Turbo or NA, which do you prefer and why?

[TameRacingDriver]

Following the thread about daily driver turbo cars, and noticing that some people say they prefer the way they drive compared to N/A cars got me thinking about this thread.

I normally seem to see people preferring the drive of N/A cars, stating better sounding, often revvier, better throttle response, no lag, less potential for reliability issues, easier to maintain etc.

Obviously turbo cars offer more shove so feel quicker, are easier and better tune and potentially offer better fuel economy for a given power level.

So which do you prefer and why? I must admit I generally prefer an N/A car, speed isn't everything and I feel more involved in the act of driving, as you have to work harder to go fast (more gear changes etc) and I like the noise they make (although the whoosh of a turbo is quite nice to listen to as well).

[TameRacingDriver]

TheHeretic said:

Well, 2 engines I had were the same power. The MR2 turbo and the G35. The engine in the MR2 was definitely more drastic. The noise, the shove. Loved it. The 3.5 V6 in the G35 was a lovely engine though. Different engines for different applications.

I also had an MR2 Turbo and a Nissan 350Z (presumably the same engine as the G35?), anyway, the MR2 was a good engine and very nice, but the noise and response of that V6 was utterly addictive and grin-inducing

[TameRacingDriver]

Close run thing so far - 55% prefer N/A, closer than I thought, both definitely have their plus points though.

[TameRacingDriver]

Scuffers said:

no supercharged/compound charged option

I didn't include it, because having owned a supercharged car once myself, it really is just like having a bigger NA engine under the bonnet IMO. So to say you prefer supercharged makes me think you lean towards the NA option.

I was more interested in whether people liked the power delivery of a turbo or NA for a given power level or whatever reason they may give.

[TameRacingDriver]

TurboBlue said:

kambites said:

TurboBlue said:

OP, I posted earlier that it’s a difficult choice and you’d get a broader consensus if you gave the option for ‘both’ ...

You can't prefer both. If you like them the same amount you prefer neither.

If you want Devil's Advocate, I'd suggest that electric is missing from the Poll too

Get out!

[TameRacingDriver]

007 VXR said:

S/C NA for me then
Not a fan of turbos.

I reckon I would possibly prefer a supercharged 2.2 vx220 over the 2.0 turbo version. I would be interested to find out.

[TameRacingDriver]

bennyboysvuk said:

I drove a BMW 116i the other day with the new 8 speed auto. In Eco-Pro mode it returned 32mpg bimbling around on B-roads. BMW say it does 50 mpg combined. After that disappointing score, I gave up on getting good mpg and drove it a fair bit harder and it averaged 27mpg by the end of my journey. Difficult to tell if there was any lag though since the auto hides it completely.

That's shocking.

I was always impressed with the 116is performance on paper, for a base model car, but from what you're saying, it seems to have the fuel economy of a warm hatch so its not exactly a great compromise after all.