Why get a Turbo...

[krlos]

I have a project about turbos and my question to you is Why would you like to have a turbo in your car if you can get the same performance without one? Is it for the thrill or perhaps the sound? or maybe it's jute for the performance? does it bring you joy to have a turbocharged car (braging rights) For example would you rather have the performance of a Mc Laren F1 (no turbos) or maybe that of the Bugatti Veryon (i'm not talking about looks, just performance) . If you had 2000$ to spend on your car, would you go for the turbo, or maybe other parts like intakes, exhaust... Feel free to express yourself, this is part of my study. thx

[SPEEDKILLAR]

I would go for a supercharger :wink:

[jon_s]

errrrrrrrm, I would not get a turbo over n/a :wink:

[No.1]

Turbos have a suddens surge after the ag, that is why i prefer NA.

The McLaren will be slower than the Veyron, but the Veyron, with uch huge turbos, will suffer badly under turbo lag as spent gases build up to power the turbo. The Mclarens power delivery is much much smoother and natural, as opposed to the Veyron which will suddenly boost up...

PS - If you are upgrading, go for a turbo if yor car is slow and can handle the power hike, but i would spend it on suspension and a free-er flowing exhaust. Speed isn't everything, especially in Gatso-infested England :cry:

[dropot2]

I prefer the same power without a turbo..for me it means that in some way it is a better engine because you still have the opportunity to add a turbo and improve even more its performance. If you already has a turbo it's more difficult to improve its power...
________
Vermont Marijuana Dispensaries (http://vermont.dispensaries.org/)

[novass]

Well IMO it really depends on the car and what you intend to use it for. In terms of the F1 vs. the Veyron, I think I would go for the F1, because it is more of a drivers car, but I definitely wouldnt turn down a Veyron.

The Veyron, to my knowledge, uses sequential turbos so there really is no turbo lag, im not positive about that particular car though. I know the Twin Turbo Supra uses sequential turbos for that reason though. One turbo for lower rpms and another for higher rpms which smooths out the transition.

[deth]

for $2000 i'd have to get a turbo cuz teh performance gains are more easily realized. but if i didnt have a buget it'd ahve to be an NA car

[oscargarza88]

with 2000 its easier to get power by a turbo than by intake and that, to get the same hp u have to put more cash in the n/a

[Tomerville]

Because it takes a skill to keep the boost, and get rid of the lag. It provides a sort of rush. With this you can also get the chirping of blow-off valves and waste gates and the whine of the turbine. But in real performance, cheap turbos make the car lose lots of engine response. Turbos are only good in say the porsche Turbo case; two small turbos with little boost. You maintain response, and get thrills and power.

[aliendude012]

with 2000 its easier to get power by a turbo than by intake and that, to get the same hp u have to put more cash in the n/a



Yea. Turboes = power for cheap. Thats the appeal. Obviously, it'd be great if we could all drive cars with optimally performing na engines, but sometimes turboes are a better idea. Besides, in opposition to your question, I'd spend the $2k on bpu mods before I decided to add a turbo. Not instead of, but preperatory.

[Erez]

turbo is just the easiest way to go,
+ the sound and even looks i think makes people go for a turbo, i'm a supercharger fan myself :D

[dropot2]

but the turbos have something that makes them different.

Yes...the turbo... :wink:
________
Chevrolet Straight-6 Engine Specifications (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Straight-6_engine)

[dropot2]

but the turbos have something that makes them different.

Yes...the turbo... :wink:

dropot2, when you come to Montmel??, we'll take a ride with my brother's R5 GT Turbo just to realise how it sounds. I'm sure you'll be amazed.

It's not difficult to amaze me according to the fact that I drive an AX... :D
But I'm sure I'll be amazed!
________
Green Crack Pictures (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/green-crack)

[levensnevel]

Well,

couldn't do without my Turbo :fadein:
But if I had to spend USD 2,000.00 to improve the performance of my car I would spend it on advanced driving courses and/or circuit training courses
Simply because we are the limiting factor when it comes to driving your car as quickly as possible :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[Kangaroo Boy]

If you already has a turbo it's more difficult to improve its power...Rubbish...Its actually alot easier to gain power from a turbo car that has already been fiited one stocko.Its actually easy to just play around with the boost control,and fitting a larger Intercooler,and just up grading other parts of the engine that has restrictions(such as fuel pumps,injectors,throotle bodies,exhaust).Then place bigger turbos,more boost etc..
For a Car that is running n/a and you wanted to place a turbo,its actually alot harder(depending on what car).You have to replace alot parts(depend what engine) and change the compression ratio down 8.1(lowering the compression).Internals have to be change such as rods,cranks,bearings,cams then the engine has to be re mapped and more powerful fuel pump and bigger injectors have to be placed or denotations will happend(engine will be running lean).So really,there is alot of pros and cons on turbo charging a car.Plus does it give you the bang for your buck??

IMO I like some turbo cars.Also like alot of N/A but really,I can't pick.Neither are better then the other.Both of them are fun to drive.I guess it whats places a smile on your face when you drive. :D

[KazeSupra]

I'm not sure anyone can really answer the question fully because the question is a little vague. There are many different variables to consider when doing a project. For instance, which platform will you start with. If you start with an NA platform, for 2000, I would not use a turbo. For reliable performance with a turbo, you need to have a lower compression than an N/A engine, somewhere around or below 9:1 ratio. An N/A engine would probably have something like a 10:1 or higher, which is turbo-able, would not be as reliable as an lower compression engine. I'm going to use the Toyota Supra as an example, because it's my favorite car (and it also comes in N/A and turbo versions).

So, for a RELIABLE N/A powerplant, you would need to lower compression by getting new pistions. You would need to get a properly size turbo for the application that you want to run. Then you would have to get the plumbing to that you could get the turbo hooked up to your existing exhaust. The you would need to get all of the other miscellaneous parts and labor associated with the project. Not to mention that you would have to get the block tapped for an oil line for the turbo(unless your turbo has a self contained oiling system). Now, you could go the N/A route and get some exhaust, a more aggressive cam, ported heads, etc., and get a pretty cool N/A engine.

Now, for a Turbo car, the lower compression pistons are already there, so you wouldn't need that. The exhaust is not too much of a problem, but you may need adapters to get the newer turbo (which may be bigger) to work with your exhaust (BTW, most kits come with all of the plumbing you will need for a project like this). A bigger exhaust is almost a must for both projects, because you will get more power from less backpressure (but that's another topic for another day). And best of all, the block is already tapped for the oil lines for the turbo, as it already had one of those that you just took off.

So, I'm not leaning one way or the other, but I believe choice of turbo or N/A is all based on a budget and the platform you start from. Hope this helps someone. Holla at yo boy!!!

Chris

*edit* I just realized that I had said some things that Kangaroo Boy stated, so...what he said ^^ LOL

[suqish76]

a mate of mine had a stock 1.8lt NA FF lancer which produced around 90 hp at the flywheel
he spent $3,000 on turbo and intercooler to produce around 100 front wheel hp (i think) and after pushing to much boost into it he put a hole in the side of the block
he then had the motor rebuilt and "tweaked" to give him a figure of 180 fwhp and believe it or not 600 Nm of torque at the wheels (i have seen the dyno sheet as proof cause i didn't believe it, and the same engine configuration with bigger turbo has rolled off almost 400 Fwhp. a couple of the aussies would know the later car as the silver EVILMR lancer)
he has since had a bigger turbo installed and now has about 230 fwhp
but to answer the question the turbo will produce more power for less money, sure you can get considerable power with NA but its usually at a higher cost
personally i enjoy the perfomance, the sound, and the sudden push of power with a turbo.
but then again i LOVE the sound of an heavily modded NA V8

[deth]

denotations will happend(engine will be running lean).

detonation does not occur because the engine is running lean. it happens because the compression of the air/fuel mixture is higher than its auto-combustion pressure. this is the principal that a diesel engine works on, but is quite harmful to gas engines.

[Ottar L]

A turbo engine reaches max power long before a NA engine.
An engine making 100hp at 2000 rpm is better than an engine making 100hp at 3000rpm. Anyone with a little knowledge in engines know that.

NA is for big ass v8(400+ci) engines in usa

[deth]

A turbo engine reaches max power long before a NA engine.
An engine making 100hp at 2000 rpm is better than an engine making 100hp at 3000rpm. Anyone with a little knowledge in engines know that.


peak power isnt everything. you still want the engine to have a linear powerband, otherwise it'll be very unpredictable to drive

[kteo2003]

it depends the car..though i f i had the money for making a project i would make it with turbo only if the car was RWD or AWD...instead on a FWD i would choose the a not turbo project....also i think that cars with turbo are not as reliable as natural apirated......especially when we are talking about projects...

[Tomerville]

Yeah lag all depends on the Turbo. A small 2.6 liter will have trouble spooling up say a T4 Turbo making 2 bar boost, but the Audi S4 won't have any problems spooling up two small hybrid turbos pumping 10 psi each. And S4s do have some lag even with the wastegate.

[Garretts_turbo]

i think that a turbo is only worth it on a car that is made for it, not something like a honda accord....(ive personally seen this done :cry: )i love a turbo because of the sound, and knowing that youre packing some power. an engine that is designed for a turbo is an awesome thing, but then again, nothing beats the sound of a low restriction exhaust on a V8 thats been played with.....damn i miss that sound in my truck....

[Tomerville]

i think that a turbo is only worth it on a car that is made for it, not something like a honda accord....


Very true. Some Accords are VTEC too, and you know you can't turbocharge a VTEC because of the valve timing. Ricers just do dumb shit.

[Kangaroo Boy]

detonation does not occur because the engine is running lean. it happens because the compression of the air/fuel mixture is higher than its auto-combustion pressure. this is the principal that a diesel engine works on, but is quite harmful to gas engines.
Are you a diesel mechanic?

[pakos007]

I am a NA fan.
First i will say some things about companies.Lately the big companies abandoned the turbo projects,and go NA.We always see the most exciting and joyful cars to be NA(honda s2000,bmw M3 & M5,Porsche 911 GT3,Porche Carrera GT,All ferraries....).The sound of an NA car is much better,revving at 8000rpm and more,rather revving in 5500 and less.Having power everywhere,not noly when the turbo wakes up.The lag is much smaller today ,but exists.
I saw some opinions that didnt like them(but i respect them although...)
You guyz like the sudden push of the turbo?I think u have the cars only for a straight line.Because when u go up a mountain u need power everywhere,u cant expect for a push.
Brembo:In the dyno u can see the line in the torque:M3's is a almost a straight line,and in the Audi is going up and down all the time.And dont compare the full electronics audi with the pure M3,the audi is just for an international bussinessman.The pure and passionate driver always chooses the M3,and one of the reasons is because its NA.
I am a fan of the Honda Civic type-r and the s2000.i hope i can buy one of them in the next 2-3 years.i have made a lot of comparisons in order to see if its really good.
The Focus RS has the same displacement(2000cc)and with the turbo has 215 hp.the type-r has 200hp without a turbo,with i-Vtec(or just VTEC).its not that big difference,and the type-r has power everywhere,not just waiting for a sudden burst of power and therefore speed.
The turbo is a cheap way to get power for a while,not have the power everywhere.If you really want power then the NA tuning will cost more,but will also offer more...sorry about my english...and i hope the NA goes for the non-turbo engine :)

[sentra_dude]

I am a NA fan.
First i will say some things about companies.Lately the big companies abandoned the turbo projects,and go NA.We always see the most exciting and joyful cars to be NA(honda s2000,bmw M3 & M5,Porsche 911 GT3,Porche Carrera GT,All ferraries....).The sound of an NA car is much better,revving at 8000rpm and more,rather revving in 5500 and less.Having power everywhere,not noly when the turbo wakes up.The lag is much smaller today ,but exists.
I saw some opinions that didnt like them(but i respect them although...)
You guyz like the sudden push of the turbo?I think u have the cars only for a straight line.Because when u go up a mountain u need power everywhere,u cant expect for a push.
Brembo:In the dyno u can see the line in the torque:M3's is a almost a straight line,and in the Audi is going up and down all the time.And dont compare the full electronics audi with the pure M3,the audi is just for an international bussinessman.The pure and passionate driver always chooses the M3,and one of the reasons is because its NA.
I am a fan of the Honda Civic type-r and the s2000.i hope i can buy one of them in the next 2-3 years.i have made a lot of comparisons in order to see if its really good.
The Focus RS has the same displacement(2000cc)and with the turbo has 215 hp.the type-r has 200hp without a turbo,with i-Vtec(or just VTEC).its not that big difference,and the type-r has power everywhere,not just waiting for a sudden burst of power and therefore speed.
The turbo is a cheap way to get power for a while,not have the power everywhere.If you really want power then the NA tuning will cost more,but will also offer more...sorry about my english...and i hope the NA goes for the non-turbo engine :)

You are sort of right, pakos007, but you need to understand a few things about N/A motors. In contrast to what you think, really high strung N/A motors (like S2000's) do not have power everywhere in the rev range, in fact the S2000's power is kind of like a turbo, no power at all below 6000rpm, and then it all comes in at once when Vtec kicks in. In addition, those really high strung N/A motors have no torque, where as a good turbo motor has plenty of torque, even from low rpms. You have to understand there is huge variety of turbo and N/A motors.

Some turbos are very peaky, they have bad response and no power in low rpms while others have almost nonexistent lag, with good response and lots of torque at low rpms. N/A motors are similar, some have lots of power everywhere (big V8s and V12s) but others, like the ones you talk about, small I-4s, are worse than many turbos with the power curve they have. You cannot just lump all turbos or all N/As into the same categories. If you want the best engine I say go for a large V12, you get lots of torque, lots of power, lots of revs, and great sound (i.e. BMW S70 V12 in the McLaren F1 hehe).

I personally prefer N/A for many of the reasons you mentioned, but that doesn't mean turbos are bad. I don't agree that all the most exciting cars are N/A...what about the Ferrari 288 GTO or F40? How about Noble M12, Evo, STi or Skyline, etc are those boring cars? ;)

Your English is fine, just put spaces between your paragraphs to make it easier for people to read. :)

[pakos007]

I say that in the audi u dont really participate in the driving,electronics do a lot for you.

The evo and the STi are homologation specials,and have four wheel drive in order to control the sudden burst of their turbos.i like these cars,their turbo and chassis evolution is straight from the WRC,but i dont like a 4 door car with 5 seats to be my sports car.its kinda psycological i think.but their turbos are good,i confess! :)

im really happy to see people have good and strong opinions on this subject,i think it is a very crucial one. :D

[jakaracman]

I say that in the audi u dont really participate in the driving,electronics do a lot for you.

The evo and the STi are homologation specials,and have four wheel drive in order to control the sudden burst of their turbos.i like these cars,their turbo and chassis evolution is straight from the WRC,but i dont like a 4 door car with 5 seats to be my sports car.its kinda psycological i think.but their turbos are good,i confess! :)

im really happy to see people have good and strong opinions on this subject,i think it is a very crucial one. :D
I don't know if you have ever driven STi but there's no sudden burst ... You can druve 60kph in 6th gear, and it will take of smoothly ...
The "problem" with NA engines is that to have a lot of power AND torque jou need big displacement = big weight in front, which is not good for handling. On the other end, you can have lots of power/little torque from 2 liter engine, but you need to work hard to keep it in high rev range.
The big plus of turbos (and superchargers even more!) is that you can have light, sports car with enough power and torque yet at the same time it's cicilized enough for everyday use (which CTR or integra or S2000 is not) ...

[skituner]

supercharged or n/a
dont like the lag of turbo but it is the cheapest $

[StanAE86]

I would prefer a n/a motor over a turbo motor. Turbo are all nice and everything, but if you could get the same power out of an n/a, why turbo?

[pakos007]

you say that CTR or s2000 are not for everyday use?You are wrong here,these cars are made for economy and everyday use,the v-tec is not only for power its also for economy,and the turbo is not civilised enough for everyday use,thats sure!

[Tomerville]

you say that CTR or s2000 are not for everyday use?You are wrong here,these cars are made for economy and everyday use,the v-tec is not only for power its also for economy,and the turbo is not civilised enough for everyday use,thats sure!


Whaaaatt? If you don't drive a VTEC hard the valves will seize and the car won't be "VTEC". They are meant to be driven, or else you'll just get a carboned up engine. How are turbos not civilized enough for everyday use? Saab has been sticking to turbos for a while, and they have been doing just fine, and I don't think you can call them sporty.

[pakos007]

the vtec exists in order to make the engine more economical.you say that if you dont get a CTR more than 6000rpm for a while the engine will be destroyed?sorry but i cant understand your thoughts...

[Gnome]

This debate returns a bit too often, but I still can't stay away...

The yank of a sudden increase in torque was a typical turbo phenomenon before. Now a days that's gone in most turbo setups.

I've shown this Saab torque curve before, and might do it again to show people what high torque at low revs is... This time I have also found the curves for the M3 CSL. I haven't found any other ones. I think BMW is one of the best in the NA business, so it should be one of the flattest there is.

Left:Saab 9-5 Aero (2.3 turbo - 250 bhp 350 NM)
Right:BMW M3 CSL (3.2 naturally aspirated - 360 bhp 370 NM)
http://www.oshit.org/upload/store/Saab9-5AeroTorqueCurve.jpghttp://www.oshit.org/upload/store/BMWM3CSLTorqueCurve.jpg
(Mind the strange scale of the Saab's torque curve)
The M3 has more power because it's high revving. At 5500 rpm the M3 is just a little bit more powerful. And below 4000 rpm the Saab has more power than the BMW! That's why I love turbos...

[nthfinity]

well, for price per dollar, id go with a bolt on supercharger..... there is no such thing as a bolt on turbo that doesnt require MUCH more work for similar gains.
there are pros and cons for each, turbo, super, n/a...
a turbo takes almost no engine power to add power, but requires computer controls, blow off valves, wastegate acuater. it also reduses engine respons when full throttling from low rpm. even in new cars, there is slight wait for turbo response. but it is reduced due to high tech toys like variable compression ratios, and varable valve timing, multi stage turbos(i believe vovlo, and subar wrx STi likewise). and not to mention, the lag time will be less with higher exahaust velocities, and volumes eg: more cylinders per turbo.
a super runs off a belt, and thus robs engine power, while adding it making feul economy worse. there is still lag on a supercharger, but again, similar to turbos, the "bigger" higher output the engine, the less evident the lag becomes. for example, ive been in a twin turbo mitsu vr4, and felt the lag, but it does explode when full boost has been hit, whereas a supercharged mustang cobra with its aready great torque curve N/A motor, the surge seems less like a surge. im sure this is nearly gone in something as spectacular as the Koenigsegg, or merc SLR.
as far as N/A motors are concerned, without budget constraints, id build up a N/A motor, then go with some form of charging. it would entirely depend on the car, and response is a must. a powerful N/A motor becomes even more powerful with compressed air, and can handle mountain air without a remapped fuel chip much better. if i were to have an absolute choice on an engine with at least 8 cylinders, id opt for sequential turbos... smaller, say T2.5, and larger... say T4, or T66. twin screw superchargers, and centrifugal superchargers aslo have huge gains over a standard roots type, and use up much less engine power, as well as seem to work harder as rpm increases rather then less.

ALWAYS for both supers, and turbos, a reduced compression ratio is nessisary for pressure levels above 8 psi, and this is an expensive procedure i dont know much about....going beyond that, expect to throw rods, blow seals and possibly obtaind the forbidden hydrolic lock....
my 2 cents