Turbocharger, Supercharger, or Naturally Aspirated?

  • Thread starter Dark_Ryder
  • 137 comments
  • 7,569 views

Which do you prefer??

  • Supercharger

    Votes: 20 11.6%

  • Turbocharger

    Votes: 67 38.7%

  • Naturally Aspirated

    Votes: 86 49.7%
  • Total voters
    173
D

Dark_Ryder

58
GTP_Dark_Ryder
XBox sucks
ive seen alot of threads in these forums of people stating that they prefer N/A over turbo or supercharged cars. i wanna see were everybody stands on this subjec. i personally like naturally asperated because thers no lag from the turbo and thers no lack of power from the supercharger
 
Yeah, see Lancia Delta S4 Group B rally car and Golf 1.4 GT for two (massively different) examples.

To the OP - there's no 'loss of power' from a supercharger - that would make them completely pointless. It's just that because they're crank driven forced induction devices they consume some of the engines initial horsepower.

For example, if you have an engine that, naturally aspirated, generates 500hp and, with the addition of a supercharger, generates 750hp - it may well be that the supercharger uses 100 of the naturally aspirated horsepower to generate the extra (net) 250hp, but you still get a power gain. If you see what I mean.
 
NA is best! you can't beat the sound of a tuned NA engine. But, you also gotta love the sound of a turbo/supercharger whining under heavy throttle. I love all three, but i'd have to go with NA if i had a choice.
 
Oh yeah, I forgot to give my answer!

Sorry to cop out, but any of the three for me!

NA for the hardcore top end, linear delivery, noise and romance.

Turbo for monster torque and left-foot braking hilarity.

Superchargers for the whine, the ability to give small engines huge, NA-style power and the name! Soooopercharger!
 
TopHat
Yep, VW has a twincharger system I believe, using the S/C at lower revs, and the T/C higher up.
Click to expand...

Other way round.

The Turbocharger will create the low-midrange grunt, while the supercharger will give a more enthusiastic top end.
 
MrKipling43
Other way round.

The Turbocharger will create the low-midrange grunt, while the supercharger will give a more enthusiastic top end.
Click to expand...
No, the other way round. Like he originally said. The supercharger is used at the low rev range where zero lag is important and the power needed to drive the supercharger isn't too noticable. At the midrange the supercharger is slowly losing its best grunt and the turbocharger is already producing some power as the volume of the exhaust gases increases. At high revs there's enough exhaust volume to run the turbocharger at full power and the supercharger is beginning to consume more power than it produces so it's disconnected by a special clutch system and the turbocharger takes over.
 
Greycap
No, the other way round. Like he originally said. The supercharger is used at the low rev range where zero lag is important and the power needed to drive the supercharger isn't too noticable. At the midrange the supercharger is slowly losing its best grunt and the turbocharger is already producing some power as the volume of the exhaust gases increases. At high revs there's enough exhaust volume to run the turbocharger at full power and the supercharger is beginning to consume more power than it produces so it's disconnected by a special clutch system and the turbocharger takes over.
Click to expand...

Yeah its definitely that way round. As for the poll, im all for turbo :) Fun as to drive!
 
I like naturally aspirated engines because the engine responds to the slightest pressure of the foot, and they can rev higher than a turbo or supercharger, plus I never liked having them in the engine, feels unnatural to me
 
Last edited:
Turbo. Wonder what cars do I like that are Turbo'd?

<----------*ahem*
 
Mine's_GTR
Turbo. Wonder what cars do I like that are Turbo'd?

<----------*ahem*
Click to expand...

haha. never would've guessed. another reason i forgot to mention about NA is ITB's. they're so sexy, and they make the car sound beast. if i could get an R32 GTR, i'd NA the hell outta that thing and slap some ITB's on it. oohh man.:dopey:
 
I prefer NA simply because of the power-band layout. I don't like the spike in the power-band that you get from a turbo charger. At least in a game, ;) in GT5:P (or any game for that matter) you just can't feel when the turbo kicks in, so I have a problem with holding the throttle through a corner, then hitting the spike in the power-band, and then having the back end swing around. Superchargers don't have the lag, so there isn't really a spike in the power-band, but I just prefer NA.

Luke
 
I don't care so I can't vote, what I like is a engine to engine basis, I can't just round up engine based on their induction and choose on or the other.


panSPEED
if i could get an R32 GTR, i'd NA the hell outta that thing and slap some ITB's on it. oohh man.:dopey:
Click to expand...


R32 GTR already has ITB's out of the factory (just not NA)

BUT

Autech did make a RB26DE (NA tuned GTR engine) in R32. :)
 
Last edited:
oh man this is soo hard to pick...i dont lik superchargers that much i find them a bit boring for some reason. except for the awesome whine that they make. i love the surge of power that comes from a HUGE turbo kicking in at 5000 rpm being pushed back into your seat. but if i had to choose it would come down to a high revving naturally aspirated V10:sly:
 
nd 4 holden spd
You're just sitting there, going absolutely no where.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Thats why you stay in the powerband :) Gear tuning is essential, without the power/torque graph i wouldve voted NA, but we do have it so i voted turbo because i like to thrash the car round sticking it in the high revs and keeping it here.
 

Latest Posts

Back