Purple Haze

Hi. There's an STI that goes up my street every now and then. It makes a "sneezing sound." I guess that's the turbo kicking in? I think that might get annoying after awhile. Also, some have said they prefer the linear power of a non aspirated engine rather than the peaky boost that a turbo offers. What do you think? What do you prefer, a turboed or NA engine? What are the down sides of a turboed engine?

Wouldn't a naturally aspirated engine be simpler, more of an accomplishment, and more reliable?

CalBear

Normally, NA would be my choice but turbos have advanced pretty well over the last few years. Heck, BMWs are starting to make them again.

To turbo owners out there- do you still have to wait for a few minutes and let the car idle before shutting down?

ayS

i prefer FI over NA anyday. except when i go to the gas station that is. then i prefer NA. hehe...

IheartS2ks

[QUOTE=Purple Haze,Aug 20 2006, 04:10 PM] Hi.

Defender

there is something called a "turbo timer" that automatically takes care of that.

gomarlins3

Turbo. Once you go boosted, you won't go back. Turbo lag has been eliminated (for the most part), you don't have to have a majorly loud sneeze (BOV), and a turbo engine can be reliable. I had concerned about reliability as well and also about initial cost, so I chose a SC instead.

tonerockyhorror

Not really necessary. As long as you stay out of boost the last minute or two of driving the turbo will be plenty cool to turn the engine right off. Most of the time you aren't boosting right up to the parking lot/driveway anyway, so it's basically a non-issue.

tunerjetta29

A lot of cars now are have water and oil cooled turbos that have secondary pumps to continue circulating fluid for a few minutes after the car is turned off. Therefore making a turbo timer simply a waste of gas.

TheDonEffect

Imo as far as cars focused on handling, NA cars have the edge because of throttle response, power delivery, and torque curve although a lot of turbo cars have closed teh gap a lot, but still it seems that NA seems to be preferred, also in lower hp scenarios, NA also has the edge of being lighter motors (no turbo, intercoolers, piping) and most people prefer the sound of an NA motor since it isn't muffled by a turbo. But as was said before, once you go boost, it really gets under your skin. The greatest advantage being peak output and horsepower gains; turbos give the best bang for the buck when it comes to modding.
S2000 Vtec is great (after you own a turbo, you won't feel the VTEC kick in anything less than an F20C), but it's no turbo, and call me a ricer but I love teh sound of a BOV. For me, as far as 4cyl and 6cyl production engines are concerned, I prefer turbo.

vader1

Turbo = cost, heat and complexity. If it is not a factory job problems can be hard to diagnose easily.

But turbos, especially water cooled, will be reliable for a long time if the engine management is done right. The power is addicting, and fuel economy is still good if you lay off boost.

I love factory turboed cars, they take to modifications very easily. Adding to NA like an S2000 and is harder to do right but the power is superior to currently availible SC kits for the honda.