Turbo vs Atmospheric engine race track

[Noah Prandtl]

Compare turbo vs atmospheric engine at race track if both have same horsepower.
-throttle response
-accelaration
-efficiency / fuel consumtion
-lap time (most important parameter)

My logic is that turbo has allways better power/weight ratio, that mean turbo-car will be lighter so it will allways have better lap time then atmospheric car.
example V8 3.5 nautral is far havier than 2.0 turbo..

Do you agree?

[Jolle]

There are more variables such as weight, what kind of car, what kind of engines etc.
In general a turbo engine has the upper hand regarding:
- weight
- usable powerband
- efficiency
- durability
- cost
- flexibility

NA engines have the upper hand in:
- smoothness (no turbo lag)

Electric engines have even smoother delivery, that’s why the combination of a turbo engine with an electric motor is so good.

[Noah Prandtl]

There are more variables such as weight, what kind of car, what kind of engines etc.
In general a turbo engine has the upper hand regarding:
- weight
- usable powerband
- efficiency
- durability
- cost
- flexibility

NA engines have the upper hand in:
- smoothness (no turbo lag)

Electric engines have even smoother delivery, that’s why the combination of a turbo engine with an electric motor is so good.

I am compare two identical cars just with different engines.

I think weight is key,that makes difference, so turbo-car will has better lap time.
But I think turbo lag is not important in racing because you are at high RPM(optimal) all the time.

BUT if weight of car must be same -like in F1,then probably F1-NA will win over F1-turbo,because of smaller inertia of rotating parts inside engine.
Do you agree?

[ENGINE TUNER]

1988 the Turbo motors were both fuel and boost limited, na cars had unlimited fuel. Turbo cars won every single race.

Turbo cars have an advantage over the entire rev range, even if peak power is the same.

Turbo lag is almost a thing of the past.

The na motor is dead, hasn't been competitive since 1980, forced induction killed it.

[Zynerji]

I think that the thermal efficiency of a well tuned turbo engine will always beat that of a larger NA engine. That allows less fuel, and far fewer moving parts, so weight savings as well as production cost/reliability.

The sound difference, tho, is a huge game changer when you add in the term "spectacle" to the output product expectations...

[jjn9128]

Lag is an ever-present issue with turbo race cars, F1 just has a big electric motor to spool it up and fill in the lower RPM power gap. There are inherent advantages and disadvantages to both, turbos come with intercoolers which increase weight and cooling drag, that weight is also higher up which is a detriment to laptime. If you go back to the 80s when turbo cars ran alongside NA cars the pattern would generally be - NA faster in corners (less weight, better COG, easier packaging, easier on tyres) with the turbos blasting past on the straights (more power overcoming the losses).

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that turbo engines are cheaper/lighter/more durable. It'd be cheaper for F1 to go with a NA 2.5-3li V8 revving to 12-15k made by Cowsorth/AER/Gibson/Judd or someone.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I think that the thermal efficiency of a well tuned turbo engine will always beat that of a larger NA engine. That allows less fuel, and far fewer moving parts, so weight savings as well as production cost/reliability.

The sound difference, tho, is a huge game changer when you add in the term "spectacle" to the output product expectations...

The increased thermal efficiency also allows much smaller radiators as we have seen throughout the turbo hybrid era.

[Jolle]

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that turbo engines are cheaper/lighter/more durable. It'd be cheaper for F1 to go with a NA 2.5-3li V8 revving to 12-15k made by Cowsorth/AER/Gibson/Judd or someone.

A 12-15k 2.5 would make around 500 HP if you want to race it for let’s say 7 races without rebuilding? You can do the same with a production 2.0T. Not even half the cost.

For NA you need revs, revs are expensive. With a turbo you just need a bigger turbo, revs and capacity are relatively unimportant.

If you want to make your engine more durable? Lower rpm and stick a turbo on it. Want to make it more efficient? Cut the engine in half and stick a turbo on it. Cheaper? Take a old sturdy design, stick a turbo on it, etc etc.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Lag is an ever-present issue with turbo race cars, F1 just has a big electric motor to spool it up and fill in the lower RPM power gap. There are inherent advantages and disadvantages to both, turbos come with intercoolers which increase weight and cooling drag, that weight is also higher up which is a detriment to laptime. If you go back to the 80s when turbo cars ran alongside NA cars the pattern would generally be - NA faster in corners (less weight, better COG, easier packaging, easier on tyres) with the turbos blasting past on the straights (more power overcoming the losses).

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that turbo engines are cheaper/lighter/more durable. It'd be cheaper for F1 to go with a NA 2.5-3li V8 revving to 12-15k made by Cowsorth/AER/Gibson/Judd or someone.

Lag is no longer an issue for street or race turbo cars. Properly sized, more efficient turbos have effectively eliminated lag problems even without electrical help.

Intercoolers are almost as light as air, well air to air intercoolers are. The cooling drag of turbo cars are lower than na cars even with the added intercooler due to higher thermal efficiency.

[Zynerji]

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that turbo engines are cheaper/lighter/more durable. It'd be cheaper for F1 to go with a NA 2.5-3li V8 revving to 12-15k made by Cowsorth/AER/Gibson/Judd or someone.

A 12-15k 2.5 would make around 500 HP if you want to race it for let’s say 7 races without rebuilding? You can do the same with a production 2.0T. Not even half the cost.

For NA you need revs, revs are expensive. With a turbo you just need a bigger turbo, revs and capacity are relatively unimportant.

If you want to make your engine more durable? Lower rpm and stick a turbo on it. Want to make it more efficient? Cut the engine in half and stick a turbo on it. Cheaper? Take a old sturdy design, stick a turbo on it, etc etc.

Its almost like you are advocating for small 2 stroke turbo diesels...

I think, in the end, it comes down to wasting the exhaust energy, or reclaiming it. Its just too inefficient to throw half of the energy of combustion away by ejecting it out the tailpipe, and draggy radiators.

[Noah Prandtl]

Lag is an ever-present issue with turbo race cars, F1 just has a big electric motor to spool it up and fill in the lower RPM power gap. There are inherent advantages and disadvantages to both, turbos come with intercoolers which increase weight and cooling drag, that weight is also higher up which is a detriment to laptime. If you go back to the 80s when turbo cars ran alongside NA cars the pattern would generally be - NA faster in corners (less weight, better COG, easier packaging, easier on tyres) with the turbos blasting past on the straights (more power overcoming the losses).

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that turbo engines are cheaper/lighter/more durable. It'd be cheaper for F1 to go with a NA 2.5-3li V8 revving to 12-15k made by Cowsorth/AER/Gibson/Judd or someone.

How do you mean turbo engines are not lighter and more durable?
Turbo engine has better power/weight ratio, it is well known fact.

Also turbo engine is more durable becuase high RPM increase enigne wear rapidly.
All durable engines are slow RPM-engines..

http://www.autoracing1.com/pdfs/2003/turbo.pdf

[Noah Prandtl]

1988 the Turbo motors were both fuel and boost limited, na cars had unlimited fuel. Turbo cars won every single race.

Why turbo won every race,does it have more HP than NA engines?

[Jolle]

I think it’s fair to say that designers/engineers etc prefer turbo engines and drivers NA engines. That’s why there will always be an argument for one or the other.

[Noah Prandtl]

I think it’s fair to say that designers/engineers etc prefer turbo engines and drivers NA engines. That’s why there will always be an argument for one or the other.

I dont think drivers prefers NA,but fans do,it has much better sound!

[Just_a_fan]

I think it’s fair to say that designers/engineers etc prefer turbo engines and drivers NA engines. That’s why there will always be an argument for one or the other.

Drivers care only about what the response to the throttle pedal is. If, and it's a big if, you can get a turbo engine to respond to the throttle, then it's "bang per buck" far out weighs a NA unit. Add in electrical power to the turbo and you have all the throttle response you might want - "torque fill" as the marketing types might describe it.