Depends on the car & application

I prefer the natural sound

Well assuming figures are the same, with our current understanding of hp and tq being the max values when we put em in numbers, then obviously NA would be way better. i.e. same power + superior response. Simply because the power band of NA engines are way flatter than forced induction's. However, if we talk about average hp & tq over the entire powerband, then a turbo'd engine would have low end rpm less hp/tq and high end rpm more than on a NA. At that point it is mostly low end response vs top end power, depending on what you need/prefer. 
 
Personally, I love turbo engines, twins preferably for the tad extra response.

I think this needs to have an option for Super vs Turbocharged as well. My ranking is Super > N/A > Turbo

the real deciding factor is the weight. if the forced induction engine is half the weight then it would be the better choice but if they weight the same NA is an obvious winner

I prefer forced induction, but if the criteria are similar power and torque, I'd have to say naturally aspirated

LS V8 that is all i need.

I've been N/A since i was 16 (21 years), but my fav motor is 1jz vvti... torn.

As much as I love the crackle of waste gates, the whistling of a turbo or the whine of a supercharger, to me there is nothing more emotive than the scream of a perfectly balanced N/A motor... 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 cylinders, doesn't matter, there's just nothing better =D

it's quite a surprise to see a NA winning with all the JDM fans... but for me the immediate response, the hammering sound and wide-rev thrust of the NA are just so good, i wouldn't change for any forced induction engine, the right comrpomise might be a high-compression, low boost engine? espcially for road use considering stricter emission tests...

Even though my Forester is powered by a forced induction engine there is something I've always loved about na engines. Especially high strung, small displacement 4 cylnders.

If the horse power figures were the same why go turbo? the power delivery would be better in NA!

@merlz89rps13 I agree in terms of power delivery NA would be better... but god how awesome sounds a turbocharged engine...and with antilag even more... to be honest i love both they way they sound... just Turbocharged sounds nicer...

I torn, I love turbos, but I also love tunnel rams with injection stalks

Im torn, I love turbos, but I also love tunnel rams with injection stacks

i'm on both sides but not in the middle. i'm a big fan of engines that don't need help to make good power (but i also don't care about huge hp as much as i care about little weight), BUUUUT i also still love huge stupid laggy 1980s turbos because in my mind i am still 12 and the RUF CTR is still the world's fastest car

Forced induction because I live at 6500 feet.

for the beautiful trumpet noises alone, N/A intake noise is my life.

Nothing beats the sound of independent throttle bodies (like in the picture)

N/A all day. I would rather have 500 natural horses instantly then 800 after I've asked for them. The only reason I would want a turbo is for some dope let off.

Best proof why NA wins? Formula 1 cars, ooooh-la-la the sounds their engine makes is just orgaaaaasmic

Formula 1 was dominated by turbocharged engines from the mid-60's to the mid-80's until they were eventually banned in 1989.

Forced induction for me. Feeling a turbo hit boost is an instant smile inducer.

the question is stupid, why would you choose forced induction over n/a if power and tq where going to be the same? 
Its like asking if you want, instant response or lag?

Good question, but a ridiculous one to ask anyone who has some sense. Simple answer: it depends on the application. To say one is superior over the other in all situations is pretty ignorant. All depends on the type of course you are driving, the characteristics of the car, price of the build, rules and regulations etc. 
 
Even in a derestricted environment there are times when NA will be better and times when a turbo will be better....even times when a super charger will be better. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish IMO. 
 
I'll take either depending on the situation.

@st3althr Because peak torque and peak HP are only part of the factor when you build a race car or a performance car. The curve of the power band is much more important than the peak numbers. Just because the numbers are the same doesn't mean the delivery is.
 
Therefor, it doesn't mean just because you have two BMW M3s (for example) that make the same hp and torque, doesn't mean they will handle the same even if suspension is setup the same way.

N A . Period.

@speedhunters_dino Exactly what I was taught by guys who built Nascar winning V8s. It depends on the application x 10,000,000. Depends on the car, the setup of the car, the road / circuit being driven, etc etc etc.

@Big Pooky 
 
And then they are making a return next year...

@Big Pooky Yeah, but you can't really compare F1 cars from the 60s and 80s to F1 cars now, the aero and tire technology has come so far it's not even really a legitimate comparison. 
 
Would F1 engineers now have turbos if it was optional? Yeah probably. Would an NA F1 car from 2010-2013 be faster than a turbo F1 car from the 80s given the same power levels? My guess is yes given the same driver was driving each and said driver was a top level pro like Vettel.

i voted for turbos, but i just wanted to say because someone votes for one or the other, doesn't mean they dislike the other. i can admire and respect an team for making a powerful all motor engine, but at the end of the day wouldn't forcing more air in result in more power?

Yeah, but like I said below and Dino mentioned as well....theres way more to making a car perform than simply how much power it makes. The way it makes power is just as important. 
 
More air is more power. As complex as engines are at the end of the day all they are are devices that pump air. Is more power in every situation always better? I argue no. A lot of people disagree with me, but it's my feeling that there are certain situations where massive power isn't a benefit. If you then use a turbo to deliver that massive power in an environment where it's not beneficial to begin with, the lag of the turbo or way the turbo delivers power will hinder you even further.

I dont get this if your getting the same power for each, why even go forced induction?  Regardless if the power is delivered in a different way doesnt the positives out weigh the negatives to have NA for the same power. For example wouldnt adding something like turbo add more weight to the engine bay, use extra space, and have more cooling problems then if you went with NA? I figure if your getting relativly the same power wouldnt it just be better by default to go NA for relaibilty reasons. Well at least if the power is coming from the same type of engine.

great comments guys.. its rare to converse with car enthusiasts and keep it civil. i just wanted to add, for those aguring the point of turbo lag, what about anti lag or twin turbo setups. small turbo big turbo?

thats also a good point by jcali and a couple guys.. if the question is stated that both cars are around the same hp and tq.. n/a would the natural choice.. i feel turbo apps are for the under dogs.. where a four banger needs to hang with the big displacement guys.

NA for me. The response. The weight savings (assuming the power numbers are for the same sized engines). The craftsmanship and time. The engine building. The more opportunities to add personality and uniqueness. That said, FI setups have unique noises that are at times desirable. I drive a diesel as my DD and the turbo lag is incredible annoying. Granted, I could downshift, but sometimes I don't feel the need to.

NA all the way!

I say NA all day! its rewarding to put all that work into an engine.

Ahh, the age old question... Got the pop corn ready!

Apples vs Oranges...

@Big Pooky What would be interesting to see would be a turbo motor from the 80's versus a motor from today in two modern, identical chassis. Same aero, same tires, same driver, everything. Assume multiple tracks are used for comparison. Would the results depend upon the track, or would one motor emerge as clearly superior on multiple tracks?

Induction systems are for underdogs and only for lower displacement engines? Really? 
 
Tell that to an NHRA team whos engine makes 7000-8000hp. Bar none, the highest HP / TQ engines in the world are using induction systems. Granted they are running on different fuels etc, the point is there is no NHRA dragster that is NA. That tells you something right off the bat. 
 
This is why it all depends on application. What works in one arena doesn't necessarily work in another. Would a top fuel engine in an LMP prototype hill climb car be successful? Uh...no way in hell. 
 
Would an LMP engine be successful against an NHRA car in a drag race? helllllll no. The question is too dynamic to answer in an X vs Y application and factors have to be considered. This is why people who comment on internet blogs aren't F1 engineers. To really appreciate the nuances and intricacies of tuning you need to dive much deeper than most enthusiasts are willing to go, hence we see comments that are overly simplified that come from virtually no experience in the sense of a cross trained brain / experience level. 
 
Ask an F1 engineer this question or a Le Mans engine designer this question and the answer would probably take up 4-6 hours of your time with a few power points and book recommendations.

What would be interesting to see would be a turbo motor from the 80's versus a motor from today in two modern, identical chassis set ups. Same aero, tires, driver, everything. Assume multiple tracks are used for comparison. Would the track dictate the winner, or would one motor emerge as clearly superior on multiple tracks?

Within the constraints of this poll I voted NA all day as they say. If power and torque are the same and delivery is the same, then I don't need the extra weight, heat, and complication of forced induction. However, this poll is kinda fairy tale land, as those parameters don't at all exist. Also, as mentioned time and time again in the previous comments, application is extremely, extremely important here. So much so that it cannot be ignored.

Ok for the sake of argument can the guys defending the forced induction give a good example to use turbo or supercharger over NA when they make the same power from the same type of engine?
 
I can see this poll going either way if the question was just black and white, forced induction or NA. But the factor of being the same power from the same power plant I dont see why you would go turbo or supercharge.
 
Im not trying to be a troll here Im just trying to understand the logic.

the constraint seems silly, but think about it this way:
 built sr20
stock LS1
 
even a forced induction 4cyl will be lighter than the ls1. its not the same engine making the same numbers, its a choice between 2 different engines altogether to get to the same hp goal.

As the poll stated assuming everything is the same, then I would go with N/A based off simplicity and the noise (depending engine) they make.  just my $.02
 
 
perpetualroad.wordpress.com

I say turbo power! Probably because I have just got a Audi s3. I know it's laggy and all the power is mid to top but I love the surge you get when you get into that power band!

Going through my mental database of possible applications I have to say that NA wins for most real world applications. Even for race applications if I had to drive it I would definitely prefer NA. That is if the assumption is gasoline powered piston engines. If rotary or diesel are to be considered things get a bit murky as both designs tend to be more useful
in forced induction form.
FI would be the clear choice at high altitude. I would also choose FI for a small commuter car with a tiny motor as a ompromise of economy and some measure of performance should you be in need of it.
If, gun to my head, I can only pick one? NA all the way

na for practicality sake

Instead of bashing like I usually do (and get people butt-hurt), I ask, what is the purpose of conducting those polls?

boost is addicting.  i recall my first drive with a boosted "tuned" car (SR20 redtop with mild tune), and wanting more!
 
though boost is fun and all, but there's nothing more "soul" satisfying than the power band and redline zone of an NA engine.  

however, if i were to build some racecar to compete with some-what high figure hp cars..  I'd go turbo. 
 
sure the powerband of an NA engine is awesome when compared to similarly powered boosted engine...  but, it's the cost difference of building the 2 that would sway me to darkside of boost.  (building high figure NA engine is not cheap!!).  unless im some sort of baller.

I love NA, but I drive a turbo.

I'd go turbo due to fuel mileage, the broad range of power capabilities with small changes such as raising boost, and reliability. I keep seeing exhaust noise as a reason for n/a, my argument being the sound of a 1jz or 2jz with a big single is a pretty amazing sound.

I jus love the awakening sound of boost,tho the n/a is perfect with the exhaust(4age,k20,b18....)

I have had high output engines of all three varieties, turbo, s/c and n/a. I love them all for different reasons. My preference is a roots or twin screw supercharged engine, though. N/A response with alllmost turbo power.

@JDMized  @SOLO8 Mike It's a tool to help them get closer to their fan base

I love the simplicity of an N/A installation. If power and torque are the same then for me there's no contest- individual throtle bodies and well tuned equal length manifold and you are done- simple and pure. No messing around with dump valves, external wastegates, intercooler pipework and cores, or chargecooler pipes, pumps etc.

@SPEEDHUNTERS forced induction for going fast, NA for reliability

This is tricky. From a purely motorsports perspective, with a naturally aspirated engine, you get a lovely linear powerband and smooth delivery which makes exiting corners much easier. With a turbocharged engine, even with VGT and the like, the power is never as smooth and there is some degree of lag. You can get around this with anti-lag or left foot braking but this results in ohmygawd fuel consumption. Which is alright for rallying where the number of timed kilometres is small but for circuit racing it just isn't practical.
Then there's the issue of reliability. There are fewer things to go wrong with an NA engine, but they rev higher than a turbo'd setup which puts strain on components. But turbos spin at ludicrous speeds - the turbos on the 908 HDi FAP spun at 150,000 rpm I seem to remember - and they get *very* hot. Plus with all the gubbins associated with turbos - intercoolers, piping - turbo'd engines are heavier and packaging is a nightmare.. This messes up the CoG. 
So I guess I have to base my decision on sound. I'm torn here because both can sound epic. In that Rally Sweden video that Paddy posted the chirps and whistles from the turbos and the crackling of the anti-lag are amazing. But then you have cars like the Ferrari 458 GTC and the way it screams on the downshift. I just don't know.
I think I'll go with naturally aspirated, purely for Olaf Manthey's "Green and Yellow Monster."

Owning 2 turbos and 3 N/A's.. its tough. I love the sound of the my1jz/2jz with the big single. But, how can you deny a 1uzfe w/ cams and ITBS or a 3tc with Mikunis, even my R6 has a voice that cannot be matched with that of a turbo spool nor any BOV.

You're getting way ahead of yourself here. This is a poll made open to the public, where the majority of the people here would be normal, everyday, working car enthusiasts. This means it's pretty safe to assume the question of the poll above is meant for a street setup on your car as it would cater to the larger part of the readers here.
 
I would even go as far as to say it's ridiculous that you would assume this is meant for a racing/competition series as that would make it more specific and hence tip the balance to either NA or FI, depending on the said competition.
 
And there's nothing in the description above which is saying one is superior to the other. They key word there is actually 'prefer'.
 
So to re-phase the question, what would YOU prefer in YOUR car?

well it depends on the application but if you're getting the same horsepower either way i would prefer all motor. but boost is such an easy way to massively increase your power output. its also a lot cheaper to boost a motor than it would be to get the same HP all motor.

Whens the Turbo vs Charger Poll going up?

@JDMized @SOLO8 Mike
whats it matter if they get paid, or what they do with "the numbers"?
heck, Im glad they get paid to do what they do! keeps them going with providing us readers with awesome content! if anything, im glad we're not paying for this content like we would if they were doing print magazines.
your comments reek of conspiracy nut. why does it matter so much?

Like everyone else, this is a tough choice. I've owned both, and I love my turbo gti. It's great to get good hp, and good mpg. But I've always preferred the sound of a na motor. I think if you want massive hp, boosting is the best/cheapest way to go. But if you're comparing two motors, both the same hp, I'd have to go na. Plus I still know guys who consider turbos "cheating," lol.

if HP and TQ are the same then I vote NA, just because there's inherently less parts to fail.

I voted for N/A, but have a soft spot for superchargers...

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.

@SOLO8 Mike There's no conspiracy! Just purely genuine question.
I do not believe they spend hours scheduling agendas and write features for shits and giggles.
People response matters to them, and I'd like to know why.
Our responses have little to no impact about their decision in posting stuff THEY want to cover.
How many drift event/ races have you seen on here? A ton!
How many F1 or WRC features have you seem on here posted (and covered) by SH staff? VERY few!
So if your above-comment would make sense, by our requests, they would feature more F1/ WRC content, but they don't, despite a lot of requests and enthusiasts asking for it.
In other words, don't you see a pattern?
I'll be more than glad explaining myself if you care to reply, thanks.

BTW, there are 86 replies as of right now. I have yet to read what Mike Garrett intended for this post.

@JDMized  @SOLO8 Who cares if they thought of this post as filler in the shower this morning,or if it was 6 months in the making.  None of us are paying for any of the content here.  It's not a magazine, or a newspaper, or even a newsletter.  Perhaps the polls are done via their senior editors, perhaps they have free reign.  Perhaps it's done as a market rsearch for future video game content.  What's the difference though, why does it ultimately matter?  This blog could go poof tomorrow and no one would drop dead.   There would be a huge void in the online world of auto stuff...but life would surely go on. 
 
Polls inherently get the most replies - means a wider net, means more people hear about the blog and check it out, means the staff can justify their existance and participation to the people who cut their checks going forward, and so on and so forth.  They don't need to justify their existance to us - they don't work for us.  Nor is Mike obligated to post a reply.  He doesn't work for you.  Much in the same way that no one owes you an answer to your enquiry.  It could just as easily be ignored by the author, and every other reader on here.  It's just fodder for discussion though.
 
There is no other blog, individually, that covers the range of topics they do here, with original content, and people on hand at the events.  None.  There is something for everyone here, from Euro, to Japanese, to drift, to rat rods and Bonneville.  I could care less about American Muscle old or new.  I could care even less about drift event coverage.  Yet I come back and even glance through those features because I enjoy the photography.  You never know what you can see that you may enjoy and not even know it.  If the blog was solely featured around those scenes I would not visit it at all though.  It's the mixture that keeps most of the readers here coming back.  It must work too, because I am sure they are one of the widest read automotive enthusiast blogs on the net.
 
They have done F1 content before, they have done some rally content before, I think they have even done some Nascar type content before.  But I dont think thats the point of this blog as a whole.  I see it as a place where people from all over convene to talk cars for a little break in their day.  Sort of like a BYOB pub.  But it introduces people from all corners of the globe to aspects and content in this vast universe that we might not otherwise have had exposure to.  I never would have known about Gatebil without this blog.  While it's not particularly my thing, it's interesting to see what people in that part of the world are doing.  I'd never get to see up close pics of the RWB cars either.  Again, they don't particularly speak to me (ie I wouldn't buy one or look to build one), but it's still cool to see and makes for interesting and diverse content.  The exhaust choice Dino makes on his R34 doesn't impact my world whatsoever.  I don't have an R34.  But I still find it interesting.  And thus the same holds true for this poll.  I own both an NA and a turbo car.  I like both for different reasons.  But I check the comments out because you never know, maybe someone posts a link to a build that you never saw before, or a video that is entertaining, etc.  If not, I move on.  If the blog doesn't satisfy your appetite for the content you like, then the world is your oyster to develop a blog where you can post aspects of the hobby you enjoy sharing info about.

@DavidCompton  @jcali that makes no sense.  Keep your foot out of a 300hp FI car (or NA car for that matter) and it no longer makes 300 hp.  Not to mention that fuel economy is dictated by for more than engine hp

@cornerbalance @SOLO8 Correct, they are not entitle to give me an answer, ever for that matter!
See I look a bit "further" than your average joe. Those polls are posted to, (like you said) generate traffic, get their name out there, and profit the website.
Why on earth am I suppose to contribute with my .02 and feed their pockets.
People spend a good 5-10 minutes writing down what they like, and SH takes note. If I don't get my cut, I don't see why I have to provide my idea. Yes the site is free, but "somehow" those folks get paid, how? We all know the answer is from sponsor.
Like you, I come here because I believe 1/10th of the content is good, whereas the majority of stuff is garbage (but that's my opinion).....
As far as being the ultimate blog, I'm not sure about that. Sure they cover a lot of stuff, but as they say, it's not quantity that matters, it's quality. There are many fine blogs out there that do a marvelous job at covering their area.
I simply asked the above question because I'd like to know. Much like folks ask other questions.
Don't wanna answer my question? Fine, I'll move on, but don't expect me to think highly about how the site is run (again, just my opinion).

@JDMized  @cornerbalance  @SOLO8 so given that, why bother with the site at all?  If you don't like that it's a profit making endeavor at the end of the day, or even a loss leader for their video game side, then you're certainly entitled to your thoughts and decisions on the matter.  They didn't build the site to appease you, and they didn't build it to be profit sharing.  I guess I just don't understand why your animosity, or even your repeat viewing/comments, if you're so opposed to whatever it is they do here in the first place?  You don't have to answer frankly, it really makes no ultimate difference to me.   My point is, I don't think anyone really cares what you think of how a private entity runs their free blog.  You might look "further" but I don't think you're unearthing something anyone really cares about.   If they were to give you a detailed, step by step guide outlining how they are paid, what the budget is derived from, and why they post what they post, what benefit does that info offer you?   No where different from where you are right now.  So why ultimately does it matter?  I think to the vast majority of people here, we simply don't care.  It's a 5 or 10 minute distraction to a day.  No vested interest beyond that.   So if you don't want to participate in whatever marketing excercise they use whatever data they collect, why check the site out at all, ever?  Why not just focus on those sites that interest you more.  It's like you're trying to say something seruptitious is going on here.  Whether it is or not, I don't think the people here care, because...well, they don't care.  They provide content in exchange for whatever marketing info they gather.  It was never a "dear diary" site by one random anonymous author posting about his build.  It was always a well funded, well organized spot run by a large company, with staff positioned around the world.  No agenda was ever hidden IMHO.
 
Personally, I don't care if they are funded by sponsors.  The site is not littered with ads, or pop ups.  They peddle their books and t shirts rarely, that's cool with me.  But at the end of the day, they are owned by a large company with a large budget for marketing.  Again, I don't care about that because I'm not a video game person.  I am here solely for content; some is good, some doesn't interest me.  I am thankful for it, and their staff, because like I said, it gives me a place to check out a diverse range of coverage with professional level photography.   I don't study it to the point where I can say I have my favorite bloggers on here or not.  In fact the only person I remember the name of is Dino, because I followed his blog long before he ever was on here.

@pwhyze I'm actually not getting ahead of myself at all. I'm answering and analyzing the question from a perspective of someone who worked in the industry for 5-6 years, has been racing for over 11 in hill climb / karting / circuit driving and as someone who has been trained formally by some incredible people who were national / world champions from karting all the way to Formula Atlantic and Nascar. 
 
It isn't ridiculous at all to look at it through a different lens depending on the build. I simply stated in racing applications or performance applications it varies. It is therefor logical that in a street build (because a street build demands less from a motor / car as there are no lap times or track records to be broken) you would expect to see watered down philosophies of what works on the track. Of course that assumes that you have a decent amount of knowledge when it comes to the phrase "depends on the application." 
 
If I were to build a street car I would have an Ultima GTR with an NA LS series motor built to around 600whp. Conversely if I were to build a street car like a Zcars mini I would go with a turbo charged K24 that was increased in capacity to 2.6 liters. 
 
There are two street cars that I would approach in entirely different ways, because they are two entirely different cars built for very different purposes and have different limitations and range in their abilities. 
 
So to re-iterate my original point that was handed down to me by some of the most educated and talented people I have ever met in my life in the industry and track record holders: IT DEPENDS ON THE APPLICATION. 
 
Cheers.

@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.

@GraysonParker , didn't realize they were so close in weight. My only point was that I don't think he meant it to necessarily be the same engine

@jcali , mostly I was just saying I don't think he meant it had to be the same power plant.

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 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.

@FrancescoDiGiuseppe 
Porsche, Ferrari, and BMW have built bonkers forced fed engines in their motorsport history

Natural Aspiration Please!!!!!

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...

Ooh that's me.

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.

assuming the same power/torque, then its an easy one. N/A. the response would be the winning 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.

NA for racing: Car control and instant repsonse, reliability
Turbo for street use: gas mileage and fun factor

Forced induction all the way.
NA is too simple and inept for the modern world.

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.

The difference between a competition car and street car is, in a street build, there's no real set of objectives that you have to achieve in order for you to build your car towards, as you can decided that for yourself. YOU decide how you want to setup your car. Not for the a certain track. Not to achieve a certain lap time. Not to beat others in a drag race. But to use on the street, along some B-roads (or highway, if you prefer).
 
So in other words, YOU decide the application you want to use it in.Therefore, the question asked here is, would you want an Ultima GTR or a Zcars mini, if you have to choose either one. Do you get what I mean?

Lets See....
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...

Do Combo Chargers count because you can almost eliminate that pesky spooling with combo charger...hehe

Forced induction forsure. If you know how to setup your system you wont have to worry about spool problems...

Always been an NA guy but Boost is more fun

@pwhyze Yeah I get what you mean, and I'm well aware of what street and race cars are as I have actually built and driven both. I would have an Ultima GTR for race tracks and highway driving and a Zcars Mini for B roads and tooling around town. You really like capitalizing the word "you" don't YOU?

Pfft! Just get both. Best of both worlds...

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

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

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

Stolen by*

Doesn't seem to get it, still. I don't care what you have driven and what experience you have. It's irrelevant.
 
Let's make it simple, shall we? After all, it's painfully obvious it's a simple question to start with. Let's just say the roads from your office to your house involves a little bit of some motorway driving and little bit of twisty back roads at the end with a bit of town driving in the middle. You can only choose ONE car. Ultima or Zcars Mini? Choose. (Should I capitalize choose or one?)
 
It all depends on what you prefer, instead of which is more advantageous. After all, there's no gold at the end of the road. No lap times. No one else to beat. 
 
Preference is the word. Choose.

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.

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.

@MPistol Your car was stolen by Juggalow's!?!?  That's EXTRA shitty.

@MPistol Your car was stolen by Juggalow's!?!?  That's EXTRA shitty.

@pwhyze First of all, I don't know who you think you are talking down to me, but my view point is entire relevant. If you ask anyone who has a lot of experience building / driving street cars, tuner cars, race cars or any other type of automobile they will tell you the exact same thing. It depends on the application as to which style I prefer. Even if I am just driving to work in a sports car, if my journey is a mix of highways and canyons I would choose the one that benefits what I deem as the type of driving I enjoy.
 
Even NA can be broken down into mid range, peak power a combination of the two etc etc. When you ask an educated person a blanket statement you get a thorough reply that the uneducated don't seem to like because it requires too much thinking. I think thats where you're at right now sweet heart.
 
Some people prefer what is advantageous per the situation because they realize the world isn't black and white. You seem to not understand that concept and the only thing it shows is how new you are to tuning and driving if you even do any of either. We can sit here all day and bullshit around on paper about which we prefer, the fact of the matter is in the real world it is extremely daft to blindly prefer one over the other. I like cars that make good power and have light weight, I don't care how they make the power they do as long as it's usable and fits the application. 
 
You're trying to take someone who has much more experience than you in both driving and tuning and go toe to toe which is why you're being buried every time you chalk up the nerve to prod at me. I'll assume you're new to the whole thing and give you a break, but before I go I'll leave you with a quote from Bruce Lee that applies to this exact question, but is probably a bit beyond you're understanding at the moment: 
 
"When people talk about fighting schools they say that Kung Fu, or Karate, or this other style is the best. That is silly, and the problem becomes that the fighting style then becomes set in stone with no growth, and no adaptation, because what works well with me might not work for you."
 
Make sure you push in your chair when you get up, class is dismissed.

I find the way you big yourself up and condescend others as nothing more than amusing.Even your quote was simply unsuitable to the topic at hand. So forgive me if I find it hilarious and ironic  to see someone so high up their horse they don't even now what they are addressing.
 
Let's take the quote. No style is the best. Agreed. Silly to say this or that as the best as every individual is different. It's a style after all. No argument there. The question here is, which one would you choose if you can only choose one, not why. Which one you prefer, not which one is best. Would you take up Karate? Kung fu?
 
The why comes after and sadly for someone so eager to share their 'huge' experience and knowledge as yourself, this poll does not address that. That's the reason most of the answers here are simple. People are choosing what is most relevant to them, not you, not their friends, not to some engineers.
 
Now, let's address the example you mentioned. A daily journey that might take a bit of highways and canyon passes. So for that background and not forgetting your own driving style, which would you choose, NA or Turbo? Just pick the one that is most relevant to you. That's the reasoning behind the poll. Again, the key is what do you prefer. It doesn't have to be a daily commute. You can choose whatever competition you are currently involved in. I don't care what that is, the poll doesn't and no one else does.
 
I never said one is better than the other. NA and Turbo has their advantages, given the different situations.Absolutely no argument there. If you were to be so kind to point out where I mentioned one is better than the other at all times, please do. If not, I haven't the slightest clue as to why you would assume I would argue the opposite, other than the fact that you are drawing yourself a straw man of course. As to which I say, bravo sweetheart. At least you tried.
 
You might want to stay back after class. Don't worry, I'll leave the chair where it is. Ta.

I find the way you big yourself up and condescend others as nothing more than amusing.Even your quote was simply unsuitable to the topic at hand. So forgive me if I find it hilarious and ironic  to see someone so high up their horse they don't even now what they are addressing.
 
Let's take the quote. No style is the best. Agreed. Silly to say this or that as the best as every individual is different. It's a style after all. No argument there. The question here is, which one would you choose if you can only choose one, not why. Which one you prefer, not which one is best. Would you take up Karate? Kung fu?
 
The why comes after and sadly for someone so eager to share their 'huge' experience and knowledge as yourself, this poll does not address that. That's the reason most of the answers here are simple. People are choosing what is most relevant to them, not you, not their friends, not to some engineers.
 
Now, let's address the example you mentioned. A daily journey that might take a bit of highways and canyon passes. So for that background and not forgetting your own driving style, which would you choose, NA or Turbo? Just pick the one that is most relevant to you. That's the reasoning behind the poll. Again, the key is what do you prefer. It doesn't have to be a daily commute. You can choose whatever competition you are currently involved in. I don't care what that is, the poll doesn't and no one else does.
 
I never said one is better than the other. NA and Turbo has their advantages, given the different situations.Absolutely no argument there. If you were to be so kind to point out where I mentioned one is better than the other at all times, please do. If not, I haven't the slightest clue as to why you would assume I would argue the opposite, other than the fact that you are drawing yourself a straw man of course. As to which I say, bravo sweetheart. At least you tried.
 
You might want to stay back after class. Don't worry, I'll leave the chair where it is. Ta.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Depends on the engine/car

Depends on the engine/car

Depends on the engine/car

Blue engin bay = ae86 with 3sge on itb's FTW d=(^_^)=b

Blue engin bay = ae86 with 3sge on itb's FTW d=(^_^)=b

Blue engin bay = ae86 with 3sge on itb's FTW d=(^_^)=b

ITBs FTW. ... Pretty equal so far, was expecting to see the turbo have a major upper hand.

The sound of N/A at high revolutions is fantastic and multiorgasmic!!

The sound of N/A at high revolutions is fantastic and multiorgasmic!!

The sound of N/A at high revolutions is fantastic and multiorgasmic!!

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

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

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

For me nothing beats the sound of my dellorto 40 side draft carbs on my mk 1 escort.. N/A all the way!

For me nothing beats the sound of my dellorto 40 side draft carbs on my mk 1 escort.. N/A all the way!

For me nothing beats the sound of my dellorto 40 side draft carbs on my mk 1 escort.. N/A all the way!

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/gstatejester/beating-a-dead-horse-horse-demotivational-poster-1267844749.jpg
 
Instead of buying a cold air intake, or a DC hat, save your money and cop this one:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Day/dp/1576854949
 
You owe it to yourself.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/gstatejester/beating-a-dead-horse-horse-demotivational-poster-1267844749.jpg
 
Instead of buying a cold air intake, or a DC hat, save your money and cop this one:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Day/dp/1576854949
 
You owe it to yourself.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/gstatejester/beating-a-dead-horse-horse-demotivational-poster-1267844749.jpg
 
Instead of buying a cold air intake, or a DC hat, save your money and cop this one:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Day/dp/1576854949
 
You owe it to yourself.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/gstatejester/beating-a-dead-horse-horse-demotivational-poster-1267844749.jpg
 
Instead of buying a cold air intake, or a DC hat, save your money and cop this one:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Day/dp/1576854949
 
You owe it to yourself.

I want a N/A Nissan RB30 bottom end with a RB25 head.

@SVT_Bryan @MPistol more like MS13

@SVT_Bryan @MPistol more like MS13

Forced induction aka turbo kit but Not supercharger

If you have naturally aspirated you have less complications however the pros/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)

@baiermitch Even though I prefer N/A over turbocharging I would rather have it supercharged than turbo'ed for street duty and occasional track day.

Assuming that both are optimized, I would probably go for a modern turbo setup, simply because of weight and the flatter torque curve.

N/A for me please.