The age of the turbo.

Im afraid the age of great naturally aspirated engines is coming to an end. Skip the life story and jump to the end if you want...

It has brooded over me like a dark cloud ever since the release and great sucess of the turbo econo box (Srt-4, MPS3, SS, WRX). Mind you back then the GLH was the same thing, but times are a-changin. Gas is sky rocketing, the environment is dying and regulations are getting more stringent. I have tasted the dark side, the one they call FI. It is a tempting allie indeed, with its shove you in the seat with no escape torque.

However, nothing will ever replace a well built precision NA engine. My perfect car? The s2000, there is no better. It is my ultimate. Nothing you dont need, sufficient ammenaties, gorgeous looks, reliable and somewhat affordable. The perfect companion. Unforgiving and rewarding. It has that cute little "push me and I WILL kill you" 911 charm.

I have been driving miatas for the last 3 years, and the s2000 is the natural evolution (albeit out of budget). After suffering at the hands of a turbo miata that was the bane of my existance (required me to get a second job just so I could fix it). Got fed up, sold both miatas. I test drove the new MX5, was dissapointed at the bang per buck compared to my dads new Si and compromised on the new Si. Have never looked back, marvel of a car and she's a screamer! Love it. Hauls five, sounds good, looks good and with pads/fluid is a great track companion.

However, every day I see everyone being converted to these boost monsters. I know that adding horsepower is usually the most expensive and least reliable method to go faster around a track, but alas this forced induction has quiet a strong hold on the industry. And I suspect many of these 20 somethings are too busy doing 30mph honk runs on the highway... Sigh I guess I cannot relate to my age group. I love naturally aspirated motors, well built fine marvels that are pushed to the limits on a proper road course.

However, I cannot deny the advantages of boost, as Im well familiar with it. With more stringent regulations and more people looking for more performance for less $, boost seems to be the way of the future. Why build an expensive precision motor (FC20, K20) when you can build a 1.6l boost bomb. Think about it, it will be cheaper to amass, it will get better mpg (something everybody is looking at these days), on boost it will make more hp and significantly more torque. Speaking of torque it can be made to make a mountain of torque in a wider powerband than any NA inline 4. Remeber kids, area under the curve is whats important. Upgrades? Look at the new Cobalt, a 600$ reflash and you gain 20hp and 60lb/ft. Thats just stupid. How to outpace the glorious sirens of ferrari engines? Boost a V6. It will get better mileage, be easier to fix, make the same horsepower and double the torque. Did I mention cheaper? By the way, BMW has vowed that all future M cars will rely on boost. And why not? Look at the immense success and potential of the 335.

And the big GM, death of a muscle car speculation. You know what they saying? Replace the flagship V8s with boosted 6s. Thats the way for the "muscle car" to survive.

Look at what porsche or whoever is doing with that new roadster thats been popping up everywhere for the last year. Its a diesel! I mean I still remember that turbo diesel VW bug GRM had in the gas miser issue. What did it make, 125hp and 450lb/ft or something absurd like that? "Hey bud, need help buldozing your driveway? Oh yeah? I'll get my bug, be right back..."

Dont get me started on the Evo/Sti war. Look as far as the nearest time trial event.

My only solace is that great NA mass produced motors seem to still be pumped out (K20, VQ, LS6). However I cannot ignore the momentum turbo motors have finally gained in North America...

Is this the death of the 9000rpm, 20lb/ft screamers?

Discuss.

I'm 20-something, and I believe in N/A for reliabilities sake whether it be for a DD or race car, IMHO a truely prepped N/A race engine will cost less for the owner to maintain or at least have a higher degree of reliability vs cost. If anything our boosted sky-high XR4Ti has taught my buddies and I that lesson. That's on a car that came boosted and overbuilt from the factory.

These newer cars that people 'build' up with boost I just shake my head at, because many of them don't cover all the nitty-gritty details of the build leading to spectacular failures, or multiple ridiculous repair jobs, even something as mundane as "oh ah you can't use non-forged rods on my high compression engine and 15psi? But I used Hondata and I'm not detonating" - Or - "Rod bolts? Why do I need new rod bolts with my forged pistons/rods, I can boost 500WHP on 1.8L no problem."

I'm not saying a properly boosted car can't be fun/fast/reliable, but if the engine didn't come boosted to begin with it's a helluva bigger job than putting together a N/A race motor and turning the key and it requires more work to get working right, and when things go wrong on a boosted engine, they usually go wrong bigger.

just my .02

Stock boosted motors (that are kept stock!) should NOT be compared to modified boosted motors. Period.

Bring on the factory turbos. :)

new factory turbo engines will be used to provide good fuel eff. while being able to give a kick in the pants when needed. Where is the downside?

I have no hands-on turbo experience yet and am collecting parts for my first build. I think the unreliable aspects of turbos come from people not spending the money and doing the research up front.

Regarding cost, it's all about desired power level. Let's say we have two identical 160hp engines. We want to produce 200hp, one via NA and the other turbo. The NA will be cheaper and more reliable, achieving its power via bolt-on parts and maybe some head porting.

Now let's say we want to reach 240hp and things are different. After the easy bolt-ons, getting a lot more of power from the NA gets very expensive, more head work, higher rpm, and higher compression. Assuming the turbo was built right to begin with, just turn up the boost.

If our power goals are even higher there's no question which way to go. If fact there's a thread right now of someone trying to achieve 300hp NA out of a Honda K24. As of now he's close, but the cost curve vs. power goes near vertical at the upper end of the spectrum and while he might make it, it's probably going to cost twice or three times what a turbo setup would have.

I'm convinced that high rpm is the real killer and not boost. Keep the factory rev limit and get a good tune and, past a modest limit, a turbo setup costs less and is more reliable than a 9500-rpm ear-bleeding loud NA engine that has to run on race gas due to running 13:1 compression.

I've had five cars with inline 4's, one TDi inline 4, one turbo 4, five inline sixes... but what I really want to own one day is a sweet, rumbling v8 - Mileage be damned.

Have fun rolling around in your S2000 at 8,000RPM in order to make ANY torque. That'll be awesome for fuel efficiency.

Bring on the 1500lb., 120HP 3 Cylinder turbo diesels.

The downside...

Go to any track event. Note that there are NA Porsches, BMWs, S2000s, etc reliably lapping the track all day. They stop for fuel and to rotate rubber occasionally. For years all I brought with me was an M3 and enough tools to swap pads and tires.

Count the turbo cars that litter the paddock. Guys are wandering around with grease up to their armpit - diddling laptops... everything but driving. From overheating 335s to 930Turbos with god only knows what kind of fuel delivery issue to Evos and WRXs with white smoke pouring out of the wrong end... they burn very brightly but not for very long.

poopshovel wrote: Have fun rolling around in your S2000 at 8,000RPM in order to make ANY torque. That'll be awesome for fuel efficiency.

What gets me is that in '04 a 6 speed LS1 GTO was rated at 29 Highway, while the S2000 was lower(25?).

neon4891 wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Have fun rolling around in your S2000 at 8,000RPM in order to make ANY torque. That'll be awesome for fuel efficiency.

What gets me is that in '04 a 6 speed LS1 GTO was rated at 29 Highway, while the S2000 was lower(25?).

Gearing. LS1 GTO has a real overdrive gear. S2000? not so much.

walterj wrote: The downside... Go to any track event. Note that there are NA Porsches, BMWs, S2000s, etc reliably lapping the track all day. They stop for fuel and to rotate rubber occasionally. For years all I brought with me was an M3 and enough tools to swap pads and tires. Count the turbo cars that litter the paddock. Guys are wandering around with grease up to their armpit - diddling laptops... everything but driving. From overheating 335s to 930Turbos with god only knows what kind of fuel delivery issue to Evos and WRXs with white smoke pouring out of the wrong end... they burn very brightly but not for very long.

That's what I was alluding to, if you want to race and or drive and not worry about mechanicals or tinkering, NA all the way, if you love tinkering as much as race/driving, FI FTMFW. My buddies and I are tinkerers (read engineers) so we don't mind the downtime, but after 'months-years' of downtime you start getting frustrated...

Well, the WRC is going to naturally aspirated engines shortly instead of turbos. That will probably spike a certain amount of interest in sucker engines amongst the younger enthusiasts that you view with such derision.

One thing to keep in mind - the guys who run on the track with turbos are often pushing the limits. Sometimes well, sometimes badly. But they've usually pushed their cars further than the naturally aspirated engines have, and they're dealing with running a 500 hp engine instead of a 240 hp one. How are the 500 hp modified naturally aspirated engines doing? Fact is, when you wander around the paddock looking for stuff like this, you'll see what you want to see. An unmodified turbo car will happily lap all day, just like an unmodified naturally aspirated one.

How many 9000 rpm engines have there ever been in four-wheeled applications? The S2000, the new Ferrari 599XX, the current M5...and that's about it. All of these were made in the past few years, so it's difficult to bemoan their disappearance.

I have three Miata engines in my garage. One is a high-rpm, high compression 1.6. One is a high-rpm, high compression bored and stroked 2.0. One has a $3295 Voodoo II turbo strapped on the side and is otherwise bone stock with 120,000 miles. The naturally aspirated ones were built because they were fun and/or because class rules required it. They're huge fun to drive, responsive and with a great noise. The turbo car is a do-anything car that gets taken on road trips and the track. The turbocharger is small and designed to be responsive.

But you know what's interesting? The turbo 1.6 makes almost exactly the same peak power as the 2.0, but doesn't have as much area under the curve. I'll get more power out of the 2.0 eventually - I'm still trying to get it sorted out. It doesn't idle very well and there are some odd bumps in the dyno curves. Meanwhile, the turbo car simply had the turbo bolted on and that's it.

I've run all three of these at the track, over and over and over and over. There's no difference in reliability or the fiddle factor. They just get up and run and do their job.

Now, the real difference: cost. As I mentioned the turbo car cost just over $3000. That's about the price of the crank in the 2.0, never mind pistons, valvetrain parts, head work, rods, engine management, a weird header, etc.

I'd love to know just what sort of turbo setup the original poster had on the Miata, and what went on with it. Having to get a second job to keep the car running is definitely not right. We took three Miatas (or Miata-engined) cars to the big Laguna event a couple of weeks ago. One supercharged, one turbocharged and that 2.0. All three cars ran for two days solid without any fiddling required.

Well said, Keith.

I agree with Keith, the more you push the engine past its original intents the more problems you'll have, turbo or na. It is easier to push a turbo car past that point. Look at my DD, its a 2000 A6 2.7T quattro. I could go spend $600 for a reflash of my ecu and gain somthing like 68 hp and 132 ft-lbs, but with a 141K miles and counting I'm not willing to go that route just yet. At least not on the original turbos.

kb58 wrote: I have no hands-on turbo experience yet and am collecting parts for my first build. I think the unreliable aspects of turbos come from people not spending the money and doing the research up front.

This sums up my opinion.

Keith you forgot about the RX-8 turning 9,000rpm. Wheres the rotary love?

See you at the Mitty again this year. I am hoping my motor makes power up close to 9,000 after the DIYAutoTune guys put in the MegaSquirt.

nderwater wrote: I've had five cars with inline 4's, one TDi inline 4, one turbo 4, five inline sixes... but what I really want to own one day is a sweet, rumbling v8 - Mileage be damned.

I love my turbo Civic. I loved my CRX. My WRX doesn't suck. Still, this years challenge car is to be powered by 8 cylinders of boner producing SBC. Maybe with zoomies.

Greg Voth wrote: Keith you forgot about the RX-8 turning 9,000rpm. Wheres the rotary love? See you at the Mitty again this year. I am hoping my motor makes power up close to 9,000 after the DIYAutoTune guys put in the MegaSquirt.

D'oh! I fall on my sword! Sorry, rotorheads.

Speaking of 9k revving... I never had issue revving my stock Integra Type R motor to 9k on track all day long. Stock 1.8l block with lots of bolt ons.

I track a turbo car now. It really just gets down to doing things right and planning it out. As is required on NA also.

I've had several turbos engines. Most easily broken down thusly:

Chrysler. Oversized and oil cooled. These have tremendous lag, very minor boost, and coke themselves to death in rather short order. They are everything you do not want in a turbocharger, attached to an engine totally not ready for it.

Volvo. Small, water cooled, intercooler. Oh, lala! These last forever because of the water cooling. Strong hoses that don't rupture. An intercooler to make it work real well. Yes, turbo lag is still there.

I would avoid the heck out of an oil cooled turbocharger, but I'd embrace a watercooled one in a heartbeat, mounted on an engine properly engineered for it.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST

Having owned turbocharged cars from day one, I can't live without the torque. Having said that, I love screamers as well. The civork was a blast. Since I deal/work around alot of VAG products now, they tend to be boosted examples. Coolest thing I've ever heard was a '69 Z/28 turning 8K = ear orgasm. He launched it at 7K with mickey thompson slicks on the back once (wicked cool), and it was an original cross-ram car, nothing done to it but restored.

I can't say which ones I like more turbo's or N/A. I have had my SAAB 9000 Turbo for the past 3 years and absolutely love it, gobs of torque, wonderful midrange and power anywhere below redline, it's been wonderfully reliable, no turbo issues on the 230k original turbo. I also had a '90 300ZX N/A model, both it and the SAAB make about the same power and I can't say I enjoyed either one more. The 300Z was also a great stump puller, it had injector woes though and was pretty thirsty (22mpg if I babied it) and required premium fuel to make the same HP my 2.3t 4cyl makes on regular pump gas and it gets 30mpg, sorry to say the V engines are just not as cost effective in the long run and maintenance wise.

Also the fact you have to have almost double of everything on a V engine (camshafts, manifolds, heads, ..ect) for car manufacturers the straight 4 just makes more sense.

One day when we get engines to be made of polymers, run on Co2, getting 100mpg and make 200hp per liter the V might make a comeback.. maybe.

walterj wrote: The downside... Go to any track event. Note that there are NA Porsches, BMWs, S2000s, etc reliably lapping the track all day. They stop for fuel and to rotate rubber occasionally. For years all I brought with me was an M3 and enough tools to swap pads and tires. Count the turbo cars that litter the paddock. Guys are wandering around with grease up to their armpit - diddling laptops... everything but driving. From overheating 335s to 930Turbos with god only knows what kind of fuel delivery issue to Evos and WRXs with white smoke pouring out of the wrong end... they burn very brightly but not for very long.

This has been my experience as well.

The miata was a custom turbo set-up. A long evolution of an original Greddy. Custom intercooling and exhaust work. Emanage blue. The only thing remained from the original kit was the manifold, which was crap but held fine. I bought a boat load of troubles. The car seemed well sorted (oil coolers, rebuilt diff, nice wiring, lots of details) but the first time I ran it hard it broke. This proceeded to happen every time after that, a new thing would go wrong almost every session. I chalk it up to bad luck, and a lemon tuner car.

Some food for thought:

1. Best Motoring (a Japanese video mag, had a couple 20 minute enduros). The first time out, the 95 ITR won. Almost everybody overheated or had to slow down (they had to maintain a certain oil temp...150?). The last one I watched...all the NA cars were overheating before the Evo8 and Sti. This includes the e46 M3 and NSX. I know its about building it right, and I have seen well built set ups that run all day long. I find usually they blow up and the issue is tuning 50% of the time. The other 50% is overheating, melting and breaking.

2. I know of many turbo miatas running trackdays all day long. Correct me if Im wrong Keith, but the stock radiator and cooling systems are not sufficient (the older cars also benefit from the coolant reroute). I know most turbo guys dont track their cars, and the boost here and there is fine. I cant speak for the excellent FM kits. I know a local engineer built a kit, he told me his car wont last a 20 minute lapping session.

3. Im a firm believer in adding power last. The s2000 CR runs Hondas personal test circuit 2 seconds faster. The engineers said to achieve the same result an s2000 would need an extra 50hp. I would much rather work with shocks, alignment and tires than engines, clutches. However, you have great shocks, big brakes, wide tires and stiff as a rock, then add more power. But do it properly.

4. The turbo market has developed immensely with the injection from JDM land. I mean you can do crazy things. I know of a guy who has a built civic. He has 2 turbos, 1 for the street, 1 for the track. Can change it out in less than 30 minutes. Then there is the guys who have different turbos depending on how big the track is. It is also pretty amazing to have the ability of HP on a dial. Take the car to the track, run 118 octane, turn up the boost, voila +100hp. Things like launch control, no lift shift, dual stage boost are all more and more affordable every day.

5. Lastly, we all know that 240 boosted hp is VERY different from 180 NA hp. Horse power is horse power but there are differences. I like the having my foot to the floor as long as I can. Its a different feeling.

rwdsport wrote: The miata was a custom turbo set-up. A long evolution of an original Greddy.

I'll simply say that it is possible to have a reliable turbo Miata. The GReddy kits are dependent upon the engineering ability, the attention to detail and the knowledge of the owner. And since they were aimed at the bottom of the market, they didn't always get the best of those three attributes.

rwdsport wrote: 2. I know of many turbo miatas running trackdays all day long. Correct me if Im wrong Keith, but the stock radiator and cooling systems are not sufficient (the older cars also benefit from the coolant reroute). I know most turbo guys dont track their cars, and the boost here and there is fine. I cant speak for the excellent FM kits. I know a local engineer built a kit, he told me his car wont last a 20 minute lapping session.

All Miatas can benefit from a cooling reroute. The Miata cooling system was designed to handle an engine making 90 whp originally, climbing up to around 150 in the ultimate incarnation. Even then, they can run hot on track. Spec Miata racers run cooling upgrades on their "stock" motors. So it's not surprising that if you double the horsepower, you are going to have to do something to deal with the extra heat. It doesn't matter how you double the horsepower, you're going to make a bunch more heat. Adding an intercooler in front of the radiator certainly doesn't help things. AC condensers are a problem as well. Cooling is one area that we're working hardest on at FM right now.

rwdsport wrote: 3. Im a firm believer in adding power last. The s2000 CR runs Hondas personal test circuit 2 seconds faster. The engineers said to achieve the same result an s2000 would need an extra 50hp. I would much rather work with shocks, alignment and tires than engines, clutches. However, you have great shocks, big brakes, wide tires and stiff as a rock, then add more power. But do it properly.

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand, but a good way to approach things.

rwdsport wrote: 5. Lastly, we all know that 240 boosted hp is VERY different from 180 NA hp. Horse power is horse power but there are differences. I like the having my foot to the floor as long as I can. Its a different feeling.

Well, first of all, there's more of it :) But I understand exactly what you mean. It's that old "it's more fun to drive a slow car fast" thing, and the feel of an engine pulling hard is fun, even if it's not pulling as hard as one with 50% more horsepower will.

I suspect your "problem" with boosted engines has to do with a particular stereotype. You seem to have a particular demographic in mind - someone who takes an otherwise-stock car and rams too much boost into it without much attention to detail, then expects it to survive on track. Someone young, possibly with their baseball cap installed incorrectly. Your comment about adding suspension first seems to point in that direction. It's not that hard to build a solid, very fast car using boost. Unfortunately, it's easier not to.

And by the way, the innovation in forced induction in the Miata world is not coming from the JDM market. Can't say about Civics.

just for fun...

a cummins bus engine( most abused application there is aside from trash trucks) is warrantied for 300,000 miles, turbo as well.

hmmm