The demise of the Naturaly Aspriated engines?

The demise of the Naturaly Aspriated engines?

Author
Discussion

Huff

3,174 posts

193 months

Saturday 11th June 2011
quotequote all
The post above about Range Rovers rocking when you blip the throttle - that's exactly what large displacement NA engines are about. Instant low-down urge. Tickle the throttle and get direct, solid muscular off-idle lurch forward; and 6/8/12cylinder sound. Love it.

I also love small -displacement high-revving NA screamers, for the tactile sensation of working it, and the utterly instant response. So guess what, I have one of each wink

I've had turbo cars and the fears for turbo longevity are misplaced. My last one went way past 200K even after some substantial remapping. But as a route to 'enough power /with economy' it really is a one-trick pony, rather dull at that (regardless of make: demand power ..oh here it comes...and poorly modulated) and I will not have another if I can avoid.




(I would settle for a belt-driven blower on a large displacement engine tho')




TotalControl

8,121 posts

200 months

Sunday 12th June 2011
quotequote all
ChiChoAndy said:
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.
I'd say that you have to work a turbo car more than an NA car, purely because of lag. My mr2 Turbo, with 18 psi was pretty gash off boost, but great on it, whereas the 3.5 v6 in the G35 was much more usable in any gear. The NA with around the same HP was much lazier than the turbo.
Funny you say that as I found a Rev 2 Tubby really easy work to get up to speeds. Drove an NA and found it much more enjoyable around the twisties as I could rev the nuts off of it.

ChiChoAndy

73,668 posts

257 months

Sunday 12th June 2011
quotequote all
Just goes to show that there is no engine better than another, simply personal preference.

scorchio

234 posts

171 months

Sunday 12th June 2011
quotequote all
time to get used to it guys an welcome the future, stop living in the past with big capacity N/A engines. I know where you are all coming from and if you told me when i had my tuned r32 gtr that in years to come i would have bought a twin charged 180 bhp 1.4 polo gti i would have pissed myself laughing, but guess what i have.

Diesel style economy when driving like a granny, but with esp off and in manual mode it goes very well and sounds very cool, I love the mechanical noise of vtec but cant be arsed with constantly having to rev the nuts off them to get them going, god its like having tons of turbo lag. For me i love the noise of turbocharged engines and always will

r1ch

2,883 posts

198 months

Sunday 12th June 2011
quotequote all
I think turbo'd cars are really popular with non petrol heads and therefore quite sellable. I have a few friends who have various TDI's and are convinced they are the fastest things on the road just due to the sudden rush of power. (for 2k rpm yawn)

I can't see turbo's being the be all and end all in petrol engined cars. I think a nice n/a engine is more rewarding to drive than a turbo'd car. But each to their own.

ChiChoAndy

73,668 posts

257 months

Sunday 12th June 2011
quotequote all
"Popular with non-petrol heads"... OK... If you say so. Porsche Turbo's, Supras, Imprezas, evo's, etc. I wouldn't consign turbos to the non-petrolhead stable quite yet.

otolith

56,611 posts

206 months

Sunday 12th June 2011
quotequote all
For me, the biggest issue is that reducing the capacity and turbocharging is accompanied by reducing the number of cylinders and lowering the rev limit. I find low revving four pots very uninteresting.

scorchio

234 posts

171 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
not at all otolith, the b16a2 honda vtec engine can and does quite easily rev to 8500rpm. Rev limits are governed by size and how its engineered, just look at bike engines 16-17,000 rpm and they are small capoacity, but look the other way and really big engines all usually diesels have a usual max rev limit of 2500rpm, christ i have worked on EMD locomotive engines V16 turbos that flat out will only rev to 900rpm but when you see one of these goliaths at 900rpm even thats scary

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

192 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
nixon1905 said:
More recently on Piston heads there has been alot of support for the large capacity naturally aspriated engines but very little support for the smaller capacity turbos. I just dont see the reason for this?
At the present time with alot of investment going into alternate technologies and less and less new and useful ideas going into the oil industry it is clear to see that petrol prices are only ever going to carry on rising, with this in mind it seems that if the gasoline engine is to last it needs to become more efficient.
Ok, so when hasn't this been the case?

--Never? idea


nixon1905 said:
Therefore 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!
Surley anyone buying a large naturally asirated engine at this point in time is probably making a very bad decision (unless of course you have money to burn, both through petrol and depreciation).

Anyone agree that turbos are the only way forward?

I give it 5 years before ferrari's and the like have turbos!
Ummm think I'd still take n/a given how a turbo charged Focus ST makes 100-130hp less than my car, weighs a bit less and still see's the same mpg.

otolith

56,611 posts

206 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
Scorchio, I know small engines can be high revving, I've owned a Type-R, the point is that downsizing is being accompanied by "downspeeding" to reduce frictional losses. So you end up with low revving turbo fours, which are boring.

Robatr0n

12,362 posts

218 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
gr88 said:
turbo's only last 60,000 miles
rofl

J4CKO

41,788 posts

202 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
Wills2 said:
Quite a few NA Flat 6 engines would show your Saab a clean pair of heels and give you over 300lb/ft.
Yes, but they need 3.8 litres to do it and cost 80 grand plus, even then to do it properly a turbo is still involved.

J4CKO

41,788 posts

202 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
jbi said:
You need to try a large capacity N/A V8 then wink
I was thinking, most of the stuff I can afford to run really !

Even then, most standard 4.0 V8's dont produce much more than 300 lb/ft, mine is reampped to get that but then thats the beauty of Turbo's, being able to tune them, that said a V8 is always the aim, totally different feel and no being off boost, turbo is always the budget option for getting more power but the real optimal solution would be a V8 with a pair of turbo's, best of both worlds !

300bhp/ton

41,030 posts

192 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
jbi said:
You need to try a large capacity N/A V8 then wink
I was thinking, most of the stuff I can afford to run really !

Even then, most standard 4.0 V8's dont produce much more than 300 lb/ft, mine is reampped to get that but then thats the beauty of Turbo's, being able to tune them, that said a V8 is always the aim, totally different feel and no being off boost, turbo is always the budget option for getting more power but the real optimal solution would be a V8 with a pair of turbo's, best of both worlds !
Despite some similar PEAK numbers, they can feel and drive very different.


RGambo

850 posts

171 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
gizlaroc said:
nixon1905 said:
Anyone agree that turbos are the only way forward?
From an industry point of view trying to grab the politically correct figures yeah, from a drivers point of view no way, turbos are crap!

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.

Turbos are fine for daily drivers and suit cars with an auto 'box, but I would prefer a NA engine in anything remotely 'sporty'.

I bought a 335i and after a month was bored, got it tuned and it was seriously quick, around 4.7 seconds to 60mph every time, however a couple of weeks later I was bored, then was leant a 330i for a couple of days and although far slower it was just so much more fun, so I sold it and bought another M3.

Don't get me wrong, the 335i was a technical masterpiece but it was a Autobahn Mile Muncher, one of the best Autobahn Mile Munchers out there, but nothing more than that imho.

Same with the RS6, B5 RS4, initally they are thrilling, but once you are used to that throttle and go jolt in the back what are you left with? Not a lot.

Golf GTi vs R32? I think the delivery of the R32 certainly keeps you entertained far longer.

911Turbo vs C2s? I would take the C2s every time.

I managed to get 38mpg over 2 days and 498 miles in that 330i, it is 272bhp and gets you to 60mph in 6 seconds which isn't too shabby at all, so I feel turbos are the easy way out to get the fuel economy figures, if they want to get the NA engines showing the figures needed I believe they can, just might be a bit more work.
I never found my RS6 boring, niether is my 135. My subaru sti, mitsubishi tommi Makkenen, all good fun cars to drive. Yes they don't have the crisp throttle response of an e46 M3 or my VX powered Caterham, but boring, no. You get used to the little bit of throttle lag and drive to it.

RobM77

35,349 posts

236 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
In response to the OP:

nixon1905 said:
More recently on Piston heads there has been alot of support for the large capacity naturally aspriated engines but very little support for the smaller capacity turbos. I just dont see the reason for this?
At the present time with alot of investment going into alternate technologies and less and less new and useful ideas going into the oil industry it is clear to see that petrol prices are only ever going to carry on rising, with this in mind it seems that if the gasoline engine is to last it needs to become more efficient. Therefore 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!
Surley anyone buying a large naturally asirated engine at this point in time is probably making a very bad decision (unless of course you have money to burn, both through petrol and depreciation).

Anyone agree that turbos are the only way forward?

I give it 5 years before ferrari's and the like have turbos!
The reason for the lack of support is that generally, normally aspirated engines result in cars that are much better to drive. Even the very best turbocharged engines (the 135i/335i engine for example) don't have as good a throttle response or the endearing characteristics of a normally aspirated equivalent (330i N52 engine). I'd actually rather take the option with 30bhp less and have an engine that I prefer.

The fact that turbos are seen as the only way forward is something entirely different, and that's a legislative issue. I say "seen as" because I'm sure there are other ways round the problem, but that they won't be followed because the average Joe doesn't care abou throttle response or engine characteristics, and cars are made for the average Joe.

jbi

12,682 posts

206 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
I was thinking, most of the stuff I can afford to run really !

Even then, most standard 4.0 V8's dont produce much more than 300 lb/ft,
a 4.0 Litre V8 isn't a large capacity V8

this is smile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tNj7HG5Ow4

and of course the sound wink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIlJNzSXUZk&fea...


Edited by jbi on Monday 13th June 16:17

youngsyr

14,742 posts

194 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
Wills2 said:
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.

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.

That last sentence is total balls in my opinion. The amount of low rpm torque that hi-powered turbo cars produce takes a different set of skills to master compared to an N/A car for sure, but that gives driving pleasure in its own right.

As others have said, there are pros and cons to both:

Turbo:

+ bags of torque lower in the rpm band tend to make for a faster accelerating car peak bhp for peak bhp
+ smaller/lighter engine bhp/bhp
+ very easy to get more power from by modifying

+/- all sorts of additional noises from engine bay (suction through air filter, turbine whine, blow off valve, anti-lag launch control)
+/- spit flames from exhaust

- exhaust sounds relatively flat (except Subarus)
- more components to go wrong
- more complex set up
- turbo lag/boost threshold
- reduced throttle response

For N/A reverse the above.


RWD cossie wil

4,324 posts

175 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
Why does everything on PH end up as XXX vs YYY? Can people not appreciate the joy of each different sort of engine? There is NOTHING like the hit of a well tuned turbo engine, the power is just brutal, but a beautifully set up N/A engine is fantastic fun to use as well. Who can say they wouldn't like an F40 & a 430?

A true petrol head can appreciate any good engine!

weyland yutani

1,410 posts

166 months

Monday 13th June 2011
quotequote all
Agreed, as long as it goes like stink and sounds nice I dont care if it's FI or NA.