are NA engines fun?
Discussion
Having driven a swift sport and owned a current gen fiesta st.
The swift feels slow as hell until you get in the high revs, but the sound higher up the range and the continuous smooth increase in power is very rewarding, mainly the sound for me though.
The st has lovely spooling sounds and the torque is lovely, the throttle response is actually quite quick, but as you get higher in the rev range the power dies off and it doesent feel rewarding at all, that torque shove gets boring and i miss a good engine note, shame really as the rest of the car is good.
The swift feels slow as hell until you get in the high revs, but the sound higher up the range and the continuous smooth increase in power is very rewarding, mainly the sound for me though.
The st has lovely spooling sounds and the torque is lovely, the throttle response is actually quite quick, but as you get higher in the rev range the power dies off and it doesent feel rewarding at all, that torque shove gets boring and i miss a good engine note, shame really as the rest of the car is good.
Hungrymc said:
Are there many light cars with V8 turbos ?
Quite a few Chimaera and Griff owners have gone turbo in the last 2 or 3 years, it's a fairly straightforward mod due to the exhaust manifold configuration on the car, hence not ruinously expensive either, and the results are quite spectacular 
dieseluser07 said:
Having driven a swift sport and owned a current gen fiesta st.
The swift feels slow as hell until you get in the high revs, but the sound higher up the range and the continuous smooth increase in power is very rewarding, mainly the sound for me though.
The st has lovely spooling sounds and the torque is lovely, the throttle response is actually quite quick, but as you get higher in the rev range the power dies off and it doesent feel rewarding at all, that torque shove gets boring and i miss a good engine note, shame really as the rest of the car is good.
Overall, which would you say was better? Or more fun? The swift feels slow as hell until you get in the high revs, but the sound higher up the range and the continuous smooth increase in power is very rewarding, mainly the sound for me though.
The st has lovely spooling sounds and the torque is lovely, the throttle response is actually quite quick, but as you get higher in the rev range the power dies off and it doesent feel rewarding at all, that torque shove gets boring and i miss a good engine note, shame really as the rest of the car is good.
I've just got the former due to not finding the latter and it's counterparts very interesting.
horsemeatscandal said:
dieseluser07 said:
Having driven a swift sport and owned a current gen fiesta st.
The swift feels slow as hell until you get in the high revs, but the sound higher up the range and the continuous smooth increase in power is very rewarding, mainly the sound for me though.
The st has lovely spooling sounds and the torque is lovely, the throttle response is actually quite quick, but as you get higher in the rev range the power dies off and it doesent feel rewarding at all, that torque shove gets boring and i miss a good engine note, shame really as the rest of the car is good.
Overall, which would you say was better? Or more fun? The swift feels slow as hell until you get in the high revs, but the sound higher up the range and the continuous smooth increase in power is very rewarding, mainly the sound for me though.
The st has lovely spooling sounds and the torque is lovely, the throttle response is actually quite quick, but as you get higher in the rev range the power dies off and it doesent feel rewarding at all, that torque shove gets boring and i miss a good engine note, shame really as the rest of the car is good.
I've just got the former due to not finding the latter and it's counterparts very interesting.
Hard to say tbh, as a daily driver the st is loads better, can go quick a lot easier, sometimes the sport felt like it was too much effort to go even slightly quick as its hardly a fast car but the engine noise was a lot more rewarding.
On 40 roads the swift was far more exciting due to the engine note, 50 roads and above st is better, or a good slip road the st is far better, mine has 215 bhp mountune.
dieseluser07 said:
So you had a turbo st? Now got a swift sport?
Hard to say tbh, as a daily driver the st is loads better, can go quick a lot easier, sometimes the sport felt like it was too much effort to go even slightly quick as its hardly a fast car but the engine noise was a lot more rewarding.
On 40 roads the swift was far more exciting due to the engine note, 50 roads and above st is better, or a good slip road the st is far better, mine has 215 bhp mountune.
Sorry, I have the Swift, never owned the ST but looked at similar cars (208 GTI mainly) but they didn't excite me. I went into ownership knowing it wasn't a particularly quick car so I'm not disappointed in that respect. Hard to say tbh, as a daily driver the st is loads better, can go quick a lot easier, sometimes the sport felt like it was too much effort to go even slightly quick as its hardly a fast car but the engine noise was a lot more rewarding.
On 40 roads the swift was far more exciting due to the engine note, 50 roads and above st is better, or a good slip road the st is far better, mine has 215 bhp mountune.
hman said:
I would take a large capacity v8 over a turbo in line 4 all day every day.
The difference is the noise and the instant power from the large capacity v8.
There's no replacement for displacement.
I did toy with the idea of a turbo V12 last year, but ended up with a n/a straight six instead. The difference is the noise and the instant power from the large capacity v8.
There's no replacement for displacement.
rubez said:
coming from driving turbocharged cars delivering "big power" it's hard to imagine something being as fun as shifting down a couple of gears, spooling your turbo and planting it - what would doing the same feel like in a NA engine?
what is the NA experience like in general? (both when giving the beans and normal driving)
one thing though, wouldn't miss turbos breaking down on me.. or do NA engines have their own pitfalls?
After moving on very quickly from a rather big engined CL55 to a mdest 3 litre H6 subaru I can testify that NA engines are certainly not to be scoffed at and certainly pack a punch. Probably more reliable alsowhat is the NA experience like in general? (both when giving the beans and normal driving)
one thing though, wouldn't miss turbos breaking down on me.. or do NA engines have their own pitfalls?
I used to be a pretty big fan of N/A engines until I had a E92 M3...now I prefer Turbo engines more.
It all depends on what car the engine is in, and I've found that a N/A engine in a heavier car can feel disappointing and occasionally gutless, whereas a Turbo engine does help to hide a cars weight.
It all depends on what car the engine is in, and I've found that a N/A engine in a heavier car can feel disappointing and occasionally gutless, whereas a Turbo engine does help to hide a cars weight.
Big GT said:
My daily is VAG 2.0 turbo. My mate has a BMW 5 with 2.5 straight 6.
Both have around 190bhp, mine is faster as all the shuv is low down so you can accelerate faster across power band at most speeds.
That makes as much sense as saying the BMW is faster as all the 'shuv' is high up.Both have around 190bhp, mine is faster as all the shuv is low down so you can accelerate faster across power band at most speeds.
Matthen said:
hman said:
I would take a large capacity v8 over a turbo in line 4 all day every day.
The difference is the noise and the instant power from the large capacity v8.
There's no replacement for displacement.
Yes there is, its called forced induction. If it was all about displacement, surely you would have said "I'd take a large capacity V8 over a small capacity turbo'd V8." - Comparing an I4 to a V8 is stupid, they're completely different things. What you're saying instead is I'll take a big V8 over an inline 4 with a turbo that is far too big for it, but allows it to make similar BHP figures as the big V8. I agree, so would I, as would most of the people on this forum I expect.The difference is the noise and the instant power from the large capacity v8.
There's no replacement for displacement.
Comparing two V8s, I'd take the smaller turbo unit. More lightness means better handling - far more important than bucket loads of power on the fun roads and majority of circuits in this country.
Your 4th sentence is entirely your own interpretation of what I have written - I didnt infer or indeed write anything about "with a turbo that is far too big for it, but allows it to make similar BHP figures as the big V8".
For the record an In-Line 4, and a V8 are both internal combustion engines so they are not "completely different things"...a fair example of completely different things (but still related) are gas turbines vs reciprocating internal combustion engines.
So a comparison of an in-line 4 and a v8 is merely a comparison of the different characteristics of an internal combustion engine and is, in fact, entirely relevant to this thread and not stupid at all
Try to understand that other people are allowed to have opinions which are different from yours, these are usually based on personal experiences and preferences.
Alright poppet?
hman said:
So a comparison of an in-line 4 and a v8 is merely a comparison of the different characteristics of an internal combustion engine and is, in fact, entirely relevant to this thread and not stupid at all
The main different characteristics between a V8 and an IL4 are size, weight, vibration and noise. It's entirely possible to have a large capacity IL4 that delivers plenty of power without forced induction, so Matthen is perfectly correct. Resorting to calling him "poppet" suggests you already know this however.Mr2Mike said:
The main different characteristics between a V8 and an IL4 are size, weight, vibration and noise. It's entirely possible to have a large capacity IL4 that delivers plenty of power without forced induction, so Matthen is perfectly correct. Resorting to calling him "poppet" suggests you already know this however.
Depends what you consider as plenty. More cylinders enables more displacement.Turbo engines are becoming better all the time in terms of reduced lag and how wide the powerband is. This is engineering progress in action. It just seems a shame that it's all downsizing and piped fake noise.
I can appreciate the effectiveness of this technology and I'm sure one day I'll own a turbo car, probably because all the NA ones will be old classics. My last car was an E90 330i with the N52 engine, I would imagine the the new 330i, a turbo 4 cyl, is faster and more economical. I'd wager it sounds really bland though and won't be seen in the future as anything special.
Current car is a 147GTA, another great NA engine, about as fast as a new golf GTI, if you use top end. It doesn't have as much low end torque though and does 10-15 mpg less. Makes no sense on paper. But enjoyment of driving isn't 'on paper', in reality the 3.2V6 sounds awesome, pulls from idle to over 7000 in any gear and even looks good under the bonnet.
It's just old school, not sure what to get next really.
I can appreciate the effectiveness of this technology and I'm sure one day I'll own a turbo car, probably because all the NA ones will be old classics. My last car was an E90 330i with the N52 engine, I would imagine the the new 330i, a turbo 4 cyl, is faster and more economical. I'd wager it sounds really bland though and won't be seen in the future as anything special.
Current car is a 147GTA, another great NA engine, about as fast as a new golf GTI, if you use top end. It doesn't have as much low end torque though and does 10-15 mpg less. Makes no sense on paper. But enjoyment of driving isn't 'on paper', in reality the 3.2V6 sounds awesome, pulls from idle to over 7000 in any gear and even looks good under the bonnet.
It's just old school, not sure what to get next really.
rubez said:
coming from driving turbocharged cars delivering "big power" it's hard to imagine something being as fun as shifting down a couple of gears, spooling your turbo and planting it - what would doing the same feel like in a NA engine?
what is the NA experience like in general? (both when giving the beans and normal driving)
one thing though, wouldn't miss turbos breaking down on me.. or do NA engines have their own pitfalls?
you cannot, in any imaginable way, replicate the fun of NA with any form of forced induction.what is the NA experience like in general? (both when giving the beans and normal driving)
one thing though, wouldn't miss turbos breaking down on me.. or do NA engines have their own pitfalls?
In the current fleet is a 510hp 5.0v8 supercharged and an old e39 m5.
The M5, whilst undoubtedbly slower, has a much more natural (pun) feel to it. It feels much more responsive. Previously to the xkr I had a 7.0 v8, again NA and that too felt much more responsive. I've had turbo's, I've had SC, every time I would take NA as a good set up is hard to beat. Sure if I was working in the small leagues of engines then FI would be beneficial but f
k me, its as boring as driving a diesel.I just returned from Germany on Friday, the old M5 never missed a beat and spanked its arse right up to well in excess of 170 on the autobhans and never felt out of puff. Likewise the vette would work hard right to its top speed. Instant throttle, the jags throttle is instant but feels softer, probably due to software smoothing (the e39 is also fly by wire). You simply cannot beat the feel of a sorted NA engine. I think the most rewarding was the s2000 I had, now that was something special.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff