NA vs Turbo

[Clutch_Kick]

i have a line-up of cars that i can afford right now, and i have some leftover money for a mod that my dad will pay for......anyway, with that in my mind i am debating wheather to get an NA or a turbocharged vehicle....can anyone explain to me the differences between the two as well as the good and bads of both of them.

i'd really appreciate it, thanks alot

[TheSilentChamber]

Turbo cars have a turbo, and cars without a turbo dont have turbos. Or was you not looking for a smartass answer?

[Clutch_Kick]

i know that.....im asking for specifics, like does one perform better than the other, is one good for something that the other one isn't, stuff like that.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by Clutch_Kick

i know that.....im asking for specifics, like does one perform better than the other, is one good for something that the other one isn't, stuff like that.

There is no answer to that question that will fit in a single post, or even a single thread in a forum.

At the end of the day the purpose of an engine is to turn the drive wheels. There are so many different ways of going about it, its impossible to say one is better than the other.

[Carfreak18]

Well theirs many ways to answer this,I can give you some basic info though..considering I dont know to much,Depends if you buy the car with a turbo or do it yourself,the point of a turbo is "forced induction"..to force more air into the engine,You could buy a n/a vehicle and buy a turbo kit complete anywhere from 2,000-5,000$,depends on the turbo size and how much psi you run,when you get into higher psi,compression,etc. you will need to start upgrading your internals,and theirs no way to answer which ones better in this case because you gave us no idea of what kinda car that you want,a 4 banger civic or an old muscle car, in that case a 496 chevelle would obviously be more powerful than a turboed 100 HP civic,you need to be more specific.

[TheSilentChamber]

I'd love to see a 496 stock chevelle.

[Right_LiRrr]

Originally Posted by Clutch_Kick

i know that.....im asking for specifics, like does one perform better than the other, is one good for something that the other one isn't, stuff like that.

dude, look on google first. u r asking one of the most generic questions in relation to cars.

it makes u look like an idiot and other will treat u like one.

You can write an entire thesis on this topic.

Generally, it comes down to that you want out of your car and that is the only thing that will determine if one is better than the other.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

it makes u look like an idiot and other will treat u like one.

I won't comment on what the photo in your sig looks like, but his question makes him look a lot smarter.

[Clutch_Kick]

aren't we here to ask stupid questions, someone who's trying to learn wont know if they're asking a stupid question because they don't know that what they are asking is stupid, it's just to become more informed. I apologize if i posed a question that caused alot of confusion, i'm just looking for answers i hope you guys can understand.

about the question regarding the kind of cars... i have a choice between a mazda rx7 fc 1991 and an ae86 toyota trueno

[TheSilentChamber]

Just drive both, see which you like better.

[UncleBob]

I assume the RX7 is turbo'd, and the AE86 isn't.

The RX7 was rated with 200hp and nearly the same torque in stock form.

The AE86 had two motors offered, depending on year and model, so its either a 70hp engine, or a 112hp engine.

So as you can see from these two examples, the RX7 will have around double the power.

This doesn't have much to do with turbo's though. The RX7's non-turbo'd version was 160hp. It would still be way faster than the AE86.

There is some disadvantages of a turbo. They add more complexity, and thereby, increase the number of things that could break. They are expensive if the turbo fails. Its harder to work on a turbo'd car. You also must be more attentive to things like oil changes, with a turbo'd car, or risk premature damage to the turbo and possibly the rest of the engine.

Stock turbo'd engines aren't usually all that impressive, power wise. The manufacturers always play it safe and put overly small turbo's on engines and keep the boost lowish. Most turbo'd stock cars will easily be outperformed by a wide selection of other high performance cars on the market, many times even the same displacement.

The reason that turbo's are all the rave right now, is due to what you CAN do with a turbo, if you build a car well, and push the envolope on the performance. You can make an engine WAY outperform any naturally asperated version that could be built.....but they will be "fragile", possibly very short lived, depending on a lot of factors.

[UncleBob]

Originally Posted by Moppie

I won't comment on what the photo in your sig looks like, but his question makes him look a lot smarter.

I think that parked car is moving reeeally fast! Kinda like those funny Celica commercials from a couple years ago. Always thought those were pretty funny

here's one of them: http://www.visit4info.com/details.cf...d&startrow=141

[beef_bourito]

I'd suggest you get a naturaly aspirated car simply because you don't know very much about turbochargers and don't have any experience with them. learn what you can from that car (which is an awful lot) then when you're ready either build a system yourself (complicated and requires alot of research), help someone who's designing it for you, or buy a turbo kit. This way, if something fails on the car you've got a much better chance of fixing it yourself (although sometimes it's a much better idea to bring it to a mechanic if it's your only mode of transportation) then if it had all the extra lines, pipes, and just general complexity of a turbocharged car.

this being said, don't sacrifice quality to go to a NA car. if the turbocharged car is in better condition and has a better reliability record, then go for that one. so if you're choosing between a porsche 944 and a 1990 chevy cavalier, i'd go for the porsche (i think, porsche is high end so i would think they're better quality but i don't know porsche quality, this is just a general example.) So use your judgement, i'd suggest NA since it's simpler, less expensive (generaly), usually more reliable, and easier to work on for a novice.

[Clutch_Kick]

alright thank alot bro, anyone else?

[Right_LiRrr]

Originally Posted by Moppie

I won't comment on what the photo in your sig looks like, but his question makes him look a lot smarter.

I just think a little bit of google search and forum faq reading goes a long way before posting a thread.

And I didn't even mean for it to be deregatory, it does make u look stupid when u put no effort into something ur trying to learn about and then ask a question that is all over the net.

I mean, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturally-aspirated_engine

"Natural aspiration gives less power than either turbo or supercharged engines of same engine displacement and development level but is cheaper to produce and generally operates with better fuel efficiency. In drag racing, naturally-aspirated vehicles are vehicles that do not run a blower, a turbo, nor use nitrous oxide."

If you put some effort into stuff, people are much more engaging and the content of the thread is much more useful.

My 2c

And I think those white stripes in the photo was a cool effect from what was a random photo i took.

"aren't we here to ask stupid questions, someone who's trying to learn wont know if they're asking a stupid question because they don't know that what they are asking is stupid, it's just to become more informed. I apologize if i posed a question that caused alot of confusion, i'm just looking for answers i hope you guys can understand."

Sure, and no problem, but u really have to be more specific to get anything out of it. Asking such a question, which one is better is really begging for a lot of general debate that gives u no answer.

What r u using the car for? How much maintenance do u want to spend on it? Does engine weight bother u?


I drive a turbo car myself so i obviously favour one over the other. If you want something easy to mod, go for turbo. You can get a lot of good power gains with some simple bolt ons and ECU tuning. That's one of the main reasons I got my car.

But having said that, some turbo cars are just for marketing. What you really gotta look at is the end wheels hp rating and the power and torques curves. There are many turbo cars that put out tiny power and the turbo is simply to be able to have a tiny engine.

As said before, it doesn't matter how an engine makes its power, it's the end result i.e. the power and torques curves that matters.