are NA engines fun?

[tankplanker]

I have a 954 Fireblade engine in my Indy, it'll rev quite happily to 12k but has just enough torque to pull the skin off a rice pudding if going down hill. I love driving it as you have to work hard to keep the car in its peak power band (about 9.5k to 12k), it makes a glorious noise for an inline 4 (at least to me), and the response to the throttle pedal is immediate.

I also have a Golf R, it has far more torque and a far wider power band that is accessible considerably lower in the rev range.I love driving this because it isn't hard work to drive quickly, but it doesn't sound anywhere as nice as the Indy and the throttle response is like treacle in comparison to the Indy. That is not to say that the Golf has poor throttle response, it is far better than my XC90 for example, it is just not as good as the best examples.

[MFR_TT]

I enjoyed screaming it up to the rev limiter in the 172 Cup. Turbo engines seem to feel a bit breathless at the very top.

[Alex_225]

I think NA engines can be plenty of fun.

I've owned a couple of Clio 172s and that engine comes to live high up in the revs so can be a lot of fun.

I now own a CLS63 and the 6.2 V8 in that obviously has a lot of power and torque but peak power comes in really high up in the revs. Again lots of fun.

I think NA or forced inductions engines can be plenty of fun when they're in a car that suits it.

[_Neal_]

I've owned mostly N/As (and some good ones at that, both high and low-capacity) and I like them a lot - sharp throttle response and having to use revs is fun, and that's on road or on track. However I also loved my Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo - old-school turbo lag and elastic acceleration was great. Not driven modern petrol turbos, but sure they are excellent too.

Try before you buy - there's good and bad ones of each.

[V8 TEJ]

PH XKR said:

sammyboy77 said:

no driving experience can equal the buzz when you flex your big toe and take off without the tedium of gearchanging, manual or auto. i talk, of course, of the glorious 5.4 V8 from mercedes benz in the beautiful form of the W210 E55. the car is relatively light by todays standards and with resononator delete and X-pipe install, sounds pretty apocalyptic when you give it the beans.

Whs

Indeed, I love mine and it has those mods along with a remap

[bennyboysvuk]

It's NA for me too. They are just so much more responsive and accurate than turbocharged engines when you're applying power on the verge of grip.

[Havoc856-S]

Yes.

Where It All Started by Simon Cox, on Flickr

I had a 400bhp Focus RS Mk2 (and an 280bhp Astra VXR prior to that) prior to owning my Evora. Whilst the RS had nearly double the torque and 100 more bhp, it wasn't as much fun - but it did have character. The RS is a brute, lacking finesse and delivering power in easy, fat slogs without significant effort. It was a very lazy drive.

The Evora by contrast requires some wringing, more driver input regarding the 'box and clutch and is much more fun at all speeds (read as within the limits applied to the roads). It's also exceptionally more rewarding to drive. Then there is the noise.. 7200rpm redline sounds absolutely gorgeous in person (it doesn't quite transfer digitally).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GABEh2scHCY&t=...

Personally I think the quote from my own post outlines why people like turbo cars in general:

"delivering power in easy, fat slobs without significant effort. It was a very lazy drive." - There are lazy enthusiasts (most of the general populace are in this bracket too) and there are those who enjoy a responsive engine and chassis matched perfectly...

Despite my Evora being faster 0-62 and significantly faster on road and track due to it's chassis (you can't match the responsiveness of NA throttle with a turbo engine - it makes balancing the car in corners a breeze) than either of my previous cars - my friends seem to think the RS was faster - predominantly due to their ownership of turbo cars and the linear delivery of the power from the 2GRFE in the Evora - it doesn't seem to produce much 'ceremony' in the way a turbo dumps power.

I think as drivers are treated to more and more turbo engines, they lose understanding of N/A delivery and how great they are - which is a massive shame.

I see nothing wrong with the 2GRFE in the Evora, the 2ZZ in Exige S2 or even a K20 swap in an Elise... They all reward the driver for working the engine and gearbox, they all sound great as they run the rev range and they all complement the chassis in a way that doesn't compromise the way it drives (dumping torque, spinning wheels ala M4/RS).

I think the best of both worlds is supercharged.

Edited by Havoc856-S on Friday 21st April 12:25

[PH XKR]

V8 TEJ said:

PH XKR said:

sammyboy77 said:

no driving experience can equal the buzz when you flex your big toe and take off without the tedium of gearchanging, manual or auto. i talk, of course, of the glorious 5.4 V8 from mercedes benz in the beautiful form of the W210 E55. the car is relatively light by todays standards and with resononator delete and X-pipe install, sounds pretty apocalyptic when you give it the beans.

Whs

Indeed, I love mine and it has those mods along with a remap

I've not remapped for power but remapped to remove the MAFs (costly buggers that fail so gradually you don't notice the lost of 40bhp!!). Car is transformed, took her to the ring, it was closed, no matter as last Friday the roads back were clear and the baby pulled all the way to over 170 and it was pulling hard. Going to take the jag on the bahns this weekend to compare. It has 110 more ponies, same CC but is supercharged. Be interesting to see if there is the usual FI drop off at the top.

[PH XKR]

Havoc856-S said:

Yes.

Where It All Started by Simon Cox, on Flickr

I had a 400bhp Focus RS Mk2 (and an 280bhp Astra VXR prior to that) prior to owning my Evora. Whilst the RS had nearly double the torque and 100 more bhp, it wasn't as much fun - but it did have character. The RS is a brute, lacking finesse and delivering power in easy, fat slogs without significant effort. It was a very lazy drive.

The Evora by contrast requires some wringing, more driver input regarding the 'box and clutch and is much more fun at all speeds (read as within the limits applied to the roads). It's also exceptionally more rewarding to drive. Then there is the noise.. 7200rpm redline sounds absolutely gorgeous in person (it doesn't quite transfer digitally).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GABEh2scHCY&t=...

Personally I think the quote from my own post outlines why people like turbo cars in general:

"delivering power in easy, fat slobs without significant effort. It was a very lazy drive." - There are lazy enthusiasts (most of the general populace are in this bracket too) and there are those who enjoy a responsive engine and chassis matched perfectly...

Despite my Evora being faster 0-62 and significantly faster on road and track due to it's chassis (you can't match the responsiveness of NA throttle with a turbo engine - it makes balancing the car in corners a breeze) than either of my previous cars - my friends seem to think the RS was faster - predominantly due to their ownership of turbo cars and the linear delivery of the power from the 2GRFE in the Evora - it doesn't seem to produce much 'ceremony' in the way a turbo dumps power.

I think as drivers are treated to more and more turbo engines, they lose understanding of N/A delivery and how great they are - which is a massive shame.

I see nothing wrong with the 2GRFE in the Evora, the 2ZZ in Exige S2 or even a K20 swap in an Elise... They all reward the driver for working the engine and gearbox, they all sound great as they run the rev range and they all complement the chassis in a way that doesn't compromise the way it drives (dumping torque, spinning wheels ala M4/RS).

I think the best of both worlds is supercharged.

Edited by Havoc856-S on Friday 21st April 12:25

One thing that draws me to large CC engines is the relaxing way the power is made, even the z06 was a competent cruiser. I do long European trips, so out of interest, and knowing the Evora is not a true GT.... how is it on the long drives?

[SuperchargedVR6]

Nigel Worc's said:

Depends on what you're driving.

I'd rather have a nice 4.0 litre V8 than some turbo piece of ste, I just prefer the drive.

Exactly.... you need 4 litres to get anywhere near the power potential of a decent 2.0 turbo. NA piece of ste.

[PH XKR]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Depends on what you're driving.

I'd rather have a nice 4.0 litre V8 than some turbo piece of ste, I just prefer the drive.

Exactly.... you need 4 litres to get anywhere near the power potential of a decent 2.0 turbo. NA piece of ste.

Wrong. A 2.0 engine needs the fun killing turbos to get anywhere near a 4.0v8.

I guess as a generation have got used to Diesels being "sporty" that they now find the turbo's are fun. They aint. They are fast but they are just high revving diesels in reality. Ooooh look I make XXX bhp over a short rev range. Even if the range is long, the gearing is usually short so it becomes thrashy.

A 2.0 turbo is the Yorkshire terrier equivalent of a dog vs a Springer Spaniel as the 4.0v8. One you never tire of, the other is an irritating little st that was fun at the beginning but now its just a yappy little rat.

The only counter to that, is if the turbo has a lovely sounding dump valve, that's cool.

[phil1979]

As an owner of a 2.0 turbo diesel, and a 6.2 V8 n/a, I have to say I quite like them both!

[dannyDC2]

My Integra is powered by one of the best NA engines ever made - the K20a.

With basic breathing mods and a tune mine pulled 244bhp on the dyno. With weight at around 920kg, and wonderful, simple suspension, yeah it's fun.

It's rare that anything can keep close on a trackday, turbo or not. It's most fun clinging to the rear of an Evo or M3s rear bumper around a track, waiting for them to let me past. It's not a slouch in the straight, but quick modern VAG hatches can sometimes pull away. Straight line pace is about the same as a stock E92 M3. 265bhp/tonne but with short gearing, it'll do the 1/4 mile in under 13s, and that's setup for corners!

So yeah, NA is fun. More fun than turbo IMO. Both my "fun" cars are NA (the other being a 328i drift car), the daily driver is a turbo, but that's only because it's also a diesel.

I sorta get the appeal of boost, I previously owned a fettled Seat Cupra which was good fun, but NA is the way for me. Throttle response, the sound, the excitement...

NA FTW!!!

[WestyCarl]

NA engines are fun if they are in the right car.

If it's a heavy car you need a decent size engine, e.g. Ferrari V8/V12, Merc V8.

If the car is light enough a 4cyl NA engine can also be fun.

However as a daily driver I have a Turbo Diesel + Auto

[V8 TEJ]

PH XKR said:

V8 TEJ said:

PH XKR said:

sammyboy77 said:

no driving experience can equal the buzz when you flex your big toe and take off without the tedium of gearchanging, manual or auto. i talk, of course, of the glorious 5.4 V8 from mercedes benz in the beautiful form of the W210 E55. the car is relatively light by todays standards and with resononator delete and X-pipe install, sounds pretty apocalyptic when you give it the beans.

Whs

Indeed, I love mine and it has those mods along with a remap

I've not remapped for power but remapped to remove the MAFs (costly buggers that fail so gradually you don't notice the lost of 40bhp!!). Car is transformed, took her to the ring, it was closed, no matter as last Friday the roads back were clear and the baby pulled all the way to over 170 and it was pulling hard. Going to take the jag on the bahns this weekend to compare. It has 110 more ponies, same CC but is supercharged. Be interesting to see if there is the usual FI drop off at the top.

Hmm...Interesting, I didn't know you could map the MAF sensor (I thought there was only 1 on this car) out of the equation How does the engine measure air intake without it? I know this car also has a MAP sensor but can't see it being able to determine correct fuelling with that alone? I'll do some research...

Yes, mine also pulls hard even at 170 mph, I've seen some owners on forums have touched 180 in theirs!

Edited by V8 TEJ on Friday 21st April 16:13

[marcosgt]

rubez said:

no. thinking of going from a 370bhp 2.0L turbo to a 270bhp 3.5L NA. i know it will be a big performance drop, but then the car costs half the price.

worried it won't have much overtaking grunt for one.

That doesn't tell you (or us) anything.

It could be a 370BHP 2 tonne SUV and a 270bhp sportscar!

The package is important.

All you'll find is that you'll end up going off the road if you plant your foot too early (I had a R5 GTT with epic turbo lag back in the day - A hoot to drive, but scared myself witless on a test drive in an MR2 when I applied full throttle ENTERING a roundabout and found the car going straight on! )

A good turbo is good, a good NA engine is good, but put either in a wallowy truck and it'll still be no fun...

M.

[PH XKR]

There are two on the e39. You can tune them out so you can unplug, the car doesn't throw a fit. You still measure airflow, just not using the maf feedback loop

[Dan_M5]

PH XKR said:

There are two on the e39. You can tune them out so you can unplug, the car doesn't throw a fit. You still measure airflow, just not using the maf feedback loop

Same on the V8 M3 & V10 M5, you get them mapped out and utilise a IAT sensor instead

[TheAngryDog]

Runs on a better calibrated Alpha N map, as the standard Alpha N map is only there as a fail back.

[RumbleOfThunder]

Lame, just for the sake of it, bait thread.