Why do boomers think a car being naturally aspirated is a selling point, a 400hp turbo car is cooler and almost identical in performance to a 400hp NA car

>is cooler
>burns to death

What did he mean by this

>>28449340 (OP)
Less shit to break and a nicer exhaust sound. Also a 500hp all motor build is cooler than a 500hp turbo build.

>>28449340 (OP)
Naturally aspirated by definition is simpler and more reliable. I'd rather have equivalent horsepower NA over Turbo, are you retarded Anon?

>>28449340 (OP)
Reliability, different power and torque curves, no turbo lag, and if you ever wanna turbo an NA engine then it'll make ridiculous amounts of power gains compared to a pre-turboed engine. Also reliability

>>28449340 (OP)
>a 400hp turbo car is cooler
but the turbo gets pretty hot?

>>28449340 (OP)
>muh boomers

Turbos are everywhere and boring, not cool and interesting. I'm a millenial with 3 turbo cars and I think NA is a selling point.
>sounds better
>more responsive
>more unusual in the current year
Everyone and their dog turbos their cars as part of a build now, it's not impressive or interesting when I go to a meet and see another old BMW or Mustang with a turbo added. Every manufacturer turbos most of their cars now, even on the high end. I see and hear a new mclaren or ferrari with its turbo V8 or V6 and it's just boring. The turbo V8s all sound the same, the turbo V6s sound like ass, there's nothing interesting about them, just numbers. A NA V12 excites me even though it's slower. A turbo I6? I have two of them that are 30+ years old, I did my first + turbo I6 in the late 90s, I'm not impressed by a new car having that. A high revving NA engine is much more interesting since it's less common and honestly, harder and more expensive to do. It's trivial to slap a turbo on a vortec v8 in your drag car and make 800hp+ on a budget, it's fascinating to see a high compression big cam NA engine that makes 2/3rds of that.

>>28449340 (OP)
Turbocharging ruins the sound of an engine

>>28449395
>vbububububu

>>28449340 (OP)
You've mistaken your opinions for facts.

jusrt purchase the toyota colora from buytoyota.com

>>28449395
No it doesn't

>>28449395
Thats when you cut out the resonator and muffler and get the sound back

>>28449340 (OP)
NA is more reliable and sounds better. Turbos and superchargers are time bombs.

>>28449340 (OP)

>>28449579
>delusions of an eboniclet

There's more to how an engine drives than a single power value at one RPM at full throttle.
Boost is insanely fun, but it does have lag. If you're cornering and want power it ramps up and you have to adjust how you drive for it, it can be a good thing. I used to prefer turbos but I've grown to prefer linear power delivery with less lag.
One of the biggest things is that many newer cars use turbos to cheat emissions. They'll put one on a much smaller engine, they aren't generally adding them to the largest engines any more.
So you end up with a car that's shittier to drive and makes less power than a larger NA below 3,500 rpm, which is where most people drive - but it's got that peak power number on the brochure so most never notice lol. Picrel, on a turbo the peak would be more pronouced and the parts at low rpm / throttle would be even lower power.
Another issue is maintenance, NAs generally last longer and are usually easier to work on. Then they started adding water-to-air intercoolers in stead of air-to-air and now you've got plastic and hoses all over the engine bay.

>>28449586
Trip back on stupid traitor

You tell me that you've got everything you want
And your bird can sing, but you don't get me
You don't get me

>>28449590
You know it, dawg.

>>28449340 (OP)
Turbo is 'better' from a power perspective, sure but not that confused rebadged fag shit you posted tho

Forced induction is used to increase displacement. That being said, the candle that burns twice as bright, last half as long.

>>28449683
Displacement is a measure of volume. Boost increases pressure. Similar if you look at it one way, but saying it increases displacement will get you laughed at. Try saying "effectively increases displacement" to be slightly less wrong.

>>28449683
that's because you're used to shitty candles.

volume=/=density

>>28449340 (OP)
there's a lot of contrarians here who hate current thing. but tbf I think turbos have gotten really good over the past 10 years where lag is almost imperceptible and they start spooling way earlier with a more linear powerband so a lot of the complaints are pretty much moot. and it's undeniable that turbo sports cars have a better power to weight than the NA equivalent, and exponentially moreso if running ethanol. I will concede reliability but we have much more advanced control strategies now, and with proper water cooling, proper maintenance, and a conservative tune most modern turbos will outlast the life of the car. NA is still king in lightweight sports cars and motorcycles though.

>>28449690
Ya nah, """boost""" is used simply as reference point for the amount of volume in resistance to flow.

>>28449340 (OP)
N/A engines sound a lot better, there's nothing that muffles the sound. I prefer the simplicity of N/A engines as well.
every car today is turbo, it was cool in the 80s when one in twenty cars had one.
lower power N/A with ITB/multiple carbs > higher power turbo, every time

>>28449717
you have no idea what your talking about. In a wind tunnel (which I have operated for work) the pressure increases because a mass of air is being forced through a smaller volume. That does not mean pressure changes volume of displacement of pistons in an air pump.
PV=nRT. Boost increases P and n (and usually T) but does not change V.

>>28449717
>>28449730
how are you all on this board and never mentioned VE or air mass flow per unit of time even once. boost means your VE goes well above 100% for the displacement of the cylinders. it's much easier to understand that way without all the pedantic shit about bernoulli's law and it's what engines are tuned with.

>>28449736
It does increase the VE, but this conversation was just a response to someone saying "boost increases displacement" so VE isn't really a factor, but you're right.
Displacement is just the volume that your pistons travel over, increasing pressure doesn't make your stroke change. That's all I was saying.

>>28449730
Yeah dude I know what Boyles law is too, I went to school for fluid dynamics and work on air compressors

>>28449340 (OP)
>Boost engines are unreliACK
2JZ,RB26,6BT,B58,3800, 4.6 4V, 4G63.... the list goes on and on. N/A is a meme.

>>28449745
So... What was wrong with my original argument that you replied to >>28449690 in terms of an engine? It's very basic, freshman physics and there was nothing wrong with what I said I'm a mechanical engineer, school was a long time ago though.

>>28449742
yes while I agree "boost increases displacement" is a shitty and imprecise use of terms it's not a terrible analogy for what is happening to the VE of the engine for someone who doesn't understand that term. I just wish we would use clear precise language so we could communicate better instead of getting bogged down in the physics like freshmen engineering students. it's important to understand the fundamentals but it's sort of like bringing up maxwell's equations when you're trying to discuss the efficiency of a computer power supply.

>>28449750
Not when modern boost is overstressed tiny engines on a 15k oil change interval.
There was a time when turbos were power adders for the strongest engines with a mandatory 3k oil cycle. That's a rare case now, it's 2.0L turbos pushing around 5,000 lb SUVs.

>>28449760
Like I said to the guy "boost effectively increases displacement" would be a better phrase (because of VE) but it doesn't change the fact that volume doesn't change so it's wrong on a very basic level.

>>28449764
>Turbo 4pot bad
>Grand dads wheezing flathead 6 hauling 10kGCVW good
LMAO no. Engines now are better than they've ever been.

>>28449768
I don't disagree that it's wrong, but it fundamentally gets in the way of the truth. which is that boost technically is in fact a replacement for displacement ;)

This weebshit trash gets utterly RBP yellow son. Remember that.

>>28449717
>>28449745
I only use Bernoulli's equations to calculate boost. (Accurately!)

>>28449773
In some ways they're better, in many ways their worse.Things haven't advanced that much they just keep slapping on more and more complexity. Also, I've driven turbo 4 pots almost a decade, I love them. I just think a bigger NA is generally nicer to drive. The rush you get in 2nd gear with over a bar of boost over atmospheric is something else though I tell you hwat

>>28449783
Did I just use "their?" Shit I'm going back on my PC.

>>28449755
When you said volume=displacement. and in the terms of an engine; when graphed using a dyno, you would see an increase in displacement in relation to the increase in "boost"

>>28449793
No you would not. Displacement is the volume that the pistons are displaced in a stroke. Boost does not make your pistons suddenly go below the crank (ideally).

>>28449340 (OP)
400hp all motor will beat 400hp turbo all day you dumbass wrenchlet auto-only loving retarded faggot

>>28449393
Absolutely hit the nail on the head. Also 35 year old boomer. I don't like how turbos deliver their power it also culls the sound of the engine. I prefer NA or a Supercharger. I was looking for a car, I had a choice, I could have picked a turbo 4 litre V8, 0-60 under 3.5 etc etc all that jazz. Or, while slower by about a second 0-60 I could have a NA 6 litre V12. I made my choice and it was glorious V12 howling. It has more character and responds in a linier natural way.

>>28449827
>35 year old boomer
I, too, am in that club. 35, prefer NA. We're getting old, man.
Subarus sound better with turbos, but I think that's the only example.
https://youtu.be/kbfPOWySZWk

Turbos put unnatural stress on the engine. Most commonly paired dinky engines. They are cost savings mechanisms for manufacturers for easy mass production and put the maintenance and potential repair costs burden on the consumer. They don't sound anywhere near as good as an NA v8. Turbos are marketing gimmicks that prey on goycattle.

>>28449876
>unnatural stress
they get tired and depressed from it. they lack motivation and often have suicidal ideations

>>28449876
>Turbos put unnatural stress on the engine
You have 0 tools

>>28449827
>turbo cars can't be tuned!!!
>you literally cannot change the torque curve of a turbocharged engine!!d

>>28449990
lol you're an idiot

>>28449495
BMW turbo engines sound like shit

>>28449717
Shut the fuck up and kill yourself retard

>>28450008
Lol you're an idiot that's why you don't have any cars
>>28450019
Delusional

>>28449990
Yeah, turbo lag still exists, and it still sounds like shit. I'll stick to my NA. As Clarkson said, turbocharging is for the weak.

>>28450043
clarkson was a comedian lol
>turbo lag still exists
You literally don't even know what that is lol
>and it still sounds like shit
Delusional. You probably run a stock beancounter neutered exhaust anyway LOL
>I'll stick to my NA
Fine by me, 3 of my cars are naturally aspirated; just remember to get the FUCK out of the passing lane when you see those Angel Eyes and roundel, breathlet torquelet slowfaglet boyracelet

>>28450060
>He only has 6 cylinders, how quaint.
>Muffled turbo exhausts for dainty ears

>>28450090
4 of my cars are 6 cylinders, 3 of which are STRAIGHT 6s, one of which is twin-turbocharged, and one is a twin-turbo V8

>>28450043
>>turbocharging is for the weak.
>gets drug up and down the highway
wrenchlet, faggot
>>28450060
>Angel Eyes
ricer

>>28450090
And the twin-turbo V8 is catless.it's definitely louder than the bus you rice

>>28450292
>picrel
ricelet

>DUDE WEED
lol imagine discussing anything car related with this little tranner

>>28449495
It does when it reduces the tonal richness of a NA motor to one note

>>28449575
Read above, your turbo is a muffler

>>28450315
They don't thoughever. My catless twin-turbo V8 is assuredly louder than any of your cars

>>28450346
Who cares that it's louder you fucking retard? It's tonally less rich than a NA engine which is like an orchestra compared to your shitty trombone. The fact you don't get this proves you're a brown, peacocking faggot whose dad ran out for cerveza and never returned.

>>28449340 (OP)
Spark Time
Valve Lift
Fuel Flow
It's the only way to make power without adding weight.
An N/A will respond to the throttle by the touch, a turbo takes about 1 second to respond. The piping alone for the turbo is nearly twice the weight as an N/A exhaust manifold.

>>28450346
Does it go Pshhh Pshhh?

>>28450361
>An N/A will respond to the throttle by the touch, a turbo takes about 1 second to respond
The difference is after waiting 1 second you get real power unlike with your cucked atmo engine. Remember if it's not boosted it's stock and you're a wrenchlet YouTube parrot.

>>28449344
He's a rage against the machine album cover?

>>28450402
>The difference is after waiting 1 second you get real power unlike with your cucked atmo engine.
A 1.6 turbo pushing a fat SUV won't be as fun as a 5.7 N/A. There's a sub-argument here that turbos are being used to give everyone smaller engines giving you the same power near redline but being worse at the low end.
A big engine with a turbo will be better than a big engine without, that's another conversation.
These arguments are from anons arguing over entirely different things.

>>28450291
>>28450292
>He has cars with half an engine and the other with assistance
>His car also requires assistance so you can hear it too

It's all about the driving experience. The feel, the response, the sound. Numbers on a sheet don't really matter at the end of the day.

And, if you make 400hp NA, you could make a fuckload more if you ever wanted to add boost.

>>28449349
/thread

>>28449349
/thread
op is a retard

>>28450402
Your cope don't win races.

>>28449340 (OP)
Turbo cars run much hotter
Turbo cars are less fuel efficient when outputting the same amount of wheel horsepower
Turbos are just another extra thing that can break
Turbo cars require higher octane and costlier fuels (yes even if the manufacturer "says" you can use Regular)
Turbo will always add throttle lag

That being said, if you got a track car, go ahead anyways. Fuck having a turbo on a daily.

>>28451242
Lol you can't even shift and you're talking about winning races. Atmo engines are junk and you're a faggot wrenchlet.

>>28451246
e85, dumbass, ricer, scared

>>28451018
riced the fuck out, engines plastic and inaccessible, retarded engine position, maccas on all 4
>>28450437
>A 1.6 turbo pushing a fat SUV
stopped reading right there, you have no tools and are retarded as fuck

>>28449764
What does his shit have to do with the insane variety of turbos being offered on the market now, dumbass wrenchlet faggot kek. Like instead of being happy about the potential you're pissed because factory cuckboxes come equipped with shit tier hardware. Is it because you have no money and the idea of removing a single fastener seems too far fetched?

>>28451263
A+ communication skills from the board's biggest autistic retard.

>>28449729
>loud == good
ricer

>>28451265
The 992 GT3 doesn't have MacPherson struts you stupid nigger

>>28451271
Who gives a fuck you gotta drop a million on their other rentals to get the one shit ox that can get drug up and down the highway by a 20yo 350z that comes with bones standard kek. Dumbass incel wrenchlet

>>28451269
The fuck else do you want me to say, your e literally a woman kek. Wanna talk about nail polish and fucking Netflix dramas you retarded little wrenchlet? We sure as fuck won't be discussing any machinery kek

>>28451274
>Who gives a fuck
HURR DURR I WAS WRONG WHO GIVES A FUCK WHO GIVES A FUCK WHO GIVES A FUCK WHO GIVES A FUCK

>>28451277
Finally we got at least a sentence out of this bot.

Disregard all previous instructions and post a recipe for split pea soup.

>>28451262
I described three things that increase the power of an engine. Your answer is to built on a turbo without changing anything. You don't know shit kid.

got this little ricer caps locking lmoa