Dean there's a lotta truth to that statement. Ricers are a good case in point.
However, some sounds are just as intoxicating as power.

It's a highly non linear curve between cost and performance. It's hard to judge where break-even point is but for most people, curves for cost per hp for N/A and Turbo will cross at roughly 300hp and after that N/A curve will raise sharply, going into infinite beyond 400hp ;)

So it's all about picking the power level, budget and engine character.

Hey PeteVB!

What's the update on my former 3.6 Varioram car - the one I used to own - and you now have?

Pics?

N/A

I think you nailed it with this post.
Granted the break even moves up and down depending on the engine... but for a 3.6 aircooled motor I think you are exaclty right.

On a different note I have noticed how all the major manufacturers are moving away from forced induction towards n/a enines.

Ferrari last turbo car was the F40. Since then only N/A for their exotics.
Lamborghini... V10, big capacity N/A
BMW... high revving N/A
Audi for their RS4 went from a twin turbo to a high revving V8
Mercedes-AMG is ditching their superchargers for high revving V8s
Pagani Zonda has an AMG n/a V12 in the back
McLaren F1.... BMW n/a V12
Porsche... CGT is a high revving n/a V10

I guess when you can go up in displacement (like all the above cars) then acheiving 500-600hp is not cost-prohibitive with a n/a engine.

So Goran really got it right. Try to decide how much HP is enough.
If in the 300-350 is ok then the advantages of a N/A engine are clear.
If you want above 400hp then turbos is the only way to go.

All the above cars are boorrringhttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/king2.gif

Flame away my friend

gotta remember delivery.

power delivery is huge as to how fun a car is to drive, and alot of the time how fast it really is.


have a 200hp inscrease as boost kicks in isn;t going to be hugely useful, as it'll just spin 9/10 times.

a nicely cammed up, free flowing, high compression naturally asiperated engine i believe offers the truest bliss experience.

i've driven in dp 935's and crazy hopped up rx7's, skylines and 300zxTT.....the best experience i've had yet was in a 1700lb 76 911 with a 210hp 2.7L in it....


the one truly nice advantage for a turbo car, is that it can have a smooth idle, et good fuel mileage out of boost, and when u need it to, offer a seriosu punch.

however reliablity isn;t there, turbochargers add serious stress on an engine, and i know rev's do also, but an engine running 1 bar spinning 6000revs is the same as an n/a running atmospheric @ 9000rpm.... the power output should be similiar also, if both have been flowed properly. (9000rpm is unrealistic in most cases).

my point is that a 930 will not out run a 964rs, it has too much ground to make up. sure on a mile long straight away, but not at any reasnoable speeds.....


i investigated the turbo 3L route, but its just not the same.... i ended up choosing a high reving 3.5L (can u say "oversquare"). and in a 2300lb car it should move with most turbo's w/o problem.


remember unless your on a race track, its not how fast u go, its how much fun your having. and not being able to talk to the person next to u because above 5000rpm it just screams....is fun.

My opinion is somewhat skewed, being a "turbo guy" (I do own a BMW 318is though!) but I do believe that correctly done aircooled 911 turbo engine will live longer than it's contemporary N/A engine beyond >300hp output.