|
View Poll Results: NA Superchargers Turbos
|
|
Naturally Aspirated
|
  
|
30 |
60.00% |
|
Supercharger
|
  
|
3 |
6.00% |
|
Turbo
|
  
|
17 |
34.00% |
|
Neither I Prefer Anything Wit Nitrous
|
  
|
0 |
0% |
03-10-2004, 03:51 PM
|
#1
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 136
|
NA Superchargers Or Turbos
I just wanted to see wat ppl like more
NA = Good Speed Avrage Accel Long engine Life
Superchargers = Good Speed Excellen Accel Not a very high engine life
Turbos = Good speed really good accel, turbo lag(not F40 that jus goez)
So peeps watll it be
__________________
®™▪▪Łчяί¢ąĽ▪▪M¢▪▪™®

Sniff...Sniff I Cant Get That Car Sniff...Sniff...
It's So Good Its Better Than Any Current Ferrari(Lambo Murcielago), But Astonishingly It's not as Good as The Zonda, This is The New King Of SUPERCARS - Jeremy Clarkson
|
|
|
03-10-2004, 03:54 PM
|
#2
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,381
|
In an ideal world, I would like a powerful N/A car. It is the purest you can get. However, I have no problem with superchargers, or Turbos!
|
|
|
03-10-2004, 03:57 PM
|
#3
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Belgi
Posts: 3,213
|
N/A, but I also woudn't mind (Merc AMG has a long engine life) supercharged
__________________
Bob Woodward - State of denial
Tariq Ali - Clash of Fundamentalisms
Blaire is a figleaf
Cars are my hobby, driving them is my passion.
|
Originally Posted by Dan\/6
damn speedkillar, if you didnt have a title already it would now say 'robofucker' or similar 
|
|
|
|
03-10-2004, 03:59 PM
|
#4
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
|
No problem with supercharger or turbos, but I'd take an NA engine anyday
__________________
|
|
|
03-10-2004, 04:01 PM
|
#5
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains, Colorado
Posts: 995
|
I really think it depends on the engine. For the bigger engines, I'd rather have a supercharger, hence, I have one one my car. For the smaller four cylinder cars, a turbo will be more practical. Also depends on the application. My Ideal car is the Koenigsegg CC. Big, powerful engine, with the supercharger. I'd love to get my hands on one.
|
|
|
03-10-2004, 05:19 PM
|
#6
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pagani Productions HQ
Posts: 6,237
|
I have voted for turbo's because you can gain lots of hp with turbo's and the turbo lag is not two bad anymore with the new turbo tech .
|
|
|
03-11-2004, 08:34 AM
|
#7
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 16
|
With the right turbo there is almost no lag. To many people think bigger is always better. It is not true you have to pick the turbo right for your engine an what you plan on doing with it. the bigger the turbo the more lag, unless you adjust the turbine trim to match your application. you can find turbos that match an engine to give it power all the way through the power band. 8) 8)
__________________
Hondas you can't eat just one.
Nissan every where I want to be.
If you are going to go fast you might as well do it slideways.
Racing a Honda is like being in th special olympics, even for you win you are still retarded!!!
1989 Nissan 240sx se with a sr20det on the way
|
|
|
03-11-2004, 10:04 AM
|
#8
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 34
|
Turbo for me is the way to go !! I have a Cosworth engine and will be fitting it to my car, can you believe that the Cosworth engine is tuned to around 800bhp in Enland for indoor rally cross and this only from a 4 cylinder ??
|
|
|
03-11-2004, 10:28 AM
|
#9
|
|
Guest
|
I like Naturally Aspirated, turbo and supercharger.
but i prefer Naturally Aspirated......
|
|
|
|
03-11-2004, 11:24 AM
|
#10
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,148
|
Re: NA Superchargers Or Turbos
|
Originally Posted by ®™▪▪Łчяί¢ąĽ
NA = Good Speed Avrage Accel Long engine Life
Superchargers = Good Speed Excellen Accel Not a very high engine life
Turbos = Good speed really good accel, turbo lag(not F40 that jus goez)
|
That is a tad bit of an overgeneralization. McLaren's F1 has damn good speed and acceleration and it's n/a.
The bigger debate is between superchargers and turbos - and that argument has been going on for ages. I'd choose a good n/a motor over a force fed motor, anyday.
__________________
-Stan
Still Reposting, Still Pimping
|
|
|
03-11-2004, 11:45 AM
|
#11
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,106
|
n/a just because the McLaren uses one. Being the fastest car, NA must be the way! (The reason for n/a was given on a documentary of the McLaren)
__________________
Guess who's Back!
|
|
|
03-11-2004, 12:09 PM
|
#12
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,247
|
NA. two words. Enzo. Mclaren.
__________________
|
|
|
03-11-2004, 02:32 PM
|
#13
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 220
|
Turbos are great!
My main reason for using a turbo is that you can get more torque at lower revs. You don't have to shift down that often if you have more low rev torque.
Look at this stock Saab engine. One thing is that 350 Nm is a lot, but it's at max level already at 1900rpm and stays flat! Try that with NA...
As mentioned you get lots of power from a small engine. This leads to one point that seldom comes up in this forum: Fuel economy! If you push a turbocharged engine it is thirsty as an equivalently powerful NA engine, but if you drive softer it virtually runs on air.
__________________
|
|
|
03-11-2004, 03:05 PM
|
#14
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Marcos
Posts: 116
|
It really depends on the application. A nice powerful, torquey n/a motor is great for day to day driving. Having a decent amount of power across the spectrum without worry of lag or reliablility is great for (aggressive) driving. In a road-racing environment, too much power isn't necessary, so a nice smaller turbo with little lag, or a supercharger is good. You need the immediate power to pull yourself out of a turn. In a *gulp* dragrace application anything goes. the point is the most power you can connect to the ground. heavy-breathing superchargers, a big turbo fed by a small turbo, 1000hp worth of nitrous oxide, etc.
And as for superchargers being unreliable, that depends on the construction and the intentions. Something like the Kompressor mercedes uses was intended from the beginning, and it lasts as long as an n/a engine would. but if you throw a big honkin' blower onto a Merlin 632, that engine won't go more than a couple of passes before it needs to be rebuilt or replaced.
__________________
--Chris--
My dogs better 'cuz he gets Kennelrations.
FCE Forums
|
|
|
03-11-2004, 06:33 PM
|
#15
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sardegna - Italy
Posts: 1,029
|
I don't have problems with Turbos (give me and F40,or even a Noble 3R) or supercharger (mmhh Koenigsegg CCR) but in the ideal world, an N/A engine is the one I love most. Great sound, instant response from low to sky-high revs and the screaming at 9000rpm is something intoxicating
__________________
Fabio
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|