are NA engines fun?
Discussion
My 1995 Toyota Celica GT-FOUR is a joy to drive. Turbo that makes all the right noises and unlike modern turbos all the power is up the top end so is similar in feel. Absolute nothing below 3k rpm so you have to have your wits about you when driving it and stirring the stick is mandatory. I love a N/A just like the next man especially high revving ones but each engine has its pros and cons. My Saab Turbo 4 pot isn't the most fun thing if I was being honest and is complete opposite to my Celica but as a day to day engine it is in a different league for practicality and ease of use. Something an N/A of similar displacement can not match.
ITP said:
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.
Both lovely engines I think but very outdated and that's either a plus or minus depending on what you want from an engine. 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 enjoyed the N/A engines in my Cerbera 4.5/X5 4.8is because they both offered reasonable torque as well as bhp, yet I didn't really enjoy the N/A engines as much in my E90 330i/E92 M3 because they're torque light.
So that probably explains overall why I prefer a turbo engine to a N/A engine because you get both decent bhp and torque, and I find having to thrash an engine to get its performance is not always ideal and I prefer to have the performance on tap.
My ideal would be a car that's really light but also has plenty of bhp/torque.
cerb4.5lee said:
ITP said:
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.
Both lovely engines I think but very outdated and that's either a plus or minus depending on what you want from an engine. 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 enjoyed the N/A engines in my Cerbera 4.5/X5 4.8is because they both offered reasonable torque as well as bhp, yet I didn't really enjoy the N/A engines as much in my E90 330i/E92 M3 because they're torque light.
So that probably explains overall why I prefer a turbo engine to a N/A engine because you get both decent bhp and torque, and I find having to thrash an engine to get its performance is not always ideal and I prefer to have the performance on tap.
My ideal would be a car that's really light but also has plenty of bhp/torque.
Never had more than four cylinders so i cannot say about the bigger displacement engines.
My old Astre Gte's had the lovely 2.0 litre Xe unit's in them , more commonly known as the Redtop's. They were fantastic torquey and punchy , very nice sounding and even a decent return on fuel.
I have owned Honda Type r's with the Ka20 vtec engine which are great engines , albeit lacking in lower down grunt they are revvy and sound good.
Our Evoque has the 2.2 litre turbo diesel which is certainly not lacking in torque. Ive been in n/a cars fitted with throttle bodies and they are really nice.
My old Astre Gte's had the lovely 2.0 litre Xe unit's in them , more commonly known as the Redtop's. They were fantastic torquey and punchy , very nice sounding and even a decent return on fuel.
I have owned Honda Type r's with the Ka20 vtec engine which are great engines , albeit lacking in lower down grunt they are revvy and sound good.
Our Evoque has the 2.2 litre turbo diesel which is certainly not lacking in torque. Ive been in n/a cars fitted with throttle bodies and they are really nice.
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.
Which version of SSS did you drive? The mk1 sounds even better stock than a stock mk2 but it's only due to the increased amount of sound insulation and quieter stock exhaust on the latter which are easily addressed.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.
It was the sound that put me off the ST but the next version with 3 cylinders might put that right albeit with some fakery going on (booooo). Can't imagine they'll be able to give it a peaky top end though.
Lag on turbo engines may one day be totally iradicated by electrically assisted turbos which will also work to replace the alternator and make the car even more efficient. It could be an awesome bit of kit but I fear the development of this may get canned given most of the R&D investments now being diverted to electric vehicle technology.
Mr2Mike said:
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.
traffman said:
Never had more than four cylinders so i cannot say about the bigger displacement engines.
My old Astre Gte's had the lovely 2.0 litre Xe unit's in them , more commonly known as the Redtop's. They were fantastic torquey and punchy , very nice sounding and even a decent return on fuel.
I have owned Honda Type r's with the Ka20 vtec engine which are great engines , albeit lacking in lower down grunt they are revvy and sound good.
Our Evoque has the 2.2 litre turbo diesel which is certainly not lacking in torque. Ive been in n/a cars fitted with throttle bodies and they are really nice.
I used to work for a team in the Formula Opel Euroseries, where we ran a 'blueprinted' red top in a simple, single seater chassis. As you say, great engines and a reliable 180 - 190 brake I think? (terrible memory due to advancing years) I had one in an RS2000 Escort for a while too. Personally I really like 16V inline 4's and especially in light cars like the Escort or E30 BMW's. I do think they demand a driving style that many just don't appreciate though. I've taken people out in my M3 and they were amazed an engine would rev past 5 or 6k and would have changed gear before things really got going. I know the e39 M5's V8 is an excellent and powerful engine but it's character just doesn't do it for me. It's got plenty of low down grunt but feels a bit lazy and unresponsive? The later s62 though, now that seems to be the best of both worlds. I've not driven many V8's that will rev like that. My old Astre Gte's had the lovely 2.0 litre Xe unit's in them , more commonly known as the Redtop's. They were fantastic torquey and punchy , very nice sounding and even a decent return on fuel.
I have owned Honda Type r's with the Ka20 vtec engine which are great engines , albeit lacking in lower down grunt they are revvy and sound good.
Our Evoque has the 2.2 litre turbo diesel which is certainly not lacking in torque. Ive been in n/a cars fitted with throttle bodies and they are really nice.
HedgeyGedgey said:
It's the area under the dyno graph that makes a fast road car. Turbo vs supercharge, turbo will be quicker on the road due to the surge in torque once the turbo spools. Same with NA and turbo
You are right about the area under the curve, but I have no idea why you think a turbo will be faster than a supercharged car.If there is a "surge in torque once the turbo spools" it means there is less torque before then, while a supercharger will already be producing boost at that point.
e21Mark said:
I used to work for a team in the Formula Opel Euroseries, where we ran a 'blueprinted' red top in a simple, single seater chassis. As you say, great engines and a reliable 180 - 190 brake I think? (terrible memory due to advancing years) I had one in an RS2000 Escort for a while too. Personally I really like 16V inline 4's and especially in light cars like the Escort or E30 BMW's. I do think they demand a driving style that many just don't appreciate though. I've taken people out in my M3 and they were amazed an engine would rev past 5 or 6k and would have changed gear before things really got going. I know the e39 M5's V8 is an excellent and powerful engine but it's character just doesn't do it for me. It's got plenty of low down grunt but feels a bit lazy and unresponsive? The later s62 though, now that seems to be the best of both worlds. I've not driven many V8's that will rev like that.
S65? The S62 is in the M5, the M3 got the S65 e21Mark said:
I know the e39 M5's V8 is an excellent and powerful engine but it's character just doesn't do it for me. It's got plenty of low down grunt but feels a bit lazy and unresponsive?
Wouldn't call it lazy and unresponsive, loads of torque down low then it all goes a bit bonkers above about 3.5k.chris116 said:
e21Mark said:
I know the e39 M5's V8 is an excellent and powerful engine but it's character just doesn't do it for me. It's got plenty of low down grunt but feels a bit lazy and unresponsive?
Wouldn't call it lazy and unresponsive, loads of torque down low then it all goes a bit bonkers above about 3.5k.TheAngryDog said:
e21Mark said:
I used to work for a team in the Formula Opel Euroseries, where we ran a 'blueprinted' red top in a simple, single seater chassis. As you say, great engines and a reliable 180 - 190 brake I think? (terrible memory due to advancing years) I had one in an RS2000 Escort for a while too. Personally I really like 16V inline 4's and especially in light cars like the Escort or E30 BMW's. I do think they demand a driving style that many just don't appreciate though. I've taken people out in my M3 and they were amazed an engine would rev past 5 or 6k and would have changed gear before things really got going. I know the e39 M5's V8 is an excellent and powerful engine but it's character just doesn't do it for me. It's got plenty of low down grunt but feels a bit lazy and unresponsive? The later s62 though, now that seems to be the best of both worlds. I've not driven many V8's that will rev like that.
S65? The S62 is in the M5, the M3 got the S65 
) I am NOT slagging the earlier version off, as I know it's an excellent engine, but simply saying my own preference is for the later engine, which was more like the V10. I'm not criticising either though, or the cars they were in. Added to which it's just my opinion, nothing more. N/A all the way for me.
Turbos can have great character though.
Reading the above comment about 16V BMW E30s reminded me of my E30 318is.
Not much torque agreed, but rev match those gears at the top end and it really was rewarding and fun. It really is a lost skill/art of driving.Even sounded decent with a jetex filter all through the rev range.
Six or eight cylinder N/A engines can still make me go weak at the knees...
I
Turbos can have great character though.
Reading the above comment about 16V BMW E30s reminded me of my E30 318is.
Not much torque agreed, but rev match those gears at the top end and it really was rewarding and fun. It really is a lost skill/art of driving.Even sounded decent with a jetex filter all through the rev range.
Six or eight cylinder N/A engines can still make me go weak at the knees...
I
I bought a 330I over a 335I because I much prefer NA. In silky smooth N52 format it doesn't get much better. I always enjoyed the progressive nature and response of NA engines.
Turbos are also great. The shove in the back can be fun, but I find myself getting accustomed to it much easier than a NA.
I guess in an NA you drive c. 3K rpm 95% of the time, so when you extract the next 4k it's a nice experience. With a turbos especially modern ones you are already well into peak torque by 3K rpm thus extracting the next 4K isn't much of an experience. It of courses differs from engine to engine but this has been my experience.
Turbos are also great. The shove in the back can be fun, but I find myself getting accustomed to it much easier than a NA.
I guess in an NA you drive c. 3K rpm 95% of the time, so when you extract the next 4k it's a nice experience. With a turbos especially modern ones you are already well into peak torque by 3K rpm thus extracting the next 4K isn't much of an experience. It of courses differs from engine to engine but this has been my experience.
Harrison-91xcg said:
I bought a 330I over a 335I because I much prefer NA. In silky smooth N52 format it doesn't get much better. I always enjoyed the progressive nature and response of NA engines.
The N52 is a lovely smooth engine but I would prefer the 335i because it's much quicker out of the box yet has lots of tuning potential too, plus it returns similar mpg to the 330i. I find the N52 pretty outdated when it comes to performance/economy, it is nice and free revving though, bmw still make the 335i engine and have ditched the N52, so that tells you all you need to know really about how unsuccessful it was as an engine for them.
jako1 said:
PH XKR said:
Diesel + loves to rev = does not compute
Get in a big diesel and let me know if you run out of puff near the redline.....Obviously different redlines to petrol, which isn't as manic.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff