Torque Cars chat forums - View Single Post

HDi fun · 11-03-2008, 05:17 PM

It's probably down to the engine being smaller, therefore lighter and with less internal friction. The car is also likely to be lighter as well. I do think that the gap would close quite a lot if you drive the arse off two similarly powered and weighted cars, even with a 2.0 four Turvo against a NATASP 3.0 V6. Ultimately, you've got to burn fuel to generate torque and therefore power.

I suppose if you really can afford a 6 litre V8 then fuel economy is not likely to be a problem. Hence they're not fitting quad turbo four cylinder units in their place.

I know VW has an interesting 1368cc unit at the moment. Petrol FSI unit with a supercharger and a turbocharger. Allegedly good for 168bhp...

Not driven one, so can't comment

11-03-2008, 05:17 PM	#6 (permalink)
HDi fun Moderator Torque Junkie Car: Peugeot 406 Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: SOUTH EAST Posts: 2,088	Re: turbo vs nasp engine sizes It's probably down to the engine being smaller, therefore lighter and with less internal friction. The car is also likely to be lighter as well. I do think that the gap would close quite a lot if you drive the arse off two similarly powered and weighted cars, even with a 2.0 four Turvo against a NATASP 3.0 V6. Ultimately, you've got to burn fuel to generate torque and therefore power. I suppose if you really can afford a 6 litre V8 then fuel economy is not likely to be a problem. Hence they're not fitting quad turbo four cylinder units in their place. I know VW has an interesting 1368cc unit at the moment. Petrol FSI unit with a supercharger and a turbocharger. Allegedly good for 168bhp... Not driven one, so can't comment