NA or Turbo for same bhp?

[Fishieme]

But TC cars has to pay higher insurance right? WRX insurance damn ex...

[Sypders]

TC does not mean pay more insurance, in fact even NA cars like Honda Civic Type R pays the same premium as they fall the same category.

[Hermit]

TC, bcos lower road tax

 

But insurance always ask "Is it TC-ed?"

I guess premiums is higher for TC on the other hand..

 

I pref NA, linear power.

[Slayer]

Assuming you're looking for a 200bhp car, would you prefer a stock NA car that yield 200bhp or a Turbo-Charge car that also give you 200bhp?

 

Regards,

 

it depends on whether i like the car design.

[Kyojin]

turbo.

 

more low-end torque.

 

for most applications, turbos can achieve same output with lower displacement, which means lower FC.

 

then again, you have to see the complete package. engine isn't everything.

[Robo]

TC anytime.

 

low end torque. no need to whack until high rpm to get the power.

 

lower fc too. that i surely agreee!

[Qr25vet]

NA anytime man...high bhp without FI is simply sweet

like having 900+BHP from a 3L V10 engine?

[Watwheels]

U cannot look at bhp alone, have to look at max torque too. Depending on individual. I would prefer a LPT or Supercharged to 200bhp.

 

The draw is the low end torque it produces which takes little effort to drive up to speed even in city conditions in SG.

 

For NA 200bhp is more suited for track conditions where u stay at high rpm most of the time to attain that max torque at high rpm.

 

Actually I would compare the max torque rather dan bhp in this case of NA vs TC/SC. That's where the real "twisting" power cranked out from the engine.

[BMW320i]

Not necessary. At the track it is more powerband centric as compared to the other factors.

 

Depending on track layout with straights not stretching longer than 200-300m, response is vital. This is something that is hard to achieve on a NA as peak torque is later compared to TC.

 

That is not to say that NA is insufficient on a relatively short track, but suffice to say, plenty had to be done to the gear ratios in particular final drive and in so doing, sacrificing top speed. In such situation cruising 100kph at 4000rpm becomes a hindrance to your daily comfort.

 

The above I just described was what it took for a B16 with Toda cams etc., fully stripped interior, on R comps to achieve 56 seconds region at the local race track. R35 is putting down low 55s region on street comps.

 

On tracks with plenty of corners and hairpins, you are going to need plenty of response to exit the corner quickly. In NA, once you lose momentum, you cannot cover up your mistakes as turbos can do on straights.

 

I would however take a NA if surface was wet. The power delivery is linear and this improves the overall smoothness of your driving. On turbos you can do the same but this is subjected to the experience of your preferred tuner.

 

On raining season such as winter we switch to different ECU maps that actually delay power delivery in the lower rpm region. This is done so that we could restrict breaking of traction between mid corners to corner exits where traction is crucial in order to spread the lead between ourselves and the competitor behind us.

[Lorrliew]

I've owned 4 NA and 3 TC cars, though not the same bhp; overtaking in SG condition or even in NSH, TC is effortless. Feel the turbo spin and car surge forward is additive. This is becoz max torque is achieved at lower rpm for TC cars.

 

In SG driving condition, it is difficult for TC car owners (especially if you're a relatively fast driver) to turn back to NA, unless it is a much higher bhp NA.

 

TC higher maintenance cost & insurance, lower road tax, lower fuel consumption. Lots of rooms to mod if you want to, even basic tuning of ECU can give you 40-60bhp more.

[Texas5]

NA maintenance cost nt siong as TC, TC car not as easy to control/handling as people thought in the 1st place compare to NA.

[Mustank]

sorry, don mean to reply to you

 

but because yours is the last thread and i have general question

 

many people say that torque is achieved at lower rpm

 

but i don understand

 

i thot that if rpm is low, turbo fins are moving but the air pressure is not high enough to make a difference?

 

which is why prople later come out with twin turbos (one big one small) and now variable turbo to capture the energy at lower rpm?

 

i guess which is why VW puts in supercharger and turbo charger

 

anyone know variable turbo how much ah?

Edited November 6, 2008 by Mustank

[Zuoom]

assuming both NA, TC are on the 2L mark.

 

NA 200bhp would probably be a high revving engine. the torque would come in late at the revs.

car like this would be the Civic TypeR, Integra, Celica etc. ie: B18C, B20, K20A2, 2ZZGE etc.

low down on the revs they dun have the torque, and to a certain extent are quite gutless.

 

TC 200bhp would probably be something more relax. best example i can think of is the Saab 93, 95.

torque comes in early. and even when it's couped with the auto transmission gearbox, the car is still very drivable. so much so that in the mid range, ie: cruising. you step on the throttle to overtake a car. it just goes!

 

when we throw in bigger CC engine for NA, the equation will change again. big 3-4L NA engine sometimes produce only 200 plus hp. but the way it deliver the torque is different. for it does not require the high screaming revs... haha.

 

for Singapore context, the govt penalise bigger CC cars with a higher road tax. but that's another matter altogether.

 

o, then there's also the consideration when comparing turbo. petrol turbo or turbo diesel? .P

 

and a relatively new technology to consider. the Dual charged engine. ie: VW 1.4L TSI supercharged n Turbo.

 

so many things to consider n play with nowadays.

 

============

 

to compare better, maybe we can use the example from the Audi A4.

they offer a 1.8T model which has about 200hp.

there's also a 3.0 model which has about 200hp.

 

both have rather similar FC, trim, suspension, rims etc.

 

if both similar pricing (and disregarding the road tax situation in Singapore).

 

i would take the NA anytime. it just "feels" better.

[Dwoon]

Yah... man.... its difficult to go back to an NA car....

 

I prefer the punch in the back vs linearity.

 

Got a friend with a modded Integra that does 5 to 6 sec century sprint (mine also thereabouts), sat in it but like no kick..... although when you look at the speedo, its already 100km/h.

 

I still prefer TC though... like when cruising at 160km/h.... I can floor the pedal and still feel the kick (although much much weaker) and overtake effortlessly. Wonder if similar bhp NA setup can still accelerate fast when urged to do so when at higher speeds..

[Mustank]

turbo got extra maintenance cost meh

 

i thot turbo shares the same lubircant as the engine

 

but if never fix turbo timer and the turbo gets busted one day, then of course lots of costs comes into the picture

[Mustank]

now i am really getting confused

 

mine got turbo but small one

 

there is no sudden surge of energy

 

does petrol turbos got this sudden surge of energy?

[Calvin53]

TC cars have to service every 5k whereas NA 10k.. wear and tear faster. tourbo timer i dunnow. i driving NA. think turbo timer helps to cool down turbo after switch off engine

[Hoppie24]

Assuming you're looking for a 200bhp car, would you prefer a stock NA car that yield 200bhp or a Turbo-Charge car that also give you 200bhp?

 

Regards,

 

No need to think, TURBO the way to go. You wont get those Amazing TORQUE with NA unless higher CC. I driven both, my car been to Turbo and now NA, Turbo the way to go man!