Turbo, Supercharger, or Tuned NA

[OoNismoO]

some turbo engines, like the audi ones, their torque comes in earlier at around 1950rpm, depends on what engine, and how you tune it. now for drivability, yea the n/a is better, and yea turbo isnt meant to increase reliability, but when you start getting into the higher hp range, like taking an engine that produces 400 hp then increasing it to like 600-700hp, turbo is better.

[Ground Rat]

The more power the better, and to get the most power you need some sort of a power adder, usually forced induction. When pushing the power limits of an engine, it is easier and cheaper to make that excessive power with forced induction. It is usually cheapest with nitrous, but it seems nobody wants to talk about that. With that said, I want my car to be a sleeper. And what better way than with a naturally aspirated engine? What I love about big displacement engines is that fact that they can make insane amounts of power with a naturally aspirated engine. I saw an article (Car Craft I believe) where someone built a 911hp naturally aspirated V8 that had a single carb and ran on pump gas. It would have been cheaper to go the power adder route, but who would expect that kind of power out of that engine? Probably not whoever he's racing.

[Thepeug]

Originally Posted by Ground Rat

The more power the better

Not necessarily. The more power you try to squeeze out of an engine, regardless of the method you use to do so (F1, NA, S/C, N20), the less reliable the engine becomes. Engines are built to factory specs for a reason: to make them perform well, but more importantly, to make them last as long as possible with as few problems as possibe. Even if you build an engine NA, the more you modify it from stock form, the shorter its life becomes. I agree, power is a very good thing, but unfortunately more power = more fun = short-lived, increasingly unreliable engine.

[Ground Rat]

True, but I wasn't talking about reliability. I would still choose a naturally aspirated engine for reliability, though.

[Thepeug]

I guess I was a little off-topic; I was just arguing that "the more power the better" is completely subjective and depends on individual goals. I'm with you on NA, though. I know it's the msot expensive route, but there's just something cool about drawing all of the power from the motor without using a power-adder like turbo or nitrous. And, as you said, it's the most reliable.

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by Thepeug

I guess I was a little off-topic; I was just arguing that "the more power the better" is completely subjective and depends on individual goals. I'm with you on NA, though. I know it's the msot expensive route, but there's just something cool about drawing all of the power from the motor without using a power-adder like turbo or nitrous. And, as you said, it's the most reliable.

No it isn't.

Tell me, if you tune the shit out of any N/A engine is it still daily driveable? No, it won't be. However; with a turbocharged engine you can use a boost controller to turn down the boost and run the car as a daily driver when you want to and run as a race car when you want to. It does not take a rocket scientist to see which one will last longer. Also, you have to realize that this can vary vastly for different engines. A general statement like that doesn't work here.

[Kurtdg19]

Well if you look at it from that standpoint, then I can see your argument. But like you said, general statements like that doesn't work here. Same for your statement.

What if you do tune the shit out of your N/A car? No it probably isn't going to be reliable, but say you turbocharged this tuned N/A car. Well you see my point, your creating even less reliability, but more power. Like I said, turbo's do not increase reliability or drivability, they increase power. Who puts on a turbo/supercharger to add reliability? Who tunes the shit out of their N/A to add reliability?

Let me try to make an example. We have 2 engines of the same spec except one is turbo charged. Now the turbocharged engine is going to have more horsepower, but your not adding reliability. The standard N/A engine w/o the FI will require less maintance (as long as both are driven on proportionally the same standards) and have a longer and less expensive life.

Thats where I make my point that N/A engines are more reliable.

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by Kurtdg19

Well if you look at it from that standpoint, then I can see your argument. But like you said, general statements like that doesn't work here. Same for your statement.

What if you do tune the shit out of your N/A car? No it probably isn't going to be reliable, but say you turbocharged this tuned N/A car. Well you see my point, your creating even less reliability, but more power. Like I said, turbo's do not increase reliability or drivability, they increase power. Who puts on a turbo/supercharger to add reliability? Who tunes the shit out of their N/A to add reliability?

Let me try to make an example. We have 2 engines of the same spec except one is turbo charged. Now the turbocharged engine is going to have more horsepower, but your not adding reliability. The standard N/A engine w/o the FI will require less maintance (as long as both are driven on proportionally the same standards) and have a longer and less expensive life.

Thats where I make my point that N/A engines are more reliable.

I wasn't arguing with you. I agree that any time you add more power you are decreacing the reliability, but only to a point. Just because you add a turbo does not mean you decrease it either. You can be much more reliable with a turbo than you can with tuning. With a turbo you simply turn down the boost with tuning you have to remove parts and detune the car. My statement was not general and works just fine here.

[OoNismoO]

heh..... i find it funny how n/a is getting more votes all of a sudden.

[Thepeug]

Originally Posted by Polygon

I wasn't arguing with you. I agree that any time you add more power you are decreacing the reliability, but only to a point. Just because you add a turbo does not mean you decrease it either. You can be much more reliable with a turbo than you can with tuning. With a turbo you simply turn down the boost with tuning you have to remove parts and detune the car. My statement was not general and works just fine here.

Reliability in either case (NA or F1), depends on how much the car is tuned. A turboed engine can reach 600 hp with much less money and with much less stress on the engine than can an NA engine. If you only want an extra 80 hp or less, however, bolt-ons, head work, and upgraded internals are going to keep the engine much closer to stock reliability than a turbo, even if it's only running at 5 psi.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by Thepeug

Reliability in either case (NA or F1), depends on how much the car is tuned. A turboed engine can reach 600 hp with much less money and with much less stress on the engine than can an NA engine. .

Tell me how reliable it would be to get 600hp out of your I4 on stock internals?

I'm a firm beliver of the saying 'there is no replacment for displacment', and if your going n/a that is the best way to add hp.

[Thepeug]

Originally Posted by Kurtdg19

Tell me how reliable it would be to get 600hp out of your I4 on stock internals?

I agree; with most engines, you would need to reinforce the internals to reach 600 hp, regardless of whether you're doing F1 or NA. With an NA engine, however, reaching 600 hp is going to require a replacement of nearly every stock part, bore/stroke, head work, etc. It's practically a different engine. With a turbo, give it new internals, and you'd be getting MUCH more hp than you would with an NA engine that had the same amount of work. Don't get me wrong; I like NA much better than turbo, but it's going to cost much less money and maintain the stock character of the engine much more closely with a turbo when you have an engine that powerful. When you get into insanely high hp numbers, a turbo is more reliable becuase you can just turn the boost down when you're not racing. A 600hp NA engine is not going to be streetable.

[Ground Rat]

Originally Posted by Thepeug

A 600hp NA engine is not going to be streetable.

It really all depends on how it is built. Unless you think poor gas milage keeps an engine from being streetable? The 496c.i. stroker I'm going to build out of my 454 will push out 600+ hp and be very streetable. But it's going to cost in excess of $7,000.

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by Ground Rat

It really all depends on how it is built. Unless you think poor gas milage keeps an engine from being streetable? The 496c.i. stroker I'm going to build out of my 454 will push out 600+ hp and be very streetable. But it's going to cost in excess of $7,000.

Exactly, there are crate engines that produce, easily, more than 600HP that are streetable.

[Thepeug]

I see what both of you are saying, and I retract my statement. My Honda-obsessed mind is only able to think of engine-building in terms of 1.6 l B or D-series engines. Personally, I don't think a 1.6 l tuned to 600 hp is going to be very streetable, but I forgot the fact that there are plenty of other, larger-displacement engines out there (lots of domestics, the 2JZ, etc.) that can reach those kinds of numbers and still be good for daily driving.