Naturally Aspirated or Forced Induction?

[RedArmy]

One of my friends in school always talks about how he thinks that forced induction is the way to go for 4 cylinders since they lack major hp and torque and a turbo or supercharger is the way to go for quick power gains.

I on the other hand prefer naturally aspirated engines since you get the power quicker not needing a turbo to spool up (I know that you can get turbos to spool up very fast though, albeit you set everything up right). I also like the fact that you aren't really adding stuff to your engine when you go N/A, you're just upgrading parts (cams, flywheels, pulleys etc.) and most of the time it's more reliable since you don't have the problems of increased pressure. I do however know that the sound of a BOV is very appealing and you spend around the same money as doing only a few things for power gains on an N/A engine.

Just thought I would get people's impressions and opinions on what they prefer, and if you don't know anything about this subject or "heard it from a friend" don't post.

 

[burnout8488]

I like the "psshh" sound.

That's it.

 

[DaTT]

BOV's are teh ghey......I have no preference, but if your going to do an engine up, make it at least 8 cylinders.

 

[RedArmy]

Originally posted by: DaTT
BOV's are teh ghey......I have no preference, but if your going to do an engine up, make it at least 8 cylinders.

Im talking in terms of 4 cylinders, as I said in thread. I like some V8's too, but this is not the case here.

 

[darkswordsman17]

It depends on the car and the purpose.

If you want an autocross/grand prix style of car then you'd want more motor, but if you're drag racing then forced induction will get you places that just motor couldn't. This isn't always true, as you have to consider your powerband, and some engines start to not have enough torque when doing extensive just engine modification, in which case, going forced induction might have been the better choice.

You might could get better fuel economy with forced induction, but lets face it, any car worth having it, you're not going to be greatly concerned with gas mileage.

I have no preference, as I would go for the car that does what I want it to the best. If it performs like it should, then how it does it shouldn't be of a big concern.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

It really depends on the car I think... supercharging a car can be a nice inbetween sometimes

 

[TitanDiddly]

Turbocharging is almost required for diesels. I'm looking at adding an intercooler to my 300D, but it's far down on the list of 'nice to have'.

 

[RedArmy]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
It really depends on the car I think... supercharging a car can be a nice inbetween sometimes

I like the whine that the supercharger makes as well, and you dont need as much stuff, but supercharging 4 cylinders, while possible (Jackson Racing superchargers) isn't that common to see.

 

[jagec]

It's all about getting blown+stroked...

 

[DaTT]

...if you're going to do it, supercharge it. Nothing like a Kenne Bell 2.4L Blowzilla sitting on top of eight hungry cylinders.....


...as for 4 cylinders, save those for your mom so she can go get groceries.

 

[RedArmy]

I guess there isn't any I4 love here. It seems all hope is lost

 

[yhelothar]

Given that you can have the same amount of power with NA, then NA is better.
But I would like a turbo just for the nice swiiiiiiisssh sound they make

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Given that you can have the same amount of power with NA, then NA is better.
But I would like a turbo just for the nice swiiiiiiisssh sound they make

You would get better fuel economy from a turbo, and probably a better power band with more lowend power (this is talking about a 4 cylinder). Most 4 cylinders that have much power get it at higher revs where its not as easy to use (although in the right car, having to keep higher revs would be fun).

 

[skyking]

I like the turbonormalized setup on the plane. it has aftermarket turbos with manual wastegates.
As the ambient pressure decreases with the gain in altitude, the pilot cranks the turbos up to "normalize".
It will get sea-level horsepower up to 18,000 feet or so.
The upside over a full time turbo'd engine?
if the turbo takes a crap on takoff in your T210, for example, your285HP engine is now putting out 220 or so. This can be depressing on a maximum weight/hot/high takeoff.
With the tubonormalized engines, you don't really use the turbos below 10,000 feet, and only for high altitude takeoffs. They make full power to 4,000 feet without them.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well, I guess I have to go with forced induction. My Mercury Sable isn't nearly as fun as my modded Eclipse Spyder.

 

[TheSlamma]

I like to go from A to B in my I4 and get the best milage possible.

 

[Minjin]

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Forced induction is certainly MUCH cheaper to make power. And for street performance with a 4 cyl, for it to have any reasonable power, it will be a dog in the low rpms that you use most often if its NA. If you think it takes a long time for a turbo car to build power, you're driving the wrong ones (if you've driven one at all)...

Mark

 

[ponyo]

I prefer naturally aspirated but don't mind supercharge or turbos. Nice thing about naturally aspirated engine is that you can add SC or turbos later if you want/need it. On my S2000, VTEC act as mini-turbos after 6k rpm. It's like totally different car between 6-9k rpm and so much fun. It's like driving a go-cart with power.

 

[ManyBeers]

Naturally aspirated ,especially if it is a Holley carbed, solid lifter Crower cammed ,headered small block chevy mahing around 400 hp, like the engine in my 70 1/2 Z/28 was. Sounded totally bitchin. Not loud but stout.

 

[Howard]

For daily driving, probably NA.

 

[RedArmy]

Originally posted by: Minjin
Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Forced induction is certainly MUCH cheaper to make power. And for street performance with a 4 cyl, for it to have any reasonable power, it will be a dog in the low rpms that you use most often if its NA. If you think it takes a long time for a turbo car to build power, you're driving the wrong ones (if you've driven one at all)...

Mark

I was kinda referring to poorly built 4 cylinders where the boost only kicked in around 6,000rpm since the people had no freakin clue what they were doing when they builit it so right before they had to shift they were only making a little horsepower from the turbo. I've been in and around many a car that has the right setup, but not everyone builds em' right. Plus Im trying to factor into the equation the reliablity of a turbo setup in general since you have to worry about shaft play later on in the life of the car if you don't maintain it right and other related issues.

 

[Atheus]

Bi-Turbo with the capacity of a normal NA engine Ferrari FTW.

 

[fallensight]

Its kinda car dependent. Alot of makers cant get a I4 to have any balls at all with a NA set up. Toyota and Honda are really it. My Celica GT-S works real well and has plenty of balls as a NA(manual tranny certianly helps out), but it is certainly not the norm for I4 set ups.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Have one of each and like both.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Naturally aspirated ,especially if it is a Holley carbed, solid lifter Crower cammed ,headered small block chevy mahing around 400 hp, like the engine in my 70 1/2 Z/28 was. Sounded totally bitchin. Not loud but stout.

Holley would have to be one of the crappiest carbs going...sure they are ok if you don't mind tuning them every weekend, but I prefer to be able to drive my car on the weekend not tune them, so I run the factory Carter thermoquad 4V 850cfm carb on my 400hp+ 378cu clevo.

as for the question, well I own a worked V8 1978 Ford Falcon so I prefer the brute power of a NA V8, but I have driven Tunnel rammed and supercharged V8's and they are insane to drive, so much power, you can't just floor it otherwise it will just wheel spin all of the time.

however I also own an Inline 6 powered 86 Ford Falcon and I would like to turbo it as they falcon 4.1litre is capable of making over 600hp with a big fat turbo and a well sorted injection system, this can push a 1350kg Falcon into 10's down the quarter mile.

so it really depends on what sort of engine you have, if it's a crappy 4 banger with low torque,a Turbo or Supercharger is the way to go, but lager engines such as the falocn 6 and V8 can be heaps of fun with out them...but they do go hell of a lot better with them.