Turbo or NA, which do you prefer and why?

[Iroquois Plisken]

t4andgreys said:

Friend of mine says his has been thirstier on oil than petrol since new .....

That's definitely the most retarded comment I've ever had to suffer reading on the entire internet.

[Fire99]

Varies.

In the right 'packaging' a petrol Turbo car can be great on the road. Easy progress / overtaking.
That said a torque-laden V8 in the right car can do the same (TVR Chim/Griff etc) but maybe less efficient at the pumps.

Supercharged engines for road performance are great too but once again, not always that great in the MPG department.

Buzzy N/A's (High revs, relatively low torque) for me are great for a B-road blast or track day but can be a bit tiring on the road every day.

That said, BMW's old straight sixes (M3, M5, 325/328i etc) were a pretty decent compromise for me.

[GetCarter]

Iroquois Plisken said:

t4andgreys said:

Friend of mine says his has been thirstier on oil than petrol since new .....

That's definitely the most retarded comment I've ever had to suffer reading on the entire internet.

15 miles to the gallon!

[Chilliman]

Fire99 said:

Varies.

In the right 'packaging' a petrol Turbo car can be great on the road. Easy progress / overtaking.
That said a torque-laden V8 in the right car can do the same (TVR Chim/Griff etc) but maybe less efficient at the pumps.

Nail on the head Up until a few months ago the only turbo car I'd driven was my whale tail cossie, which I owned in the early nineties. Then, back in May I had the pleasure of taking a Noble M12GTO3R out for a test drive My P&J is a modified Chim 500, so it was quite a back to back experience going from 5 litres of NA V8 to 3 litres of twin turbo V6 then back again for the drive home. Both cars are epic (IMO), and the grin factor is way up there with both, but the screaming NA V8 is my preference, I just can't get to grips with the idea of a proper British sports car with a 'small' capacity turbo engine in it... Unless it's a Noble of course

[All that jazz]

MarkRSi said:

Funnily enough I also had a test drive of a 330Ci which despite being as quick as my car also felt slow & dull despite picking up speed well...

My car at the time was a Civic Type-R

My best mate had a black CTR on an 04 plate, one of those boxey shaped ones, not the later rounded ones. It was rapid once you had the needle bouncing off the end of the dial and the rods coming through the side of the block, but the fuel needle used to travel in one direction as fast as the revs travelled in the other, and it did fk all under 7k rpm - no sense of speed or urgency at all. I don't understand the point of them at all; they're really just a track car imho as they're completely hopeless for day to day driving, having to bounce the needle off the dial for it to move.

[mwstewart]

I love both really, but if Turbo it needs to be set up to give a good old traditional shove in the back

[V8RX7]

turbolucie said:

For me that feeling when the turbo kicks in is just the best feeling. Nothing compares.

So what 5+ litre cars have you driven ?

What supercharged cars ?

[longbow]

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.

[Scuffers]

one for the Vtec haters!

[motor mad]

Scuffers said:

one for the Vtec haters!

K20 with a JRSC. If that's your car, I salute you. Being PH, I'm sure some numpty will make a derogatory comment.

[300bhp/ton]

All that jazz said:

MarkRSi said:

Funnily enough I also had a test drive of a 330Ci which despite being as quick as my car also felt slow & dull despite picking up speed well...

My car at the time was a Civic Type-R

My best mate had a black CTR on an 04 plate, one of those boxey shaped ones, not the later rounded ones. It was rapid once you had the needle bouncing off the end of the dial and the rods coming through the side of the block, but the fuel needle used to travel in one direction as fast as the revs travelled in the other, and it did fk all under 7k rpm - no sense of speed or urgency at all. I don't understand the point of them at all; they're really just a track car imho as they're completely hopeless for day to day driving, having to bounce the needle off the dial for it to move.

It really is quite saddening to read such misguided comments on PH

[Ved]

Turbo for me. That big whallop of torque just as the boost comes in is great fun and as I loved rallying in the 90s and 2000s it's part if why I like the cars I do.

Having said that I'm sure a big V8 would be great but I've never driven one.

[MarkRSi]

300bhp/ton said:

All that jazz said:

My best mate had a black CTR on an 04 plate, one of those boxey shaped ones, not the later rounded ones. It was rapid once you had the needle bouncing off the end of the dial and the rods coming through the side of the block, but the fuel needle used to travel in one direction as fast as the revs travelled in the other, and it did fk all under 7k rpm - no sense of speed or urgency at all. I don't understand the point of them at all; they're really just a track car imho as they're completely hopeless for day to day driving, having to bounce the needle off the dial for it to move.

It really is quite saddening to read such misguided comments on PH

Can't speak for older VTECs but the K20(Z4?) in my Civic pulled just as hard as it did at 2k rpm when it was 8k rpm. Sure there was a VTEC kick but hardly noticeable (asides from noise ). Below the 5k rpm it's still a 2.0 N/A petrol which is more than enough to make good progress.

To drive briskly all you needed to do was drive with a few more revs that you might normally do, not exactly a chore and would happily purr along at a 4000rpm cruise at 80mph while returning 35+mpg.

I don't care how much torque a 200bhp TDi/turbo petrol would have, I'd have the K20 every time

[gog440]

I like a good NA petrol, but for my daily driver I have a TD, the nice big shove of torque and the fuel economy make it a no brainer for me as a DD, BUT for a fun car it would have to be a big petrol engine.
Mind you I was given a fiesta ecoboost as a courtesy car the other day and it was a right giggle. Didnt feel like a turbo'd engine, it just drove like a torquey 1600 engine rather than a 1.0 turbo, revved to the redline easily and sounded brilliant at high revs, just like a 911

[DukeDickson]

kambites said:

To be honest our (2.0 TFSI) Octavia isn't much different, in terms of oil consumption. You're looking at no more than 1p/mile in oil.

That must be engine or (more likely) manufacturer specific - VAG things seem to be rather oil thirsty.

My shed has cost all of 0.00005p per mile, oil wise, and that's only as a result of a related problem. Otherwise, would be zero.

Having said that, would still prefer to pay 1p+ per mile for appropriate N/A loveliness.

[kambites]

DukeDickson said:

kambites said:

To be honest our (2.0 TFSI) Octavia isn't much different, in terms of oil consumption. You're looking at no more than 1p/mile in oil.

That must be engine or (more likely) manufacturer specific - VAG things seem to be rather oil thirsty.

My shed has cost all of 0.00005p per mile, oil wise, and that's only as a result of a related problem. Otherwise, would be zero.

Having said that, would still prefer to pay 1p+ per mile for appropriate N/A loveliness.

Indeed. I was just pointing out that the RX8 is hardly unique in its oil consumption and wondering why it's constantly singled for it.

[k9l3k]

Turbo makes sence more economical better power and goes better then na normally. My supra use to be side by side with the new m3.s it had less power but turbos made the difference.
. High revving cars like what I have now s2000 is much more fun though

[theboyfold]

I ticked NA, but I actually think I prefer both. Bear with me here.

The most engaging engine I've had would be the 3.2 flat 6 from my Boxster, the two turbocharged engines have been smaller VAG units, so they have suffered a little from throttle response and lag (not that much though).

All this changed when I picked up my M135i which is simply brilliant. It. Has the best of both worlds. A smooth larger engine with (what I believe to be) quite a small turbo bolted on. The only thing that's missing is an 8k redline, but I'll forgive it that.

If I had to choose, it'd certainly be a larger capacity 6 pot and above NA engine every time though.

[stew-S160]

N/A for me.

[stevesingo]

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.