



2013 Nissan 370Z

Source: Motor Trend

Comments     Threshold


Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By chillingrsx on 8/27/2013 12:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe this is true with turbo have better gas mileage than the non turbo. If you look at the Acura RDX, it was the coolest thing ever when it first came out. A turbo 4 bangers CUV. It didn't do so well. So what did Honda do, switch it up a v6 and it's selling like hot cakes. I know because I own one. I did test drove the turbo and boy it was day and night difference. The v6 is more refine. Guess what, the v6 still have better gas mileage.

RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By Pneumothorax on 8/27/2013 1:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, many of these forced-induction direct injection 4-bangers have great EPA numbers on paper, but in RL barely get 1-2MPG better than their V6 forebears. They also add a ton of complexity with the addition of turbos/HPFP along with worse NVH.

RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By lagomorpha on 8/27/2013 1:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of the reduced efficiency comes from forced-induction engines requiring lower compression ratios. It wouldn't be a problem if GM had not killed off Saab's variable compression ratio research just before it was ready for production.

RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2013 6:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
You sure, I think you can put a 6psi turbo on any factory engine. When you start getting into 12psi turbos the engine has to be designed all the way around for the turbo. I'm pretty sure ecoboost engines are lightly boosted, don't know what they will do for the Z a 12psi turbo would be a lot more fun.

RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By UnauthorisedAccess on 8/27/2013 9:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
It has a lot to do with the engines compression. Secondly, you need to have the injectors/fuel pump able to supply the increase in fuel and thirdly the ECU mapped accordingly.

You cannot just bolt on a turbo running 6 PSI and have a bunch of extra horsepower without risk. Some engines this might be possible if you start using a higher octane fuel, though some engines the ECU might not cope with the change.

If you've got a high compression engine (11:1 etc) then you'll be riding the fine line of detonation even with low PSI.

In my experience and imho, you either by an engine that is turbo or you leave it NA. Don't turbo an NA engine unless you're doing a full house rebuild.

RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By lagomorpha on 8/28/2013 8:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
It really depends on the engine. If you've got something that's already pretty solidly built and has pretty big injectors but has a high compression ratio (for example a Hayabusa engine) then you can usually get away with just installing a thicker headgasket to reduce the compression ratio and you can use a turbo without knocking. On the other hand if you feel like installing a turbo in a Hayabusa you might consider seeing a psychologist.

RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By 91TTZ on 8/28/2013 5:08:24 PM , Rating: 2

I agree with you. The turbo engines usually have several subtle differences to increase reliability. Differences between the NA Z engine and the TT engine:

1. The TT has a lower compression ratio.
2. The NA Z has stainless steel exhaust valves while the TT version has inconel exhaust valves to withstand the higher exhaust temperature
3. The turbo version has different pistons with holes on the bottom for oil squirters to cool the bottom of the pistons
4. The oil squirters are different.
5. The fuel pump is larger to flow more fuel. This isn't on the engine but you'll need it.
6. The ECU is different and uses fuel maps that go beyond vacuum-0 psi.

RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2013 1:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
It really depends how you drive, if you have a lead foot they do about the same but if you drive more mileage the turbo does better. When you are just humming along the turbo isn't really spooled up where a V8 always has the drag of a huge engine.

