Problem being that an engine being NA vs. FI means nothing... If anything FI on small engines is better. It's THE only way small engines can hold a candle to larger displacement engines in the HP gain for your money in the aftermarket. Try and gain 50 or 100HP off of an NA 4 banger with a grand or 2. Can't do it. Yet it can be easily done with a ton of turbo 4 bangers that were produced. The only thing NA has going for it is that for some reason (that I can't understand) people seem to be impressed by high output NA engines vs comperable FI engines. So basically it's a marketing tool certain people buy into.
or maybe people like the fact that their NA cars are more reliable, use less fuel and are better on track than turboed cars. especially cars that have huge single turbos that lag like a biatch
Facts are those arguments are all BS. What engine is going to be more reliable depends on what 2 engines are in question. Turbo engine X can be more reliable than NA engine Y. Now I would go along with the generalization that NA engines are GENERALLY more reliable. But it still comes down to what engines are being compaired. The fuel use thing is also totally bunk. If you don't go into the turbos range, you'll get fine gas mileage. Although once again it depends on engine vs engine compairison. Better on track once again totally depends. I'd say the chasis and suspension has a hell of a lot more to do with how good a car is on a track. Aside from that you're generally going to stay in the part of the powerband where the turbo is spooled up and going fine when on a track. Not to mention that with certain setups you STILL end up with better low/mid range on a turbo car than on a comperably sized(displacement) NA engines of the same output. But yes, turbos can be laggy. Just entirely depends on the cars setup. Some turbo engines are better than some NA engines and vice versa.
But that's his whole point. You have to judge each option on its own merits, rather than saying turbo's aren't as good. In terms of mid-range power and torque Turbos have a massive advantage over similar displacement naturally aspirated engines.
have you driven an S2000? it doesn't lag at all man, i don't know wtf your on about. try drive a WRX, thats what i call LAG
O RLY? http://www.midcapsolutions.com/wrx/mods/dyno/04_stock_wrx_12-20-03.gif http://www.marcus-taylor.com/s2000/pics/me_v_peteet_dyno.jpg I made them have the same time/power scale. WRX is Green, S2K is Red.
I just realised the subaru graph should be shifted about 500 rpm to the left. Anyway, you get the idea.
lol, have YOU driven an s2k? i know someone who actually owns one, it pulls like a 4 banger accord until 6k and then all of the sudden its a different motor.
i think the nsx was more of a ferrari competitor of the day. though unluckily for honda, ferrari has made newer sports cars in the last 15 years. the nsx was definatly impressive when it orignaly came out, but now if anything it simply shows how little Honda has done to improve upon the VTEC motors it started making nearly 2 decades ago.
Honda Honda Integra Type R dc2(Mr2 Turbo cannot compare) Honda NSX (Toyota Supra cannot compare) Honda Civic Type R (Toyota Celica cannot compare) Its all about V-tec Power!!!
its considered one of the best selling sports car ever and sports cars dont have to be fast, just fun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx5
you think the clio is a great car and bag out the mx5? you do know both are considered the best in thei category? cheap thrills in small cars is the underlying theme. CLio is the best hot hatch and the mx5 is the best sports car in its price range. ALWAYS remember the price range
but you dont compare the supra to the s2002, same with mr2 and nsx should be mr2 vs s2000 supra vs nsx