Which do u preffer or think is better?


1. NA (Natural Aspiration)
2.Turbo (Turbocharged)

 

Kind of a broad question due to the huge amount of variables involved i.e. what applicatio of driving/racing will you be involved in, what type of driver are you, etc etc.

Im heading more in the direction of mountain driving so NA has worked very well so far.

 

im a road racer i just wanted to know which would be better for that apllication id like to race mountain rouds but its kinda hars for me =[ ( i live in florida where the highest hill is only a few feet ) but id like to know which is best suited before makin the jump and buying the wrong one and doing a swap latter on

imma pretty good racer and i can drift with some skill so im not a complete dope =p so i just wanted some peoples input

 

Yes very hard question i like TURBO for speed but NA seams a little more reliable lol like less blown seals, work, stuff like that upkeep.

 

for me, the NA is the way to go as I need a car for daily driving, reliability, relatively low upkeep, and lack of boost lag (canyon runs and autoX require immediate response)... also it is much lighter, which I enjoy.

 

I see. Well I picked up my FC naturally aspirated because I didnt want to deal with any of the issues that came with boosted rotaries at the time, as I was still new to the RE.

I dont know if reliability is so much an issue anymore for me, seeing as my motors oil seals are beginning to fail. So the lines have become a bit blurred. But I think most engines, properly cared for and built/tuned should run well for the most part.

They both have their advantages. The NA, with its linear and peaky powerband is well suited for awesome back road drives. Disadvantage is with drag racing as the T2 has the edge there. But that doesnt mean they cant be competitive.
The turbo rotary also has excellent response with great low RPM power (IMO) and an excellent top end punch.

As for me, I most likely will swap for the T2 motor but that was only after convincing myself that it is possible to get faster times with forced induction on my area specific roads.

 

I have to say, turbo is better for every type of driving..it really is. If you think you might want to do a swap later, buy a TII to begin with. The real question to ask yourself is what your budget is. Also, if you just want a fairly quick car that handles great, an NA will do fine. But a TII can do the same things as an NA, plus be faster doing it.

 

Turbo all the way i know own both and the t2 is soooooo much more fun to drive than the n/a

 

I drive an 87 base. I get over in the straights 'cause I just can't accelerate like the turbos. However, when the road gets curvy, I'm only as slow as the turbo in front of me. Turbls require more skill in the turns because back end tends to kick out when the turbo finally spools up. Of course, if your using the engine like it was meant to be used, you should never come out of boost.

 

Turbos make for quirky handling on turn exit in a car with a front-engine rear-drive layout. If the tracks you want to run have straightaways long enough to counteract this disadvantage the extra power from a turbo can be an advantage.

In other words... if you have a turbo and you can't stretch your legs, it's a disadvantage.

 

The stock turbo doesnt lag much at all. You would be hardpressed to find a track that a stock NA would beat a TII on. I dont know if you even could. IMO turbo is almost always better

 

simple ask yourself, do you want power? yes N/As are more reliable but if your ignoant to turbos then there not for you, many people say turbos aren't reliable but thats just not true, its how you treat your car, if you get a intake and full exhaust and thats it on a turbo, kiss your engine good by, but if you add a bigger fuel pump, fuel controller and even bigger injectors your all good!

 

thx =] for ur input guys