For today’s weekly Speedhunters poll, the question is a simple one – forced induction or naturally aspirated? Which do you prefer? Is it the sound and power rush of a turbo or supercharger setup or the response of an NA engine? For the purposes of this poll, let’s just assume that horsepower and torque figures are roughly the same for either choice.
Make your vote and discuss below!
I would have to go with forced induction. I'm going to be building a 454 with a supercharger & the setup from the online numbers, it'll be putting out 1400 hp. I'd like to see a naturally aspirated beat that.
Assuming that both are optimized, I would probably go for a modern turbo setup, simply because of weight and the flatter torque curve.
Forced induction is the best choice. If you have naturally aspirated you have less complications however the benefits of turbochargers outweigh the cons the worst choice you can pick is a supercharger http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGdg2Fd2WQY (turbocharger vs superchargers)
For me nothing beats the sound of my dellorto 40 side draft carbs on my mk 1 escort.. N/A all the way!
i only picked NA for this poll because it says to assume both make roughly the same power.
if it was unlimited power i would pick turbo hands down
If the assumption is made that engine output between the 2 setups is the same then the logical choice is naturally aspirated. I thought of it a bit differently though. A factory turbocharged or supercharged engine setup has much more aftermarket tuner appeal than a high compression NA mill. IMO, it's just easier to make more power for cheaper with forced induction than NA, so my vote went for forced induction. ;-)
Having driven cars that are roughly around the same figures, yes the response from the N/A cars is always a plus having alot of the power you get anywhere in the rev band, but nothing I think can put a big shit eating grin on your face when you've just past the lag and hit full boost and taking off.and for the people who are on about the lag, a well thought out turbocharged system can have very little to no feeling of "lag" just take a drive in a twindrive engined car
well if both motors in question make the same power and torque figures, the only logical choice would be the NA motor which would have much more response and no boost lag.
Having to make a choice i chose forced induction. But i miss my NA Civic. I'd still have it if it wasn't by jealous clowns. I love the forced induction grunt
I think, after reading most of the comments, that in a perfect world we would all have a roaring na engine, but a turbo is cheaper to get high hp, and easier to get high mpg. I'd love a v8, but I can't afford the gas, which is why I drive a turbo 4 cylinder gti
Love The smooth and instant power delivery of a NA car and also the great feeling and sounds of driving a older one. But still im driving a turbo one :D
Forced induction forsure. If you know how to setup your system you wont have to worry about spool problems...
Do Combo Chargers count because you can almost eliminate that pesky spooling with combo charger...hehe
for Drags - Turbo, for Drift - Turbo, for Economy - Turbo......
on the other hand...
for Time Attack - N/A, for Daily Road - N/A, for Sound - N/A......
I guess it an TIE...
But YZFR1 Wins...
This aint quite simple! Forced is better for fuel, which is importand these days. And the feeling when the turbo spools up, that is just awesome every time. But it is real hard to beat an well built NA engine. That is why I am going for NA.
NA for racing: Car control and instant repsonse, reliability
Turbo for street use: gas mileage and fun factor
I voted forced induction, simply because I think turbos are absolutely awesome. But you really can't beat a well built engine that just screams power. Tough choice honestly.
assuming the same power/torque, then its an easy one. N/A. the response would be the winning factor.
This seems like the kind of question you ask on a forum, and then the thread becomes 20 pages long in a day.
I've never really liked NA for power. Easier to tune, consistent, sure. But a proper turbo/supercharger system is nearly as reliable, and way more fun. For my cars though, the VG30 needs a turbo to really go anywhere. So maybe I'm biased.
Well, I dont have anything against NA or forced induction engine, but I really dont like big engined cars. So, I would rather choose a smaller engine with the same performance.
I would have to admit, that I would never buy a supercharged Lamborghini, M cars, Ferrari's or a Corvette. They have something that needs to be preserved.
I picked forced induction because it's cheaper and damn good fuel mileage if done right?
I didn't pick N/A because of the high costs involved and if you build a high compression motor that will put stress on the stock starters, but the sound of induction N/A makes is awesome also...
I think that both have serious advantages and disadvantages.But the history of motorsport, in the classic sense of it, has given us some truly amazing masterpieces: Porsche, Ferrari, BMW and the amazing ameeican V8s, all N/A engines.Modern Ferrari and Lamborghini V12 are glorious, LFA V10 is just completely bonkers, Honda four-cylinder legacy is still strong.I think this poll has to be taken not in a technical way, but more in a spiritual one.So my vote goes to N/A, because I think there lies the true "soul" of engineering: N/A engines have a voice and a character that forced induction simply cannot replicate.
You guys are crazy how is NA winning? Fi all day. Response can be had at around 3k-3.5k (trading power for response but still more powerfull than NA) ..... and really if your trying to accelerate from below 3k your doing it wrong just shift down or maybe you should be in a prius. As for sound, lets face it honda is about vtec switchover without it they wouldnt be nearly as popular, ferrari is just exhaust sound engineering covering both ends of the spectrum porsche being the exception. For FI 2jz, RB26, imperfect (uneven) ej20/25 even the 4g63 they all sound good. Ill always choose FI over NA after having owned both yea, usually risky or expensive to get higher revs from FI and when you get pulled over its more likely to be well over the posted limits but you cant beat the high power for lower price (relative to NA) and performance from FI.
I have to go with boost just because the two nastiest engines I've ever heard were a supercharged rotary and a turbo'd Audi I5.
I love how a built na engine works too, but a well built turbo/supercharged engine tuned the right way has exactly the same characteristics. But, costs less to build/run, is LESS complex when you factor in internals and stresses, can have no lag is the airflow is right and still makes crazy noise. Don't need external bov's or other nonsense. Just look a Porsche, or Saab's long history (in sport & road), or VW (VW, Audi, Skoda etc) today.
@baiermitch Did not watch the video, but either way I'd take a mild supercharger setup over a turbo headache.
Porsche, Ferrari, and BMW have built bonkers forced fed engines in their motorsport history
@difinity That second sentence makes absolutely no sense. Is there some magical decomplexifying coefficient that applies to the internals and stresses of forced induction engines and not to NA engines? And there is no way you can arbitrarily say one design will cost less to build or run. In fact the sited examples of Porsche and VW would support the notion that forced induction motors always cost more to build/run and are inherently less reliable than their atmospheric air breathing counterparts. http://www.reliabilityindex.com/ If that was supposed to be sarcasm then please disregard.
@MPistol Your car was stolen by Juggalow's!?!? That's EXTRA shitty.
@RBs30 Of course, of course, we all know history: but I find their N/A versions more poetic.My comment was deliberately not about performance figures, but about something else.