Let's say you are about to buy a car, and there are 2 versions. One version is a turbo inline 6, and the other version is a naturally aspirated V8. Both versions have the same price, torque, horsepower, and weight. Which car do you buy?
the one with CVT
>>28919338V8 all day. I love my 20 year old N/A V8 even though it makes less HP and TQ than a modern 4cyl. Turbo engines and gas i6's don't do anything for me. V8's are a dying breed so it may be best to pick one up while you can.
NA over Turbo.You get a proper sized block and one less thing to go wrong.
>>28919338v8
i'm of the opinion that turbos are fine for a weekend toy. daily driver? no thanks can't get wastegate rattle or low boost codes if you don't have a turbo to begin with, it's naturally aspirated all day for me
Wholely dependant on the engines in question >Modular or barra? Barra>Ls or atlas? Ls>Hemi or hurricane? Hemi>Om or biturbo? Om>S or n? N
>>28919338same horsepower? V8 every time. no lag and less shit to break on it.
>>28919338V8, and add my own turbos.
>>28919338Why would you want turbo lag and more things that can break for zero torque or HP gain?
NA V8what kind of question even is this?
Doesn't using Turbo for everyday use just fuck up the turbo to make you buy another turbo? Why do you want that?
Turbo 6Ford falcon as exampleToyota crown athlete/majesta as example
NA V6. Pentastar specifically.
>>28919338Turbo, it will have higher torque at lower rpms and feel more powerful. I don't get this wankery over NA engines, they make no power at low rpms and take forever to get into their power band which is way longer than the lag on modern turbos. My shitbox has a turbo that spools above 2500rpm which means pretty much immediately off the line it's producing near max horsepower, meanwhile in an NA engine you're waiting like 3 seconds before the engine is up to 5k rpm and starts producing its rated power. There's nothing 'linear' about it.
>>28919925You don't get it because you have no idea what you're talking about
>>28919930People who say NA has a 'linear throttle response' have no idea wtf they're talking about. They mean a linear rpm response, but that's actually not good, your car feels like a fucking slug until you wring out the engine.I have two cars, one is a 2.5L turbo, ther other is 2.0L NA. There is a 1000lb difference between the two so the 2.5L turbo ends up with the exact same 0-60 time as the 2.0L NA, but drives completely differently. The turbo charged car is accelerating evenly as long as you are above ~2500rpm while the non turbo car has to stay in first gear and wring the fuck out of the engine to get the actual rated power, most of the time you are sitting there waiting for the engine to do something and then finally you get to 5-6-7k rpm and suddenly the car comes to life. People don't understand that because the power output is linear to engine RPM in a NA car and the engine RPM is tied directly to the cars speed, the power produced makes the car go faster > increases engine rpm > more power produced > faster engine rpm and this goes on in an exponential feedback loop. It's the exact opposite of 'linear thortle response heheheh'.
>>28920122We're not talking about an anemic 2.0L NA I4 that makes <100hp though, are we?
>>28919925We're talking NA V8 not a 1.6l 4cyl.
>>28920122OP is talking about a turbo l6 versus NA V8...presumably, he's thinking of a turbo 3.0L vs maybe a 5.0L NA v8...not a 2.5L turbo against a 2.0L NA l4 LOL
>>28919434Less weight, better packaging, different weight balance.But that's not part of the discussion
>>28920182>better packagingwut
>>28920182Huh? An LS weighs less than the vast majority of turbo setups (that make comparable power). Better packaging? How do you fit a i6 in a longitudinal AWD configuration without mounting the engine at eye level or doing dumb shit like using 20 driveshafts or running the driveshafts through the oil pan and shit?
>>28920182The only real advantage of the turbo here, as far as things people actually care about, is better fuel economy. And you're probably gonna lose any fuel savings into having to fix the turbo when something breaks and having to do twice the oil changes.
>>28920214>How do you fit a i6 in a longitudinal AWD configuration without mounting the engine at eye level or doing dumb shit like using 20 driveshafts or running the driveshafts through the oil pan and shit?>i3>center mounted drive wheel>i3All running on the same crank and block.
>>28919338the diesel
>>28919338not quite your setup but>previous car: 2011 135i (turbo i6, 300ish hp)>current car: 2010 mustang GT (NA v8, also 300ish hp)the i6 definitely felt quicker at low speeds without rodding the engine, but it was more complex and heavier.i prefer the 'stang for the simplicity and repair costs.
>>28920185That just means it's easier to cram into a space, or fit stuff around it. An I6 is somewhat long and thin, so it might fit into the engine bay Tetris around something else or vice versa
>>28921166oh i know what it means. i was just confused because a turbo l6 is kinda sucky to work on compared to an na v8. especially when the oil filter is on the side of the block and under the turbo...
NA V8 if poorUDM i6 if perfection matters to you
