Turbo or NA, which do you prefer and why?

[steve_bmw]

reading this thread brings back days of my impreza sti, I have not had a turbo car for ages but every time I think of the impreza I smile and remember the shove when the turbo comes on boost, love it! if I'm honest I prefer a turbo car.

[motor mad]

NA - 8.5k rev line and throttle response.

Edited by motor mad on Friday 9th August 15:07

[TameRacingDriver]

TheHeretic said:

Well, 2 engines I had were the same power. The MR2 turbo and the G35. The engine in the MR2 was definitely more drastic. The noise, the shove. Loved it. The 3.5 V6 in the G35 was a lovely engine though. Different engines for different applications.

I also had an MR2 Turbo and a Nissan 350Z (presumably the same engine as the G35?), anyway, the MR2 was a good engine and very nice, but the noise and response of that V6 was utterly addictive and grin-inducing

[xRIEx]

bmwdriver86 said:

NA for me. Would rather drive a big unstressed NA engine to a revvy stressed turbo engine.

There is no replacement for displacement!

There is - it's called forced induction.


With regards to 'revvy', your comment is completely back to front compared to my (limited) experience - my 2.5 turbo runs out of power at about 5500, my 4.0 NA V8 feels like it needs over that (and on the way to the 7500 redline) to make any real progress; it does make a lovely sound though. Similarly, my previous 3.7 NA V6 needed over 3000 or 3500 before it started to wake up.

Rather that diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, I think it's more different strokes for different driving - I'd rather have a bit more available 'effortless' torque in the XJ. For a sports car, I dunno - either would do as long as it kicks you in the arse when you plant your foot (or at least, within a second or two of planting your foot ).

[TameRacingDriver]

Close run thing so far - 55% prefer N/A, closer than I thought, both definitely have their plus points though.

[Lowtimer]

Rawwr said:

I'm a total freak in that I don't like power/torque to be available low down.

If you feel overwhelmed by the low and mid-rev power of an engine, I gather there's a modern innovation called a 'throttle' that may help you.

[Neith]

I love the drama of turbo engines, the slow build of noise as the turbo spools up is brilliant and the torque is much more potent-feeling to me at least.

I do still love the high revving NA engines though, having had a VTEC previously.

[MarkRSi]

I love the turbo engine in my Megane.

It's laggy(smooth?) below 3000, and even above the response is not instant (but still very quick), but love the turbo going on boost.
I like the fact it thrives on revs, unlike other turbos which give a low/midrange thump then seem to die off.
Makes a nice induction growl and turbo whoosh from the exhaust (although it's a bit quiet IMO).

However, if I had a choice between a turbo and VTEC of equal power... VTEC every time - nicer noise, more direct response, much easier to shift smoothly. My old CTR was more economical on a run too! (33mpg vs near 40mpg)

[Daston]

Ooh hard to answer, I love a high reving N/A engine as you get that feel of instant power. However that kick in the back that a turbo can provide also has me grinning like a little boy. Plus the churp from the external wastegate never gets old.

[BaronVonVaderham]

NA, there's no replacement for displacement! Also sports cars should rev highly and acheive peak output at the top of the range - gives an engine character.

[TheHeretic]

BaronVonVaderham said:

NA, there's no replacement for displacement! Also sports cars should rev highly and acheive peak output at the top of the range - gives an engine character.

Of all engines were the same there would be no such thing as 'character', hence you have different people liking different things. Character in an engine is subjective.

[bmwdriver86]

xRIEx said:

There is - it's called forced induction.


With regards to 'revvy', your comment is completely back to front compared to my (limited) experience - my 2.5 turbo runs out of power at about 5500, my 4.0 NA V8 feels like it needs over that (and on the way to the 7500 redline) to make any real progress; it does make a lovely sound though. Similarly, my previous 3.7 NA V6 needed over 3000 or 3500 before it started to wake up.

Rather that diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, I think it's more different strokes for different driving - I'd rather have a bit more available 'effortless' torque in the XJ. For a sports car, I dunno - either would do as long as it kicks you in the arse when you plant your foot (or at least, within a second or two of planting your foot ).

Like others have said in this thread, if you go off boost you loose the forced induction. So you have to drop down a gear to bring the turbo back on song.

Again limited experience but i find the linear power of a NA engine more workable.

However I quite fancy a supercharged engine to then have had all the mix. I have been told the supercharger whine is very addictive.

[petrolsniffer]

Never driven a turbo'd car so can't really comment.

Would love to own or have a proper go in one though the sensation of suddenly having the boost kick in intrigues me I'm assuming it's just like a more aggressive vvt/vtec?

[matsoc]

In absolute terms I vote for NA engines but turbocharging allowed the creation of some great cars that simply were not possible using an NA engine in the time they were created. Take for instance the 911 turbo...

[Johnnytheboy]

This thread's lacking something, or more accurately someone...

[xRIEx]

bmwdriver86 said:

Like others have said in this thread, if you go off boost you loose the forced induction. So you have to drop down a gear to bring the turbo back on song.

I don't find it a massive difference to a NA running in the lower portion of the rev range - a I said above, the 370Z didn't really go with any conviction until over 3500, the Impreza is on boost somewhere between 2500-3000; the XJ doesn't feel like it has any urgency even by 4000rpm, but obviously that's not really the point of it. With a slushbox, it's possibly the worst of both worlds: no instant torque, plus you've got to wait for it to make up its mind about which is the right gear to be in when you plant your foot. Overtaking needs decent planning.

bmwdriver86 said:

However I quite fancy a supercharged engine to then have had all the mix. I have been told the supercharger whine is very addictive.

Me too, that is very possibly going to feature on my next purchase.

[nonuts]

NA. Less to break. Normally more usable rev range.

There are both turbo and NA engines that are great though, most of the great turbo engines tend to be the larger ones though.

[LuS1fer]

I rather like n/a as it's nice and linear, no surprises but then again, I do like the whoosh of the turbo.

I would have to say that supercharged is the best of both worlds but, after my Mustang, the car that was the most rampant was an R5 GT Turbo. that said, I would have my Camaro/Corvettes with their n/a 5.7 V8s if forced to choose.

Much depends on the weight of the car. A lightweight turbo is far better than a heavyweight one.

[RobCrezz]

petrolsniffer said:

Never driven a turbo'd car so can't really comment.

Would love to own or have a proper go in one though the sensation of suddenly having the boost kick in intrigues me I'm assuming it's just like a more aggressive vvt/vtec?

Much different as the change in torque is much more pronounced usually (more noticeable in older more laggy engines), and humans perceive change in acceleration much more than the acceleration its self, thats why a 2.0litre turbo at 200bhp will "feel" much quicker than a 2.0 litre na at 200bhp because the delivery is different.

[EmmaJ]

LukeR94 said:

bmwdriver86 said:

There is no replacement for displacement!

A big fat whirling Turbo?

I've got the best of both worlds

Six litres of V8 goodness plus a couple of turbos for good measure.