PDA

View Full Version : turbo vs n/a



jdm_celica_gts
05-08-2012, 06:31 AM
Which do you prefer?
Why?

I like n/a for the pure motor aspects of it.
But LOVE boost for the sound and feeling of it, between my trac and sti I don't know if ill ever go back to n/a...... until the frs
.... then back to boost when the brz sti (if produced) comes out haha

Hookecho
05-08-2012, 02:50 PM
Das Boost.

Lonestag
05-08-2012, 03:38 PM
I like NA because you are able to avoid an entire system of plumbing under your hood, plus the added weight.

In general, most of my "project" cars are also daily drivers, so I like to avoid the extra fuel consumption.

UtahSleeper
05-08-2012, 08:04 PM
I like boost!! But I base what I want off what the car will be used for.

DD I would prefer NA. Better mileage and less shit to break.

Everything else, BOOST.

Car_Barn_Bandit
05-08-2012, 08:35 PM
Displacement and N/A for the sake of reliability, torque and lack of spooling.

Hookecho
05-08-2012, 08:59 PM
My car gets 29mpg on the highway.

Displacement doesn't equal reliability. That is stupid. I've owned many troublesome V8 motors. The more power they made the more drive train parts I broke. Pay to play. Maintenance is key. In my experience, if you leave a motor stock and maintain it properly it will give you little trouble. As soon as you start to mod it then be prepared to spend your money. That goes for any motor N/A or F/I.

IMO, most of the people who make these arguments have never left the N/A realm and have no real experience to make the comparison.

Car_Barn_Bandit
05-08-2012, 09:02 PM
Stock would be a better answer.

bloodMoney
05-08-2012, 09:13 PM
Hook is right.

The 3s that is in our alltrac has run great for years with little more than basic maintenance. Yet, the 5s's (yes 3 of them) in our 6gen have given me nothing but trouble.

It all comes down to the condition that the PO left the engine in AND how hard you are on it.

Car_Barn_Bandit
05-08-2012, 09:31 PM
I guess I took the question when it comes to modification on an engine. Whether to leave it and build it N/A or go turbo. I personally like the simplicity that comes with a N/A workhorse.

bloodMoney
05-08-2012, 09:59 PM
It seems as though the OP was just asking for preference.... If that is the case, I prefer forced induction cars.

Not looking at cost, reliability, fuel mileage.... Looking strictly at personal preference, I'm all about the boost :)

Luni
05-08-2012, 10:55 PM
Most turbo engines are capable of better fuel economy than their NA counterparts.

Ive personally gotten 36mpg in my MR2. Yes, in my MR2. On a 3S, running 15 PSI at the time. On a roadtrip through the high plateau regions in Wyoming, and through Grand Teton national park, and Yellowstone. My Celicas best is 36mpg as well.

If you take care of it, lets say for the sake of arguement, stock for stock, 3S vs 5S, I believe the 3S to be every bit as reliable, and maybe even more so reliable than a 5S.

In general, with the way technology is rolling, Id still rather have a turbo. Me likey da boosta.

pintoBC_3sgte
05-08-2012, 11:10 PM
Me likey da boosta.

that pretty much sums it up right there. :D

Disco Dan
05-09-2012, 02:01 AM
Don't you still have to pay for premium on a turbo? With the prices lately, that's like $5 more per fill-up from an empty tank.

Hookecho
05-09-2012, 02:56 AM
Around here premium is .20 cents per gallon more than regular. So that's $3.20 extra to fill a bone dry tank if that ever happened. Well worth the smile.

T-spoon
05-09-2012, 03:29 AM
There's also NOTHING simple about making all-motor power. FI is much simpler, IMO.

v3
05-09-2012, 06:04 AM
I <3 Boost

Mafix
05-10-2012, 06:58 PM
boost

Lonestag
05-10-2012, 08:27 PM
Most turbo engines are capable of better fuel economy than their NA counterparts.


I have heard this but have always been skeptical.

I mean, theory seems sound to me, engine gets to recycle some kinetic energy that would otherwise be dissapated in the exhaust. But I havn't really ever seen it work in practice, not that it's somthing I've looked into extensivly.

Of course, once you are at altitude, I have no trouble believing FI cars are superior for fuel and power.

Would be fun to test a good 3SGE against a 3SGTE bone stock both in front wheel drive cars.

If anyone has any good information on this, let me know, it's somthing i've been interested in.


From the reliability standpoint, I have a hard time believing turbocharging has much of an edge. I mean, moving beyond anecdotal evidence, it seems hard to believe that any system with five or six additional components and that routinly builds up intake and exhaust preasures and temperatures far in excess of anything a NA counterpart would ever see would be more reliable.

Now it would be easy to believe that automakers may use superior engineering and materials in the construction of a turbo motor, but that wouldn't help the case of forced induction's superior reliability.

Of course we are talking about preference, so I can obviously see how many would take turbo over NA, I mean vroom vroom!

Hookecho
05-10-2012, 08:33 PM
Reliability....no such thing.

The Captain
05-11-2012, 02:24 AM
I've seen Mercedes Turbo diesels with 400,000 plus miles. Never even had the valve cover off. Original turbos that are only oil cooled. The difference is MB people spend money on maintenance. A small displacement turbo will get better economy than a large N/A, off boost. A smaller n/a you'll have to ring the snot out of to get moving. Not fun for me. An S2000 is fun on the dragon but sucks everywhere else. Ultimately I'd rather lay down torque at lower RPM's. Either big-n/a or small-turbo. It's more pleasurable to drive. Less hectic.

Plus with big n/a, you can't increase your power with the turn of a knob.

Lonestag
05-11-2012, 12:52 PM
Plus with big n/a, you can't increase your power with the turn of a knob.


Like This?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_anCTDLMYLO4/TJAwaAPKoQI/AAAAAAAAC20/u9hOqe3qBa8/s1600/turbo-boost.jpg

Hookecho
05-11-2012, 01:52 PM
Lol, that reminded me of a guy I work with who has a Z4 with a turbo button. He tells everyone that he has a turbo. I've tried to explain it to him but it's no use.

lalojamesliz
05-11-2012, 10:09 PM
boost. i have even looked at boosting my sequoia's 3UR-FE! but unfortunately the wife did not approve :( lol

Nitro_Alltrac
05-17-2012, 02:34 AM
After having a turbo car, I'm going to do my best from here on out to always have one. I love the power it makes and at least with the TMIC, I don't have noticeable lag when I hit the gas.

As far as reliability, mine has been as good as about anything I've had. Most of the trouble that I have experienced has either been caused be me or my son, not the car.

As for gas mileage, I average 22-24 driving back and forth to work and have seen as high as 29 on the highway. My theory is that most people that claim the 3SGTE is unreliable haven't kept up on the maintenance and just drove the piss out their car. You do that, regardless of NA or forced induction, things are going to break and the car is going to be unreliable.

jdm_celica_gts
05-17-2012, 03:42 AM
How much more boost lag do you have with a fmic?

Hookecho
05-17-2012, 04:05 AM
Maybe a split second. The only difference I can feel is more power.

Nitro_Alltrac
05-17-2012, 04:10 AM
Somebody else will have to chime in on that. I've never had a front mount. I had the stock ATA and then upgraded to the 205 WTA unit.

jdm_celica_gts
05-17-2012, 05:33 AM
I have tmic... about to put on fmic, was it that noticeable?

4thgenceli
05-17-2012, 05:57 AM
I have a slight lag. I can't speak too a tmic, but my fmic I have maybe a half to a two second delay. I don't worry about that lag though, when the boost kicks in I forever about the lag.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

KoreanJoey
05-17-2012, 06:41 AM
<<< Hates lag. Lag while trying to correct for oversteer = fail.

T-spoon
05-17-2012, 03:18 PM
How much more boost lag do you have with a fmic?

Not necessarily anything noticeable, but the reduction in heat soak is extremely noticeable. :hehe:

Terracar
05-23-2012, 10:46 PM
For me I have mixed feelings...

For crisp throttle response - N/A
For the shear excitement - Turbo

-Terracar

Hookecho
05-24-2012, 02:03 AM
I don't notice any lag at all. I also have a 24X9 FMIC with rear facing outlets. Which makes for much less charge pipe than most setups need.

allTRACway
05-24-2012, 07:05 AM
I don't notice any lag at all. I also have a 24X9 FMIC with rear facing outlets. Which makes for much less charge pipe than most setups need.

is that the same style as the SRT FMIC?

as for me I prefer the boost. Correct me if im wrong but from my understanding the reason behind a turbo being created was to increse fuel economy.

A18A
05-24-2012, 02:00 PM
If I want cheap & quick hacker, I'd go for a turbo. Otherwise N/A motors is what does it for me.

The Captain
05-24-2012, 02:59 PM
.
Correct me if im wrong but from my understanding the reason behind a turbo being created was to increse fuel economy.
Just a power adder.

Luni
05-25-2012, 08:32 PM
Turbos were originally conceived to assist airplanes where flying above a certain altitude wont sustain airflow enough to keep an engine going, so you NEED to have a turbo to forcefeed air up there. Thats my understanding anyway.

MrWOT
05-26-2012, 05:24 AM
<<< Hates lag. Lag while trying to correct for oversteer = fail.

:mswerd:

N/A is for corners, turbos are for straights. Not that turbos can't corner, you just have to know your car REALLY well

allTRACway
05-26-2012, 09:02 AM
Just a power adder.

Turbos were originally conceived to assist airplanes where flying above a certain altitude wont sustain airflow enough to keep an engine going, so you NEED to have a turbo to forcefeed air up there. Thats my understanding anyway.
Your both right, and I was wrong (http://www.ask.com/wiki/Turbocharger)

l0ch0w
07-22-2012, 02:16 PM
ever since i figured out that I could turn on antilag and learned how to brake boost, the whole corners thing stopped mattering so much :P