If you were given a choice between two engines : They both make the same power but one is NA and one is turbocharged...

NA assuming, like most turbos, it expiriences turbo lag, rather have a predictable and smooth acceleration curve. Not a big fan of noise for the sake of noise, like I hate shitboxes that barely break 200hp with straight pipes and fart cans so the chigger inside can sound faster than he really is.

Depends if the n/a engine has a large displacement with a torquey powerband or a revvy smaller displacement engine

Also depends on how heavy the car is that it's going in

No replacement for displacement
Jap Scrap goes straight to the junkyard

The tweest: The engine was never meant to be turbod and can barely handle a pound of boost, the turbo is fucking huge and lags like shit, and there is no intercooler

The engine: 1zz-fe

>implying high output NA i6's aren't godlike

Gas: n/a
Diesel: tarbo

turbo everytime

much more fun to drive and tune

NA because i actually know something about cars

Always pick NA unless you have the money to be throwing at your burned-up turbo every year.

Fuck mileage.

Modern turbo vehicles, the ones aimed at the general public, are not performance vehicles. The turbos are there for gas mileage and nothing else, which means you are over-working a tiny engine to get that power...and that means short engine life.

If you mean an engine with a lower hp at the wheel being brought up to the same wheel hp as the naturally aspirated engine via a turbo then naturally aspirated any day.

No lag and smooth power delivery for the same power? Why be 5"8 and wear 4 inch platforms when you could just be 6ft?

Turbo engine offers superior power delivery and power potential
Na is for poorfag commuters

I like how this flagrant us vs them thread got taken seriously and basically everyone unironically agrees it's us.

NA no doubt

Turbo because its cooler

N/A. Same power, no torque, no oil return lines, no intercooler, more space in engine bay, instant throttle response.

Turbos are made to cram more air into an N/A engine, which adds power. If an N/A and a Turbo engine have the same power there's no real reason to pick the Turbo. That just means the Turbo engine is making lesser power without the Turbo, essentially piggybacking off of it.

This guy gets it

turbo will have more torque
turbo can have a broader torque curve
turbo will be easier to modify

MUH TARBO LAG THO

after driving turbo cars I dont even see why people bother with NA

Can I put a turbo on the N/A?

>Turbo
>Gas mileage

No, the turbo is there to make the pathetic engine tolerable enough once you're cruising on the freeway.

People forget that when you're actually using the turbo, you're using tons of fuel. And the average normie is probably in boost a LOT more than you realize.

EPA fuel economy ratings a shit, they don't test real world fuel economy at all, and turbos cheat on the tests.

turbo, na is just boring

Is that an alternator?

NA. Less to go wrong and break.

everything else the same, the na car will have better throttle response

...

N/A forever and always

>They both make the same power but one is NA and one is turbocharged which one would you choose?

NA of course if your magical statement of "make the same power" applies in all situations, altitudes, and fuel. Otherwise, the perceptive gent at has a good point. But I prefer NA in new cars for the longevity. New cars typically add the turbo for EPA fuel mileage ratings. For that purpose, the engine is undersized and forced to run hard with the turbo.

The turbo on my car only seems to make a difference(and turbo noises) at high RPM, so It's basically useless since I don't use it for racing

Actually some of the new 4 cylinder turbo sedans like the 2017 civic get even better real world mileage than what is reported

na and i have chosen a na v8 over a turbo i6 or i4 because they are just more reliable and make easy power

Been thinking about it and would definitely go with n/a. With an n/a you can later turbo it if you want, not to mention the reliability that's definitely better than if you have a turbo.

N/A of course
Turbo vs N/A with same power means that the turbo engine has lower displacement. Which means more turbo lag.

BTW, can anyone tell me how perceptible turbo lag is in modern cars? I've only ever driven a Peugeot 407 1.6 HDi and it was fucking awful.
>press gas
>nothing happens
>2 seconds later suddenly WHOOSH ZOMG POWER
>2 seconds later at 3000k rpm engine literally dies

that's how low displacement FUCKING turbo DIESELS work

if you wanted a DD shitbox you should've went with something just a tiny bit bigger, like 1.9
no matter if vw, peugeot or fiat, turbo in these starts spooling way earlier and the boost is more smooth

It's not mine, it's my uncle's. I hate diesels overall.

It's not that noticable, mostly because the boost is low and it works from the lower revs already. There are tiny turbines that don't really do all that much.

So long as we're talking about those modern paper engines ofc.

This is suprisingly accurate for just about everything

the turbo because it'll make more torque lmao

inb4 you nerds don't understand the difference between torque and peak hp output

almost
i'd turbo a V6

Turbo lag is a normie meme, it's almost non-existant at this point.

Just about every turbo car these days regardless of price, gets sold with a custom-sized variable geometry turbocharger.
These things hit boost at like 2k and spool time is almost instantenous.

t. ford diesel owner with a 7psi garrett from factory

Turbo because of the sound.

If the N/A is a high rpm engine with VVL and the same displacement as the turbo i´d choose the N/A.
If it is a huge displacement heavy engine I`d go with the turbo.

The only advantage the turbo gives is ability to use lower displacement (less weight and possibly better MPG) and more stable power in mountaineous areas.

So the NA engine is high strung and the turbo engine is comfortably making its power with lots of room for easy gains? I pick turbo.

Is a turbo good for compensating for high alttitude air being less dense than at low altitudes?

yes

turbo cars dominate NA in high altitudes

But you can add a turbo to an na, you can't add more turbo

yes you can retard, you don't even need to do anything mechanically, just a tune

Turbo lag is shit

N/A all the way

I recently traded in a turbocharged car for a N/A

Was about to post turbo for this reason given I'm moving to CO

>540i e39
>4.4L V8, 286ch
>mean effective pressure 11 bars
>average piston velocity 15,7m/s

>Pug 308 GTi
>1.6L turbo, 270ch
>mep 25,4bars
>apv 17,2m/s

Which one of those seems high strung?

N/A, I'd get ITBs

na better fuel milage

A 383'd N/A.

>Was about to post turbo for this reason given I'm moving to CO
Or move there because recreational marijuana is legal.

>comparing engines with different displacements

>implying OP stated the two imaginary engines in question have the same displacement

OK I'll have another try
>Mazda 6 skyacvtiv 2.0 160hp
>mep 12,2bars
>apv 18,2m/s

>Pug 406 2.0 Turbo 147hp
>mep 13,5bars
>apv 15,2m/s

The difference has diminished indeed. But then look at compression ratios:
>Mazda: 13:1
>Pug: 8,5:1

Shit this is actually a counterargument to what I was trying to show, that NA is less stressed than turbo for the same output.

Then again I had to go pretty far to find this example, and the Skyactiv and the 2.0T aren't really meant to do the same thing.

turbo would the lighter engine unless I'm mistaken

We could also look at the N/A 4A-GE 20V blacktop and the 4A-GZE 16V supercharged
Both have the same block, both produce pretty simmilar power.
But one of them needs to rev incredibly high to get this power, the other one doesn´t.

This user is rightTurbo lag nowadays is still there, but barely. Most turbos spool up at 2,000rpm

T. 16' GTI owner

If we assume same weight and I can't do anything to it, n/a

In real life though, the n/a engine will be heavier and the turbo engine will be more easily upgradable, so it's a no brainer.

This