Turbos vs naturally aspirated?

I think in the end it all has to do with lag (or perceived) non-linear power delivery, and sound.

I got to drive the Cali T and felt no lag or abrupt power delivery, but I did feel the sound was a bit muted compared to other Ferrari I've driven.

my opinion is the turbo/non-turbo argument is largely overblown. (excuse the pun) - I think you can have fine cars with either.

Cheers

 

If an F40 showed up in my garage, I would just learn to deal with the lack of noise and general lack of sportiness that comes with turbos.

 

There's also an engineering aspect. Turbos are a shortcut to horsepower. Easy to make power with boost. Takes much more sophistication to develop power without boost. This is what makes motors like the 355 and 458 and F12 so impressive, motor-wise.

 

I really wish Ferrari had at least tried to employ a hybrid design instead of turbo, as they do with the LaFerrari.

NA Engine + High-Torque electric engine could be the answer. Also, if you run out of gas or gas engine quits, you can probably limp to a service station on electric engine alone.

 

I like NA in sports cars and definitely in race/track cars. Although turbo lag has improved over the years, it is still there. I like quick cars more than fast cars. At the limit, it is nicer to have a more direct and linear feel for throttle steer and traction; generally, I think this is more prevalent in NA cars.

 

I've owned both, and enjoyed both, but much prefer NA engines. The higher revving the better. NA engines simply feel and sound better. They're more fun.

That being said, a wild turbo can be an absolute blast.



Mark

 

Yes turbo cars can be fun but I prefer naturally aspirated. Great power modulation in corners whereas a turbo car can light up and give you another few hundred++ foot/lbs while holding steady accelerator input.

I preferred my 07 Z06 naturally aspirated over turbocharged for this reason even with less than half the power.

Doesn't mean I won't always lust after 288/F40 but would probably like them more yet if they originally came with an F50 engine instead.

 

Both are great. I prefer linear power of N/A engines.

 

The 355 motor makes 100lb feet of torque at 3000rpm. That, to me, is not exciting. Turbos are not a shortcut. Its not like ferrari, porsche, maclaren etc can't build a high power naturally aspirated motor.

Have you driven a turbo sports car in the last 30 years. Your post would indicate that you haven't.

A modern turbo car is not all of a sudden going from zero power to full boost like a 930 from the 70s. Its super easy to modulate boost with my 997tt. Not to mention you need to be at WOT to get full boost anyway and in most cases, you're 85% out of the turn at the time you get on the gas anyway. While your NA car is waiting to build revs to get any power out of it, the torque of the turbo has already shot you towards the next corner.

 

While your NA car is waiting to build revs to get any power out of it, the torque of the turbo has already shot you towards the next corner.

The above statement was mentioned with the Porsche 935s at Le mans. The 935 would spool up early on the Mulsane straight, and hit top speed. The NA cars would wind down the straight before they reached there max speed.

 

I know you're a porsche guy but you keep bringing up the torque curve of the 355 at low rpm. Ever hear of a 996 GT3? That would be a comparable power curve. Both cars are geared properly and run well and neither will be used as a tractor or tow vehicle so not sure why you are fixated on low rpm torque on an engine obviously designed for high rpm efficiency. Just ran my car the other day to a 12.6 @114mph 1/4 mile so it obviously still accelerates.

Of course I have driven a modern turbo car. I build and tune them on a daily basis. Turbo cars even with the fastest possible response are not as linear as naturally aspirated.

50% throttle at "X" rpm is going to equal "Y" power in a naturally aspirated engine. Same scenario with a turbo engine "Y" is not fixed and will ramp in. Even if transient response is very fast, this condition will still exist.

 

amen to that .... but talk about lag... below 3500 not much happening... but after that, its still shocking today.

 

While true that the 935 were much faster and they are one of my favorite race cars of all time, I have read that they were more hot rod than sports car from those that drove them and that they handled poorly. What the drivers at the time said gave them the edge was the terrific power, but the delivery and poor handling negated some of the superiority the cars should have had.

 

Turbo all the way. More power, efficiency, ability to make gobs more through modifications, etc. For older cars the rush when they spool up is great.

 

This.

Even my daily driver Audi turbo has torque immediately off the line. You can't compare it to cars from the '70s/'80s. Maybe less 'shock and awe' than a 930, but more usable performance from a lighter engine.

I haven't driven the 488 or new turbocharged 911s, but would guess they have the same advantages.

 

I have heard of a 996 GT3, and its a good track car, but my opinion, not very good on the street, where I spend the majority of my time. You literally couldn't pass a honda without three downshifts and 6000rpm. Call me lazy, but for a street car, the lack of torque is annoying.

At 50% throttle I see barely if any boost. I can go up and down the entire rev range without seeing boost. I can modulate boost to within 1 or 2 psi with my throttle application, but that happens at 75% throttle or more.

At 50% steady state throttle application, you are not being "shocked" by the power increase as boost (supposedly in your example) comes in. Its not violent, dangerous, or difficult to modulate.

Perhaps you are building 900bhp monsters with turbos bigger than a football helmet. thats not really what I'm talking about.

 

Of course I didn't say "shocked" by the power increase, just that torque increases at steady throttle input as the turbo(s) come online.

Either way, just comes down to preference of course.

I for one do not find it a chore to select the correct gear for max acceleration when necessary. Also the car cruises at 4000 rpm on the highway, no need to downshift to pass anything, I would assume GT3 is similar.

Don't get me wrong, turbos are still a hell of a lot of fun. I'm building a twin turbo car for myself right now. They just don't have identical characteristics to naturally aspirated engines.

Ferrari states on the 488 GTB the delay between full throttle and full power is .8 seconds. That's about as modern as it gets and that's far from instant.

Not the end of the world of course but definitely worth a mention when people argue about millisecond gains from a paddle shift gearbox.

 

Turbos have there place but part of the passion of ferraris has always been the high winding sound.. So I prefer a non turbo Ferrari .. Of course there are exceptions like the f40 etc....

 

ok, seems we are getting closer.

Although I agree about .8 seconds, the difference between flooring it in an NA car at 3000rpm and getting full power is likely longer than .8 seconds as it needs the revs to get into the powerband.

It depends on your driving style. If you like driving around at 4500rpm at all times, a high revving low torque NA engine is perfect for your. If you're like me and hate having to rev higher than say 3000rpm on the highway, and what almost immediate torque (if not full power), then the turbo is the way to go.

The stupid thrust from my stock 997TT in 6th gear on the highway is literally addicting.

 

I see your point but if you floor a naturally aspirated car at 3k it instantly makes as much power as it ever can at that rpm. Sure that's much less than a turbo car once it comes online but as a trade off these things are turning near 9k rpm rather than what 6500 of a TT 911?

Both are fun in their own way and I don't mind changing my driving style to adapt to different vehicles.

For highway acceleration turbos are brutal, no denying that, I just find they can complicate some maneuvers due to the added dynamic of lag (however slight it is).

 

Turbos are great on truck, industrial and aviation motors but for road use give me a mechanical driven blower anytime. I have owned and put a lot of miles on all 3 and there is nothing like a blown motor with throttle response that puts NA and turbo motors both back on the trailer.

 

Turbos in Ferrari's are TERRIBLE! ***








*** as long as you don't include the 288 GTO and F40 in the discussion.

 

to be clear, you are referring to positive displacement blowers here, not centifugal.

With the exception of some of the newer whipple and similar, the top end power of these has tended to fall off a bit. Eaton roots type are especially bad with this. The better lysholm style blowers are definitely better.

On the other hand, I had a blown mustang for 6 years, and dealing with thrown belts, monster tensioners, belt wrap kits, etc is a pain.