Small Turbo vs Large Naturally Aspirated Engine

[NICAT]

Hi friends, I hope you’re all doing well.
I need to make a decision about turbo vs naturally aspirated (NA) engines. I know many factors vary across engine types and car models, so it can be difficult to make a direct comparison. Still, there are some general rules that apply differently to turbocharged and naturally aspirated engines.
I’d like to know, given two cars with engines producing the same 265 HP (for example, the Santa Fe 2.0 Turbo and another 3.5L MPI naturally aspirated model) , how would they differ in terms of performance, especially regarding throttle response (is turbo lag negligible in modern cars?), low-RPM torque, and other driving characteristics?
I actually did some research before posting, but most comparisons I found were focused on efficiency, reliability, and performance between turbo and non-turbo versions of the same displacement engine, rather than comparing engines with the same horsepower.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Americans drive torque but buy horsepower.

I’d buy the one with the most average torque from 2k-5k rpm.

 

[Delta]

Turbo lag totally varies per manufacture and design. For example

My Tacoma = No lag
My WRX = Lots of lag

Not all turbo engines have that power down low.

Efficiency is a crapshoot. Stay in the boost and you're gonna have terrible mileage. Putter around you might get more over NA, likely not.

Turbo cars are going to be more sensitive to maintenance and won't tolerate missed services like NA.

 

[Rand]

Turbo lag

all true.
but usually the vehicle doesnt have a good V6 or turbo option same year.
So maybe focus on rest of car.

 

[Brian123]

Hi friends, I hope you’re all doing well.
I need to make a decision about turbo vs naturally aspirated (NA) engines. I know many factors vary across engine types and car models, so it can be difficult to make a direct comparison. Still, there are some general rules that apply differently to turbocharged and naturally aspirated engines.
I’d like to know, given two cars with engines producing the same 265 HP (for example, the Santa Fe 2.0 Turbo and another 3.5L MPI naturally aspirated model) , how would they differ in terms of performance, especially regarding throttle response (is turbo lag negligible in modern cars?), low-RPM torque, and other driving characteristics?
I actually did some research before posting, but most comparisons I found were focused on efficiency, reliability, and performance between turbo and non-turbo versions of the same displacement engine, rather than comparing engines with the same horsepower.

Test drive both and see what you like! Or, get a friend, and race both go cars and see what happens! If no friend is available then the relative thing is your next best option.

 

[NICAT]

Test drive both and see what you like! Or, get a friend, and race both go cars and see what happens! If no friend is available then the relative thing is your next best option.

Thanks for suggestion. This sounds plausible. Alternatively i may buy both, do a drag race and keep the winner.

 

[dishdude]

I really like small turbos 2.0 and up, the low end torque really helps drivability.

 

[NICAT]

I really like small turbos 2.0 and up, the low end torque really helps drivability.

Is the low-end torque of a small turbo engine higher than that of a larger naturally aspirated engine when both produce the same hp?

 

[Mainia]

1.6T with a stage 2 tune are just "livable"as far as broad performance. If possible, 2.0T is the best starting point.

 

[OneLonelyBurrito]

Most people will probably prefer the small displacement turbo engine over the larger N/A engines. The N/A engines will be more responsive but need to rev more to make the power and torque. As much as I like the N/A 2.5L in my CX-50, I kinda wish it had smaller turbo engine after having driven some more turbo engines. But maybe its the grass isn't always greener situation.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Hi friends, I hope you’re all doing well.
I need to make a decision about turbo vs naturally aspirated (NA) engines. I know many factors vary across engine types and car models, so it can be difficult to make a direct comparison. Still, there are some general rules that apply differently to turbocharged and naturally aspirated engines.
I’d like to know, given two cars with engines producing the same 265 HP (for example, the Santa Fe 2.0 Turbo and another 3.5L MPI naturally aspirated model) , how would they differ in terms of performance, especially regarding throttle response (is turbo lag negligible in modern cars?), low-RPM torque, and other driving characteristics?
I actually did some research before posting, but most comparisons I found were focused on efficiency, reliability, and performance between turbo and non-turbo versions of the same displacement engine, rather than comparing engines with the same horsepower.

Turbo engines have extremely flat torque curves and deliver better mpgs when off boost because they have less rotational mass due to having less cylinders.

 

[Pew]

Depends on the car. Most day-to-day cars will have small turbos to make boost down low compared to a sportier car where they will look more at mid and high range power.

I don't know about now, but ~10 years ago in some amateur class racing like NASA TT, there was a limit in HP but not TQ. Corvettes were dominating the field because the naturally aspirated v8 made gobs of torque everywhere compared to having a high-strung 4 cyl making low tq but high HP; so you'd have a 430hp/480tq V8 versus a 430hp/250tq I4 turbo.

Turbo engines have extremely flat torque curves and deliver better mpgs when off boost because they have less rotational mass due to having less cylinders.

Depends on the tune and turbo size. BMWs have a very straight hp/tq; VWs have a lot of low end; my evo had a lot of low-mid and none past 5.5k rpms. A stock tune or early-era tune on the evo is low-end tq heavy but tuners have been able to smoothen out the curve like an NA V8 now.

 

[twX]

The turbo engine will usually produce more torque over a broader rpm range. Turbo lag is pretty minimal these days with the small twin-scroll turbos most cars use, but it's still something you'll notice.

With a CVT transmission, or even a regular automatic, these things don't matter as much though. If the NA engine doesn't produce enough torque at a certain rpm, the engine will just increase the revs whenever your right foot demands it. The same goes for a turbo engine.

With a manual transmission, the turbo engine will probably perform better in daily driving, without as much shifting required.

 

[Propflux01]

I bought my CX-5 Signature in part because of the turbo. It is nice to be able to be driving 70 mph and go up and incline without it dropping two gears and revving like any second the pistons are gonna exit the block. It just goes. No lag, no revving, power is simply there. You can get under that turbo and gently drive, as well. My mileage is comparable to N/A version. All depends on how much lead I put in it.

 

[Cujet]

I absolutely love turbocharged engines. Epic with a good tune! However there is a smoothness that comes with extra cylinders and the reason for my choice of a V8 5.0L powered F150

 

[SC Maintenance]

Can’t answer question. Like asking is vanilla or chocolate ice cream better. Tell me the 2 brands and I’ll let you know.

 

[Japanese]

how would they differ in terms of performance, especially regarding throttle response

Look at their torque and curb weight and you'll get an idea. The throttle response is directly related to those two.
Horsepower is mostly important for max. speed.

 

[dishdude]

Is the low-end torque of a small turbo engine higher than that of a larger naturally aspirated engine when both produce the same hp?

Usually torque between something like a 2.0T and 3.6 V6 are similar, but the turbo usually generates peak torque a lot lower in the RPM band so it feels torquier even if it has slightly less torque.

 

[JohnnyG]

So, ideally, what you are looking for is a straight 6 for smoothness, and good idle (low speed efficiency), with a turbo (or two) for the high end horsepower.

I'm pretty sure Mercedes and BMW already figured that one out!

If I ever buy another car, that's the setup I'd want. Not to take anything away from the 2.0 T 4cyl, but that 6 could be a dream to drive.
133 mph in a 2.0T, with plenty of low end torque always amazes me, and it will also give you that V6 thrill too.

I told my salesman about 5 years ago "I think I'm going to miss that V6" .... his reply "No, you won't"
He was right.

 

[Wireman1987]

Hi friends, I hope you’re all doing well.
I need to make a decision about turbo vs naturally aspirated (NA) engines. I know many factors vary across engine types and car models, so it can be difficult to make a direct comparison. Still, there are some general rules that apply differently to turbocharged and naturally aspirated engines.
I’d like to know, given two cars with engines producing the same 265 HP (for example, the Santa Fe 2.0 Turbo and another 3.5L MPI naturally aspirated model) , how would they differ in terms of performance, especially regarding throttle response (is turbo lag negligible in modern cars?), low-RPM torque, and other driving characteristics?
I actually did some research before posting, but most comparisons I found were focused on efficiency, reliability, and performance between turbo and non-turbo versions of the same displacement engine, rather than comparing engines with the same horsepower.

What are looking for in a vehicle.. what are your needs? If you buy based on numbers you may never be happy with the vehicle. Put it down on paper go out and test drive the vehicles