Is forced induction like an athlete on steroids?

LarThaL · 10-13-2011, 07:35 AM

With the next gen M3 going turbo, it got me thinking about this subject.

A highly tuned and meticulously engineered normally aspirated V8 is like an athlete who has trained diligently, watched his or her nutrition, and basically done everything "right" to achieve a high level of performance.

Now along comes the steroid user, who doesn't require anywhere close to the same amount of training discipline or dedication. Just inject a little juice and "bam", you can kick the ass of the "natural" athlete.

And yet, there is just something more pure and artful in the way the natural athlete achieves what he or she does.

It is really the same with car engines. There is just something more artful, purposeful and meaningful, in my mind, about a highly engineered naturally aspirated motor. I am not disputing the ease by which FI can give you big power, but there is something eerily unnatural about how the power delivery feels. I don't know how else to describe it. There is a disconnect between the throttle-engine response that isn't there with the NA motor.

There are a few holdouts in the Automotive world, but they are tending to be more the exotics. Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston, are all still NA and have no intention of going FI.

Discuss.......

jqsmooth · 10-13-2011, 08:01 AM

I like the analogy!

Daft · 10-13-2011, 08:04 AM

You can always add boost the S65 and get the best of both worlds

Zba · 10-13-2011, 08:41 AM

In your analogy, I tend to think of a high strung NA engine as a highly focused/trained athlete who's sole purpose is the 500m (solely referring to the engine here, not chassis/brakes etc) where as a turbocharged engine is more like a decathlete who is more flexible when asked to compete in multiple events says "sure".

Lets not forget that just because a turbo is "cheating" that does not mean it is not highly engineered.

Based on your signature, did you test drive a Cayenne Turbo and the GTS before buying the GTS? There is no denying the GTS's torquey V8, but for torque and sheer sensation of speed, the turbo can't be beat.

MR///M3 · 10-13-2011, 10:18 AM

does this mean that my M3 was destined for me (being a Division 1 400m runner)?

I do like that analogy though. I have a 335i now as well and the throttle response is sh*t even though everyone says it isn't bad.

Nandrega · 10-13-2011, 10:39 AM

Interesting analogy, but I don't fully agree. I think with steroids, there is an inherent sense of flat out cheating in a competitive sport, whereas FI is moreso just a different branch of technology, or exercise if you will. That is to say, I don't find anything inherently wrong with the idea of FI itself. I doubt anyone thinks a FI Accord is 'cheating', but there is a sentimental value amongst M3 owners that cries foul should the same be applied to their beloved M3's. I think BMW did a great job with the 335i engine, (HPFP / Roid Rage issues aside). The S65 is just as marvelous, but in a different way. Obviously these two engines serve a different purpose.

With the M3 going turbo, it just seems like BMW is responding to their market as well as their competition. I'm sure MPG has been a common complaint, and turbo is just their best option to respond to that. In the end, I wouldn't look at it like Ken Griffey Jr vs Mark McGuire, but Jack Nicklaus vs Tiger Woods. Difference being, Jack had to play with what he could at the time, and Tiger has access to technology Jack couldn't dream of, and that Tiger would be foolish to turn down.

Erhan · 10-13-2011, 10:41 AM

Not a bad analogy, but I always looked at Superchargers as making NA even better. I don't like Turbochargers much, but they have their advantages like better economy, more power at lower rpms (due to more torque) etc.

I wish BMW used SC for future M cars instead of being cheap and going all turbo...

JCtx · 10-13-2011, 10:52 AM

I think it's the perfect analogy for the S65. That engine was NEVER designed for boost. Boost significantly decreases engine longevity, just like steroids do to life. There'll never be concrete proof (on either case) some folks look for, but the sheer number of failed boosted engines so far is more than enough to prove that point

. Heck, these engines seem to be marginal (main bearings mostly) even without boost

. Good day gang.

JustMpwrd · 10-13-2011, 11:01 AM

I never thought of engines that way, but it's an interesting comparison. I don't see turbos or FI as "cheating", though. Those aspects of engine design are merely technologies that increase performance in one aspect at some expense in others. FI is an advancement that lets you get more horsepower and torque from a smaller displacement engine.

To continue the athlete analogy, I see it less as steroids than as a different training technique, nutrition protocol, or equipment. It's the interval training versus high yardage in 70's swimming, the high protein versus high carbs, and the high tech racing suit versus a conventional speedo (can you tell I'm a swimmer haha).

Yeah, it doesn't make everything better. In fact, it makes some things worse, but performance and regulatatory trends are leading companies that way.

As FI is more complex from an engineering perspective, it actually takes more work to get everything out of the engine than it would in an N/A unit. It just so happens that the engine has greater power, torque, and economy potential due to the additions.

That said, there's something wonderful about a motor that's been designed and tuned to get maximum performance without adding complexity or making compromises. I got my M3 in part because I wanted to get one of the last great engines made almost strictly for performance before environmental concerns changed the industry. I'll be enjoying my N/A S65 as long as I can.