k so heres a place for discussion / debate on preferred engine setup.
i personally lean more towards single turbo set ups . for the obvious instant power gain of boost . but with out the general worries / limitations alot of TT setups tend come with .
I voted NA for a few reasons.
#1 simplicity
#2 strength
#3 reliability
#3 responsiveness
Sure you might not make as much power as a turbo charged motor, but the power you DO make is much more usable. It is available at a broader range of the RPM range, and the power is more instaneous with no lag. Responsiveness is key for alot of motorsports and for a general good feeling daily sports car.
i agree with osad but to stick a pair of twins under the hood is wayy too much fun
I agree with Dan. NA engines are the most practical, responsive and reliable. However, modern turbo setups can have boost lag almost eliminated with tuning or ball bearings. And on the track, it becomes clear that NA cars cannot keep up with turbos.
As for larger turbos that lack low range power; theoretically, if one was pushing the car hard; other than the initial holeshot there should be no reason the car ever drops into the low RPMs.
Personally though i’m torn between NAs and boost. Nothing beats the sound of ITBs but i’ve had my boost virginity broken and i loved it.
That’s why you should go to the other form of “forced induction”. Pete knows what I’m talking about 
To respond to what Cal said about trubo vs NA on the track;
I was in attendance at Mark’s second track day. There were all kinds of cars there. There was a fully built and track prepped 400hp FD there, aswell as a stock integra with an LSD, and a COMPLETELY 100% stock driving school corolla, and everything in between.
The FASTEST times put down were around the 1:13-1:14 mark by the RX7. However, the bone stock corolla and integra were putting down 1:15 and 1:16 if I remember correctly. If you compare the times in terms of power with a handicap system on, the RX7 was one of the slowest cars on the track…
It’s all driver. Suspension, brakes, and tires do the most in terms of modification.
When i said that turbo would beat an NA around a track i was saying that with the assumption that mall other variables would be held as constants.
If you look at most Pro or semi pro gt circuits i can garuntee that 9/10 cars will be FIed
Fair enough. All I’m saying is if a handicap was held, the NA cars would dominate.
Fair argument on both sides. I’ll agree to disagree 
mmk its obvious that out of the box a turbo set up will generally be faster … thats just kids stuff, Now if thats the case what will you N/A guys do to compete with the boosted community ???
if your talking about big turbos and huge lag, you can always go supercharged for low end boost and a big turbo for the high rpm stuff…and yes it could be done…if money is not a option. like here, a twin charged Opel Manta, super and turbo.
TWINCHARGE FTW, low rpm response, high rpm power
thanks tips .
hmm twin charging is baller , but to many potential problems could arise (foreseen and un foreseen) for my liking . just roll with a TT setup with one larger then the other . thats what my ex did in her 4G63 got it all set up drooped it into an old lancer just to get some numbers… and for just a random project that stemmed from a extra turbo laying around it was producing sum good numbers , putting down some where in the range of 436bhp with the stock ecu .
I was laying my point out wrong. I think I can do better.
It depends on the technicality of a chosen track, however, with a very tight, complicated track the presence of a turbo won’t be useful, because like it or not taking a 30km/h turn in full boost will take you off the track. So reliance your entire, more specifically lower RPM range to get through those turns and be able to get out of them properly once past the clipping point and acelerate in that lower RPM range. A turbo’d car with EVEN a 3-4k start of boost will lose to an NA at the same corner.
I hope that spells out my point better, whether I’m right or wrong, I just wanted to get my point across.
Of course I’ll get counter arguments with tracks that are longer and less technical, more straights and wider turns… So a happy medium would be small, low RPM spooling turbos, or a supercharger. However, mashing the throttle on corner exit will take you past the runners on a S/C setup, so driver skill takes over there.
Twin Turbo… Free Horspower.
Small Twin turbos = better response, less turbo lag
BB turbos mean business. Twin GT28RS with a smaller resized turbine housing A/R = better boost response on motors 3L and Less.
Not unlikely to see full boost by a touch over 2500RPM
I hit full boost at 4000rpm. damn I need an upgrade.
ok lets set a baseline here of a set of cars all with equal HP
lets say 240 hatch as the info is readily available.
pick any mtor combo as long as they all have the same base motor and final HP #'s
here is mine to start with for all fairness and equality and good example…
so you have a
1440kg car and 350 Wheel Horse Power
lets say ka24de…why …i dunno who cares
350 WHP N.A. VS 350 WHP small turbo (2.5krpm) VS 350 WHP TT VS 350 WHP S/C VS 350 WHP Big Turbo (3.5krpm)
in the quarter mile they should all perform the same final time etc…
but its not true.
no style of racing is the same…so now lets see the opinions fly…
imho
NA for the best torque HP combination and further upgradeability at a later date.
S/C for the street and reliable power at any rpm and less wear and tear on the motor.
Turbo for cheapskates who want bang for their buck and all reliability be damned…(usually true)
TT for biggest bang at the lowest sacraficial HP (efficiency loss).
…why???..
an NA motor with 350 WHP
-will perform really well under any circumstance with less environmental interference.
-very reliable HP #'s and you can add F/I later for almost no cost…
-if you go all motor your actual redline will be higher than a basic turbo setup and you will have HP gains at an earlier time in the rpm band
but…
-the initial build is not cheap
-you have very little tuneability as to where in the curve and band the power will be made.
-if you go all motor your actual redline will be higher than a basic turbo setup and you will have HP gains at an earlier time in the rpm band, but those #'s or curves can be wrong for the transmission setup and track and racing style being performed.
S/C
-OEM power band shape but higher #'s…(imagine moving the graph lines down)
-superior reliaility to all other setups as the motor is running a prgressive pressure increase that follows the crank RPM’s not the flow characteristics
-better power at lower RPM’s than the other setups (good for drift in tight tracks)
-better gas mileage than even OE NA…yes better!
-most commonly factory warrantee approved form of upgrade (TRD and SVT)
…BUT…
power is very costly(inefficient)…lose 30 hp for every 100 hp gained so you need higher cylinder pressure to develop the same 350WHP as the NA or any turbo setups.
Turbo…any,
-cheap parts
-easy install / tune etc
-readily available parts
- first and most common F/I upgrade…so lots of data available
90% efficiency in power gains (most cars cost 5-10 hp for every 100 hp gained)
…but…
-hard on the motor
-hp is usually spikey / not a long slight hill like NA
-lag
-tubo timer and probably seperate oil system should be used on all turbo setups
-badly effected by weather and barometric pressure…(more easily seen)
-streetability is most often reduced as the turbo increases the pitch of the HP curve after engagement and full spooling.
-reduced gas mileage
just my .02
absolutely agree you posted this while i was posting my long winded responce of hte same thing…but a little more in depth…a la long winded
but I want everyone to call it out as they know it
calling out that your ttsupra does this when your all motor carolla does that is silly
he wants an optinion i’d like to see them done with a more apple’s to apple’s comparison…
same car, same motor, built differently.
yeah exactly THOUGH some ppl just bolt on a turbo and go , most take the time and effort and make a T car and not just a N/A +T kind of thing lol … but
i like what kazz is saying abotu comparing things.
k heres the specs on the R32 GTS vs GTS-T.
(GTS and GTS-T are the some car with the same motor but the GST-T is turboed -off the line - and yeah)
GTS :
Engine RB20DE EFI duel overhead cam, 24-valve, in-line 6
Displacement 1998 cc
Max. Power; kW/bhp 116/155 @6400rpm
Max. Torque; 19 kgf·m@5600rpm
GTS-T :
Engine RB20DET EFI duel overhead cam,24-valve, in-line 6, Turbocharged
Displacement 1998 cc
Compression Ratio 8.5:1
Max. Power; kW/bhp 160/214 @ 6400 rpm
Max. Torque; 27.0 kgf·m@ 3200 rpm
I’m intrigues to know what the CR is on the RB20DE in comparison to the RB20DET, you neglected to list that, or copy and paste it 