Naturally Aspirated autos.

[McLarenF1God]

What is your opinoin on cars that are NA? I happen to have a ton of respect for them and so should everyone else.

The McLaren F1 may not be the fastest, prettiest car anymore, but it was NA and that is just incedible. No turbos, no superchargers. Amazing. The Carrera GT is 4WD and NA. That deserves respect.

I guess what I want to say is just because a car has a turbo doesn't mean it is going to perform well.

[yin_cheong]

NA has its advantages (like reliablilty, smooth torque curve...), but turbo engines develop more power for the weight of the engine. I like super-charged stuff though, something between the honest NA and the wild turbos.

[McLarenF1God]

Well of course I love fast cars, nice cars, works of art...We all should. When it comes right down to it, I can't afford any of the cars we generally see here, so I'd take what I can get aha.

[rallyprox]

first of all turbo cars are badass (most). and second you cannot the the cooll turbo boost sound andfeel with the na cars or the supercharged cars. I own a 1994 toyota mr2 turbo and it is a hardcore car mclaren wishes he could drive it. what biatch

[AlienDB7]

Personally I prefer NA engines, the power (and torque) is always there and the car feels alot more responsive. A little bit more displacement doesn't hurt :mrgreen:

[McLarenF1God]

Glad you like NA's too.

And Alien, what car is that in your avatar?? Some concept??

[AlienDB7]

And Alien, what car is that in your avatar?? Some concept??
Yes, it's the alpha alero concept from 1997

http://encyclopedia.classicoldsmobile.com/concept/alero.jpg

[coombsie66]

What is your opinoin on cars that are NA? I happen to have a ton of respect for them and so should everyone else.

The McLaren F1 may not be the fastest, prettiest car anymore, but it was NA and that is just incedible. No turbos, no superchargers. Amazing. The Carrera GT is 4WD and NA. That deserves respect.

I guess what I want to say is just because a car has a turbo doesn't mean it is going to perform well.

I too prefer the sound of NA cars, but there is something bout the turbo kicking in and shredding the hell out of the tyres that i quite like!!!

By the way, probably a misstype but the carrera GT is RWD :wink:

[deth]

[quote="McLarenF1God"]What is your opinion on cars that are NA? I happen to have a ton of respect for them and so should everyone else.
[quote]

hehehe...translation "i like NA cars and if you don't i'll beat your head in".
j/k

i respect NA cars but i think the future lies more with turbo and superchargers. IMO forced induction fell out of favour just when real development started and the state of the art at the time was quite primitive. unfortunately that is still what most ppl remember, but when we look around now there are increasingly more and more TCed and SCed cars available. just have a look at rallying! everything is TCed! but then again in order to TC or SC a car one must start with a well designed NA engine.

[Fleischmann]

the Mclaren F1 is still the fastest car in the world.....unless the Koeniggsegg has taken the crown, but as far as i know, it hasn't.

i love turbo engines because they have that *boost* that kicks you in the ass when they kick in......to tell the truth, i don't really care if a car is naturally aspirated or not....it doesn't matter at all to me.

i just want the car to GO. fast.

The Koenigsegg is definately the fastest car, but it hasn't officialy clocked the 391km/h barrier. Iit is already in the guiness book of records for a different reason- it has the most powerful production engine ever (that's until the Bugatti Veyron goes into prodution).

It doesn't matter to me either...all I know is that turbos can make miracles come true, take the Evo VIII and the Scooby for example.
And nobody can deny the fact tht the F40 is a badass car !!

[oldsnail]

i like small displacement n/a cars..

ie. S2000 2.0L 4cyl , 240bhp! to the rear wheels.

[FerrariFerrari]

I used to be against turbocharged cars also, but when I look at how
far they have come in recent times I am beginning to like them a lot.
In a good turbo charged engine nowadays, like those found in cars like
the Porsche 911 Turbo and Subaru Impreza WRX, turbo lag is almost
nonexistent, which is a big improvement over say a Jaguar XJ220. But
when you get right down to it I think it's all a matter of personal opinion.

[brijoel]

I used to be against turbocharged cars also, but when I look at how
far they have come in recent times I am beginning to like them a lot.
In a good turbo charged engine nowadays, like those found in cars like
the Porsche 911 Turbo and Subaru Impreza WRX, turbo lag is almost
nonexistent, which is a big improvement over say a Jaguar XJ220. But
when you get right down to it I think it's all a matter of personal opinion.

actually wrx's have fairly pronounced lag......3,000 rpm for full boost is up there. not terribly different from 10 years ago, in fact it's worse due to emmisions systems backing the turbo up. the 996 turbo has great response because it's a twin turbo setup and gives a much more linear curve due to the smaller turbos being spooled easily.

[deth]

I used to be against turbocharged cars also, but when I look at how
far they have come in recent times I am beginning to like them a lot.
In a good turbo charged engine nowadays, like those found in cars like
the Porsche 911 Turbo and Subaru Impreza WRX, turbo lag is almost
nonexistent, which is a big improvement over say a Jaguar XJ220. But
when you get right down to it I think it's all a matter of personal opinion.

actually wrx's have fairly pronounced lag......3,000 rpm for full boost is up there. not terribly different from 10 years ago, in fact it's worse due to emmisions systems backing the turbo up. the 996 turbo has great response because it's a twin turbo setup and gives a much more linear curve due to the smaller turbos being spooled easily.

i thought the turbo's lag was barely noticible because of porsche's vario cam system :?:

[SFDMALEX]

i love turbo engines because they have that *boost* that kicks you in the ass when they kick in

Ever drove a very fast NA car? A very powerfull NA car? You get that kick 24/7 :D You cant stop smilling.

[SFDMALEX]

I have most respect for good NA engines. Nothing is harder to build. The main reasons people like NA is beacause of the KICK. Well driver a powerfull NA car and you'll get that kick throught the whole trip. It never ends. Thats why the Ferrari 550s engine is so famous. It keeps kicking until it reaches its top speed.

[brijoel]

I used to be against turbocharged cars also, but when I look at how
far they have come in recent times I am beginning to like them a lot.
In a good turbo charged engine nowadays, like those found in cars like
the Porsche 911 Turbo and Subaru Impreza WRX, turbo lag is almost
nonexistent, which is a big improvement over say a Jaguar XJ220. But
when you get right down to it I think it's all a matter of personal opinion.

actually wrx's have fairly pronounced lag......3,000 rpm for full boost is up there. not terribly different from 10 years ago, in fact it's worse due to emmisions systems backing the turbo up. the 996 turbo has great response because it's a twin turbo setup and gives a much more linear curve due to the smaller turbos being spooled easily.

i thought the turbo's lag was barely noticible because of porsche's vario cam system :?:

porsche's variocam only is cam timing. it doesnt really have anything to do with how quickly turbo will spool. variocam isnt good for much more than some top end power in all reality, and is totally useless when applied to a racing application just as is honda's VTEC. in fact, when looking at engine dynamics, having more agressive cams actually HURTS turbo spool up, however variocam simply adjusts the timing of the valves opening. the minimal lag is simply due to the use of 2 smaller turbos on a fairly large flat 6. while the system is not sequential(like a supra or rx-7) they are small enough to spool quickly, one on either side of the engine. small enough turbos for good spool, but large enough for big power.
pretty simple equation.

[rallyprox]

I think the reason to go to turbos or superchrgers is to get more hp out of a smaller space and less weight. sure the turbo will take up space as w3ith the plumbing but it is far less space and time consumption than designing a whole new engine that is NA

[brijoel]

I have most respect for good NA engines. Nothing is harder to build. The main reasons people like NA is beacause of the KICK. Well driver a powerfull NA car and you'll get that kick throught the whole trip. It never ends. Thats why the Ferrari 550s engine is so famous. It keeps kicking until it reaches its top speed.

that "kick" is debatable really. it takes a fairly large displacement engine to have that down low, otherwise its just a peaky motor that finally gets going way into the revs. dont get me wrong, i love being up in the revs, but unless you are in a decent displacement motor that "kick" is HARDLY an all the time thing. i have both a turbo and n/a sports car and i can tell you my turbo is the one that "kicks" you back into the seat all the time, not the n/a, which has to get above 4k-4.5k to really do anything.

[bmwdakias]

What i like on NA engines is their smoothness and their responsiveness,you just dont get the turbo lag,which is one of the reasons that you get that kick back into your seat,its the difference before the turbo is engaged and after,in order to exploit the power of a turbo engine you have to use the engine at a particular rev range,all these are drawbacks that make me prefer the NA engines, furthermore the technical knowledge required to make a high revving NA engine is a lot more than just installing a supercharger or a turbo on an engine.

[Fluxlo]

the Mclaren F1 is still the fastest car in the world.....unless the Koeniggsegg has taken the crown, but as far as i know, it hasn't.

i love turbo engines because they have that *boost* that kicks you in the ass when they kick in......to tell the truth, i don't really care if a car is naturally aspirated or not....it doesn't matter at all to me.

i just want the car to GO. fast.

The Koenigsegg is definately the fastest car, but it hasn't officialy clocked the 391km/h barrier. Iit is already in the guiness book of records for a different reason- it has the most powerful production engine ever (that's until the Bugatti Veyron goes into prodution).

It doesn't matter to me either...all I know is that turbos can make miracles come true, take the Evo VIII and the Scooby for example.
And nobody can deny the fact tht the F40 is a badass car !!

I don't think that the Koenigsegg will take the speed title from the Mclaren. When autocar tested it they said that the torque band was too short and you didn't get enough kick at higher revs, whereas the mclaren pretty much has a linear torqueband from 4000+ revs to somewhere in the 7000's

I personally like NA engines better. NA cars make better track cars because of their responsiveness but it's alot harder to churn power and torque out from an NA engine without increasing the displacement whereas it's possible to put out 700lbs/ft from a 3L I6 thats been turbocharged. Turbo's are getting better nowadays, for example the new porsche turbo's (ex. the GT2 which puts out 1 bar of boost) are very responsive compared to the previous generation Turbos. Perhaps one day they'll be almost as good as a good NA engine.

[yugo]

Turbo is cool but of NA are excited. Why are the best cars? I think are:
BMW M3
Ferrari 360
Honda S2000
Mazda RX8

[karmann]

th carrera GT is RWD, not 4WD

[EJEVO]

I love the raw power of NA cars but I also love the rush from turbo cars. That whole "Going to Warp Speed" feeling.

[Domyalex]

Turbo are very cool, and the blowoff sound, as well as the "kick", is amazing, but it's a much more complicated system, thus more things can go wrong. Honda and Nissan have alredy NA engines with 300+ hp ,NSX and 350Z for example, and with the fall of the gentleman agreemant in Japan... well, we are going to see some great things in the near future! They were sort of cheating on that agreemant anyway.
If I wanted a TC car, it'd be factory turbo, not an NA engine with a turbo kit on; I see waayyyyy too much ppl complaining about a lot of different things about that in the long run and basically everyone says "put it on only if it's not a daily vehicle"....

[porsche94]

the carrera gt is not 4wd

[DMbaseball1604]

McLarenF1God wrote:

The McLaren F1 may not be the fastest, prettiest car anymore, but it was NA and that is just incedible. No turbos, no superchargers. Amazing. The Carrera GT is 4WD and NA. That deserves respect.



The Carrera GT is not four-wheel drive...but yes it does deserve a whole lot of respect

[neday15]

Well...just think of this... the old S4 was turbo charged... and made 260 hp... the new S4 is NA and makes 340, AND all the car mags think it's a much better car for it. Look into the issue of Car and Driver where they test it against the M3 and C32. What they say is true... the instant torque that an NA engine gives you just can't be matched. Obviously, I'm not a huge fan of just throwing turbos onto a car and thinking that you've made it into something special. It can still be crap, if that's what it started out as. I have more respect for SC, though. No scientific reason, I just like them more (think Ford GT, Koenigsegg CC for reasons why). I guess because they're alot closer to giving you that NA feel than a turbo is.

[deth]

ya, but the old s4 had an inline 6 the new one has a v8...IMO u cant really compare the two

[zevolv]

yeah well the M3 has an Inline 6 so you can compare it.

[coloradosilver]

It all depends on what will satisfy the driver. I started with my corvette bone stock with a shitload of torque. Then I went ahead and Supercharged it. You can get the best of both worlds when you go with a nice V8 and then a power adder (not nitrous). It's a great combo and you get the best of both worlds.

[neday15]

Yeah, supercharged V-8s seem to be the ticket these days. haha