Poll: Normally aspirated or forced induction?

What do you prefer?

  • Normally aspirated

    Votes: 129 39.2%

  • Forced induction

    Votes: 141 42.9%

  • No preference

    Votes: 59 17.9%
  • Total voters
    329
Entai said:
We needed to see it and measure it up for the crash testing programme it will under go soon to meet safety regs, after we had done that a few of us managed to blag a quick blast round the tracks.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting, expensive car to crash test mind, they don't front and side tests on two cars?
 
NA without a doubt. The Boxster and MR2 turbo both are similar weight and have similar power, but the Boxster is just soooo much smoother to drive.
 
Not driven anything decent and turbo but been in the passenger side of a few. I think the RX7 I went in was about as good as it got and felt very positive but when it comes to B-Road fun, N/A is the way to go.

If I wanted to go F/I (which I might), Supercharging an N/A engine would be the route I'd go as it's still pretty linear and predictable.
 
The engine I got on best with was the NA 8 valve C20SEH I had in my manta, taken from a Cavalier SRI. I really don't get on with the lack of power off boost from turbos, and 16 valve engines just seem to take too much reving to get the best from them. I liked being able to put my foot down and have fairly linear power.

That said I think the Chevy small block in my Camaro could be quite nice once I put the rebuilt carb on.
 
Firestar_3x said:
This is true but once you push them past factory standard specs them seem to give up at higher RPM, could be revo but thats how my K03's felt, K04 not so bad but i need a proper remap for it!
Click to expand...

The graphs on here> http://www.revotechnik.com/products/softwareProduct.aspx?pvID=827 demonstrate that pretty well. Thats for a K03s but basically the same as in the torque drops quite dramatically from 4500 rpm. Despite this I find it quite nice to drive as you've basically got 2000 rpm of 200bhp on tap and if you use the revs properly you need not drop below that.
 
Hunders said:
When driving normally you find yourself having to wait for boost to build if you need to speed up or go up a hill because you tend not to be in the right gear. If you are in the correct gear, though, the lag isn't very noticeable at all.
Click to expand...

So shift down ... or just be in the correct gear all the time :D
 
Firestar_3x said:
Sounds interesting, expensive car to crash test mind, they don't front and side tests on two cars?
Click to expand...

Yes it will most likely require, at the very least, two cars, we can do a frontal and a rear impact on the same car. Then need a new car to perform a side impact (simulated vehicle to vehicle) on one side and a pole impact on the other side. Most manufacturers when testing use a new chassis for each of the four tests, but with these costing in excess of £1.5 million each I suspect they will want to limit the number destroyed.

On occassion we can do a side impact on the same car as the front and rear impacts but it depends on the construction of the car and the damage sustained from the frontal and rear impacts.

For instance on the McLaren F1 many years ago, we were able to conduct all four tests on one chassis as there was very little chassis intrusion from any of the impacts, it was all superficial damage.
 
It depends really.

-Small 4 cyl <3ltr FI
-Big Yank V8 or European V8,10,12 NA.

Also it depends upon the application.
 
NA due to racing classes.
Westfields running 250bhp out of a 2Lt (well 1998cc) NA Zetec so competes in the <2Lt classes.
[Different championships & competitions are different etc] but usually FI would double the declared capacity so would be up with the 4Lt guys :eek:

Though I did like the boost on dad's Pro-drive Impreza and Pug T16 :cool:
 
Last edited:
Guess... \/
:D


(I have only properly driven one turbo though - my sisters boyfriends MR FQ-360, down a few country lanes..on numerous occasions)
 
Last edited:
I'm so undecided on this, there's nothing better than the high revving more linear delivery of N/A.. but how much fun is a turbo when it kicks you back and makes you feel like you are going properly fast?
 
AmDaMan said:
I'm so undecided on this, there's nothing better than the high revving more linear delivery of N/A.. but how much fun is a turbo when it kicks you back and makes you feel like you are going properly fast?
Click to expand...

I still cant really work this out either. 9000rpm or a massive surge of turbo torque.
 
I've had both, a twin-turbo, single variable turbo and N/A. I love the way that N/A delivers its power, smooth and sweet... But the turbo kick is sublime! The best was probably the twin-turbo, except for when it was in the wrong gear and the turbo-laaaaaaaaaag kicked in :-(
 
I prefer supercharged engines. I'm not a thrashing kind of guy, tbh I prefer torque in the mid range. Turbo is a bit too manic for me, well, with big boost anyhow. 6 cylinder 3 litre bmw engine with supercharger plsk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom