Trying to change my attitude to turbocharging
Discussion
Or, to put it more accurately, change it back.
I've been getting a little bit down on performance cars recently, and mourning the impending loss of screaming high-revving motors. In particular the apparent demise of the naturally aspirated M-car and the Ferrari V12.
Turbos, with a couple of notable exceptions, have become a symbol of getting the most fuel effiency from an engine without losing too much performance. Make a small engine and stick a turbo on it. /grotesque over simplification.
But I had a kind of epiphany the other day. While I was scanning the Autocar review of the M5 in Tescos, I suddenly remembered that when I was growing up (mid-late eighties and early nineties) and the diesel-engined car wasn't popular like it is now, things that had turbos didn't have them so that they could have a microscopic engine, they had them so that they would be AWESOME. 'I wonder what will happen if we bolt a turbo onto this engine? Wahey! Mentalism!' /grotesque over simplification.
So, from now on, when I hear that the new M3, or the next Enzo, or whatever replaces the Aventador will have forced induction, and when I see my first AMG with turbos I'm going to try not to think of this:
And instead think of this:
This:
Or this:
Just thought I'd share, in case anyone else if having a similar crisis of faith.
I've been getting a little bit down on performance cars recently, and mourning the impending loss of screaming high-revving motors. In particular the apparent demise of the naturally aspirated M-car and the Ferrari V12.
Turbos, with a couple of notable exceptions, have become a symbol of getting the most fuel effiency from an engine without losing too much performance. Make a small engine and stick a turbo on it. /grotesque over simplification.
But I had a kind of epiphany the other day. While I was scanning the Autocar review of the M5 in Tescos, I suddenly remembered that when I was growing up (mid-late eighties and early nineties) and the diesel-engined car wasn't popular like it is now, things that had turbos didn't have them so that they could have a microscopic engine, they had them so that they would be AWESOME. 'I wonder what will happen if we bolt a turbo onto this engine? Wahey! Mentalism!' /grotesque over simplification.
So, from now on, when I hear that the new M3, or the next Enzo, or whatever replaces the Aventador will have forced induction, and when I see my first AMG with turbos I'm going to try not to think of this:
And instead think of this:
This:
Or this:
Just thought I'd share, in case anyone else if having a similar crisis of faith.
Edited by MrKipling43 on Wednesday 5th October 11:04
I had a MK6 Golf GTI on the smaller alloys as a courtesy car when mine was in for paint.
I enjoyed the slight pause and then torque rush of the turbo when knocking around on a straight road, but when I went on roads I enjoy to drive, that same thing did distract as it was a cse of anticipating the power.
Undoubtedly you would learn to drive around it, but from a higher revving VTEC engine (9000rpm) to the Golf, it was a stark difference.
I enjoyed the slight pause and then torque rush of the turbo when knocking around on a straight road, but when I went on roads I enjoy to drive, that same thing did distract as it was a cse of anticipating the power.
Undoubtedly you would learn to drive around it, but from a higher revving VTEC engine (9000rpm) to the Golf, it was a stark difference.
rhinochopig said:
I'd stick with your original view TBH. Turbo engines are horrible things that, IMO, detract, rather than add, to the driving experience.
Not always. There's something fun about the specific way you have to drive a turbo car to get the most out of it (although that's becoming less and less of an issue).Also, forced induction certainly seems to be the way things are going, so we might as well positive-up our attitude to them!
VR6 Turbo said:
also most turbo motors are only a remap and boost controller away from a significant BHP increase.
VR
Exactly. What he said. VR
Plus, BMW twin turbo's don't have any lag, so really what is the complaint, the worst part of turbos in the past was a big dead spot in the low revs, but the 335i for example doesn't suffer from that. Brilliant engine.
VR6 Turbo said:
rhinochopig said:
I'd stick with your original view TBH. Turbo engines are horrible things that, IMO, detract, rather than add, to the driving experience.
Not sure if serious, but if you are please let me take you out in the VR6 VR
The reason I don't like turbo engines is that for me - and I respect the fact that we each enjoy different types of driving pleasure - they simply do not offer the same level of control as an N/A engine. The pinnacle of driving pleasure for me is the ability to balance a car on the throttle and play with that balance with your right foot - lift off, yaw increases, back on the throttle and some steering input yaw decreases, or more throttle yaw increase, etc. repeat until bored.
In a turbo motor, when you lift off, boost is lost and therefore so is power, and getting back on the throttle results in that agonising wait for boost and you simply don't get that handling delicacy that you do with a good N/A engine. You end up going into the corner slower and riding out the boost and adjusting the yaw via the wheel, which IMO just isn't as fun as it feels like you're driving around the problem.
rhinochopig said:
I'm serious.
The reason I don't like turbo engines is that for me - and I respect the fact that we each enjoy different types of driving pleasure - they simply do not offer the same level of control as an N/A engine. The pinnacle of driving pleasure for me is the ability to balance a car on the throttle and play with that balance with your right foot - lift off, yaw increases, back on the throttle and some steering input yaw decreases, or more throttle yaw increase, etc. repeat until bored.
In a turbo motor, when you lift off, boost is lost and therefore so is power, and getting back on the throttle results in that agonising wait for boost and you simply don't get that handling delicacy that you do with a good N/A engine. You end up going into the corner slower and riding out the boost and adjusting the yaw via the wheel, which IMO just isn't as fun as it feels like you're driving around the problem.
I do see your point. but honestly its down to set-up, the VR6 has barley any lag. the trick is to not over do the turbo. The reason I don't like turbo engines is that for me - and I respect the fact that we each enjoy different types of driving pleasure - they simply do not offer the same level of control as an N/A engine. The pinnacle of driving pleasure for me is the ability to balance a car on the throttle and play with that balance with your right foot - lift off, yaw increases, back on the throttle and some steering input yaw decreases, or more throttle yaw increase, etc. repeat until bored.
In a turbo motor, when you lift off, boost is lost and therefore so is power, and getting back on the throttle results in that agonising wait for boost and you simply don't get that handling delicacy that you do with a good N/A engine. You end up going into the corner slower and riding out the boost and adjusting the yaw via the wheel, which IMO just isn't as fun as it feels like you're driving around the problem.
VR
TommyBuoy said:
Undoubtedly you would learn to drive around it, but from a higher revving VTEC engine (9000rpm) to the Golf, it was a stark difference.
Which was worse?? From my experiance, highly tuned 100+ bhp/litre V-Tec engines are more peaking, yet perversely similar to turbo'd cars?Dead below 6k, then WAHEEY all the way to 9k. Probably the best/worst example of that is the S2000 - great car, but needs to be worked very hard to get the most from it, and needing to utilise 1st gear even on track in tighter corners (eg, some of the chicanes at Oulton Park). Even the 'shove in the back' when the VTEC kicked in was similar.
My old Exige was very peaky - nippy to 6k, then roared above. The traditionalist hated it as it was too peaky and too much like a Turbo'd car - and many prefered the VX Turbo'd equivalent for it's superior power devlivery.
Take it to the ultimate - my old Whiting Blade - power didn't come in until 9,000rpm, it would stall at less that 3,000 if you weren't careful and became very hard work.... But 150bhp from a car that weighed less than some engines.
Now with modern forced induction, the end results are seemingly less peaky. The 335i being a perfect example. Twin/Sequential turbo's are a great work around at getting higher power with less peak but without sacrificing fuel consumption except when on song.
Big capacity N/A will always be preferable - non-peaky, reasonable low down grunt - but with big capacity comes big fuel bills, big engines, big weights. Witness the V8 Westfields Vs the Bike-Powered versions.
No easy workaround.
Edited by Ramses on Wednesday 5th October 11:28
VR6 Turbo said:
rhinochopig said:
I'm serious.
The reason I don't like turbo engines is that for me - and I respect the fact that we each enjoy different types of driving pleasure - they simply do not offer the same level of control as an N/A engine. The pinnacle of driving pleasure for me is the ability to balance a car on the throttle and play with that balance with your right foot - lift off, yaw increases, back on the throttle and some steering input yaw decreases, or more throttle yaw increase, etc. repeat until bored.
In a turbo motor, when you lift off, boost is lost and therefore so is power, and getting back on the throttle results in that agonising wait for boost and you simply don't get that handling delicacy that you do with a good N/A engine. You end up going into the corner slower and riding out the boost and adjusting the yaw via the wheel, which IMO just isn't as fun as it feels like you're driving around the problem.
I do see your point. but honestly its down to set-up, the VR6 has barley any lag. the trick is to not over do the turbo. The reason I don't like turbo engines is that for me - and I respect the fact that we each enjoy different types of driving pleasure - they simply do not offer the same level of control as an N/A engine. The pinnacle of driving pleasure for me is the ability to balance a car on the throttle and play with that balance with your right foot - lift off, yaw increases, back on the throttle and some steering input yaw decreases, or more throttle yaw increase, etc. repeat until bored.
In a turbo motor, when you lift off, boost is lost and therefore so is power, and getting back on the throttle results in that agonising wait for boost and you simply don't get that handling delicacy that you do with a good N/A engine. You end up going into the corner slower and riding out the boost and adjusting the yaw via the wheel, which IMO just isn't as fun as it feels like you're driving around the problem.
VR
Ramses said:
Which was worse?? From my experiance, highly tuned 100_bhp/litre V-Tec engines are more peaking, yet perversely similar to turbo'd cars?
Dead below 6k, then WAHEEY all the way to 9k. Probably the best/worst example of that is the S2000 - great car, but needs to be worked very hard to get the most from it, and needing to utilise 1st gear even on track in tighter corners (eg, some of the chicanes at Oulton Park). Even the 'shove in the back' when the VTEC kicked in was similar.
Not the same thing at all. You are mixing up, as most people do, thottle response and boost threshold/peakiness.Dead below 6k, then WAHEEY all the way to 9k. Probably the best/worst example of that is the S2000 - great car, but needs to be worked very hard to get the most from it, and needing to utilise 1st gear even on track in tighter corners (eg, some of the chicanes at Oulton Park). Even the 'shove in the back' when the VTEC kicked in was similar.
Throttle response is instant in the NA, regardless of the revs and low power output. It is not with a turbo. Elasticity as described above is a good way of expressing it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff