n/a or turbo power differences?

[Gomez]

All things being equal (engine size, build quality, proper parts used for each i.e. exhaust intake electrical etc.), what would be the difference in power characteristics of an engine with 200 hp n/a at the wheels compared to one that is turbo'd 200 hp at the wheels? Using 1/4 mile times as a reference, would the e/t's be different? Why?

[Damkid]

n/a or turbo power differences?

Turbo cars are great for high end power vs NA's low end power

If you compared 200 NA vs 200 turbo hp at the drag strip, I would bet money that the turbo car gets a higher trap speed where as the ET would be comparable..... I'll use my red car for a perfect example.....

Bone stock B6T I ran 14.5@98mph
Bone stock KL I ran 14.1@100mph

Both runs were at the exact same drag strip, street tires with no traction etc but slightly worse 60' time with the KL.... If I matched 60' times, my KL ET would be lower (high 13's) where as the MPH is comparable to a B6T which is rated for a bit less HP then the KL

The power curve itself feels much different though

When I had a B6T in it, below 3k rpm the power felt close to a measly B3 but once boost hit, hold on tight cause it's a hell of a ride

With the KL, the rpm doesn't matter, the power is un-mistakenly there at any rpm range.... However with the KL in higher, more powerful rpm range, it's very similar to the higher end power of a B6T

At the drag strip the low end power (if you got traction of course) is most useful at the starting line, beyond that the same power whether it be from turbo or NA gets fully used

It's all in your preference of that low end grunt or gutless low end that slams you in your seat once boost hits lol...... But on a personal note, the pure sound alone from my KL takes the cake over any 4 cylinder swap I've ever had, it just needs a whistle to make the sound complete lol

[bhearts]

id prefer the n/a build myself. sure, turbos are cool. but nothing says go more than some low end torque. plus itd be more driveable that way.

[bhearts]

maybe, just maybe. a n/a build with a turbo sound. the best of both worlds.

[bhazard]

id prefer the n/a build myself. sure, turbos are cool. but nothing says go more than some low end torque. plus itd be more driveable that way.

I have to disagree with the drivability statement. Chris's V6 car is pretty much useless down low lol. Turbo 1.6 and 1.8 swaps are much more manageable down low, but still have plenty of power to get around.

[bhearts]

Too much torque?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

[bhazard]

Yes

[eurotiva]

I drove it.....and played Yankee doodle dandy with the gas pedal, and tires..lol

[bhazard]

That 4.38 diff was not helping at all, though I cant imagine a 3.85 would make it that much better.

[rmoltis]

I think you guys have missed the n/a part.

If for example you took a b3 and said 200hp n/a

If you wanted 200 ponies you would have to significantly raise the redline to get it there which doesn't neccessarily equate to high low rpm torque but rather high rpm torque.

A high revving n/a would be a blast to drive. It would be like a turbo when it kicks into its powerband.
Just think formula 1.



The biggest question would be street or strip motor?

For street and retention of low rpm torque and a wide powerband.

N/a power is usually 100hp liter
Turbo is usually 120hp liter.


But for race applications high hp and a narrow powerband.

giant turbo with w less low rpm torque but high hp.

Or high revving n/a with less low rpm torque but a raised redline with higher hp.



Those 4 options are all great depending on what you want.
But seeing you used the example for hp I assume you'd want the race applications discussed?

[Damkid]

I have to disagree with the drivability statement. Chris's V6 car is pretty much useless down low lol. Turbo 1.6 and 1.8 swaps are much more manageable down low, but still have plenty of power to get around.

Lol you haven't driven or seen me drive it with the Mfactory.... It's way better now..... But eventually I'll be changing the gearing to either 4.11's or 3.83 to help with the low end

[F3BZ]

i go back an forth on this too when accumulating parts for my way-down-the-road build. years ago i was dead set on a basic 6T transplant. popular and well documented on this site at the time it seemed a no brainer. got the donor capri. now i'm reconsidering after actually getting to drive a turboed festiva. it's probably a matter of personal preference but even though the sudden turbo push is a hoot, my muscle car memories still make me prefer low end grunt. now i'm siding with the can't-beat-cubic-inches crowd and leaning towards a stroked BP and all the ancillary beefed systems. certainly more expensive. probably a little more power. more complication to install but less complicated induction. guess i'll find out. unless i change my head again.

[bhazard]

I personally think the B6T is about the best compromise between power and practicality. High 13's are easy and I was still able to manage 40 mpg pretty easily from mine. Easier to fit than a BP. Run the N/A block for a decent compression boost.

[M3NTAL]

To me NA is just boring.

Have you drove a forced induction vehicle ? The rush of the power coming on as the tires are trying to hold on for dear life... the beautiful whistling or whining of a supercharger cramming air into your motor..it's addicting.

[bhazard]

Agreed. And these days turbo setups can be made to reduce lag to near zero. Though sometimes its nice to be able to have that area under the power band for putting around.