- 101
Any blower (supercharger) is the best all around.
NA Vs. Turbo
- Thread starter tmnothing
- 68 comments
- 24,455 views
- 379
- Florissant, MO
In regard to REAL LIFE engine building, the engine has to be purpose-built for either natural or forced induction. Generally speaking, when dealing with power from a naturally aspirated engine, compression is everything, whether dynamic (while engine is running/accelerating) or static (engine off). Increasing compression every way possible is the number one priority when building a naturally aspirated engine for power. Revolutions would be #2.
The descriptions of the NA Tuneups help explain this somewhat. In particular, the St.1 tune says that it replaces the head gaskets, which serves to reduce the size of the combustion chamber. Since the piston's travel is still the same, it compresses the same volume of air into a smaller space, raising static AND dynamic compression. This means more power.
In the vein of forced induction (whether super or turbo), the engine's natural compression must be lowered to accomodate the additional air forced into the chamber. This makes the relationship between static and dynamic compression somewhat inverse. For instance, you have an engine with a 15 psi. turbo attatched to it, and your target dynamic compression is around 11:1, your static compression would need to be ~8.5:1 to keep from damaging the internal parts.
Because of the difference in static and dynamic compression in Turbo'd engines, generally the power in the lower ranges is severely decreased. We call it "turbo-lag," which simply means that the turbo hasn't "spooled up" to produce boost enough to overcome the lower compression. Since naturally aspirated engines are typically built for high static AND dynamic compression, the power delivery is generally smoother and available earlier. Not ALL NA engines are powerful low-down, but typically more so than Turbo'd.
hope this helps!
The descriptions of the NA Tuneups help explain this somewhat. In particular, the St.1 tune says that it replaces the head gaskets, which serves to reduce the size of the combustion chamber. Since the piston's travel is still the same, it compresses the same volume of air into a smaller space, raising static AND dynamic compression. This means more power.
In the vein of forced induction (whether super or turbo), the engine's natural compression must be lowered to accomodate the additional air forced into the chamber. This makes the relationship between static and dynamic compression somewhat inverse. For instance, you have an engine with a 15 psi. turbo attatched to it, and your target dynamic compression is around 11:1, your static compression would need to be ~8.5:1 to keep from damaging the internal parts.
Because of the difference in static and dynamic compression in Turbo'd engines, generally the power in the lower ranges is severely decreased. We call it "turbo-lag," which simply means that the turbo hasn't "spooled up" to produce boost enough to overcome the lower compression. Since naturally aspirated engines are typically built for high static AND dynamic compression, the power delivery is generally smoother and available earlier. Not ALL NA engines are powerful low-down, but typically more so than Turbo'd.
hope this helps!
- 101
Very Well Put!👍
- 100
I can post as many smilies as I want!I don't believe I said that anything was wrong with smilies themselves (in fact I did say "no one minds them as an addition to a post"), rather it the overdose of them that many find distracting.
I'd personally have to disagree that this one...
..helps to explain why you believe that Turbo' are always better than NA. At most it shows that should you need to get a red cross out of the air then a gun is better than a stick, how that relates to turbo vs. NA I just don't see.
As I said before, smilies in themselves are not a problem, but making the core of you post a reason to use smilies is both distracting and to be honest you do run the risk of some members not bothering to read it or simply not taking it seriously.
Ta
ScaffThere isn't any law about it!
Why are you complaining about the one I posted? Ya, I know it shows that a gun is better than a stick, but they were battling to get the X down. The red one won. That's why I said "same in a race". I told you in my post all the details. Actually, the smilies are better than plain. It's more colorfull. You complain about too much of them because you hardly use them at all!
Bye.
Escalade_dude
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,807
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
That's a theory you might not want to test!!!I can post as many smilies as I want!
I've asked you nice and politely to keep them to a minimum, the final choice is of course yours, b ut I have to repeat, you are not making a good start here at GT Planet.
However fitting a turbo does not automatically win a race; keep in mind that we have a large number of members for whom English is a second language, bizzare and unrelated smilies all over a post hardly help.
No you didn't at all, you stated that turbo's always win a nd then said "
The NA Engine gets too cold. Turbo is the best all the time! The car always runs smoothly" which quite frankly makes little sense at all (and the smilies helped even less here).
No, I complain about them because they add no value to the post at all and are distracting, the reasons for which I have clearly laid down already.You complain about too much of them because you hardly use them at all!
Bye.
Escalade_dude
Scaff
- 100
NA gets too cold because in the track "Ice Arena" (well obviously, cause it's cold!) I equipped my car with an NA engine and it broke down! Cars break down when the engine is too cold. Yes, I checked if the oil was a gold colour and that the gas was filled up. But when I did it with the same car, but equipped with a "Turbo" engine. I won the race without any problem. No break-downs. My car was a Hyndai rally car... I think.
Smilies helped less? Didn't you see the guy driving the car smoothly? That helps people that don't understand english as much as we do. What is the maximum smilies I should have? Don't put it under 5!
Tuner Village is open to any car that can get tuned with another tuner, as well as the one that is used by its company. Hence, you can't access Tuner Village with every car. It isn't something you unlock - it already appears on the main GT4 Mode screen - just look around and you'll find it.mt00
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,807
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
NA gets too cold because in the track "Ice Arena", aia equiped my car with an NA engine and it broke down! Cars break down when the engine is too cold. Yes, I checked if the oil was a gold colour and that the gas was filled up. But, when I did it with the same car, but equiped with a "Turbo" engine, I won the race without any problem. No break-downs. That proves it. My car was a Hyndai... I think.
Bye.
Escalade_dude
That proves nothing at all.
How exactly did your car break-down? I have to ask given that I have never experienced anything of that nature in GT4,nor heard of anyone who has.
In regard to getting too cold and the engine not running well, what a load of rubbish, care to explain how my last two (real) cars have functioned fine in cold weather, both being NA, without a single breakdown? Are you even aware that cold weather testing (both in the lab and real world) for modern cars regularly runs to temperatures as low as -20C ?
Escalade_dude, you were warned in regard to you claim of super soft racing tyres lasting 40+ laps, keep in mind that you have caught the (wrong kind of) attention of a number of members of staff in your short time here.
Scaff
- 87,833
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
A few minor points here.
1. No, it didn't break down. Mechanical failures do not exist in Gran Turismo.
2. Engine changes are not available in Gran Turismo. You cannot equip a car with an NA engine. You can tune engines with a turbo or with "NA Tuning".
3. The Hyundai Accent Rally Car IS a Turbo.
4. The Hyundai Accent Rally Car cannot receive NA Tuning.
5. Not all mechanical breakdowns in the real world can be attributed to engines becoming "too cold". In fact barely any. Too hot, on the other hand, is much more common.
6. Why are you making this nonsense up? What do you hope to achieve?
- 100
I'm sorry. I know I'm not making a good start on GTP (just found that out today). From now on, I won't argue.
Sorry Scaff (to argue with a Super Moderator)
From,
Escalade_dude
Sorry Scaff (to argue with a Super Moderator)
From,
Escalade_dude
- 87,833
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The issue is not that you're arguing with anyone, let alone a moderator. I'm sure Scaff readily accepts new information that contradicts his position.
The issue is that you're making things up. There was no element of truth anywhere in your previous post, yet you presented it as factual - and have yet to address this. GTPlanet.net is the #1 source of information for Gran Turismo anywhere, so what is posted here has particular credence. Inventing stuff and pretending it's real is contrary to everything that GTPlanet.net is here for.
The issue is that you're making things up. There was no element of truth anywhere in your previous post, yet you presented it as factual - and have yet to address this. GTPlanet.net is the #1 source of information for Gran Turismo anywhere, so what is posted here has particular credence. Inventing stuff and pretending it's real is contrary to everything that GTPlanet.net is here for.
- 100
- 87,833
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Once you address any one of the things you made up in your "Ice Arena" post, we can pretend all you like.
It's irrelevant. In 6 months time someone just like you will stumble across this thread, read the nonsense you wrote and think that you can break down in GT4 - which you can't. Then GTPlanet.net gets the blame for allowing inaccurate information to be posted.
Your fantasy = our integrity.
- 100
- 30,026
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Any they never have, Escalade_dude, may I ask exactley what happened when your naturally aspirated Hyundai Rally car (which doesn't exist btw) broke down on the ice Arena?
It's not a problem with your game, nor is it a bug. Your car simply did not break down. Perhaps something happened, but it did not break down. Nor were you driving a naturally aspirated Hyundai Rally car, they come with a turbo and you can't remove it.
It's not a problem with your game, nor is it a bug. Your car simply did not break down. Perhaps something happened, but it did not break down. Nor were you driving a naturally aspirated Hyundai Rally car, they come with a turbo and you can't remove it.
Back on topic - while GT4 is good in a generic sense of giving an idea to the differences in NA (Naturally Aspirated) and forced induction (supercharger/turbocharger or both), it really doesn't show the sheer amount of variation out there.
Naturally aspirated engines rely solely on their own capacity, breathing and efficiency to produce torque/power. The Viper Oreca only makes 1100Nm because it is a thundering 8 litre (about 480 cubic inch) V10, highly tuned. It's not just the engine itself, though: fuel, cam profile, ignition profile, compression ratio, engine balancing, induction system and head porting, exhaust system... etcetera and etcetera - these all add up to that 1100Nm. The engine revs way higher than a stock Viper. The gearing is different. The car is lighter, with higher performance parts. It's a completely different beast.
You can get 1100Nm from a turbo or a supercharged engine as well, but the same things make that 1100Nm. Hook a Garrett T88 turbo to a Skyline engine but leave the exhaust stock, and you'll make your exhaust valves glow in the dark. All a turbo does is give a greater effective capacity. At 1 bar (14.7psi) boost the engine is ingesting twice the air it would normally, which means more fuel can be thrown in for a bigger bang. Result = more power. Downside - power is more dependant upon that big blowdrier than the engine itself. If the engine is too small or inefficient to turn the turbo effectively, it will not work to its full potential.
There are so many variations, though: to run a big turbo you need to have a lower compression ratio. Lower compression ratio means an engine that is a dog off-boost (i.e. without help from the blower). So some setups go for higher compression but lower boost. Most tuners run like hell from such a setup, because higher compression with boost means more chance of said engine going boom boom, not vroom vroom.
The entire tuning of the engine alters performance as well. Rally cars run turbos, but because of power restrictions are designed and tuned to give phenomenal torque. Most of them have as much torque as a tuned V8...
Again - go to the JGTC (both 300 and 500 classes) and you have power restrictions. So again the focus is on torque. Power keeps you moving, but torque gets you moving. It's why prime movers have big stinking diesels with 2,000 or 3,000Nm of torque instead of a smaller, more peaky engine.
At the end of the day each has its own merits - you can hard tune a NA engine without worrying about (turbo)boost thresholds and lag. As long as your fuel will sustain the settings of the engine, you can tune them very aggressively.
But the other thing with these is that a lot of the mods are common to both type of engine: porting, weight-matching of components(balancing), fuel/ignition/cam timing, etc. I like that GT has many of these things, but not that you can't fiddle with them at all. I'd like to be able to vary boost and compression ratio for torque/power variations. An example: a friend of mine has a HQ Monaro with a 400cui Chev V8 in it. At the moment it runs naturally aspirated, although very well tuned (11:1 compression), for about a 10.8 second quarter mile. Not bad for a street registered car. His idea, though, is to fit low-compression pistons (down to about 8.0:1), destroke the engine and put a pair of turbos on it... Now that will be something to see.
Anyway, just my thoughts. I'm an eclectic. I like them all... If it puts a smile on your dial, it's good.
Naturally aspirated engines rely solely on their own capacity, breathing and efficiency to produce torque/power. The Viper Oreca only makes 1100Nm because it is a thundering 8 litre (about 480 cubic inch) V10, highly tuned. It's not just the engine itself, though: fuel, cam profile, ignition profile, compression ratio, engine balancing, induction system and head porting, exhaust system... etcetera and etcetera - these all add up to that 1100Nm. The engine revs way higher than a stock Viper. The gearing is different. The car is lighter, with higher performance parts. It's a completely different beast.
You can get 1100Nm from a turbo or a supercharged engine as well, but the same things make that 1100Nm. Hook a Garrett T88 turbo to a Skyline engine but leave the exhaust stock, and you'll make your exhaust valves glow in the dark. All a turbo does is give a greater effective capacity. At 1 bar (14.7psi) boost the engine is ingesting twice the air it would normally, which means more fuel can be thrown in for a bigger bang. Result = more power. Downside - power is more dependant upon that big blowdrier than the engine itself. If the engine is too small or inefficient to turn the turbo effectively, it will not work to its full potential.
There are so many variations, though: to run a big turbo you need to have a lower compression ratio. Lower compression ratio means an engine that is a dog off-boost (i.e. without help from the blower). So some setups go for higher compression but lower boost. Most tuners run like hell from such a setup, because higher compression with boost means more chance of said engine going boom boom, not vroom vroom.
The entire tuning of the engine alters performance as well. Rally cars run turbos, but because of power restrictions are designed and tuned to give phenomenal torque. Most of them have as much torque as a tuned V8...
Again - go to the JGTC (both 300 and 500 classes) and you have power restrictions. So again the focus is on torque. Power keeps you moving, but torque gets you moving. It's why prime movers have big stinking diesels with 2,000 or 3,000Nm of torque instead of a smaller, more peaky engine.
At the end of the day each has its own merits - you can hard tune a NA engine without worrying about (turbo)boost thresholds and lag. As long as your fuel will sustain the settings of the engine, you can tune them very aggressively.
But the other thing with these is that a lot of the mods are common to both type of engine: porting, weight-matching of components(balancing), fuel/ignition/cam timing, etc. I like that GT has many of these things, but not that you can't fiddle with them at all. I'd like to be able to vary boost and compression ratio for torque/power variations. An example: a friend of mine has a HQ Monaro with a 400cui Chev V8 in it. At the moment it runs naturally aspirated, although very well tuned (11:1 compression), for about a 10.8 second quarter mile. Not bad for a street registered car. His idea, though, is to fit low-compression pistons (down to about 8.0:1), destroke the engine and put a pair of turbos on it... Now that will be something to see.
Anyway, just my thoughts. I'm an eclectic. I like them all... If it puts a smile on your dial, it's good.
- 24,129
- Scarfolk
- Grim10
- Are you kidding?
I'd personally have to disagree that this one...
..helps to explain why you believe that Turbo' are always better than NA. At most it shows that should you need to get a red cross out of the air then a gun is better than a stick, how that relates to turbo vs. NA I just don't see.
Geez Scaff, I never had you down as a n00b.
The red X is the naturally (or normally
) aspirated engine, and the two smilies represent both turbo and supercharged engines.It is scientifically proven that if one was to bring together one of each type, that the supercharged and turbo versions would poke the NA, and eventually resort to firearms, which is a metaphor for the turbo 'whoosh'.
Don't even try to argue my point, I know these are all correct.
I won't, however, be citing references or statistics.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,807
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Geez Scaff, I never had you down as a n00b.
The red X is the naturally (or normally
It is scientifically proven that if one was to bring together one of each type, that the supercharged and turbo versions would poke the NA, and eventually resort to firearms, which is a metaphor for the turbo 'whoosh'.
Don't even try to argue my point, I know these are all correct.
I won't, however, be citing references or statistics.
And now you Ultrabeat have truly proven you are ready to join the greats such as Escalade_dude and Poverty, indeed why do we need proof for anything, lets just make it up as we go along.
LOL Good one.
Scaff
- 7,719
Interesting discussion... To add something to the original topic:
In the WRS Week 98, we used the Opel Corsa 1.4l around Suzuka circuit. The Corsa is one of the cars where you have a choice between a Stg.2 Turbo, or an Stg.3 NA Tune. Both setups got very similar power-outputs - 193HP (Turbo) and 191HP (NA), however, the Turbo got the power higher in the range, and with a narrow, high torque-curve, while the NA not only had a wider curve, but also got more torque overall. However, at very high revs, the NA lost a bit of power compared to the turbo.
During the whole week, it was a very active question - many racers, including me, switched constantly switched between the two, since each had it's benefits: Suzuka is a twisty track, but with lots of high-speed 'curvy straights', so the NA was a bit quicker in the twisties, and the turbo on the straights.
The result of that 'battle' did not end due to those advantages of the two. If it were, the NA was faster... However, seeing as the Corsa is a Fwd with skinny tyres (N3s were used, as well), the car required a little less torque in order to keep power-understeer to a minimum, and enable a little more traction out of a corner. The power which the turbo had high-up also helped it a bit more during the turns, as it turned out - during the actual turn, the revs dropped below the very-effective range into the normal range, giving less power-understeer. As soon as it straightened out, the turbo kicked back in.
Though, being a bit fanboyish, if it really was a tie, I'd have picked the NA.
In the WRS Week 98, we used the Opel Corsa 1.4l around Suzuka circuit. The Corsa is one of the cars where you have a choice between a Stg.2 Turbo, or an Stg.3 NA Tune. Both setups got very similar power-outputs - 193HP (Turbo) and 191HP (NA), however, the Turbo got the power higher in the range, and with a narrow, high torque-curve, while the NA not only had a wider curve, but also got more torque overall. However, at very high revs, the NA lost a bit of power compared to the turbo.
During the whole week, it was a very active question - many racers, including me, switched constantly switched between the two, since each had it's benefits: Suzuka is a twisty track, but with lots of high-speed 'curvy straights', so the NA was a bit quicker in the twisties, and the turbo on the straights.
The result of that 'battle' did not end due to those advantages of the two. If it were, the NA was faster... However, seeing as the Corsa is a Fwd with skinny tyres (N3s were used, as well), the car required a little less torque in order to keep power-understeer to a minimum, and enable a little more traction out of a corner. The power which the turbo had high-up also helped it a bit more during the turns, as it turned out - during the actual turn, the revs dropped below the very-effective range into the normal range, giving less power-understeer. As soon as it straightened out, the turbo kicked back in.
Though, being a bit fanboyish, if it really was a tie, I'd have picked the NA.
Geez Scaff, I never had you down as a n00b.
The red X is the naturally (or normally
It is scientifically proven that if one was to bring together one of each type, that the supercharged and turbo versions would poke the NA, and eventually resort to firearms, which is a metaphor for the turbo 'whoosh'.
Don't even try to argue my point, I know these are all correct.
I won't, however, be citing references or statistics.
Geez, that's a bit generic. One of each type? So I could put a 787B with 700HP against a supercharged V8 Mercedes with only 400HP? Or how about a 350cui V8 with 600+ RWHP on tap, that cracks 10 seconds down the quarter against a you-beaut "owns all" Skyline GTR? Or do I push the virtue that a naturally aspirated 2.0L engine (from the Honda S2000) has one of the highest HP/Litre ratings of any production engine... including turbos...
Or how about the fact that for the Skyline to match that thumping V8 I mentioned above, it has to have a turbo on it so big that 60% of the engine range is off-boost. So it's an absolute dog until 5500rpm. Compare that to the naturally aspirated V8 which has full throttle response right from the word go. And it does it all with a prehistoric three speed slush box... How many gears does the Skyline have to make it go?... 5? 6?
At the end of the day, to categorically state that turbos are without exception better than naturally aspirated is a pretty bold move. If what you state is indeed true, why are at least 50% or more of all race cars naturally aspirated? If turbo is so good, why then aren't 100% of race cars turbocharged? Why then does my friend have a naturally aspirated 400cui HQ Monaro that will dust off all and sundry on the road - with throttle left to spare. Tromp it in top gear and it breaks completely loose in a straight line at any road-legal speed (and beyond...)
At the end of the day, if you read my previous post you'll see that comparing turbos to N/A is like apples and oranges. They both operate differently and have different applications. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, as was stated in Gingiba's previous post about the Corsa. For the record, I like both pretty much equally, although I do have a slight leaning towards forced induction... Each puts a smile on somebody's dial, and that's plenty good enough for me...
/rant.
p.s. Calling a senior moderator a n00b is what we in the industry refer to as a CLM - a career limiting maneouvre. I hope it was tongue in cheek, and not foot in mouth.
- 101
Turbo Lag Sucks , just another eason to leave her NA or a supercharger.
, just another eason to leave her NA or a supercharger.
- 237
Geez Scaff, I never had you down as a n00b.
The red X is the naturally (or normally
It is scientifically proven that if one was to bring together one of each type, that the supercharged and turbo versions would poke the NA, and eventually resort to firearms, which is a metaphor for the turbo 'whoosh'.
Don't even try to argue my point, I know these are all correct.
I won't, however, be citing references or statistics.
You're interpretation of the similie is close, but not exact. Yes, the red and yellow dudes represent NA engines and the red X a turbocharged engine. It starts with the NA beating the turbo, seeing as how the stick poking and first shots do nothing. Then the turbo gets angry (or in driving terms, into the powerband) and beats the NA.
That's it! Thirty lashes and bread and water for a week!
Similar threads
