NA vs Turbo

[c32b1 NSX]

i was just wonderin since theres such thing as turbo lag... would a 300hp NA engine be better than a 300hp Turbo engine? thanks!

[MustangRoadRacer]

if by better you mean faster, then yes.
but that depends on the torque of the motor, as well as the hp and torque curve.
a 300hp car with a flat curve will beat a 300hp car with a peaky curve.
usually.

[johnnyBgood]

This would be better titled NA vs. FI. To make a 300 hp engine all depends on the engine itself. For a Firebird to make 300 NA whp is quite easy, and for a Supra to make 300 FI whp is easy as well. But for other cars it is a little more difficult. Engine specs play a big part in what the engine is able to obtain.

For example, for the 3rd Gen Eclipse GT to make 300 whp naturally aspirated would take an extreme amount of work. Raising the compression, timing adjustments, port and polish the head, new exhaust system, cold air intake, lightened flywheel and stronger clutch, stiffer motor mounts and that should be about it.

For a 3rg Gen eclispe to make 300 FI whp, just bolt on the RippMods supercharger. At 7 psi, the flywheel HP is 350. Whp may be around 300-310. And the kit is able to boost up to 17 psi with no other additions. that is almost a 600 hp eclipse.

[Corbin]

it takes like a second for a turbo to spool. The whole issue of turbo lag is vastly overrated and theres a million things you can do to reduce it. I never want to hear that term again.

[SaabJohan]

A turboengine does in general produce more torque (more mid-range power) compared to a NA engine, this more than compensate for the lag in most cases.

For example, compare a 300 hp NA touring car engine to a 300 hp turbocharged WRC engine. The WRC engine is an extreme case but it delivers about 270 of the 300 horses as early as 3500 rpm which is probably about in the middle of the rpm range.

Turbolag does also get shorter at higher rpm.