Turbo Vs. N/A

[Spoon Tune]

Simple question really....Which is better?
Turbo? or N/A?

 

[Drifter5]

depends...straight line, turbo. corners, NA. why? when going straight the ability for a turbo to gain torque is alot better than an NA. but when the entering a corner, you let stop pressing down on the gas, which means the turbine would stop spinning, thus all boost would be lost and it will take some time to get the turbo spinning again aka turbo lag. but NA coming into corner have no problem with turbo lag because the engine has no FI, thus enabling better coming out of a corner. NA = more throttle response.

its all about personal prefrence. some people like turbo because when they hear that blow-off sound, it puts a smile on their face. other like NA because they like to hear the high-pitch sound coming from their engine.

turbo = for the people that want to be fast on straight ways
NA = for people that want to be fast in corners

 

[Balfa]

Simple question really....Which is better?
Turbo? or N/A?

Turbo has the potential to output the highest peak power
Turbo doesn't have as broad a power band
This can be overcome by learning to drive a stickshoft
Turbo can be tuned very easily
Turbo has better fuel efficiency

Turbo is the super juicy winner.

 

[speed_freak]

A turbocharged car can make lots of hp with small engine diplacement, where a car with a NA engine needs to have large diplacement to make the same hp. The NA car would have much tourgue that will help it launch better. On a track cars with big heavy engines such as TVRs are hard to handle because the engine puts a lot of weight on the front tires making it very unstable and lacks in cornering. Na is not better for tracks. Most corners can be taken above 60mph and at that speed turbos spool up and there is no lag.

 

[Spoon Tune]

I guess that would explain why when i tested the 1/4 time with an integra type-r the stage 3 n/a was a bit faster then the stage 3 turbo because of the turbo lag.
I just wasnt sure how realistic gt4 was with turbo's spooling up and such.
Drifter your explination is very good... I appreciate it.

Looks like if i had to choose one or the other I'll go turbo.
Seems more benificial then n/a. Especially for imports which handle very well to begin with.

 

[Driftster]

I say turbocharger is much better.
You don't have to have a t110 on a car to be considered "turbocharged" nor do you have to put out 60lbs of boost.

turbocharging seems to be the weapon of choice because it's ALOT power on tap whenever you want it without sacraficing engine life like you would making the same #'s out of a N/A.

Heck what do you think a EB110 would do without it's 4 turbo's?

 

[Crayola]

depends...straight line, turbo. corners, NA. why? when going straight the ability for a turbo to gain torque is alot better than an NA. but when the entering a corner, you let stop pressing down on the gas, which means the turbine would stop spinning, thus all boost would be lost and it will take some time to get the turbo spinning again aka turbo lag. but NA coming into corner have no problem with turbo lag because the engine has no FI, thus enabling better coming out of a corner. NA = more throttle response.

its all about personal prefrence. some people like turbo because when they hear that blow-off sound, it puts a smile on their face. other like NA because they like to hear the high-pitch sound coming from their engine.

turbo = for the people that want to be fast on straight ways
NA = for people that want to be fast in corners

Yes turbos lag but NA dont produce max torque until high rev ranges anyway.

 

[Crayola]

Turbo has the potential to output the highest peak power
Turbo doesn't have as broad a power band
This can be overcome by learning to drive a stickshoft
Turbo can be tuned very easily
Turbo has better fuel efficiency

Turbo is the super juicy winner.

Turbo has a much better power band.

 

[Crayola]

A turbocharged car can make lots of hp with small engine diplacement, where a car with a NA engine needs to have large diplacement to make the same hp. The NA car would have much tourgue that will help it launch better. On a track cars with big heavy engines such as TVRs are hard to handle because the engine puts a lot of weight on the front tires making it very unstable and lacks in cornering. Na is not better for tracks. Most corners can be taken above 60mph and at that speed turbos spool up and there is no lag.

Turbos generally produce more torque than NA engines.

 

[Driftster]

I think people get the thought stuck in their head that a turbo is only going to produce so much power and then just stop the car from making power. And I think people also forget that in order to turbocharger a car you usually undergo some sort of modifications that would up your HP anywho.

 

[Spoon Tune]

Original Turbos, allthough less hp seem more benificial from reading what it does anyway...

-Has anyone experimented with the stage 4 vs. the stage 5 original?

 

[R_Riders]

Part of what is said from the first two replies is true but only parts, I'd like to say a few things though I could be wrong.

It laregly depends on what you're trying to do, the car in question and so fourth. Though I have not had too much experience on GT4 (have been for GT1-3 though)... yet anywho... this is my opinion on things...though I'm still a bit dense on a few things turbo wise... (and saying that has probally already taken away some credibility from what I'm going to say...)...but anywho...wish I could make this lenghy (I seam to be saying that a bit)... but here's my take on things...

1- Turbos are better for straits but in some corners they can be at a disatvatntage but it depends on that corner, the car's drivetrain, the conditions and the driver's driving style. Turbo lag at times can be of hinderance and some people can take advatnage of that.

2- Though it's true that usually for an N/A car to match the power of a turbo, they have to do a few things, increase revs, compresion ratio, make the engine bigger, it does tend to make cars heavier, but here's something I want to point out. Not every car with a NA tends to handle bad like a TVR or Corvette. Usually the handle just as good as a given turbo car like a Silvia, RX-7 FD, Lan evo etc...

3- the question if NA is better for tracks or not is subjective, to say it's not better for tracks is no differnt to say turbo is better which can be just as baised (but this is my opinion and it's probally just as biased...)... it depends on a LOT of factors and the cars in question...

It's on what you want to do, I figure both have their faults and strenghs that draw them equal...

I may elaboare on this but well... for now till later.

Sorry for failing to make much sense like usuall, just can't stand here idle.

 

[shorti]

Turbos generally produce more torque than NA engines.

NA engines? so there are turbo engines..? turbo is added to NA engines........ turbo is bs.. I don't believe in turbo....




to the thread starter.. this is the stupidest question ever please close thread.

and your in the wrong forum..

 

[Jmac279]

A good example of NA vs. Turbo is the Opel Tigra in GT2 ...

With either option, it's 263 hp, but I've found that the NA tuning is faster in everything from 1/4 mile, 1000m, track racing, and rally racing, although it comes at a considerably higher cost and the difference isn't that large ...

 

[Gabkicks]

besides handling, engine response is very important. NA cars often require more effort when tuning and is more expensive most of the time. The smooth revving and response of NA cars makes for smoother cornering as someone above mentioned. Turbos are cheaper and you get more HP per buck, but along with that comes less engine response and less torque in the lower revs. Driving techniques are different for each type of engine.


Its all about what suits the driver's likings and skills and how the rest of the car is tuned. I usually lean towards NA cars just because Turbos are a shortcut to performance.

NA engines just seem to give higher performance than turbo engines of matching HP.
Some turbos are tuned really well, for example the Mine's Skyline. 👍

 

[TheChemist]

N/A is more fun to drive, and that N/A sound, uf!

 

[Alpine3]

Given the same HP(N/A or turbo), on a tight city track i would prefer N/A simply because of response. For a regular racing track with much more substantial straights and faster turns i would still choose N/A simply for reponse again.
However, sometimes too much response may not be a benefit on hairpins/tight corners if you dont have precise throttle control. In that case, some slight lag may help you gain traction and accelerate out of a turn better.

Only if i need horsepower that the N/A upgrades simply don't offer would i choose a turbo over N/A.

 

[Spoon Tune]

NA engines? so there are turbo engines..? turbo is added to NA engines........ turbo is bs.. I don't believe in turbo....




to the thread starter.. this is the stupidest question ever please close thread.

and your in the wrong forum..

wtf lol? Turbos and N/A is involved in tuning u moron...
and how is it a stupid question?please dont post your useless spam here thanks

 

[Leonidae]

okies.. let's take this example: Mazda's rotary engine. without turbo's, it's torque comes smoothly, growing all the way to the redline. compared to equally powerful piston engine, which usually haves mid-range/low range grunt, it's better in racing use, because when racing, you tend to keep revs high. and, being NA-engine, rotary has terrific power to displacement ratio. 240 hp from 1,3l.. and if it's turbocharged, even better, but the torque curve will suffer slightly. and those who think NA need big displacement for power, remember 787B.. it has NA 2,6 litre R26B rotary, that churns out 700 bhp.

I'd go for rotary, N/A or turbocharged, it doesn't matter. best engine in the world IMHO. 👍

 

[Gabkicks]

have you seen RE AMememia's RX7 they used for that NA super battle in BM?

 

[sukerkin]

Having read through some of the above, I'm reminded how automotive myths and rumours get started ... a couple of posts of correct technical information but otherwise a swathe of posts that are fueled by opinion rather than mechanical engineering.

I wonder how some would respond to a question as to whether a Supercharger was better than a Turbo?

In more direct response to Spoon Tune, if you really want to know the answers to questions like this, the Internet is a marvelous research tool and you might get a clearer idea from a decent automotive engineering site than some half-formed opinions laid out as facts on a gaming forum.

:Smiley for points to oft repeated phrases regarding 'bad facts' and 'not giving the answer if you don't know it':

:shrugs and goes back to play with his spanners ... mmm ... "Snap On":

P.S. If I sound grumpy then that's because I am - it's Good Friday and I'm working rather than sitting in the sun (believe it or not the sun is shining in England!) outside the pub . So apologies if some feathers got ruffled there.

 

[CEO Boski]

i can't tell if people are talking about gt4 or real life...or both. the fact of the matter is in real life its all preference, look at F1...all engines are NA....look at JGTC...almost all engines are turbo, in le mans prototype its a mix. its all on the engine manufacture and tunner on what they think is better. and in regards to turbo lag=not good for turns...almost all WRC cars these days and some of the JGTC ones are equiped with special waste gates that allow the turbo to stay spinning even when the driver has his/her foot off the gas to prevent turbo lag.

 

[Jmac279]

The only reason F1 uses N/A motors is because it's mandatory ...

Back in the 80s, when they had a choice between a 3 liter V10 and a turbocharged 1.5 liter V6, the turbos absolutely dominated until the FIA started placing greater limits on the turbo engines to make it fair ...

Interestingly enough, the turbo 1.5 liter V6s of the mid-80s made more power than the 3 liter V10s make TODAY, 20 years later ... I think that says a lot about what has more potential ...

As for in the game, I don't really consider the aspiration to be a big deal ... There's much more important things than how the engine makes its power ...

 

[shorti]

wtf lol? Turbos and N/A is involved in tuning u moron...
and how is it a stupid question?please dont post your useless spam here thanks

wutever u say kid.. we're in the gt4 car tuning n settings forum.. not the let me have your opinion forum

 

[Spoon Tune]

wutever u say kid.. we're in the gt4 car tuning n settings forum.. not the let me have your opinion forum

u come in the forum i started and spam random shiz? shut the hell up its a good topic just because u dont care doesnt mean anything.World doesnt revolve around you idiot.

and kid? what are u 50 playing gt4?

and by the way lemme tell u again...turbos and n/a is part of tuning cars moron i was simply asking which is better so u can take ur foolish comments elsewhere. Thanks

 

[MuFF]

turbo adds 4000 pts to rice factor... i like turbo cars a lot.. other than the rotory engines... that boost feels good.. but still lacks a bit of low end torque

 

[LedaM3]

The only reason F1 uses N/A motors is because it's mandatory ...

Back in the 80s, when they had a choice between a 3 liter V10 and a turbocharged 1.5 liter V6, the turbos absolutely dominated until the FIA started placing greater limits on the turbo engines to make it fair ...

Interestingly enough, the turbo 1.5 liter V6s of the mid-80s made more power than the 3 liter V10s make TODAY, 20 years later ... I think that says a lot about what has more potential ...

As for in the game, I don't really consider the aspiration to be a big deal ... There's much more important things than how the engine makes its power ...

good points.

the way i see it, from an engineering standpoint, you can add a turbo to any platform and it will most definately be quicker. there is no getting around this, more air equals more torque. however, the throttle response you can get from a well tuned NA engine is unmatched by turbo cars no matter what odd wastegate gadgets you use.

the 1.5 liter turbo I4 that piquet won races with back in the day for Brabham BMW had a system which only allowed full boost from the turbos when the throttle was full open. this sort of mimicked an NA setup until full boost could be applied out of the corners. pretty sweet. just drove the cadillac CIEN and it seemed they had some wierd gizmo as well, it worked well. but like i said, not matched by a well engineered NA motor. BMW has shown that if you do things right you dont need turbos, as with their new M5. so it becomes more of a question of personal preference and which setup you know how to exploit

but still as this car 20 years ago made substantially more power than f1 cars of today, 1500hp+ vs. the 900+ of these days, it doesnt mean that the shreak of 900hp out of a 3liter V10 is any less frightening. It becomes more of a personal preference, the preference of the race engineer or rules maker. As a driver it really shouldnt matter too much as long as your team has put you in a place to compete for race wins. You learn how to adapt to any car you need to.

My preference is NA. NA cars are just easier to drive. If there is a turbo on the car i always feel a little less comfortable in the car because it seems i need to extract a little extra out of the car because of a deficit in the corners to the competeing NA cars.

 

[shorti]

lol.. good topic in the wrong area.. stupid question because u werent specific enough.... na, turbo.. which is better for what? why dont u make ur own give me your opinions thread

 

[Velocity]

Turbos generally produce more torque than NA engines.

Yes but then it depends largely on the stroke of the engine. Short stroke engines rev higher and need high rpms to make any HP or torque.

If you had two of the same displacement engine, one with a large bore short stroke and one with a long stroke smaller bore. The long stroke engine will make more torque than the short stroke. Even if you turbo charged the short stroke it probably still wouldn't make as much torque as the long stroke done up right in NA form.

PD got this right in that the older american muscle in the game make tremendous amounts of torque. This isn't just because they have huge displacement it's how the displacement is set up. The 440's and 454 have long strokes and consequently they make over 900 ft/lbs of torque when super charged.

So in end, pit a turbo car against a NA car. If the NA car has a longer stroke and is tuned to exploit the torque capability of the engine it can make more torque than a turbo on simillar size engines.

 

[Azuremen]

Turbo will always be able to make more power, simply because its effectively increasing engine displacement. NA does have a better response time. Both engines at high levels of tuning tend to have little power in the low RPM range. Wonder why companes developed Variable Valve timing systems (VVT-i, V-TEC, etc)? Its so the engine will have some power at low RPM, whether NA or Turbo.

Shorti, your comment about Turbo engines simply being NA engines with a turbo slapped on (thats how I read it anyhow) is completely wrong. NA engines are tuned differently from turbo engines, starting with compression ratio. Perhaps you should take you attitude elsewhere...