range.

My Sapphire Cosworth with a T4 is much, much harder to drive as it makes no boost below 4000rpm, then you get a huge spike of torque ( it goes from about 150lbs/ft to over 450lbs/ft in less than 1000 revs!)that keeps pulling hard up to the 7800rpm limiter, where the power is still climbing (just over 500bhp). To drive fast, you need to be over 4k constantly to stay on boost, and be very,very sensitive on the throttle as it will just light up the back end in 3/4th gear if you are ham footed in the corners/on poor/damp surfaces etc. great fun to drive though

I drive a NA car which make peak torque at 6500rpm and peak power at 7500rpm. I fully understand the need to keep an engine in the correct part of the rev range. But when I come of the throttle on my NA car and re-apply (say when I'm adjusting the line through a corner) I can meter out the power exactly. On the turbo cars I have driven, when I re-apply to get the attitude chage from the car I require, I find it much harder to do so accuratly, invairiably end up applying too much as I am compensating for the delay in response.

Trailing throttle and/or coming on/off the throttle to steer with the throttle is much harder in a turbo due to the lag. Hence the whole point of anti lag systems on rally cars.

In my turbo cars I've also found them to generally be more jerky and less smooth too when coming on/off the throttle.

[mu0n]

It depends on the car but as the yanks say; there's no replacement for displacement. Probably been said on here more than once...

[bennyboysvuk]

300bhp/ton said:

But this has nothing to do with it being superior. It's just that at present, turbo motors perform very well in how vehicles are tested for emissions and fuel economy, even if in the real world such figures aren't always seen.

I drove a BMW 116i the other day with the new 8 speed auto. In Eco-Pro mode it returned 32mpg bimbling around on B-roads. BMW say it does 50 mpg combined. After that disappointing score, I gave up on getting good mpg and drove it a fair bit harder and it averaged 27mpg by the end of my journey. Difficult to tell if there was any lag though since the auto hides it completely.

[jamieduff1981]

longbow said:

I love both and think I've got great examples of each in the Cerbera and the Evo. Both are within a gnats whisker in terms of how hard they go, but the engines couldn't be any more different in character. The AJP8 is like a big bike engine / race engine. It has good torque throughout but really only feels rapid when you wring it out to the redline. The Evo's 4G63 MIVEC has a typical small displacement turbo delivery - sod all below 3k and then BOOM...... I think this engine in a rear driver would be hard work - it needs the 4wd to contain the swell of torque. The AJP in contrast is very linear, and with the long throttle travel means that power can be easily moderated. That said I've also had a 6.1 Hemi SRT8 and found the way you can just step on the gas from idle and light the tyres up quite amusing..... I think if I had to chose just one it would be a large capacity, highly tuned NA but I'd still miss the turbo. Not tried a supercharged car yet though but I can imagine they are great too.

This is both a sensible appraisal and a meaningful comparison.

[Bmills92]

I've had two v6's and I do love n/a engines to bits. I adore the fact you really need to make them work and you get the chance to rev the life out it, plus you never have the frustrating turbo lag!

[IainT]

Tough one for me...

• I've a 400bhp turbo'd rotary that sadly doesn't get the use it should but is epic to drive. Boost is full from 3.5k to rev limiter. It also sound mental.
• I've a 3.2 v6 TT which sounds great and has decent torque low down.
• I've a 3.0 v6 TDi that is effortless and does double the mpg of the other two. It's a bit quiet but the torque is addictive.

Never driven anything SC so can't comment.

I guess either is good as long as it's good

[300bhp/ton]

Bmills92 said:

I've had two v6's and I do love n/a engines to bits. I adore the fact you really need to make them work and you get the chance to rev the life out it, plus you never have the frustrating turbo lag!

What sort of V6's? As you don't have to rev all n/a cars to make good power. Try a 6.2 litre V8 for instance.

[TameRacingDriver]

bennyboysvuk said:

I drove a BMW 116i the other day with the new 8 speed auto. In Eco-Pro mode it returned 32mpg bimbling around on B-roads. BMW say it does 50 mpg combined. After that disappointing score, I gave up on getting good mpg and drove it a fair bit harder and it averaged 27mpg by the end of my journey. Difficult to tell if there was any lag though since the auto hides it completely.

That's shocking.

I was always impressed with the 116is performance on paper, for a base model car, but from what you're saying, it seems to have the fuel economy of a warm hatch so its not exactly a great compromise after all.

[Bmills92]

300bhp/ton said:

What sort of V6's? As you don't have to rev all n/a cars to make good power. Try a 6.2 litre V8 for instance.

A st220 and vr6, I've been in a c63 and yes agreed you dont have to work a 6.2. But I dream to know what a v10 is like, prices of s6 are dropping so never know could be a new possible venture .

[MarkRSi]

TameRacingDriver said:

bennyboysvuk said:

I drove a BMW 116i the other day with the new 8 speed auto. In Eco-Pro mode it returned 32mpg bimbling around on B-roads. BMW say it does 50 mpg combined. After that disappointing score, I gave up on getting good mpg and drove it a fair bit harder and it averaged 27mpg by the end of my journey. Difficult to tell if there was any lag though since the auto hides it completely.

That's shocking.

I was always impressed with the 116is performance on paper, for a base model car, but from what you're saying, it seems to have the fuel economy of a warm hatch so its not exactly a great compromise after all.

I get similar mpg figures (32/27) from a 260bhp turbo hatch when I drive economically/quickly respectively...

[Lowtimer]

MarkRSi said:

TameRacingDriver said:

bennyboysvuk said:

I drove a BMW 116i the other day with the new 8 speed auto. In Eco-Pro mode it returned 32mpg bimbling around on B-roads. BMW say it does 50 mpg combined. After that disappointing score, I gave up on getting good mpg and drove it a fair bit harder and it averaged 27mpg by the end of my journey. Difficult to tell if there was any lag though since the auto hides it completely.

That's shocking.

I was always impressed with the 116is performance on paper, for a base model car, but from what you're saying, it seems to have the fuel economy of a warm hatch so its not exactly a great compromise after all.

I get similar mpg figures (32/27) from a 260bhp turbo hatch when I drive economically/quickly respectively...

It's also very similar to what I get from a 23 year old 300 bhp RWD hatch, a mildly tweaked 944 turbo.

[HonestIago]

I own one of each and voted turbo, though that could be just because my turbo-charged car is faster than my NA one. I love the raw pace of my Impreza Turbo if I'm in the right gear, though occasionally the lag is a problem:

e.g. when slowly approaching a roundabout in 2nd (have to be virtually stationary to engage 1st) and committing to moving onto the roundabout, only for a car to rapidly appear from the right at which point instant go would be better than foot down...wait a second or two...whooosh!

[zebra]

bennyboysvuk said:

I drove a BMW 116i the other day with the new 8 speed auto. In Eco-Pro mode it returned 32mpg bimbling around on B-roads. BMW say it does 50 mpg combined. After that disappointing score, I gave up on getting good mpg and drove it a fair bit harder and it averaged 27mpg by the end of my journey. Difficult to tell if there was any lag though since the auto hides it completely.

Not sure how you're driving it but I'm getting high 40's most if the time.

[TheAngryDog]

Thread revival

I drive a n/a 5.0 v8 and just sold my 2.0 turbo. I am a massive fan of turbos, and would love another, but they will never sound as good as a v8 n/a. Also the cars that the more fun turbo charged engines come in are either too expensive (cosworth) or too chavvy (scooby etc lol)

I have a daily dilemma over selling my M5 and getting something with a turbo engine, but then I think I'd never want to use it for long distance driving. I'm doing 205 miles later in my M5 to Torquay. Would I want to do the same in a 2.0 turbo?

[liner33]

I have a 2.0 turbo as a daily , totally relaxing to drive even for long distances , drove to Amsterdam last year and got 41mpg

Modern petrol turbos are very tractable and pleasant to drive as easy to drive

[chris285]

Got a diesel mk1 Leon and I love the shove from the torque, and it's so easy to drive around town is the one aspect that I love.

However I think i need a 6cylinder NA car in my ownership at some point

[TheAngryDog]

liner33 said:

I have a 2.0 turbo as a daily , totally relaxing to drive even for long distances , drove to Amsterdam last year and got 41mpg

Modern petrol turbos are very tractable and pleasant to drive as easy to drive

Agreed, but the type of car I would want to own wouldn't be as pleasant as I would need to make it faster

[s m]

TheAngryDog said:

Thread revival

I'm doing 205 miles later in my M5 to Torquay. Would I want to do the same in a 2.0 turbo?

For me, it would depend on the car - if I was just motorway cruising would it make much difference to me , probably not

[Guvernator]

I'd have to go for a third option which is I like both but with a caveat.

N\A as long as it's charismatic, sounds good and delivers good power for it's size.

Turbo as long as it's charismatic, sounds good, is tunable and likes to rev.

What I can't stand are modern turbo engines and their uncharismatic diesel like power delivery, just so boring.