It's research paper time in Comp 2 and I've decided to do the pro's and con's of Forced Induction Vs. the pro's and con's of a naturally aspirated setup and in which applications they both thrive. While i know about them both to an extent i know there are alot more people here that are far more knowledgable.

So there it stands if you know about Forced induction post about why it's better than NA and vice versa. And before the "use the search button" crowd chimes in, im making this thread so everybody can see the pro's and con's of the path they decide to choose in One place. So help a fellow SL member pass comp 2!

 

Disclaimer: If i use your knowledge in my paper it WILL be cited and you will be given full credit

 

F/I izum goods kuz it do make mi kar crunk fastr an it sur iz perdy wen duh ter-bo goez 'Whoooooooosh'

 

Please be prepared for a wide range of subjective responses and the occaisional idiot factor.


The only thing one can say for certain when it comes to the NA vs. FI comparison is this-

FI motors get more power per litre of displacement, but maintenance costs are increased over the long run. Most factory-boosted cars need to rebuild turbos after 100,000 miles, in addition to a lot of "standard engine upkeep."

 

I agree. That's a pretty good summery. Again, sorry for the idiot factor I couldn't help myself. Really!

 

The engine will definately show wear faster and need rebuilding a lot sooner with a turbo than n/a. The fuel milage with a turbo will be less than a n/a setup.

 

turbos usually run higher exhaust gas temperatures, and have intake air temperatures that exceed ambient air temps, even with the best intercooler setup. Also, theres the issues of turbo lag, boost creep, and higher coolant/oil temperatures.

 

The difference in F/I and NA simply put is:
Its cheaper to get big #s with a FI set up than it is going NA.

4 cyl NA cars that run around 300 WHP just sound awesome. But it took nearly 5x the money in parts and labor to get it that way.

 

N/A you can run regular gas....
F/I usually you need premium......

 

^^^^
The octane of gas is dependant of your compression ratio.
The tC already has aftermarket high compression piston heads available that would force you to use premium gas to prevent pre-detonation.

 

Since this is in general...

A turbo makes the car run hotter. That much is pretty much common knowledge. What isn't really common knowledge is that turbos aren't the pollution making and fuel gulping monsters that people often make them out to be. Since the engine is forced to run hotter, the catalyzation will happen better (as heat as a catalyst) so you'll actually get better emissions number if you run a relatively lean turbo. You'll also get more air into the combustion and some of the air will be forced to ignite without the help of gasoline so you'll get more power for less fuel which, in essence, is better fuel economy.

WAIT!

Before anyone says anything, this is only true of low boosting, fuel economy tuned turbos. For performance applications, you'll have to tune the engine to run richer than usual (NA) and the result of the greasy fat richness of gasoline is higher pollution. An NA car running the same AFR would be blowing out gallons of unburned gasoline over the course of its life. Also, by running rich to ensure engine safety, your fuel economy will go down greatly.

So what's up with what I wrote above?

The RDX concept for example, uses a 2.3 litre turbo engine over a 3.0 or 3.5 litre V6. The statement that FI is the replacement for displacement is entirely true here as you can see that the 2.3 litre turbo (260~ hp?) runs about the same power as the 3.2 litre V6 in the previous generation TL. Not only that, it gets much better fuel economy. Although diesels are extremely different from gasoline engines, they are close enough to demonstrate the effective use of turbochargers to increase fuel economy. Almost all diesel engines are turbocharged but none of them are charged for performance. The result of this is that they get better fuel economy as well as cleaner emissions. The two engines are similar enough that this holds true for gasoline engines.

Also, since we're using FI to replace displacement, the engine is smaller and lighter so the car will handle vastly better than the same car would with a V6 (this is for all you people who want to shove Camry V6s into the tC.. we're already doing a 60/40 weight distribution and you don't want to aggravate that further with two more cylinders.. so how do you get more power? BOOST.)

Hmm.. sorry for the rant..

 

keep em coming guys good posts so far

 

bump

 

With golden eagle perhaps developing NA cams, along with the NA parts already in production. Having a High Powered NA tC with in the year is very possible. But still very costly and labor intensive. Fuel Economy would drop dramaticly though. Where a FI set up would be near the same with a frugal driver.

 

bump i know there are more people out there cmon

 

any engine can be NA...
NA stock
NA with CAI
etc etc.

if you want to learn more about NA engines, read on www.howstuffworks.com. you should read and search up things abuot F1 engines. they are perfect examples of NA engines at its BEST!

turbo's are cheaper, easy to install, and can add a TON of power to the car with out altering any internal parts. highly convient products.

thats all i got that im willing to share.
the rest... not to sure so i rather not share

 

1 more thing you will save money on tires for a all motor car vs turbo. LMAO

 

bump

 

oldman, lobux zpi? i know you guys know your stuff on engines

 

I think oldman is done with the scion community. I haven't seen him posting as much since he bought the SI