are NA engines fun?
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
Do you count 911s, M cars and AMGs?
modern ones have modern throttle response, "ok" at best.Older 911s had a lot to offer in both throttle response and power delivery. easy to stall an 80s 911 as they had around 12hp at 2000 revs, but the rev curve was totally delightful.
Yes, not all but many NA engines are fun.
I've looked at some of the replies on here and everyone who has said no, either hasn't driven a very good N/A or they aren't a petrol head. FACT
Ok, on a serious note I understand many will prefer turbos, like myself, but you can't generalise all N/A's thus I think the answer depends on the engine an application.
I've looked at some of the replies on here and everyone who has said no, either hasn't driven a very good N/A or they aren't a petrol head. FACT
Ok, on a serious note I understand many will prefer turbos, like myself, but you can't generalise all N/A's thus I think the answer depends on the engine an application.
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. Mine is also more economical, lower tax blah blah blah.
But the BMW 2.5 is the best, is so much nicer and a wonderful drive. The VAG 2.0 feels remote and dull.
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. Mine is also more economical, lower tax blah blah blah.
But the BMW 2.5 is the best, is so much nicer and a wonderful drive. The VAG 2.0 feels remote and dull.
98elise 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 s
te, I just prefer the drive.
Agreed, and if you want to simulate a turbo charged engine you can just use a light throttle until you get to the last 1000rpm I'd rather have a nice 4.0 litre V8 than some turbo piece of s
te, I just prefer the drive.
t', but likewise, you would naturally prefer a nice 4litre turbocharged V8 than some weedy NA engine. It all depends on what you are comparing, generalising all NA's and turbos together is fine for arguing a preference but surely not for arguing the point of one of the other. 98elise 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.
Agreed, and if you want to simulate a turbo charged engine you can just use a light throttle until you get to the last 1000rpm I'd rather have a nice 4.0 litre V8 than some turbo piece of s
te, I just prefer the drive.neil1jnr said:
98elise 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.
Agreed, and if you want to simulate a turbo charged engine you can just use a light throttle until you get to the last 1000rpm I'd rather have a nice 4.0 litre V8 than some turbo piece of s
te, I just prefer the drive.t', but likewise, you would naturally prefer a nice 4litre turbocharged V8 than some weedy NA engine. It all depends on what you are comparing, generalising all NA's and turbos together is fine for arguing a preference but surely not for arguing the point of one of the other. GroundEffect said:
Two words: throttle response.
Also nothing like a 4.0 V8 at 8400rpm
Positive displacement superchargers provide instant throttle response as, unlike a centrifugal compressor, they move a fixed volume of air for each revolution. This means you get a thump in the back from idle. I have one in my Monaro which has a 6.2L V8 that revs to 7k rpm. It's a good way to get 9.0L engine performance from a smaller displacement. It also means you can go from 0-100mph using a single gear (third).Also nothing like a 4.0 V8 at 8400rpm
Yes for sure. I've had turbo cars for 5 years, one diesel, one petrol. But driving my girlfriends NA mazda mx5 is just as fun, all about how you drive it they're just different.
I only bought a turbo petrol as I was commuting on the motorway, prefered the presense of torque for overtaking.
they're just different.I only bought a turbo petrol as I was commuting on the motorway, prefered the presense of torque for overtaking.
You dont have to choose, I like what I like, for different reasons, I can even find it in my heart to love a diesel.
It is down to the application and the job its doing, and how you feel at that moment. Also, I find I need some time to "get" an engine to appreciate it, I hate the Clio 182 I tried when I was looking to change from my LPT Saab 9-3, it felt flat and gutless after a turbo, even one with less power but I reckon, with time I would have grown to appreciate it more.
We love torque, that is like fat and sugar in a cake, the satisfying bit, the more torque, generally the more most drivers will enjoy it as though winding out a high rev screamer can be fantastic, most of the time you dont, the most dull cars tend to have low capacity N/A engines, stuff like say a 1.6 Golf, the diesel with the same power output is generally more pleasant to drive.
So its either a turbo or big capacity to give that grunt we crave, mine is a 5.5 litre N/A V8 and it is a fantastic engine, really suits the car, makes light work of shifting 1850 kilos, that said, sometimes if its in too high a gear, and you accelerate but not enough to kick down it can be caught out, the gearbox usually helps out though, that is, I guess why they went to a turbo V8 in the later model, that is having your cake and eating it.
It is down to the application and the job its doing, and how you feel at that moment. Also, I find I need some time to "get" an engine to appreciate it, I hate the Clio 182 I tried when I was looking to change from my LPT Saab 9-3, it felt flat and gutless after a turbo, even one with less power but I reckon, with time I would have grown to appreciate it more.
We love torque, that is like fat and sugar in a cake, the satisfying bit, the more torque, generally the more most drivers will enjoy it as though winding out a high rev screamer can be fantastic, most of the time you dont, the most dull cars tend to have low capacity N/A engines, stuff like say a 1.6 Golf, the diesel with the same power output is generally more pleasant to drive.
So its either a turbo or big capacity to give that grunt we crave, mine is a 5.5 litre N/A V8 and it is a fantastic engine, really suits the car, makes light work of shifting 1850 kilos, that said, sometimes if its in too high a gear, and you accelerate but not enough to kick down it can be caught out, the gearbox usually helps out though, that is, I guess why they went to a turbo V8 in the later model, that is having your cake and eating it.
Nanook said:
TheAngryDog said:
98elise 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.
Agreed, and if you want to simulate a turbo charged engine you can just use a light throttle until you get to the last 1000rpm I'd rather have a nice 4.0 litre V8 than some turbo piece of s
te, I just prefer the drive.That depends entirely on the 2 engines in question!
My mates 1.0 turbo Fiesta doesn't "give more shove" when it's on boost, than my car, at the same engine speed.
CABC said:
modern ones have modern throttle response, "ok" at best.
Subjective.CABC said:
Older 911s had a lot to offer in both throttle response and power delivery. easy to stall an 80s 911 as they had around 12hp at 2000 revs, but the rev curve was totally delightful.
My father had a whaletail, perhaps he was a better driver than I gave him credit for!SWoll said:
Never been a fan of the highly strung 4 pot NA engines as fitted to most Honda Type-R products. Too much hard work and crap when you just need to cruise on a motorway etc.
you still can't beat a decent capacity 6+ cylinder NA engine for both responsiveness and aural pleasure.
Agree with the first bit, they're crap, torqueless and make a god awful noise.you still can't beat a decent capacity 6+ cylinder NA engine for both responsiveness and aural pleasure.
Disagree with the second bit. As much as I love BMW 6 pots, I much prefer the sound and feel of a turbo 6.
Nanook said:
TheAngryDog said:
I should have been more clear, for a given engine size. A 4.4 twin turbo will give more of a shove than my 4.9 NA
Still not really true. It's not just that simple.The BMW 4.4TT N63B44 only revs to 6500rpm.
An old V10 M5 revs to what, 8500rpm?
So the turbo probably isn't making more 'shove' at 8000rpm
Acceleration is all about power, and torque has approx f*ck all to do with it.
There are big differences between turbocharged cars as well.
The old Supra MK3 Turbo Automatic I had, you could feel when the turbo started to come in. I suppose it was mid 80's "old school" technology, but even at partial throttle, you could feel a little bit of extra push through the back of the seat. If you were heavy with your right foot it could come in with a whack, as I found out accelerating away from the lights once! With the sudden rising of engine speed as you booted it, then the turbo waking up as the revs were rising, it meant things started to all come into play at once and get rather interesting all at the same time! It could surprise you with even 230bhp if you were a bit clumsy! Loved the character of that car though.
The Focus ST 2.5, though similar in performance (but missing a cylinder compared to the Supra), is very subtle in comparison. You don't tend to get the noticable extra push in the back like with the old Supra, or a thump of boost. It just pulls well throughout the rev range, with quite a lot of low down torque. It makes the car behave more like a bigger engined one, than a revvy hot hatch or performance car. It makes it quite relaxing to drive and forgiving if you happen to try and pull away from a near standstill in 3rd gear!
On the N/A front, my TVR Chimaera (4 litre), doesn't have to wait for the turbo to start working. For example coming up to some lights the other day, they changed from red to green, so accelerated for a brief couple of seconds. The power was there and it picked up straight away!
The Focus on the otherhand doesn't have that immediate pick up from lower down the rev range.
In all, I don't think it is an easy comparison to make, it all depends how the car is set up. I'd rather take a bigger engine (be it N/A or Turbo), with lots of torque, over a revvy small turbocharged 4pot.
The old Supra MK3 Turbo Automatic I had, you could feel when the turbo started to come in. I suppose it was mid 80's "old school" technology, but even at partial throttle, you could feel a little bit of extra push through the back of the seat. If you were heavy with your right foot it could come in with a whack, as I found out accelerating away from the lights once! With the sudden rising of engine speed as you booted it, then the turbo waking up as the revs were rising, it meant things started to all come into play at once and get rather interesting all at the same time! It could surprise you with even 230bhp if you were a bit clumsy! Loved the character of that car though.
The Focus ST 2.5, though similar in performance (but missing a cylinder compared to the Supra), is very subtle in comparison. You don't tend to get the noticable extra push in the back like with the old Supra, or a thump of boost. It just pulls well throughout the rev range, with quite a lot of low down torque. It makes the car behave more like a bigger engined one, than a revvy hot hatch or performance car. It makes it quite relaxing to drive and forgiving if you happen to try and pull away from a near standstill in 3rd gear!
On the N/A front, my TVR Chimaera (4 litre), doesn't have to wait for the turbo to start working. For example coming up to some lights the other day, they changed from red to green, so accelerated for a brief couple of seconds. The power was there and it picked up straight away!
The Focus on the otherhand doesn't have that immediate pick up from lower down the rev range.
In all, I don't think it is an easy comparison to make, it all depends how the car is set up. I'd rather take a bigger engine (be it N/A or Turbo), with lots of torque, over a revvy small turbocharged 4pot.
TheAngryDog said:
It all depends what you want from a car I suppose. In the modern world the E39 is becoming very old hat. It is a great car and will always be. It may be better in many ways than an f10, but I like having power, and the e39 doesn't have enough any more.
....
Totally. A 4.4 twin turbo is soon to be on my books. Don't get me wrong, I do like the 4.9 NA in my M5 but it just cannot compete for power with the f10, and being a V8 it will still drive fine off boost.
makes sense - I think my preference generally is to more analogue / less computerised cars, I don't like the feel that I am driving a computer rather than a car... I would happily have the F10 engine, but wouldn't want everything else that comes with it in terms of complexity etc. also prefer a manual gearbox... this article sums it up well: https://www.pistonheads.com/road-tests/bmw/driven-.......
Totally. A 4.4 twin turbo is soon to be on my books. Don't get me wrong, I do like the 4.9 NA in my M5 but it just cannot compete for power with the f10, and being a V8 it will still drive fine off boost.
also the nice thing about the F10 is that you could switch the turbo side off and you would still have a good n/a engine - I suspect that it is when you compare n/a against engines where they are dead without the turbo that it brings a different character to the table...
Are NA engines fun? Yes.... my Chim 500 is a somewhat modified, NA 5 litre V8, a tad over 360bhp at 6k rpm, a tad over 350lbsft at 4.3k rpm, it weighs less than 1100kg so is over 330bhp/ton, can sprint from 0-60 in just under 4 seconds, and on to a top speed North of 170mph. Throttle response is astonishing some years ago I had a chipped 270bhp Sierra RS Cosworth, loved it to death, absolute hoot to drive, NA and turbo both have their merits, but the instant shove in the back and soundtrack of a naturally aspirated 5 litre V8 is, in my opinion, fun of the highest order 
some years ago I had a chipped 270bhp Sierra RS Cosworth, loved it to death, absolute hoot to drive, NA and turbo both have their merits, but the instant shove in the back and soundtrack of a naturally aspirated 5 litre V8 is, in my opinion, fun of the highest order Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff