The demise of the Naturaly Aspriated engines?
Discussion
Turbos are great, as are superchargers.
The new generation of twin and lightly turbocharged small petrols giving diesel economy and performance of bigger lumps are great and should in theory make small light fun but quick cars a possibility even with the current trend for safety.
What I don't like is that eventually it will be impossible to choose to buy a big 6 or 8 or a high revving well tuned NA lump.
Recently I've been looking at hot-hatches and comparing the Fabia VRS and Clio 200. The fabia is impressive and probably the car I would buy if I wanted something quick enough and was easy to drive every day. The clio is the car I would want to get into and drive just because roads exist though. That opinion on the clio is at least 50% due to the fact that the engine would make me, the driver, work hard to get it to go quickly rather than doing it by just being well engineered.
The new generation of twin and lightly turbocharged small petrols giving diesel economy and performance of bigger lumps are great and should in theory make small light fun but quick cars a possibility even with the current trend for safety.
What I don't like is that eventually it will be impossible to choose to buy a big 6 or 8 or a high revving well tuned NA lump.
Recently I've been looking at hot-hatches and comparing the Fabia VRS and Clio 200. The fabia is impressive and probably the car I would buy if I wanted something quick enough and was easy to drive every day. The clio is the car I would want to get into and drive just because roads exist though. That opinion on the clio is at least 50% due to the fact that the engine would make me, the driver, work hard to get it to go quickly rather than doing it by just being well engineered.
nixon1905 said:
surley turbos are a brilliant idea, they save a large proportion of fuel when off boost but give you the power of a larger naturally aspirated engine on boost!
This is PH. Everyone here would drive on boost all of the time, and their engines would be (mapped) negating any fuel saving 
nixon1905 said:
If petrol costs to much, and you dont want a desiel, get a lower capacity petrol turbo!
That would require spending lots on a new eco-box that will depreciate at such a rate it will make running an older V8 look cheap.TotalControl said:
gizlaroc said:
Turbo cars are just so bloody boring once the novelty of the power has worn off, there is no sense of reward with them, you press the throttle and no matter what gear or rev range you are in they move, you just don't get that pleasure that you get from a nice NA engine as you work it through the rev range.
This is spot on for me.nixon1905 said:
But even so i fail to see how the large engines are still selling so well? I can understand why some people might want them, but surley 90% of the people buying these sorts of cars will not be bothered by the difference, and a manufacturer seeling a fast car (in terms of high powered saloon's) with a high mpg when needed would sway alot of these people?
If petrol costs to much, and you dont want a desiel, get a lower capacity petrol turbo!
Because there generally cheaper and more reliable and most people these days seem to think 'the Golf 1.6 will be faster than the 1.4TSi because a 1.6 not a 1.4' etc and don't realise what the 1.4TSi actually is. If petrol costs to much, and you dont want a desiel, get a lower capacity petrol turbo!
The effortless feeling that a large capacity engine delivers makes for a far more pleasent and rewarding driving experience,I dont want to spend half my time changing gear,I`d much rather have enough proper power to not need to change gear.
Even smaller capacity 6 pots,2-2.5 litres are in my opinion better than their 4 pot turbo equivalents,if not as powerful or revvy.
I always think of my old 95 6.0 V12 Soveriegn and remember the sewing machine levels of smoothness at any rpm or even while just cranking on the key,
Or the feeling when you give a V8 Range Rover a bit of throttle and the whole car rocks.
If they could make a 4cyl 1.5 turbo truly feel and sound like a 6cyl 3.0 n/a with a decent level of reliability then maybe opinions would change.
The complexity and cost of repair of modern variable vane technology turbo`s and other such stuff has risen sharply over recent years while the reliability has steadily decreased.
More parts,more to go wrong.
Laws of physics.
I drove a new 1.4 TFSI Passat recently and I was impressed with the performance considering the engine size and given that 120 bhp is not a lot anymore,it still felt like a small engine working hard.
The machanical equal of small person syndrome.:P
Even smaller capacity 6 pots,2-2.5 litres are in my opinion better than their 4 pot turbo equivalents,if not as powerful or revvy.
I always think of my old 95 6.0 V12 Soveriegn and remember the sewing machine levels of smoothness at any rpm or even while just cranking on the key,
Or the feeling when you give a V8 Range Rover a bit of throttle and the whole car rocks.
If they could make a 4cyl 1.5 turbo truly feel and sound like a 6cyl 3.0 n/a with a decent level of reliability then maybe opinions would change.
The complexity and cost of repair of modern variable vane technology turbo`s and other such stuff has risen sharply over recent years while the reliability has steadily decreased.
More parts,more to go wrong.
Laws of physics.
I drove a new 1.4 TFSI Passat recently and I was impressed with the performance considering the engine size and given that 120 bhp is not a lot anymore,it still felt like a small engine working hard.
The machanical equal of small person syndrome.:P
After a turbo, most stuff feels flat as a fart !
Any of the V6 equivalents of my Saab Aero dont generally feel as fast, and in reality don't see which way it went, show me a N/A V6 with nearly 300lb/ft of torque and I will buy one, ok they sound nicer, enjoy it as the turbo car goes flying past....
Any of the V6 equivalents of my Saab Aero dont generally feel as fast, and in reality don't see which way it went, show me a N/A V6 with nearly 300lb/ft of torque and I will buy one, ok they sound nicer, enjoy it as the turbo car goes flying past....
I love the sound of turbo cars in rallying during the group b era and old 1.5 turbo f1 cars sounded good to.
I perfer the new ngtc turbo engines in btcc compared to the old n/a engines the audi, toyotas and the focus sounds much better than the noise coming out of the back of a bmw touring car.
With small engine why not use turbos/super charges to increas power but not engine size good idea and the gneral public who will buy these cars will properly never know they are turbo charged and will get good fuel consumption.
Problem with most people in this country is that we are afraid of change, would rather things stayed the same that why a lot of people dont like the coalitions government because they are changing polices to bring this country out of debut.
Petrol is only going to go up in 10 years time we be looking back and think god petrol was cheap back then. We got to make cars more econmical or people will simpley not bother with cars as they cost to much to run.
I perfer the new ngtc turbo engines in btcc compared to the old n/a engines the audi, toyotas and the focus sounds much better than the noise coming out of the back of a bmw touring car.
With small engine why not use turbos/super charges to increas power but not engine size good idea and the gneral public who will buy these cars will properly never know they are turbo charged and will get good fuel consumption.
Problem with most people in this country is that we are afraid of change, would rather things stayed the same that why a lot of people dont like the coalitions government because they are changing polices to bring this country out of debut.
Petrol is only going to go up in 10 years time we be looking back and think god petrol was cheap back then. We got to make cars more econmical or people will simpley not bother with cars as they cost to much to run.
Personally, I prefer the feel of the power being delivered with a naturally aspirated engine.
Nothing wrong with turbocharged cars and I could easily get used to them.
But, I would also like to have the option of large non-turbocharged engines available in more mainstream cars and not just exotics. This unfortunately won't happen to due to the Euro regs.
Nothing wrong with turbocharged cars and I could easily get used to them.
But, I would also like to have the option of large non-turbocharged engines available in more mainstream cars and not just exotics. This unfortunately won't happen to due to the Euro regs.
I have been using turbo charged engines for over 20 years, not in cars though. They're great. Most of the engines I use have several power ratings for the same block, for example an 8.3 litre engine I used had ratings between 150 and 300 hp. It seems to me that going for a smaller engine in a higher state of tune is more lively than the larger displacement engine.
Engine design marches on and they keep managing to squeeze more and more reliable horses from the same engine. Some manufacturers have had problems with variable vane turbos, but I can only remember 3 turbos failing on any machine I have encountered. 2 of those did a lot of start stop work and the 3rd had next to no maintenance. There is no reason why the turbo shouldn't last the life of the engine.
Engine design marches on and they keep managing to squeeze more and more reliable horses from the same engine. Some manufacturers have had problems with variable vane turbos, but I can only remember 3 turbos failing on any machine I have encountered. 2 of those did a lot of start stop work and the 3rd had next to no maintenance. There is no reason why the turbo shouldn't last the life of the engine.
J4CKO said:
After a turbo, most stuff feels flat as a fart !
Any of the V6 equivalents of my Saab Aero dont generally feel as fast, and in reality don't see which way it went, show me a N/A V6 with nearly 300lb/ft of torque and I will buy one, ok they sound nicer, enjoy it as the turbo car goes flying past....
Quite a few NA Flat 6 engines would show your Saab a clean pair of heels and give you over 300lb/ft. Any of the V6 equivalents of my Saab Aero dont generally feel as fast, and in reality don't see which way it went, show me a N/A V6 with nearly 300lb/ft of torque and I will buy one, ok they sound nicer, enjoy it as the turbo car goes flying past....
I see a good analogy between turbos and lead free soldering. EU forced manufacturers to go lead free (due to ecomentalism) which means the quality of solder these days is crap and means that whatever could have worked for 10 years will only work for 2 creating 5 times as much waste and pollution through manufacturing process. Same here, turbos will reduce co2 emissions but they be way less reliable etc.
I do love a good turbo. And you might as well get used to them and learn to love them, because in a few years they'll be the only realistic option if you want any kind of performance. I do love turbo power delivery, my current car has a low pressure turbo that apparently starts boosting before 2000rpm, but you still have to drive with the turbo in mind if you want to keep the turbo working, and the real power is still unlocked over 3500rpm with your foot flat the floor, delivered in a fairly linear fashion that should not feel unfamiliar to fans of NA engines.
I suspect many cars in the future will use these lightweight turbos as opposed to a bigger unit. I do love the mapping of some turbos that give an outrageous rush of power when they kick in, often surging all the way to the redline. Who doesn't enjoy that?
I suspect many cars in the future will use these lightweight turbos as opposed to a bigger unit. I do love the mapping of some turbos that give an outrageous rush of power when they kick in, often surging all the way to the redline. Who doesn't enjoy that?
The issues with turbocharged engines in comparison to larger N/A units, IMO are as follows:
- Noise - A larger normally aspirated engine will virtually always sound nicer than a smaller, turbocharged unit.
- Throttle response - One of my pet hates with smaller turbocharged units. There's no "lag" as such, more a distinct softness to the reactions between throttle input and engine response. This is detectable in any gear at any revs. There's not that delicious crispness you expect from a larger N/A engine.
- Flexibility - The power delivery, even of the more technologically advanced forced induction engines just don't produce their power in a pleasurable fashion IMO. Softness of response, kick in the back, out of puff, change gear and repeat. Compare that with an N/A unit which will pick up smoothly, react instantly to throttle inputs and accelerate with linearity all the way through to the redline. Some people maybe prefer the former, I personally don't.
Baryonyx said:
I do love a good turbo. And you might as well get used to them and learn to love them, because in a few years they'll be the only realistic option if you want any kind of performance. I do love turbo power delivery, my current car has a low pressure turbo that apparently starts boosting before 2000rpm, but you still have to drive with the turbo in mind if you want to keep the turbo working, and the real power is still unlocked over 3500rpm with your foot flat the floor, delivered in a fairly linear fashion that should not feel unfamiliar to fans of NA engines.
I suspect many cars in the future will use these lightweight turbos as opposed to a bigger unit. I do love the mapping of some turbos that give an outrageous rush of power when they kick in, often surging all the way to the redline. Who doesn't enjoy that?
A good NA can give you a lovely rush of power like a 911 as it steps up at 4.5k or the M3's V8 as it reaches 7k and drives for the limiter at 8.4k.I suspect many cars in the future will use these lightweight turbos as opposed to a bigger unit. I do love the mapping of some turbos that give an outrageous rush of power when they kick in, often surging all the way to the redline. Who doesn't enjoy that?
The throttle response of a highly tuned NA engine is night and day compared to a turbo car.
Sure turbos are going to be the future but a turbo cannot beat a NA engine for driving pleasure.
EDLT said:
Turbos are only the way forward because of CO2 regulations. A Corvette can still do 30mpg with a six litre V8, for example.
EFA = Road Test by the Hamster - and it was a Z06 - all 7litres of it.Go on ya Subaru diddly engine turbo with 500hp - you do that!! No? Didn't think so.
There is no substitute for cubic inches. (from someone who drives a re-mapped T5 every day)
less weight, less consumption, more power. Its only the complexity on turbo engines which means it didnt happen 20 years ago.
Remember they were only banned from F1 due to the power they gave. And its only Americans with their basic, pushrod engines who say the "replacement for displacement" nonsense
Remember they were only banned from F1 due to the power they gave. And its only Americans with their basic, pushrod engines who say the "replacement for displacement" nonsense
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff