are NA engines fun?
Discussion
It depends on the car/engine in question but I much prefer the power delivery of a good NA engine for driving enjoyment. I run an M135i which will destroy any of the cars I've had previously in any sort of race but I wouldn't describe the experience as fun. My old 325i with a lowly 218bhp was nicer to hussle. As was my old 2.4 Accord. It had a serious lack of torque but the pleasure was dropping a couple of cogs and heading for the redline made it more enjoyable.
It might be a generational thing too. I'm happier driving a good quickish NA petrol car when I know that most modern TD's will leave me for dead. When I was 18, diesel wasn't a thing and driving modern fast turbo diesels leaves me totally cold. Hesitant to get going, then a massive surge of torque which runs out all too quickly in the small power band... change up and repeat. If you ask my younger nephew, he is used to fast diesels and the power delivery is totally acceptable to him.
There's lots of ways to get a car to shovel a bit but if crossing the line first isn't your main priority, I'd say I'd probably have more fun in a petrol NA car than a petrol turbo or turbo diesel. Of course as mentioned above, it all depends on the car and engine in question.
It might be a generational thing too. I'm happier driving a good quickish NA petrol car when I know that most modern TD's will leave me for dead. When I was 18, diesel wasn't a thing and driving modern fast turbo diesels leaves me totally cold. Hesitant to get going, then a massive surge of torque which runs out all too quickly in the small power band... change up and repeat. If you ask my younger nephew, he is used to fast diesels and the power delivery is totally acceptable to him.
There's lots of ways to get a car to shovel a bit but if crossing the line first isn't your main priority, I'd say I'd probably have more fun in a petrol NA car than a petrol turbo or turbo diesel. Of course as mentioned above, it all depends on the car and engine in question.
I had a Focus ST (2.5 5 pot), which had plenty of low down torque as well as the turbo shove a bit higher up. I had it remapped, so it was pretty nippy, but as nice as it was to drive, I realised I'd outgrown turbos.
I sold it on after a year.
My next car was n/a, a 986 Boxster S. This was great fun, but one thing I didn't like about it was the slightly soft throttle response. I kept that for three years.
Then I went for the car I have now, an e46 M3. Brilliant car, with excellent throttle response. I guess that's what is important to me these days. Owned for 5 years +. The longest I've ever owned a car.
I sold it on after a year.
My next car was n/a, a 986 Boxster S. This was great fun, but one thing I didn't like about it was the slightly soft throttle response. I kept that for three years.
Then I went for the car I have now, an e46 M3. Brilliant car, with excellent throttle response. I guess that's what is important to me these days. Owned for 5 years +. The longest I've ever owned a car.
culpz said:
If i keep my sensible head on, my next car will be a cheap, N/A hot-hatch. Something like an EP3 Type-R or a Clio 172/182. I've never experienced one but always yearned for something with similar ingredients. It could end up being a let down or even a revelation but, either way, it's a scratch that i've wanted to itch for a long time.
The turbo cars i've had/driven haven't really been high performance. So, ultimately, they have been a bit of a disappointment. Fair bit of lag, especially with the current car, but then not really much when the turbo does eventually wake up and the power just trails off after 6k. Saying that, the Fiesta ST that i test drove was fantastic. I honestly couldn't really fault it at all.
I could easily be tempted with a new Golf GTI or even the new Fiesta ST, which is due to be released early next year. Or, back on the used market, something like a BMW 330ci. There's that many cars out there that i like the idea of but haven't actually driven, it's hard to make a decision. Both FI and N/A both have their own interpretation of fun. It's really just whatever you prefer.
As Jacko said at the beginning of the thread., I think you can prefer both depending on the car. I loved driving my old 309GTi..................but I think I had as much fun driving my friend's 5GT Turbo. i'm not sure how I could measure the fun difference to be sure thoughThe turbo cars i've had/driven haven't really been high performance. So, ultimately, they have been a bit of a disappointment. Fair bit of lag, especially with the current car, but then not really much when the turbo does eventually wake up and the power just trails off after 6k. Saying that, the Fiesta ST that i test drove was fantastic. I honestly couldn't really fault it at all.
I could easily be tempted with a new Golf GTI or even the new Fiesta ST, which is due to be released early next year. Or, back on the used market, something like a BMW 330ci. There's that many cars out there that i like the idea of but haven't actually driven, it's hard to make a decision. Both FI and N/A both have their own interpretation of fun. It's really just whatever you prefer.
s m said:
As Jacko said at the beginning of the thread., I think you can prefer both depending on the car. I loved driving my old 309GTi..................but I think I had as much fun driving my friend's 5GT Turbo. i'm not sure how I could measure the fun difference to be sure though
Very good point. I had a 309GTi and I also drove my mates 5GT Turbo a few years earlier. I feel the same as you there. This was over 20 years ago though.
I had a couple of e39 4.4 v8's. To get almost 300bhp out of that n.a. engine was pretty good going I always thought - and those things would fly. Serious torque as well gave it a constant, unrelenting shove. I've not tried a petrol turbo, though I'm sure they're fun. But there's no replacement for displacement!
I went from a 400bhp Turbo Mk4 Supra to a 4.5 Cerbera and the difference is night and day. The power delivery on the Supra was all or nothing waiting for the 2nd Turbo to kick in, you did get a good shove back in your seat and it does feel faster than the Cerb even though it isn't.
The v8 on the other hand is instant delivery and the noise it makes at the redline is a different league to a turbo even with its flutter and spooling.
Don't know what I prefer but you can't beat the sound of a rumbling v8, even at low speeds its an experience which will stick with me forever. I suppose it depends on what NA/Turbo car is in question before you can judge.
The v8 on the other hand is instant delivery and the noise it makes at the redline is a different league to a turbo even with its flutter and spooling.
Don't know what I prefer but you can't beat the sound of a rumbling v8, even at low speeds its an experience which will stick with me forever. I suppose it depends on what NA/Turbo car is in question before you can judge.
e8_pack said:
I have a GTR running 620hp and a 911 turbo. Both are slow compared to my all motor 2.0 Duratec Westfield running 270+hp.
550kg, revving to 9k. The induction noise and throttle response is addictive and the engine characteristics give it immense balance on track. In the right package they are far superior.
You should try 600bhp odd in the Westfield. Now that kinda power to weight is brain scrambling. I love turbo power delivery.550kg, revving to 9k. The induction noise and throttle response is addictive and the engine characteristics give it immense balance on track. In the right package they are far superior.
yes, and ofcourse a good N/A will always sound much better than a good turbo engine, especially on carbs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViAM7AHheJg
culpz said:
If i keep my sensible head on, my next car will be a cheap, N/A hot-hatch. Something like an EP3 Type-R or a Clio 172/182. I've never experienced one but always yearned for something with similar ingredients. It could end up being a let down or even a revelation but, either way, it's a scratch that i've wanted to itch for a long time.
The turbo cars i've had/driven haven't really been high performance. So, ultimately, they have been a bit of a disappointment. Fair bit of lag, especially with the current car, but then not really much when the turbo does eventually wake up and the power just trails off after 6k. Saying that, the Fiesta ST that i test drove was fantastic. I honestly couldn't really fault it at all.
I could easily be tempted with a new Golf GTI or even the new Fiesta ST, which is due to be released early next year. Or, back on the used market, something like a BMW 330ci. There's that many cars out there that i like the idea of but haven't actually driven, it's hard to make a decision. Both FI and N/A both have their own interpretation of fun. It's really just whatever you prefer.
I drive a corolla T sport. Redline 8200, peak power 7800, the high lift came comes in at 6200rpmThe turbo cars i've had/driven haven't really been high performance. So, ultimately, they have been a bit of a disappointment. Fair bit of lag, especially with the current car, but then not really much when the turbo does eventually wake up and the power just trails off after 6k. Saying that, the Fiesta ST that i test drove was fantastic. I honestly couldn't really fault it at all.
I could easily be tempted with a new Golf GTI or even the new Fiesta ST, which is due to be released early next year. Or, back on the used market, something like a BMW 330ci. There's that many cars out there that i like the idea of but haven't actually driven, it's hard to make a decision. Both FI and N/A both have their own interpretation of fun. It's really just whatever you prefer.
Fun fun fun, would recommend a ep3 over a corolla t sport though
rubez said:
are NA engines fun?
In a nutshell: Yes! It depends on the application though, and there are good and bad examples of all types of engine.The N/A K20 engine I had in my Civic Type R was a joy, especially once tuned. It was docile at low RPM but drop a couple of gears and it would howl to the 9000 rev limiter – it was truly addictive wringing it out!
I now have a powerful FI car and it is even more exciting to drive, although this is perhaps due to the fact it has nigh on double the power the Civic had. The rush of power when both turbos spool up is also addictive. It does require more care though as the sudden rush of power can easily overwhelm the tyres, especially if the road is damp or greasy.
I think the FI engine falls down in throttle response and balance. Metering power mid-corner in the N/A car was easy, and allowed for more accuracy and adjustments during a corner. The FI car is more difficult to manage as boost builds it can deliver more power than you’re necessarily wanting. I suspect this is more to do with my own abilities (or lack of!); and managing boost will come with more familiarity with the car.
It comes down to personal preference as to which you prefer though; and from my point of view I wouldn’t be able to decide between either, as both have their merits. In an ideal world you would have multiple examples of each!
irfan1712 said:
Think i've started a trend - i don't see me ever owning a turbo car any time soon. Enjoy them while they are still here - Big N/A engined rammed into small cars designed to be diesel rep mobiles are oozing with character and soul regardless of how fast or thirsty they maybe. Fact is turbo power going forward will always be cleaner and more powerful - you must ask why so many manufacturers of performance turbo engines are trying to replicate linear power deliveries found in N/A cars.
Sadly, you're probably driving (like myself) one of the last big V8s that Mercedes will put in a car and they'll all be smaller or V6 turbos. The last turbo petrol car I owned was a re-mapped Megane 225 (around 260bhp) and I loved the punch feel of the turbo engine. It suited the car as it was light and nimble with this great turbo feel. That wouldn't suite my CLS so having a whacking great engine and a surge of power right through the rev range suits that car.
As you say though, they try to replicate the smoothness of NA engines with these turbo charged cars. I suppose that's so people feel as thought it's 'normal' to drive with minimal lag etc. To really convince people that their 1.0 Ecoboost is like a 1.6/1.8 litre engine.
MFR_TT said:
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.
Not all. It's a modern trend to fit smaller turbo's to get better lower rpm performance from them. This means up top they don't usually flow enough air.And it's also down to the cam profile of the engine too. If it's not designed for high rpm power without the turbo, it'll be no better when one is fitted.
Take a look at a 5 pot Focus ST dyno plot and compare to say a WRX STI Type R classic Impreza. Completely different characters.
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?
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?
- Typically* an NA engine will deliver its power and torque higher in the rev range compared to a turbo engine.
Turbo for road NA for track in my opinion.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff