Notices
Performance Forced induction, intakes, exhausts, torque converters, transmissions, etc.

Question: naturally aspirated v6 vs Turbo v4

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 18, 2006 | 06:15 PM
  #1  
SY300's Avatar
SY300
Thread Starter
Driver School Candidate
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: ON
Default Question: naturally aspirated v6 vs Turbo v4

Just a few questions:

Why does it generally seem that people prefer a naturally aspirated v6 over a Turbo v4?

If they produce the same horsepower and torque with similar fuel efficiency, is there any difference between the engines?

Has there been a lot of problems with turbos in the past?

(I am looking at the 08 TSX rumours v4 turbo compared to the IS250)

Thanks.
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2006 | 06:28 PM
  #2  
Bichon's Avatar
Bichon
CL Community Team
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 342
From: NJ
Default

The TSX would be a V4, not an inline 4?

A couple reasons that many prefer a larger displacement normally aspirated motor over a smaller motor with a turbo are:

1. Instant throttle response -- no turbo lag
2. Longevity -- less stress on internal components.

Turbo motors are far more tunable though; you can often make big power for small money.
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2006 | 06:39 PM
  #3  
PNice972's Avatar
PNice972
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,290
Likes: 1
From: Colorado
Default

it is i4 not v4
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2006 | 07:55 PM
  #4  
CyberVlad's Avatar
CyberVlad
Driver School Candidate
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: TX
Default

turbo 4 sucks from 0 to 30 MPh unless you rev it up on every stop, but its a blast after that.
V6 has much smoother power delivery.

I think its totally different driving styles, I personally enjoy both (my second car is a modified 2003 WRX)

Last edited by CyberVlad; Jul 18, 2006 at 08:00 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2006 | 07:56 PM
  #5  
sashax415's Avatar
sashax415
Pole Position
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: CA-619/408
Default

I would wait if in fact they are coming out w/ a turbo tsx... If you are into performance, then the turbo will definitely be more mod friendly.

Also, on the comment about turbo lag, it will most likely have a very small turbo (much like VW's 2.0T) which has a broad torque range and maximum torque at very low rpm's.
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2006 | 08:14 PM
  #6  
Jay M's Avatar
Jay M
Rookie
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
From: CA
Default

I saw an interesting comparison test with a bunch of fun cars. They tested a parameter that I don't usually tested, it was something like 20-50mph. Even the fast cars like WRX and EVO were quite slow compared to other cars with a V6. For an Evo or WRX to get those impressive numbers in 0-60 and 1/4 mile I think you really need to abuse them.

~Jay
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2006 | 08:16 PM
  #7  
4TehNguyen's Avatar
4TehNguyen
Lexus Fanatic
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Shutterbug
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 26,227
Likes: 82
From: Houston, Texas
Default

Originally Posted by Jay M
I saw an interesting comparison test with a bunch of fun cars. They tested a parameter that I don't usually tested, it was something like 20-50mph. Even the fast cars like WRX and EVO were quite slow compared to other cars with a V6. For an Evo or WRX to get those impressive numbers in 0-60 and 1/4 mile I think you really need to abuse them.

~Jay
yup turbo lag
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2006 | 08:28 PM
  #8  
stevejenn1's Avatar
stevejenn1
Rookie
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
From: NY
Default

Much smoother with the 6. Turbo lag makes for inconsistent ride.
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2006 | 10:45 PM
  #9  
lobuxracer's Avatar
lobuxracer
Tech Resource
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,081
Likes: 4,751
From: Georgia
Default

NA engines - flatter torque curve, no sudden spikes to accidentally break traction. Better BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) so they are inherently more fuel efficient. Can be designed to run well on lesser fuels. Very expensive to make large increases in power without forced induction.

Turbo engines - large output from small displacement. Poorer thermal efficiency, poorer BSFC, require better fuels or water/methanol injection to compensate for strong tendency to detonate. Potentially very large torque spikes over small range of rpm when turbo hits boost, can cause loss of control on corner exit if the driver is not prepared or is without electronic traction control devices. Relatively inexpensive to make large power increases until turbo performance limits are met.

That's about the whole story. As a '93 TT Supra owner, I have a little experience with boosted engines.

Last edited by lobuxracer; Jul 18, 2006 at 10:53 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2006 | 03:26 AM
  #10  
sashax415's Avatar
sashax415
Pole Position
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: CA-619/408
Default

Originally Posted by Jay M
I saw an interesting comparison test with a bunch of fun cars. They tested a parameter that I don't usually tested, it was something like 20-50mph. Even the fast cars like WRX and EVO were quite slow compared to other cars with a V6. For an Evo or WRX to get those impressive numbers in 0-60 and 1/4 mile I think you really need to abuse them.

~Jay
I currently drive an evo, which has a considerably larger turbo than the VW 1.8t (my previous car). The response on the vw felt like the is350 at low speeds, even though it only has the same hp as an is250.

The tsx will probably use the same motor found in the upcoming rdx, ~ 240hp depending on who honda wants to compete against. I think i've read that peak torque is reached @ ~4500 rpm... Which suggests that they might be using a slightly larger turbo than the vw's (peak tq @ under 2k rpm). A vw w/ a k04 turbo peaks @ ~4k rpm... Possibly some slight lag in the tsx in exchange for bigger tuning potential

As far as pros/cons, I've never heard of BSFC, but other than that, I would have to agree w/ lowbuxracer.
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2006 | 06:09 AM
  #11  
TurboRush's Avatar
TurboRush
Driver School Candidate
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: NH
Default

Turbo cars can get off the line just as quick as a na V6... I won't go into detail, but at the most basic level, it depends on the size of the turbo and other things that may help it along, i.e., ball bearing center, etc
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2006 | 06:54 AM
  #12  
uschardcor's Avatar
uschardcor
Lexus Test Driver
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
From: SC
Default

turborush is correct. turbolag has a horrible reputation of being worse than it really is. a proper turbo installation can be more effective, just as reliable, and without any noticable lag when compared to a supercharger
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2006 | 07:11 AM
  #13  
Lets Drive's Avatar
Lets Drive
Racer
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 8
From: MD
Default

Originally Posted by SY300
Just a few questions:

Why does it generally seem that people prefer a naturally aspirated v6 over a Turbo v4?

If they produce the same horsepower and torque with similar fuel efficiency, is there any difference between the engines?

Has there been a lot of problems with turbos in the past?

(I am looking at the 08 TSX rumours v4 turbo compared to the IS250)

Thanks.
Marketing is a large part of it, as is the packaging and the way they produce power. Peak hp is one thing, and looks good on a window sticker, but a flat torque curve (N/A I6) contributes to a more predictable and smooth driving experience. Weight is also an issue (turbo components), but it can be worked around with proper engineering. With regard to the amount of displacement (and once again touching on marketing), in Europe and Asian domestic markets, you pay more for greater displacement. As such, you can make an overall car cheaper, by using a small displacement engine running a turbo, which will now make up for the difference in power offered by larger competing engines. In the US though, this does not apply, as displacement and # of cylinders sell; the sales of the V6 Acura RL vs its competition (which offers V8s) comes to mind. For this reason, its at times cheaper for a company to forgo investment in a bigger engine, if cars in their lineup don't require it, just as they'll also share a particular engine among cars in the brand.

Lastly, some companies have a philosophy, where they want to focus on N/A performance with certain vehicles. Superchargers/turbos are viewed as a 'crutch'...and apparently, some consumers also feel this way.

Turbo lag isn't really an issue IMO, as most makes would use smaller/effecient twins, and probably see boost as low as the 1k RPM range nowadays. Transition time has been vastly improved since the early 90s, and they can be very streetable, especially with the incorporation of new technology such as variable geometry turbos. I'd expect to see more turbo cars reaching production, while advertising the benefits of both low and high end power once this technology trickles downward.
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2006 | 07:31 AM
  #14  
4TehNguyen's Avatar
4TehNguyen
Lexus Fanatic
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Photoriffic
Shutterbug
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 26,227
Likes: 82
From: Houston, Texas
Default

variable geometry turbos like on the RDX and new 911 turbo help nearly eliminate turbo lag, the power of a turbo engine with the response and control of an N/A, best of both worlds
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2006 | 07:56 AM
  #15  
Jay M's Avatar
Jay M
Rookie
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
From: CA
Default

Turbo lag is a funny thing, I remember reading about the Syclone a long time ago, it did 0-60 in well under 5 seconds and the 1/4 mile in the low 14s, but the reviewer complained about "turbo lag"

I guess that if you don't plan carfully the power isn't always available on a turbo car. But I did take a short test drive in a Syclone and it was awesome. I really wish I had bought it!

~Jay
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:44 PM.