Turbo or NA, which do you prefer and why?

[Marc p]

For a GT car or big power brute, it has to be a turbo for me, I love the sense of acceleration that a turbo gives, but for a B-road fun car, N/A all the way for the responsiveness.

[TurboBlue]

OP, I posted earlier that it’s a difficult choice and you’d get a broader consensus if you gave the option for ‘both’ however, with access to my photo account and to avoid endlessly sitting on the fence and entirely contrary to my “username” I am going to side with the normally aspirated side of the argument and here are my reasons:

It starts with this: VW Passat GL5 (Audi in-line 5, N/A, fuel injection) vs. Audi 100 S4 quattro 20V Turbo Avant (I think that’s explanatory enough) and develops from there:





The N/A was a much nicer engine to use, more consistent in its deliver, with a wonderful induction and exhaust note; the Turbo unit was remarkably flat in operation but on full boost was capable of making the car feel like a high speed express train with reserves to draw on; which at the time I thought was the result of the engine & aero, however, this car was followed by this; and this:





The Lancia’s engine was truly joyful; a blend of all the sound you expect and want to hear from a mechanical contraption with docility, power and smoothness – let down by the car, regrettably.

The Alpina, in contrast, is greater than the sum of its parts and in particular is capable of exactly the same high speed, long-legged gait that so characterised the turbocharged Audi. Of course, the Audi was a 230bhp 2.2litre while the Alpina employs an enhanced 3.3 litre with 280bhp but the point I’m trying to make is that you can get a remarkable similar end result from two different approaches.

In fact, off-cam and in a high gear the Alpina can feel just as unresponsive as if it were fitted with a turbocharged engine.

That sort of leave me with a lot of explaining to do about my “username” cars; the Renault 5 is a rally special and as such was built to comply within an engine displacement/weight category for Group 4 rallying – that, in my opinion, excludes it from this kind of preference for road cars (I’m copping out here).

The after-market BBR turbocharged Shogun was the only way to cheaply obtain the power required to tow back in the Eighties without resorting to a V8, is it any better, no; but is it fun, yes. This perhaps, best illustrates what turbocharging is best at – obtaining cheap and plentiful power and there is an end in itself there but, on balance, I prefer the sense of the engineering that has gone into a NA engine that provides the same thrills as a turbocharged engine. Which I suppose excludes a lot of NA engines but fewer turbocharged ones.

Does that make sense? Anyway, none of the preceding will discourage me from buying another turbocharged car in the future!

[kambites]

TurboBlue said:

OP, I posted earlier that it’s a difficult choice and you’d get a broader consensus if you gave the option for ‘both’ ...

You can't prefer both. If you like them the same amount you prefer neither.

[Evoluzione]

Turbo everytime, there are plenty of good reasons why F1, Touring cars and road cars are ALL going this way. Didn't I read that Honda are ditching Vtec in favour of turbos too?

I wonder if Nasp will be a thing of the past soon?

People always spout this outdated crap about 'turbo lag', it is much improved these days and gets better all the time. We used to have to run lower CR which impeded off boost performance, not so these days as much and the higher Ethanol content of petrol with its anti-det qualities is helping with that too.

So you've got a turbo engine with the same power outputs off boost as an N/A, then you have more power when the turbo is in its efficiency zone. How is this 'turbo lag'? It's just waiting for the extra power that you have over your competition before you annihilate them.

[TurboBlue]

kambites said:

TurboBlue said:

OP, I posted earlier that it’s a difficult choice and you’d get a broader consensus if you gave the option for ‘both’ ...

You can't prefer both. If you like them the same amount you prefer neither.

If you want Devil's Advocate, I'd suggest that electric is missing from the Poll too

[otolith]

NA for fun cars, willing to tolerate a turbo in a barge.

[t4andgreys]

kambites said:

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.

Maybe you should try one that has quad throttle body's as std and makes boost as early as 2.5k and powers all the way to redline @8.5k
Just as revvy as n/a and a very clean sharp and crisp throttle response too

[Ferosferio]

Evoluzione said:

Turbo everytime, there are plenty of good reasons why F1, Touring cars and road cars are ALL going this way. Didn't I read that Honda are ditching Vtec in favour of turbos too?

I wonder if Nasp will be a thing of the past soon?

There may be plenty of good reasons manufacturers are turning to turbos - of that I have no doubt - but the reality is that their hand is being forced. It's not a matter of choice any more.

I can't see NA disappearing completely but it will probably become the exception rather than the norm, fairly soon. If it's not already...?!

[300bhp/ton]

Evoluzione said:

Turbo everytime, there are plenty of good reasons why F1, Touring cars and road cars are ALL going this way. Didn't I read that Honda are ditching Vtec in favour of turbos too?

I don't mean this in an insulting way. But are people always this dim??

As in, you do realise F1 used to use turbo motors and they were once banned?

Changes today are more to keep it a varying motorsport and to match in with current mass market motoring trends. Especially for BTCC, as the engines they once used may not be available the same.

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.

Evoluzione said:

I wonder if Nasp will be a thing of the past soon?

Forced induction is and always will be a more complex setup and more costly than a straight n/a engine.

Evoluzione said:

People always spout this outdated crap about 'turbo lag', it is much improved these days and gets better all the time.

No, people spout on about turbo lag, but are actually usually talking about boost threshold and not lag at all.

Lag hasn't really changed all that much, the only difference being a trend for smaller turbo's and higher static CR's on the engines. This means the difference between off and on boost power is much smaller and the lag appears to be less.

In short, you will not really eliminate lag without some for of ALS (anti-lag system).

Evoluzione said:

We used to have to run lower CR which impeded off boost performance, not so these days as much and the higher Ethanol content of petrol with its anti-det qualities is helping with that too.

Modern ECU's and knock sensors certainly help. However fitting low pressure turbo's and superchargers to higher static CR engines is nothing new. Not even remotely and the after market has been doing it since the early 1980's, maybe even before.

Evoluzione said:

So you've got a turbo engine with the same power outputs off boost as an N/A, then you have more power when the turbo is in its efficiency zone.

Well no not really. Because the trend today is to make a 1.4 or 1.6 perform like a 2.0 litre n/a did. So off boost all you'll get is a 1.4 or 1.6 and less performance than a 2.0 litre.

On boost will simply be matching the 2.0 n/a but with maybe a more diesel like torque curve.

There are exceptions I'm sure, the Ford 1.0 Ecoboost looks very interesting for example.

Evoluzione said:

How is this 'turbo lag'? It's just waiting for the extra power that you have over your competition before you annihilate them.

???

[300bhp/ton]

t4andgreys said:

kambites said:

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.

Maybe you should try one that has quad throttle body's as std and makes boost as early as 2.5k and powers all the way to redline @8.5k
Just as revvy as n/a and a very clean sharp and crisp throttle response too

There will still be lag. If it wasn't an issue then Rally cars and other turbo powered competition cars wouldn't waste money on ALS's.

[TameRacingDriver]

TurboBlue said:

kambites said:

TurboBlue said:

OP, I posted earlier that it’s a difficult choice and you’d get a broader consensus if you gave the option for ‘both’ ...

You can't prefer both. If you like them the same amount you prefer neither.

If you want Devil's Advocate, I'd suggest that electric is missing from the Poll too

Get out!

[Amirhussain]

EmmaJ said:

I've got the best of both worlds

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

That's just greedy.

[Evoluzione]

Ferosferio said:

There may be plenty of good reasons manufacturers are turning to turbos - of that I have no doubt - but the reality is that their hand is being forced. It's not a matter of choice any more.

Forced by? Economy? Emissions?

Ferosferio said:

I can't see NA disappearing completely but it will probably become the exception rather than the norm, fairly soon. If it's not already...?!

Maybe, diesel went that way (thankfully) is it possible to buy a non-turbo diesel? You don't hear anyone complaining about their TD over the old wheezing Nasp diesels.
I had a look under the bonnet of a Sprinter van the other day and was surprised to see two turbos hanging off the side of the engine.

It's all about control, you can have so much control over an engine when it's got DI, turbo, supercharger etc, even more when it has all on one engine, so you can get it to do what you want when you need it. Electrically controlled suspension is just the same, it has everything you need, no compromise.

[300bhp/ton]

Ferosferio said:

There may be plenty of good reasons manufacturers are turning to turbos - of that I have no doubt - but the reality is that their hand is being forced. It's not a matter of choice any more.

I can't see NA disappearing completely but it will probably become the exception rather than the norm, fairly soon. If it's not already...?!

You also need to consider world markets, not just the UK or EU. This alone, n/a, large displacement, V8's and many other engine variants will continue for a long time yet.

[m8rky]

I voted N/A can't beat the sound of a cammy 16valve engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZxtUHgHZ4M

[kambites]

300bhp/ton said:

You also need to consider world markets, not just the UK or EU. This alone, n/a, large displacement, V8's and many other engine variants will continue for a long time yet.

That doesn't help us much if they aren't sold here.

[Evoluzione]

300bhp/ton said:

Evoluzione said:

Turbo everytime, there are plenty of good reasons why F1, Touring cars and road cars are ALL going this way. Didn't I read that Honda are ditching Vtec in favour of turbos too?

I don't mean this in an insulting way. But are people always this dim??

As in, you do realise F1 used to use turbo motors and they were once banned?

Changes today are more to keep it a varying motorsport and to match in with current mass market motoring trends. Especially for BTCC, as the engines they once used may not be available the same.

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.

Evoluzione said:

I wonder if Nasp will be a thing of the past soon?

Forced induction is and always will be a more complex setup and more costly than a straight n/a engine.

Evoluzione said:

People always spout this outdated crap about 'turbo lag', it is much improved these days and gets better all the time.

No, people spout on about turbo lag, but are actually usually talking about boost threshold and not lag at all.

Lag hasn't really changed all that much, the only difference being a trend for smaller turbo's and higher static CR's on the engines. This means the difference between off and on boost power is much smaller and the lag appears to be less.

In short, you will not really eliminate lag without some for of ALS (anti-lag system).

Evoluzione said:

We used to have to run lower CR which impeded off boost performance, not so these days as much and the higher Ethanol content of petrol with its anti-det qualities is helping with that too.

Modern ECU's and knock sensors certainly help. However fitting low pressure turbo's and superchargers to higher static CR engines is nothing new. Not even remotely and the after market has been doing it since the early 1980's, maybe even before.

Evoluzione said:

So you've got a turbo engine with the same power outputs off boost as an N/A, then you have more power when the turbo is in its efficiency zone.

Well no not really. Because the trend today is to make a 1.4 or 1.6 perform like a 2.0 litre n/a did. So off boost all you'll get is a 1.4 or 1.6 and less performance than a 2.0 litre.

On boost will simply be matching the 2.0 n/a but with maybe a more diesel like torque curve.

There are exceptions I'm sure, the Ford 1.0 Ecoboost looks very interesting for example.

Evoluzione said:

How is this 'turbo lag'? It's just waiting for the extra power that you have over your competition before you annihilate them.

???

Of course I know F1 used to use turbos, why is that being dim (and yes it is insulting)?.
They are going to use them next year too.

I'm not really interested in a discussion with someone who launches in with insults and lowers the tone, not very clever Imo, maybe a bit 'dim'.

[Evoluzione]

kambites said:

300bhp/ton said:

You also need to consider world markets, not just the UK or EU. This alone, n/a, large displacement, V8's and many other engine variants will continue for a long time yet.

That doesn't help us much if they aren't sold here.

America is hardly at the forefront of Automotive engineering is it though? They're still using cart springs and carbs in many areas..

[otolith]

Different people find different aspects of how a car behaves important. If the unavoidable characteristics of a turbocharged engine (primarily the disconnect between throttle, revs and torque) don't annoy you, you probably won't understand why a turbo can be a turd in another man's trifle.

[kambites]

Evoluzione said:

kambites said:

300bhp/ton said:

You also need to consider world markets, not just the UK or EU. This alone, n/a, large displacement, V8's and many other engine variants will continue for a long time yet.

That doesn't help us much if they aren't sold here.

America is hardly at the forefront of Automotive engineering is it though? They're still using cart springs and carbs in many areas..

I'm not aware of any American manufacturers still using leaf springs for axle location or carbs?

It's all very well saying that European cars are more advanced, but unfortunately most of the recent "advances" in cars in the EU seem to have made them worse to drive.

Edited by kambites on Friday 9th August 17:53