Is it better to have a bigger NA engine, or a smaller one with a turbo? (same HP)

Depends on where and how you drive. I'd pick the bigger NA usually.

>>28500217 (OP)
Take a guess

Pretty nice to have a little extra turbo torque on smaller cars
But on bigger cars where the engine is under load more often it can backfire in the long term

>>28500228
No one drives supercars anyway, they're just an investment asset

turbo always better

>>28500217 (OP)
Depends on the turbo. Smaller turbos with variable geometry and no lag are meh, but bigger turbos that take time to spool up are lots of fun. Turbo lag is more fun and challenging than instant throttle response.

>>28500217 (OP)
No replacement for displacement. Still true. For most people, though, single turbo engines are enough.

>>28500217 (OP)
The whistle makes my brain feel good.

>>28500217 (OP)
I'd choose the bigger NA engine. All else being equal, it will last longer.

>>28500217 (OP)
>bigger NA engine.
This if you want better long term reliability, lower repair costs. Its better to spend more money on fuel costs than repair costs.

>>28500217 (OP)
Depends on use.

If you drive at elevation and don't haul much, a turbo will help. Monitor your oil changes though.

If you haul people or tow at sea level, a bigger non-turbo engine is better. Fuel mileage will suffer a little, but no turbo to fail is less possible of repair.
If you

Generally the answer is bigger NA engine but consider that there is some small subset of cars where they want a little more power to weight ratio, you would go with the turbo there, and you don't care about smoothness or reliability, just power and weight.

>>28500248
I've heard of a guy who considered buying AMG One to actually take it to tracks but instead decided to buy a Porsche race car

>>28500217 (OP)
For me myself its bigger NA, instant response, simple, better noise. Turbos can be neat but thats my personal preference.

You can experiment with this by comparing the 2L i4 Wrangler to the pentastar Wrangler. Of course, it's a Wrangler and has a fairly narrow target use case, so the pentastar is the better engine for that model

Why would NA engines ever exist anymore? Whatever NA engine you're thinking of, just slap a turbo on it and boom free 50% extra horsepower, muh feel and muh response time are non-arguments considering the sheer increase in power you get. Also reliability and repair costs are overblown, basically every econobox in the last idk 5 years or more has a turbo on it and despite what /o/ fearmongering would have you believe they're not exploding left and right.

>>28500672
Power isnt everything child.

>>28500245
>under load more often
Yeah. Good rule of thumb: if the engine would be undersized without a turbo, it's still undersized with one. Diesels are an exception thanks to being overbuilt by default to withstand nonstop lean high compression

>>28500672
Maybe not "exploding left and right" but I know the Civic 1.5 T has a few more problems than the 2.0 NA. Probably because it's under more pressure.

>>28500228
Most won’t hit that milage anyway and it’s also a race car engine that will do race car things

>>28500672
it's not uncommon to have to replace a turbo at 100k-120k on most cars.
And that ignores the other small stuff that may need replacing like the different solenoids or wastegate actuators or other shit that can and does break.

>>28500217 (OP)
The ultimate comp. I’d bet most would pick the slightly weaker V8 over the tt V6.

The Audi RS5 mounts the engine on the front axle and then has a center differential and lsd doing AWD.

Originally the Audi sport coupes used an inline 5 in this set up to reduce weight over the axle but Audi developed a small V8 that was the same length with 3 more cylinders to use which replaced it. That V8 died in 2015 and was replaced with the even shorter ttV6.

So here be have the B8.5 RS5 with a 444hp V8 that revs to 8.5k vs a shorter and lighter twin turbo V6 which has 150 more N of torque. It has less weight on the front axle and less weight on the wrong side of the front axle thus providing better handling and tire life, But it has more complexity.

Which one you taking?

>>28500672
>basically every econobox in the last idk 5 years or more has a turbo on it
except corolla, civic, sentra, camry, accord, etc...

>>28500217 (OP)


Combustion engines are air pumps. The air is the working medium for converting heat energy from the combustion into force on the traction.
If the question is thermal efficiency and or power-to-weight ratio, then higher compression is king.
There can be other questions. But that's the basic physics of the matter. If you want more performance, then figure out better ways of getting more air mass flowing through your engine.

>>28500217 (OP)
>bigger NA
Gay
>turbo
Gay
>high revving NA volumetric efficiency
Based

>>28500758
>enters the chat

>>28500720
Just checked the Corolla, there's a turbocharged petrol engine option though it wasn't available on the American market. Generally the cheapest cars/trim levels tend to have turbos because it's cheaper to slap a turbo on an anemic engine that can barely move the car than it is to put a properly sized NA engine on it.

>>28500217 (OP)
Really just depends on the engine design. Compare the Ford 302 and the Saab B204. The Ford will crack the block around 400hp, while the Saab will make that all day long, with 40% of the displacement.

>>28500758
>high revving
Gay
Add loud exhaust for an ultimate homo

>>28500764
Smol turbos usually emit less tree food than bigger NA of comparable power/torque. Same goes for fuel consumption in typical test, so you can write a tad better MPG in an ad.
You won't be able to sell a cheaper car that is taxed higher or consumes more fuel.
c:wrx

>>28500217 (OP)
NA engine will last longer. Less stress on the internals.

>>28500935
The stress levels can be modelled and the same safety margin can be dialled in for a FI design as a NA design.

>>28501303
Which car manufacturers offer a 1000hp 4cyl pump gas crate engine with a warranty?

>>28501318
way to miss the point

I just want the engine bay to look really good and the car to be fun to drive

>>28500217 (OP)
chevy's cruze gets 27/44 for the 2.0 and 26/37 for the 1.4 turbo (port injection)

the nearly identical jetta gets 25/35 for the 1.8 and 28/39 for the 1.4 turbo (direct injection)

the corolla gets 30/38 for cvt and 53/52 for the hybrid cvt

i think you're asking the wrong questions

low end torque>>>

>>28500720
>accord hasn't had 1.5 and 2.0T for decade

>>28500217 (OP)
NA is simpler and generally less things that can go wrong and keep the engine from running smoothly.

Also, I personally prefer the sound of NA engines with 8 or more cylinders.

>>28501318
Yeah what are the conditions of the "warranty" retard?

>>28501672
It covers manufacturing defects. If you keep it on the rev limiter for an hours and blow it up they're obviously going to tell you to pound sand. Now how about that 1000hp 4cyl crate engine I can walk into a dealership and buy and it's warranty.

>>28501679
So the same "warranty" as every other engine builder in the world gives?

>>28500217 (OP)
>bigger NA engine
then put a turbo on it

There's no replacement for displacement. Gimme a big lazy V8 instead of whatever turbocharged jap crap people are driving these days brother

>>28500719
I don't know much about either of these engines or Audi's in general but I'm taking the V8
>Muh cylinders

AS THE AGE-OLD SAYING GOES, NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. WE DON'T WANT THOSE LITTLE BOY LAWNMOWER ENGINES, THIS IS AMERICA. I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE RICE BURNER MOTOR TRY TO PUSH 5000LB OF AMERICAN STEEL 100 MILES PER DOWN THE FREEWAY.

~DOWNSHIFT DALE
72 Chevy Nova "BETSY"
53 Hudson Hornet "THE GROCERY GETTER"
57 Harley Panhead "MAMA DUKE'S VIBRATOR"

>>28500217 (OP)
I prefer smoll but spins fast.

>>28500763
Those wee ford engines are well alright. I am to put the Ecotec 1l turbo on the 1.6 na

>>28500217 (OP)