Turbo vs Naturally Aspirated - which feels quicker?

[Shominy]

So, forced induction or naturally aspirated. What I want to know is which is going to feel quicker around town, and which is going to be more fun to drive.

I won't have to make a decision about my next vehicle for at least another year as I currently lease a Seat Ibiza 1.2 TSI 108bhp but I am interested to know people's thoughts around which are more engaging and feel quicker to drive on mostly non-DC roads.

Previous to the Ibiza I drove a boggo Suzuki Swift which generated 90bhp, had less torque, a slower 0-60 than the Ibiza but to me felt quicker. When I wanted to have a bit of fun I did tend to rev it up to red line which is completely different to the Ibiza where there's some turbo lag when you plant your foot but then all it's power comes from around 2000rpm. It's quicker but doesn't really feel it. The Ibiza just seems to run out of steam after a few seconds of having your foot planted whereas the Swift is happily screaming away having a lovely old time at 6000rpm+.

I'm already looking at what my next car will be (I never stop looking really), and though a cheap lease appeals as I enjoy the tech and the hassle free aspect of it, you can't be selective if you want a good deal and everything is turbocharged. The other option is something NA but slightly older. Suzuki Swift Sport seems a reasonable choice as something with reasonable power, enough to have a blast but not get to silly speeds, if not that then a step further and go for a Civic Type R. How much faster is the CTR going to feel than a SSS. I've never driven anything remotely quick so would like advice from someone that has drive these kinds of cars. I am not looking for an M3, RS4 etc, just something with a bit of power that I could have a quick blast with.

[J4CKO]

Turbos generally feel quicker, had a Saab 9-3 LPT with 150 bhp and tried the 140 bhp non turbo, it felt flat as a fart in comparison, capacity for capacity turbos are generally nicer to drive due to the additional torque.

very complex equation though.

[thatdude]

I like NA engines; the more "instant" throttle response appeals to me, plus the sound from the engine sounds much better / less muted. That being said, a high performance turbocharged engine is still very impressive. Turbos in modern cars provide low down power and torque, making it feel faster over the whole rev range. An NA car needs to be worked, and for me that's 80% of the fun. Old school turbocharged cars needed to be wound up a bit to get the turbo coming on.

[culpz]

If we're talking two cars which are fairly similar in size, weight, class, etc, then i reckon the turbo model will generally feel quicker, most of the time. That's simply due to it's power-delivery and giving the torque and power much lower down in the rev range.

[Bdevo3]

Laggy turbo cars will feel quicker because of the surge when it comes on boost

[FurtiveFreddy]

There is no replacement for displacement

[a7x88]

I've just swapped from a 400bhp turbo 4pot to a 435bhp 5.2 N/A V10.

The instant throttle response is far better in the NA so immediately it feels quicker. However it's so linear in power delivery that although being similar in the performance stakes it feels a fair bit slower than the turbo when running through the rev range.

I think the way the power was delivered in the turbo car was far more dramatic and sudden so it felt quicker. You seem to notice the rate of change of acceleration more than the acceleration itself

[luckystrike]

There are good and bad examples of both. A modern emissions-spec downsized engine with a weeny turbo will have fairly broad torque but will run out of puff at the top and likely feel pretty flat, but an older ‘performance’ turbo will have some lag then shove. A small revvy n/a will feel ace near the limiter, but might feel gutless lower down. Similarly an older n/a shopping engine might just feel a bit pants all over. It’s horses for courses and there’s a lot to be said for all methods of induction.

Now go buy a supercharged r53 Cooper s.

[stargazer30]

Having gone Focus ST (225 turbo) to Civic Type R (198 NA) to Fiesta ST (200 turbo) I can safely say the turbo car will "feel" quicker. You "feel" torque and turbos have more of it given the same approx. BHP of the engines. Also for round town you tend to use more in gear acceleration and mid/low revs torque which again is where turbos win.

The trade offs of course are things like, lag/boost, breaking traction easier, elastic throttle effect... As much as my Fez ST goes like a scolded cat I do miss the super silky smooth linear delivery my Type R had.

EDIT - as long as its not a diesel turbo. You don't want one of those. Nasty, smelly, soot chuckers. If you buy a diesel you will die, and you will go straight to hell.

Edited by stargazer30 on Tuesday 5th December 14:18

[Shominy]

a7x88 said:

I think the way the power was delivered in the turbo car was far more dramatic and sudden so it felt quicker. You seem to notice the rate of change of acceleration more than the acceleration itself

I think that's what it is. I'll regularly plant my foot in 2nd gear and go nowhere for about 1-2 seconds and then all of a sudden it feels like I'm moving pretty quickly but really it's only because there was no power at all before the turbo kicked in.

What is the difference in fun/feel of speed going to be between a SSS and a CTR. I'm talking about the 123bhp SSS and the FN2 CTR?

[RobM77]

I always found that turbos felt faster, but I much prefer the response of a naturally aspirated car. Nowadays though we have to taken into account the drive by wire throttle delay as well, which is a non-starter for me if a car has it. Plus, modern turbocharged cars often don't feel especially turbocharged in a way that a Noble or older 911 Turbo did. As a result of that, I'd drive the car and decide on a case by case basis.

[stargazer30]

Shominy said:

What is the difference in fun/feel of speed going to be between a SSS and a CTR. I'm talking about the 123bhp SSS and the FN2 CTR?

Well I can compare an FN2 type R to a MK3 MR2 which is 138bhp and slightly lighter than a SSS, leaving out the whole mid engine/RWD part. The type R will feel faster but not massively quicker. Just quicker. Plus it will rev better top end. The SSS will feel more chuckable as the FN2 is still pretty heavy at about 1400kg with driver and fuel. Just watch out as if you do lots of round town driving the FN2 will not be in its best place. It doesn't have suspension as standard (or its made of concrete) and it will drink on urban only cycle (expect 23mpg).

[TheAngryDog]

Supercharging fills the gap between N/A and Turbo. My E55 feels like a very fast N/A due to the supercharger working away.

[HustleRussell]

Turbos not only 'feel' faster to the untrained bum, they generally are faster if you compare like-for-like (bhp, displacement, fuel consumption etc, choose whichever metric you prefer). Area under the curve. That doesn't stop me preferring nat asp though.

[RobM77]

stargazer30 said:

Shominy said:

What is the difference in fun/feel of speed going to be between a SSS and a CTR. I'm talking about the 123bhp SSS and the FN2 CTR?

Well I can compare an FN2 type R to a MK3 MR2 which is 138bhp and slightly lighter than a SSS, leaving out the whole mid engine/RWD part. The type R will feel faster but not massively quicker. Just quicker. Plus it will rev better top end. The SSS will feel more chuckable as the FN2 is still pretty heavy at about 1400kg with driver and fuel. Just watch out as if you do lots of round town driving the FN2 will not be in its best place. It doesn't have suspension as standard (or its made of concrete) and it will drink on urban only cycle (expect 23mpg).

My wife is a GP, so does lots of local driving in her FN2 CTR, and she barely touches 30mpg. The engine is glorious though and I just love revving it up into the VTEC zone. The suspension is indeed very jiggly, although I suspect the dampers are a bit worn now, so we've got super hard springs and less than ideal damping. The handling is very good, and yes, the engine is wonderful, but for me the whole driving experience is dominated by how over-sensitive all the controls are - that's fine in a Caterham when you've got control weighting to push against, but the CTR's controls are very light, so I find that driving it is a constant struggle and I'm always relieved to get into one of my cars and relax a bit at the controls!

[IIIRestorerIII]

I enjoyed my twin turbo MKIV Supra to the E46 M3 as the power seemed to come on much earlier in the rev range. This meant I could enjoy the power even at town speeds without the car screaming 6k revs everywhere.

[S9JTO]

Shominy said:

I think that's what it is. I'll regularly plant my foot in 2nd gear and go nowhere for about 1-2 seconds and then all of a sudden it feels like I'm moving pretty quickly but really it's only because there was no power at all before the turbo kicked in.

I used to own a 1.2TSI Ibiza FR, it was my first turbo car, coming from my Dad's 1.6 NA Astra, it felt rapid. Maybe you just need to adjust your driving style to make the most out of the low down torque and power band. I have since upgraded to the 1.8TSI Cupra and it's a similar story, just more so. Picks up at 2.5k, dies at 4.5k

[HappyMidget]

FurtiveFreddy said:

There is no replacement for displacement

And a PD supercharger sat in the vee

[cerb4.5lee]

I think it depends on the engine and I really liked the N/A engines in my V8 Cerbera and V8 X5, yet I didn't like the N/A engines in my Z4M/E92 M3/330i anywhere near as much, because max power was right at the top of the revs and they're not torque rich engines.

I'm definitely a Turbo fan more because I like the near instant punch/feel of a Turbo, and I'm not that keen on waiting for an engine that only comes to life at 6k revs...I would absolutely hate the N/A VTEC engines in the S2000/NSX etc for example.

[Shominy]

S9JTO said:

I used to own a 1.2TSI Ibiza FR, it was my first turbo car, coming from my Dad's 1.6 NA Astra, it felt rapid. Maybe you just need to adjust your driving style to make the most out of the low down torque and power band. I have since upgraded to the 1.8TSI Cupra and it's a similar story, just more so. Picks up at 2.5k, dies at 4.5k

I suppose I am doing it a disservice as it definitely doesn't feel slow. The initial burst of speed is satisfying but you can't wind it up like you can in a NA, after a couple of seconds it's shouting for a gear change. It just doesn't seem as eager to be driven hard. In essence I just want something that feels quicker than the Ibiza, is measurably quicker, and can be driven hard without getting to stupid speeds. SSS fits the bill? Anything that would tick the boxes but is a bit bigger?