... Or am I the only one? I think there is something undeniably sexy about big power made from a engine without FI IMO.

The GT3 is my favorite porshe and that's the one I would buy if I bought a porshe because I think it's awesome that it's as quick as a "regular turbo" without the need for a turbo. Plus the engine sounds better.

I would never think of a turbo kit on a Lamborghini if I had the loot. IMO It's almost sacreligious to think of putting a turbo on a car that makes that much power without it.

the elise is another example. Increase speed (and handleing) by cutting weight, not turbocharging the crap out of it.

Don't get me wrong I love turbos and would usually by a turbocharged version of a car, but the reason would be potential. If I was going to leave it stock, I would go NA.

Am I weird?

 

yes

 

jk lol, I too like N/A cars. i agree with you those are some really good points about N/A cars.

 

 

FI>NA

 

Uh...are you referring to NA as "Naturally Aspirated" and FI as "Fuel Injected" or "Forced Induction?"

Yes...you are weird...and I'm a geek with an actual BSEE.

Anyways...I'm of the opinion to use what's needed, where needed. Turbos are basically 'free' engine volume increasers. For a few horsepower that get's stuffed out of the exaust anyway, why not put on a turbo. For that matter...superchargers also 'excite' me, the newer twinscrew ones are really neat. 2x horsepower by forced induction represents only ~20% more engine stress on the internals. There are a lot of 'simplistic' and neat ideas about NA that I like, but come on...celebrate the past and work towards the future! FI all of the way!

jcnel.

 

forced induction

 

i personally like FI but i was really impressed with the power my s2000 made with same size motor with 0 lbs of boost.

 

C'mon- there's the whole challenge and sheer masochism of tuning NA to be a beast! It's great. Sure, slap on a turbo add X% HP. But what do you have to do to get your NA to do the same? WAY MORE! Sure, the turbo will benefit from all the same "type" of NA mods (pistons, injectors, fuel management, camshaft, etc.) and will probably be better able to take advantage of them (in terms of overall net gains). But there's the drama and pride of saying "I'm all motor" and then sticking your tongue out at the person you're talking to, like this

But overall, I think it's the skill involved in the craft of tuning an engine. Getting an NA engine to perform, or outperform, a turbo motor is like the difference between buying a box-of-cake (just add water) and making one from scratch.

 

I think there is something undeniably sexy about big power made from a tiny engine.

The GT3 is an awesome car, but you really need to drive one, and drive a turbo, to understand why the turbo is so much more exciting. The GT3, like most other powerful NA cars, drive very linearly, and rev very high. You really need to run hard all the way to redline to get all the power out of those things, whereas most of the power in a turbo car is able to come much sooner (unless you get a huge turbo put on).

Similarly, take a drive in a 360 Modena. ITs very anticlimactic to say the least. I mean, its a fast car no doubt, but put a couple grand into an EVO, and you won't be impessed much by the 360.

Also, take a drive in an s2000, and then take a drive in an srt-4. Both run similar times, and make similar horsepower, but the srt-4 feels much stronger on acceleration, and can get going much faster from a rolling start than a tuned NA motor.

But imagine the additional power you would make by adding FI, assuming everything is installed and managed properly. Few can imagine adding FI on a z06 that is blazingly fast as it is, but the ones that do create a whole new beast of a car that as even more incredible to drive. There's always room for improvement.

A real performance car should do both. Cutting weight only gets you so far. It makes your car quicker, but not faster. What i mean is that cutting weight will increase your acceleration, handling, braking, but it will do nothing for your top speed. The Elise running the Celica engine will still, sadly, and as fast as it is, only hit about 140mph or so, b/c the horsepower just isn't there. FI can solve all of this.

For me, this sort of preference to go NA (if i were leaving everything stock) would have to be a function of the displacement of the motor in the NA car. Im not a big fan of relatively small engines revving really high making lots of HP and not a lot of torque (like the s2000s, and including the Ferraris v8's and inline 6's). I don't find that exciting. BUt give me an NA with lots of displacement and torque, like a Vette, a Ford gt, Lamboghini or Ferrari v12, and ill take it.

 

But i think this misses the point. An NA will never do the same. Given the exact same 2.0L motor, the kind of power that FI would bring to the motor is completely different from the kind of power than NA tuning would provide. You may be able to get it to run the same acceleration times, but it will never drive the same. Ask anyone with an s2000 for instance. . . I love the way that car looks, but drive one, and see if you get anywhere before you start hitting VTEC above 5 grand. . .

 

Ive driven a good number of performance oriented vehicles, so Ill toss this thought out...

I prefer the linear feel of a NA motor. Turbos are great, and me being an engineer it excites me to think turbos work on the principal of using waste to make more power. (exhaust gases power the compressor) But I hate turbo lag, absolutely hate it. Plus, on cars with big boost, its sometimes difficult to catch the next gear without running into the rev limiter. I just feel that my driving tastes are better suited to a NA engine with a broad torque and horsepower curve. Case in point, the 350z/G35 coupe. I love the Evo and the STi (still havent driven the STI though, have romped a few tuned WRXs though), but the turbo lag and non linear power output drives me insane. On an autocross course, its best to know how your car will respond under throttle at any given moment, and to me its harder to predict with a turbo motor. I like the feel of the VQ35 in the Nissan cars, and it suits my driving style a bit better. I am in no way bashing turbo-ed vehicles, but its just a different animal, an animal Im not too crazy about. Yes, with more seat time in a turbo vehicle, Im sure driving through boost would become second nature, but at this point give me a meaty NA motor any day....

 

Personally I wish all of our motors would rev to 12,000rpm and idle at 2,000rpm, our whole philosphy would change about 'meaty.'

Thanks,

jcnel.

 

Um, actually I think my post hits the mark dead on.... this is a thread about choice- an opinion. I think NA is cooler than FI. I didn't say "NA will behave and drive the same as FI". I said to get the same HP you'd have to do way more than slap a snail shell into your exhaust stream.

I mean, I agree with you about putting FI in some 'Merican Muscle and then peeling yourself off the back window. And that a properly sized turbo can give a fully aggressive feel to the car.
BUT- I'm more in agreement with tristar that lag sucks and predictability is good (esp in the "close quarters" of an autoX).

now if I had aspirations of road track racing then I'd be more interested in turbo applications.... maybe. Actually, I'd probably look to SC before I looked TC... but damn, it would really depend on the application and the motor. I REALLY doubt I'd try to be competitive on a road course with an NA 2.0L Lancer engine - even if I have the whole RPW team working on it 24/7. But I might road course an NA lancer just for fun

At any rate, NA gets my vote.

 

coming from a NA gsr I have to agree.....
Once you have a turbo you just turn up the boost...
NA has power throughout rpm band with proper tuning...