Biggest factor that people who worship numbers on the paper ignore are "torque multiplication from gearing and axle ratio" and "low mass inertia" as well as "horsepower and torque cross over point at 5252 rpm".
I am sick of ignorant people parading torque numbers on paper "oh the paper says 370 ft-lbs of torque". Get this in your head. All on their own, they don't mean squat since wheel torque is far more dependent on torque multiplication through gears than it is on crank torque figures.
Both torque multiplication and low mass inertia are factors associated with high-revving engines and telepathic throttle response and eager, hyper-alert senses from the car.
Due to low-revving turbo engines having only 7000 rpm redlines, short final drive and short gears are impossible since their acceleration and top speed suffers so they MUST get tall gearing making the car have a "lazy" character.
Due to the high low end torque numbers, the car's internal inertia including flywheel must be made heavy and willing to withstand the thick midrange crank torque making the car slow revving to redline while high revving cars are essentially the opposite where they must have low mass inertia to rev quickly to redline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aajami
By all means. There are many reasons why I would never choose a forced induction engine over a naturally engine. Some of those reasons make for a stronger argument than others, but they're valid all the same. They are:
- Power delivery: I love the very linear and progressive torque curve of an NA engine. I've driven several turbo cars, and they all lag in the low end, give you a shot of power in the middle, and then sputter up high. Some cars are better at flattening out this curve than others, but all of them have this (horrible) characteristic.
- Engine speed: Turbos typically suffer from lower redlines than NA engines, and having a wide power band to play with is important to me. Nothing beats the feel of a high-revving, free-breathing NA engine that instantly responds to your throttle input.
- Reliability: Turbos have more moving parts, which means more opportunity for things to fail. Turbos put a lot of stress on an engine, and some require that you idle the car before turning it off so that the turbo can be properly cooled. No thank you.
- Sound: Turbo engines typically don't sound as aggressive as NA engines, and that's an important factor for me. Turbos tend to suppress the sound of their exhaust gasses, and all you get is a muffled and whiney mess.
I appreciate the work that BMW is doing to make turbo engines like the modified N54 in the 1M behave more like naturally aspirated motors, but ultimately it's still a forced induction engine that will suffer from all of the characteristics I list above. After spending 8 years behind an F20C, and 2 years (and going) behind an S65, I don't intend to change my driving (or purchasing) habits.
No NA, no sale. |