N/A or Boost.......

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a24691/ferrari-engineers-dont-like-turbocharging/

R&T article said: Despite the claims of marketers everywhere, lag can't be eliminated. The holy grail for engineers of turbo engines—from the 1962 Oldsmobile Jetfire to today's boosted cars—has been to manage the lag so that it's unobtrusive in normal driving. Some engines do this better than others. But when we're talking about Ferraris, who cares about normal driving? When you're approaching the handling limit of a well-balanced car, you need precise control of engine output. You may need a quick jolt of torque to induce oversteer or to gradually increase power to keep the car at its limit in a corner. These adjustments need to happen the instant you request them and in direct correlation to pedal input. A naturally aspirated engine's output is determined by the position of the pedal and the engine speed, period. Turbos change that into a complicated matrix with far too many variables for a driver to keep track of. At best, turbo lag is a handicap. At worst, it turns neutral, throttle-adjustable cars into insolent, uncontrollable, four-wheeled bastards.

...and then the auto writers go and pick the F40 as their favorite Ferrari.

The proper answer is a positive pressure supercharger of course.

Because Ferrari engineers are the pinnacle of all things engineering.

I take all the things Ferrari had to say and throw them out the window. Except about intake/exhaust noise. They know how to do that.

N/A

edited so Ferrari is out.... but the premise still stands....

oldeskewltoy wrote: http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a24691/ferrari-engineers-dont-like-turbocharging/

R&T article said: Despite the claims of marketers everywhere, lag can't be eliminated. The holy grail for engineers of turbo engines—from the 1962 Oldsmobile Jetfire to today's boosted cars—has been to manage the lag so that it's unobtrusive in normal driving. Some engines do this better than others. >edited out< When you're approaching the handling limit of a well-balanced car, you need precise control of engine output. You may need a quick jolt of torque to induce oversteer or to gradually increase power to keep the car at its limit in a corner. These adjustments need to happen the instant you request them and in direct correlation to pedal input. A naturally aspirated engine's output is determined by the position of the pedal and the engine speed, period. Turbos change that into a complicated matrix with far too many variables for a driver to keep track of. At best, turbo lag is a handicap. At worst, it turns neutral, throttle-adjustable cars into insolent, uncontrollable, four-wheeled bastards.

Turbos are for trucks. Natural aspiration is best aspiration.

Choosing sucks, build both.

Its comparing apples and oranges. Well built examples of each are things of beauty to be admired. They produce power differently and that's what makes them both enjoyable for their own reasons. Each has its limitations and compromise's, as well as strengths And weaknesses.

F1?

Gearheadotaku wrote: N/A

Yep

N/A Also stands for Not Available. Coincidence?

Or non applicable..

Appleseed wrote: N/A Also stands for Not Available. Coincidence?

On GRM, no, hell no it doesn't, stop being obtuse.

Everything has it's purpose. I just prefer my engines to not have a small mollusk attached to them. But then again I enjoy racing Korean cars so my opinion may be invalid.

carbon wrote: Choosing sucks, build both.

Yeah, choose a naturally aspirated engine for racing engines so the driver can better control the chassis with the engine's linear throttle response, and then choose a turbo engine for the tow vehicle where the less connected response does not matter because snappy response is not as critical in the face of long drawn-out power pulls.

I've autocrossed a 2012 Golf R that is turbocharged, yet it felt naturally aspirated, so it can be done.

It depends. Most of the time I favor naturally aspirated. But boost is fun and addicting so sometimes I want that.

Mr_Clutch42 wrote: I've autocrossed a 2012 Golf R that is turbocharged, yet it felt naturally aspirated, so it can be done.

I've driven multiple modern turbo cars and I don't see how anyone complains of lag anymore. It makes me think these are the people who complain about panel gaps on cars but only noticed them after Top Gear started to become popular. Maybe it's a factor for professional racers but they are like the NFL compared to our back yard football. Even then in pro racing turbos are incredibly popular.

On the other hand on my Nissan you can very well feel the lag. However that is a 1989. Anyone who complains about lag and hasn't driven a recent turbocharged car needs to check them out again.

I test drove a new 2004 WRX (admittedly with an automatic trans) and boost lag combined with the transmission response made the car terrible to drive. Terrible.

I co drove an STX WRX for a couple years. It had a little bit of lag, but so what? It had ~230whp. It was tons of fun. At the time I owned a 2.5RS of the same year... it may have put down 1/2 that amount, with a 25% larger engine.

Duke wrote: I test drove a new 2004 WRX (admittedly with an automatic trans) and boost lag combined with the transmission response made the car *terrible* to drive. Terrible.

Keep your foot down so the turbo stays in boost and the transmission doesn't shift, and control speed with the brakes...

Boost kinda helps those of us who occasionally make it to tracks at close to 5000' and the very occasional AutoX at 8000'+.