Higher Displacement or Turbo?
Discussion
An old question this one, and one which always divides opinion.
I've had a few of each, so I've formed my own view on things.
N/A engines are lovely for their honest, up front purist feel. No waiting for the turbos to spool up, no running out of puff at the top of a power band, just nice instant response. A bigger displacement engine will feel more effortless, a nicer relaxed cruiser and far more likeable at speed.
A smaller turbo will generally sound flatter, it will be more revvy and unrefined at speed. For compasison purposes drive an Evo 10 FQ-400 and then a comparable C63 AMG and you'll see what I mean.
2.0 Turbo 4 cyliner vs 6.2 V8 32v, at higher speed cruising they are night and day.
On overtaking its nice to have that extra lump of torque a turbo provides is very nice. Turbo lag isn't.
On track a N/A will be offer more instant throttle response. For tuning puposes, you simply cannot a turbocharged set-up.
It depends on what you are after I suppose.
I've had a few of each, so I've formed my own view on things.
N/A engines are lovely for their honest, up front purist feel. No waiting for the turbos to spool up, no running out of puff at the top of a power band, just nice instant response. A bigger displacement engine will feel more effortless, a nicer relaxed cruiser and far more likeable at speed.
A smaller turbo will generally sound flatter, it will be more revvy and unrefined at speed. For compasison purposes drive an Evo 10 FQ-400 and then a comparable C63 AMG and you'll see what I mean.
2.0 Turbo 4 cyliner vs 6.2 V8 32v, at higher speed cruising they are night and day.
On overtaking its nice to have that extra lump of torque a turbo provides is very nice. Turbo lag isn't.
On track a N/A will be offer more instant throttle response. For tuning puposes, you simply cannot a turbocharged set-up.
It depends on what you are after I suppose.
Large displacement all the way, that way you can have the power (think around 400bhp out of a 5.7litre, with similar torque) without having to have a rev happy smaller engine or the extra under bonnet heat and complexity of a turbo. If I had to go forced induction it would be a large capacity V8 with a supercharger, I'm not a fan of turbo chargers if I am honest.
mattmoxon said:
Large displacement all the way, that way you can have the power (think around 400bhp out of a 5.7litre, with similar torque) without having to have a rev happy smaller engine or the extra under bonnet heat and complexity of a turbo. If I had to go forced induction it would be a large capacity V8 with a supercharger, I'm not a fan of turbo chargers if I am honest.
So to avoid the "complexity" of a turbo, you'd take a supercharger. 
Depends on the car but I do prefer 'big cubes'
A nice big lump making its own power without anything added.
Ls1 in my old monaro, best engine I've ever driven, so flexible. Who needs 'turbo torque' when you have 'na torque' from tickover!
I would love to experience an ls7 and hopefully one day I will own a vette z06.
A nice big lump making its own power without anything added.
Ls1 in my old monaro, best engine I've ever driven, so flexible. Who needs 'turbo torque' when you have 'na torque' from tickover!
I would love to experience an ls7 and hopefully one day I will own a vette z06.
I am liking the N/A 3.0 in my 944 vs the Saab Aero engine of the same power in my old Saab, Saab was remapped which gave it 40 bhp more but still prefer the large capacity N/A, linear response, no step in power, sounds better. Thats said I drove a Clio 182 and it felt anaemic low down and didnt seem to be that powerful once wound up and went back to a turbo Saab. Think the key is large capacity and torque, hence the love of all things V8.
robmlufc said:
There's no replacement for displacement.
Except adding a turbo, or a super charger, or making the engine breath better with changes to valvetrain/ports/inlet/exhaust, or reducing it's internal friction to increase power (while also reducing fuel use), or reducing vehicle mass, or using more gears, or increasing the redline and using lower gearing, or reducing crank windage, or reducing rotating inertia, or using lighter pistons, or using shorter stroke and bigger bore, or using longer stroke and a smaller bore, or using more pistons of a smaller capacity, or using your capacity in a wankel instead of a piston engine, or using HCCI, or reducing valve stem diameter, or removing catalysts, or increasing the compression ratio and using higher octane fuel, or by cooling the charge air, or by basically applying engineering to your engine. Just because it rhymes doesn't make it true, your cliche is a pile of poo.
If were taking vehicle performance, and I assume we are because no one gets off on torque curves that much, then there becomes a point where sticky tyres are more useful than a bigger engine, and also a point where more engine makes the car slower, because you're adding inertia.
So maybe "there is no replacement for optimal displacement at a given technology level".
this is still pretty revvy for a pushrod engine.
enter the ls7..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6EiNFiLhV0
enjoy
enter the ls7..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6EiNFiLhV0
enjoy
t 
Ideally higher displacement. However turbocharging can have its own character, I personally quite like the way a turbocharged engine delivers its power.
ETA: also, turbocharging seems to suit AWD more than 2WD in my experience. Quite liked it in RWD but I dont really like it in FWD cars much.
ETA: also, turbocharging seems to suit AWD more than 2WD in my experience. Quite liked it in RWD but I dont really like it in FWD cars much.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff