If you were given a choice between two engines : They both make

NA everday

>>16131079
Depends in what car will go the engine.

File: retarded.jpg (93KB, 804x787px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 804x787px

>>16131079
The peak power numbers are pointless. Tell me about the shape of the torque curve and the throttle response.

>>16131079
Turbo for the sound.

>>16131079
If they make the same power N/A for the nolag

Turbo because ease of tunning

>>16131096
Also if it's an inline then tarbo
If it's a V engine then N/A

>>16131079
Turbo if in Colorado or somewhere where I'll be driving at high altitudes, N/A everywhere else

>>16131079

Turbo if it's a 4 cylinder, NA 4 cylinders are hopeless, I shouldn't have to rev to 9000rpm to go get groceries.

NA if it's a V8.

NA assuming, like most turbos, it expiriences turbo lag, rather have a predictable and smooth acceleration curve. Not a big fan of noise for the sake of noise, like I hate shitboxes that barely break 200hp with straight pipes and fart cans so the chigger inside can sound faster than he really is.

Depends if the n/a engine has a large displacement with a torquey powerband or a revvy smaller displacement engine

Also depends on how heavy the car is that it's going in

File: 1359744216380.jpg (32KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 250x250px

No replacement for displacement
Jap Scrap goes straight to the junkyard

The tweest: The engine was never meant to be turbod and can barely handle a pound of boost, the turbo is fucking huge and lags like shit, and there is no intercooler

The engine: 1zz-fe

File: speed-6-engine-bay-1.jpg (347KB, 960x785px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 960x785px

>>16131107
>implying high output NA i6's aren't godlike

Gas: n/a
Diesel: tarbo

turbo everytime

much more fun to drive and tune

NA because i actually know something about cars

Always pick NA unless you have the money to be throwing at your burned-up turbo every year.

Fuck mileage.

Modern turbo vehicles, the ones aimed at the general public, are not performance vehicles. The turbos are there for gas mileage and nothing else, which means you are over-working a tiny engine to get that power...and that means short engine life.

If you mean an engine with a lower hp at the wheel being brought up to the same wheel hp as the naturally aspirated engine via a turbo then naturally aspirated any day.

No lag and smooth power delivery for the same power? Why be 5"8 and wear 4 inch platforms when you could just be 6ft?

Turbo engine offers superior power delivery and power potential
Na is for poorfag commuters

I like how this flagrant us vs them thread got taken seriously and basically everyone unironically agrees it's us.

>>16131079
NA no doubt

>>16131079
Turbo because its cooler

File: 1474657691233.jpg (19KB, 253x296px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 253x296px

N/A. Same power, no torque, no oil return lines, no intercooler, more space in engine bay, instant throttle response.

Turbos are made to cram more air into an N/A engine, which adds power. If an N/A and a Turbo engine have the same power there's no real reason to pick the Turbo. That just means the Turbo engine is making lesser power without the Turbo, essentially piggybacking off of it.

>>16131088
This guy gets it

>>16131437
turbo will have more torque
turbo can have a broader torque curve
turbo will be easier to modify

>>16131466
MUH TARBO LAG THO

>>16131475
after driving turbo cars I dont even see why people bother with NA

>>16131079
Can I put a turbo on the N/A?

>>16131349
>Turbo
>Gas mileage

No, the turbo is there to make the pathetic engine tolerable enough once you're cruising on the freeway.

People forget that when you're actually using the turbo, you're using tons of fuel. And the average normie is probably in boost a LOT more than you realize.

EPA fuel economy ratings a shit, they don't test real world fuel economy at all, and turbos cheat on the tests.

File: dzwsi8eii8qn09kcwjdi.jpg (314KB, 1482x1014px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1482x1014px

>>16131079
turbo, na is just boring

>>16131079
Is that an alternator?

>>16131079
NA. Less to go wrong and break.

>>16131088
everything else the same, the na car will have better throttle response

File: u69vz61qqfewizhdbzvh.jpg (133KB, 664x900px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 664x900px

>>16131088

N/A forever and always

>>16131079
>They both make the same power but one is NA and one is turbocharged which one would you choose?

NA of course if your magical statement of "make the same power" applies in all situations, altitudes, and fuel. Otherwise, the perceptive gent at >>16131112 has a good point. But I prefer NA in new cars for the longevity. New cars typically add the turbo for EPA fuel mileage ratings. For that purpose, the engine is undersized and forced to run hard with the turbo.

>>16131349
>>16131624
The turbo on my car only seems to make a difference(and turbo noises) at high RPM, so It's basically useless since I don't use it for racing

>>16131624
Actually some of the new 4 cylinder turbo sedans like the 2017 civic get even better real world mileage than what is reported

>>16131079
na and i have chosen a na v8 over a turbo i6 or i4 because they are just more reliable and make easy power

>>16131079
Been thinking about it and would definitely go with n/a. With an n/a you can later turbo it if you want, not to mention the reliability that's definitely better than if you have a turbo.

File: 20160324_202239.jpg (907KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

907KB, 2560x1920px

N/A of course
Turbo vs N/A with same power means that the turbo engine has lower displacement. Which means more turbo lag.

BTW, can anyone tell me how perceptible turbo lag is in modern cars? I've only ever driven a Peugeot 407 1.6 HDi and it was fucking awful.
>press gas
>nothing happens
>2 seconds later suddenly WHOOSH ZOMG POWER
>2 seconds later at 3000k rpm engine literally dies

>>16134805
that's how low displacement FUCKING turbo DIESELS work

if you wanted a DD shitbox you should've went with something just a tiny bit bigger, like 1.9
no matter if vw, peugeot or fiat, turbo in these starts spooling way earlier and the boost is more smooth

>>16134832
It's not mine, it's my uncle's. I hate diesels overall.

>>16134805
It's not that noticable, mostly because the boost is low and it works from the lower revs already. There are tiny turbines that don't really do all that much.

So long as we're talking about those modern paper engines ofc.

>>16131107
This is suprisingly accurate for just about everything

the turbo because it'll make more torque lmao

inb4 you nerds don't understand the difference between torque and peak hp output

>>16134839
almost
i'd turbo a V6

>>16134805
Turbo lag is a normie meme, it's almost non-existant at this point.

Just about every turbo car these days regardless of price, gets sold with a custom-sized variable geometry turbocharger.
These things hit boost at like 2k and spool time is almost instantenous.

t. ford diesel owner with a 7psi garrett from factory

>>16131079
Turbo because of the sound.

>>16131079
If the N/A is a high rpm engine with VVL and the same displacement as the turbo i´d choose the N/A.
If it is a huge displacement heavy engine I`d go with the turbo.

>>16131079
The only advantage the turbo gives is ability to use lower displacement (less weight and possibly better MPG) and more stable power in mountaineous areas.

So the NA engine is high strung and the turbo engine is comfortably making its power with lots of room for easy gains? I pick turbo.

Is a turbo good for compensating for high alttitude air being less dense than at low altitudes?

>>16135614
yes

turbo cars dominate NA in high altitudes

>>16131466
But you can add a turbo to an na, you can't add more turbo

>>16135742
yes you can retard, you don't even need to do anything mechanically, just a tune

Turbo lag is shit

N/A all the way

I recently traded in a turbocharged car for a N/A

>>16135614
Was about to post turbo for this reason given I'm moving to CO

>>16134923
>540i e39
>4.4L V8, 286ch
>mean effective pressure 11 bars
>average piston velocity 15,7m/s

>Pug 308 GTi
>1.6L turbo, 270ch
>mep 25,4bars
>apv 17,2m/s

Which one of those seems high strung?

>>16131079
N/A, I'd get ITBs

>>16131079
na better fuel milage

File: images.jpg (10KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 275x183px

>>16131079
A 383'd N/A.

>>16135830
>Was about to post turbo for this reason given I'm moving to CO
Or move there because recreational marijuana is legal.

>>16135853
>comparing engines with different displacements

>>16135971
>implying OP stated the two imaginary engines in question have the same displacement

OK I'll have another try
>Mazda 6 skyacvtiv 2.0 160hp
>mep 12,2bars
>apv 18,2m/s

>Pug 406 2.0 Turbo 147hp
>mep 13,5bars
>apv 15,2m/s

The difference has diminished indeed. But then look at compression ratios:
>Mazda: 13:1
>Pug: 8,5:1

>>16136075
Shit this is actually a counterargument to what I was trying to show, that NA is less stressed than turbo for the same output.

Then again I had to go pretty far to find this example, and the Skyactiv and the 2.0T aren't really meant to do the same thing.

turbo would the lighter engine unless I'm mistaken

>>16136084
We could also look at the N/A 4A-GE 20V blacktop and the 4A-GZE 16V supercharged
Both have the same block, both produce pretty simmilar power.
But one of them needs to rev incredibly high to get this power, the other one doesn´t.

>>16134805

This anon is right>>16134865

Turbo lag nowadays is still there, but barely. Most turbos spool up at 2,000rpm

T. 16' GTI owner

>>16131079
If we assume same weight and I can't do anything to it, n/a

In real life though, the n/a engine will be heavier and the turbo engine will be more easily upgradable, so it's a no brainer.

>>16131091
This