na or turbo?

[silviafreak]

i prefer turbo, because i have gotten pretty good at heel-toe, so i can keep the turbo spooled up, but wen im drifting, i dont like to fall outta the touque band, cause then alla sudden you get that sudden burst of power. wen that happens, i wish i had a na. lol. what do you prefer?

[VertigoEpidemic]

Personally NA, but I haven't experianced a turbo's true power before.

Not to be a jerk or anything, but next time "search before you post." This topic has been covered many times! Even I've gotten flamed for bringing it up. Don't be afraid to make an old forum get bumpd to the top again.

[silviafreak]

i did search. but if you can give me alink to the page i 'just repeated' please give it to me. thanks

[VertigoEpidemic]

My apologies. To be specific I was thinking more along the lines of "Turbo Vs Super"

Here’s the link for that though: http://www.drifting.com/forums/showt...&threadid=6686

[OH240SE]

its all a matter of preference,

personally i'd like to crank 240hp and 244tq out of my KA w/out a turbo, but a power booster such as a turbo is so much more cost effective.


Haven't driven a turbo YET, but regardless of whether its an NA or Turbo, u'll still have that power band.

[Darkstar]

Get a nice tuned NA SR20. It doesn't lack torque in the lower-rpm's like Hondas, it's a 2 liter man! If it has around 200 flywheel ponies, then it's great. You could stick an ITB set to it, high compression pistons, a decent set of cams (could be Toda or Tomei), make some headwork and knife-edging the stock crankshaft, and a custom exhaust to cut the costs down a bit. I think you'd reach 180 at flywheel pretty easily. You could do even more if you had a standalone ECU and better balanced bottom end (new crank and rods, could be Tomei), but that's a lot of money.

If it doesn't convince you, think about being different than tenths of people driving moderately tuned 240SX's with a DET conversion. I'd go NA.

[Craftsman]

I'd say go N/A, but for four cylinder cars... That's really not an option unless you got a 4.0 L four banger...

N/A for several reasons. N/A is less parts and less can go wrong. N/A has less compression and puts less pressure on the internal parts. It also is lighter because of less parts. Also, depending on the tuning, the motor has a linear powerband which makes the car very predictable...

Now here are some reasons against N/A. Pulling power out of an N/A car is very difficult. Efficiency of a motor is related with compression. There is only so much you can do with piston compression to make power. 1 bar of boost basically doubles the compression of your intake... (alot more complex, and not exactly accurate either but I'm saying this to explain my point.)

Also, for an equivalent power level out of two motors, one N/A and one turbo. The turbo motor will be close to half the size of the N/A motor if turbo is running at one bar boost.

Also with smaller and modern turbos, boost can be controlled to make the motor linear.

Wear and tear will be more harsh on turbo motors though. That's why turbo motors are generally alot more built than N/A motors...

[requiredoption]

The turbo vs. natural asperation argument ultimatly needs to come down to what the application is.

People tend to forget how flexable engines are today, turbo engines are capable of pulling from low to high rpm's through engine management, just like it is entirely possible for an n/a engine to be completely guttless until 3000 rpm.

In any engine you have spark and cam timing to contend with, as well as cam duration and lift, displacement, port size, bore vs. stroke, exaust back pressure, and the static compression ratio. All of these are factors in where your power is delivered, and changing one variable without considering the others generally leads to unexpected results. Like porting out your heads, without changing anything else, you effectivly lower port velocity, but increase the amount of air thats able to flow through the engine, thus, less torque, more top end power.


In n/a engines... depending on your desired results you have a bunch of possibility's building a high reving short stroke, or a torque-y low reving stroker. Most always you will see high compression, high lift and high duration cams in order to get as much air into the cylinder as possible, and then compress it as much as possible.

In turbo engines, traditionally, all of the above is held true exept for high duration cam's and a high static compression ratio. You can imagine that because you have a compresser blowing compressed air into the cylinders, you wouldnt want a high duration cam, as alot of your prescious air would leave as quickly as it entered. The size of the compressor also comes into play here, a smaller compressor will spool up quicker with less lag, while a larger compresser will deliver higher amounts of pressure, and will also deliver 16 psi alot colder/denser than a smaller turbo will. Of course hybrid turbos come into play here and so on.

And as for turbo's having a lower compression ratio: With all of that hot air entering the engine, the engine is prone to pre-detonation, one of the simplist ways to fix this is to lower the engines compression ratio, and so automakers have done this and its become common practice, but, with modern tuning tools at our disposal it is entirely possible to modify spark/fuel curves, add alchohol/water injection, ect. ect. in order to compensate for higher static compression, and more boost ect. So, turbo lag can become almost a mute point by raising the compression of a turbo engine, of course things like durability, emissions, build costs are going to be factors.


The point of all of that is you really need to understand what you need out of your engine (quick bolt on power? tons of torque? lots of revs?) before you can deside that something is nessicarily "better"

-i'm sure i've forgotten alot here

[fatvp]

if any i'd rather drift, supercharged or na

[Ghost of Duluth]

Turbo vs KA boils down to preference. What do YOU want? Asking all of us what we prefer is like asking us what kind of drinks we like to drink. Besides, you can find out everyone elses opinions in the 123 other threads that come up when you type in "turbo vs NA" in the search engine.

[Craftsman]

Yea, that's why we're listing the pluses and minuses of both...

Ghost is absolutely correct.

The question is, do you want a linear power band? Or do you want one that is non-linear? Superchargers and N/A motors are known to be linear in power delivery. Turbos can be tuned to be linear, but if the turbos are very large, they're going to be extremely non-linear.

[marshalarteest]

have you seen best motoring n/a vs turbo? im gonna assume yes but if you havn't go check it out. lil 190hp mr-s smoking kei office's s15 and such and such, its quite a show.

[Darkstar]

Great vid! I've watched it several times and I love the way Orido leaves everybody behind. Quite a hard thing to do with a car that actually has 130HP less. The MR-S is so light it just flies through the corners... I love this car. It could be similar to Miata when it comes to the fun-for-the-buck factor, but I suppose Toyota's softer than the Mazda.

[Hachi-roku04]

if you want horsepower from a small displacement motor ie 3 liter or less you need to add compression. na's do this buy using hardcore pistons and cams with trick headgaskets to make the compression higher. to get a lot of na hp you need high compression and a very highly tuned throttle body (individual is probally best) with low displacement engines tuned na they have very little torque a perfect exmample would be the honda clan. especally the s2000.
tuning with turbos you get a more even hp/torque number while using a safer motor. instead of using the engine parts it uses boost to up the compression.
a big trade off is throttle responce. with na you have the power instantly with turbo it has to spool.
but with a highly tuned na motor the powerband is very small ie the s2000 again. it has to wind up to 5000 rpm to get its power.

then there is the mix of both
supercharging
wich has almost the same power as a turbo but with no lag

each setup has its problems but high power na's are known for problems because of the engines falling apart
you need very strong valve parts to keep from going sky high
amomg others is the fact that because of compression you must use super high octane gas.
the skunk 2 rsx drag car i beleve has around 350 hp
and only 190 ft lbs
and runs on 135 octane gas!

its all preference

[GRiDRaceTech]

NA until I honestly feel the NEED for a turbo. Either way, I'm KA.