Came from a VRT to a 2.5 lol sucks.
I think the answer for me is no.
Having that low-end torque is becoming a requirement for me since brisk city driving is what I do the most. Going from a turbo to a supercharger has been pretty fun since I don't have to wait till 4k RPMs yet don't have to deal with the lag either. Win win.
Former Rides: 2007 GTI Stage II+ | 1979 Fiat 2000 Spider | 2001 Focus ZX3
Well, I have 2 turbo charged cars.
My 2000 GTI has a tiny turbo, and even with the stage II software and supporting hardware, it has very little top end power. Don't get me wrong, it's great for booting around town, as it spools pretty quickly and delivers relatively instant torque. But it just doesn't 'wow' me.
My 93 Jetta, ABA-T with a t3/t04e, on the other hand, is a different beast. It doesn't spool until 4k rpms, but when it does, it goes like stink, and pulls hard to redline. Not great for a daily driver, but hilarious when it spools.
Now, to compare either of these two to my previous car, a 95 Passat, with the Vr6 ... it's a different feeling. The Vr6 was torquey enough to make me laugh. But, it delivered instant power. So, to compare that to the GTI with the k03, I'd rather have the Vr6, but compared to the ABA-T, I'd rather have that, simply for the fun factor when it spools.
I guess it really depends on what size/ style of turbocharged vehicle you are switching from back to NA ... is it tiny, or big?
I've been here a few times in my life. It's not easy to explain. Coming from over 20 cars, some NA (m3s) and some turbo charged (334whp TT, 135i, GTIs), it's really the car at hand. I'm very satisfied with my M coupe but it's not like I wasn't happy with my previous turboed cars either.
I had a MKV GLI with some light mods and then a chipped allroad 2.7T. Then went to a NA 90hp diesel in a Land Cruiser. Then went to my Focus. Do I miss a turbo? Sometimes but Im not all that broken up about it. Around town, it was never making the power where I wanted it so there were very few times where I actually used it. The only time I liked it was on highways to pass someone without needing to shift.
I might have to spend more time rowing the gears around but that adds its own joy for me. Did it this morning. Needed to pass someone so I went from 5th to 3rd and took off.
You think you hate it now. Wait til you drive it.
I'll play. Having owned only NA 4 cylinder motors my whole life; Escort, two Saturns, a Civic, and a Matrix before buying my GLI. I am on the "will I ever go back" category.
My thoughts are purely based on 4 cylinder motors though. In order to get the power, any power from them while accelerating, merging, passing, etc. you would have to wind them out and redlining (although fun) can seem like a chore. With the turbo I am pretty much always in a sweet spot in all of my gears. Press the gas and the car just goes.
It may not be lightning GT500 take offs but for daily driving with some mixed fun and spirited jaunts, it makes driving much more pleasurable. There is something to be said for cruising in 2nd or 3rd on a road and being able to just "rubberband" as someone called it and launch the car a bit without having to constantly hold the car at higher RPMs to get into it's spot. The range is so much better across it juts provides a smoother pull.
Besides that, it's a sidenote on the original post anyway. Stop focusing on the exact number so much, and more on the point of the OP.
I don't think this is a fair question. "Turbocharged cars" is way too broad. For example, a stock A4/GTI etc will get full boost around what, 2300 RPM? Most likely it will make full torque here and full power somewhere around 4800 RPMs. I didn't look up these numbers but I assume they are close. These types of cars don't have nearly as many of the drawbacks as do a car with a much larger turbo, like an EVO, STI or any modified turbo charged car. So to me the turbo will not be noticed at all by 90% of people driving it. And for people like us, enthusiast, the turbo adds a much needed power increase but doesn't sacrifice much except for sound.
A free revving motor like an SK2 or even an E46 M3 don't make power until much higher up in the rev band, making them more similar, but not that same, as big turbo'd cars. The main difference here, I think, is peoples perception of turbo chargers. And how NA cars are purer.
Btw, the graph you posted is for a car with no cats and running 100 octane...yep, because we all run 100 octane on our daily drivers, every day. Totally realistic. And yeah, 500 ft/lbs torque is totally realistic on a stock turbo N55...daily driven as per the OP...
Chassis dynos are good for before and after results, and nothing more. Anyone who thinks it's apples to apples to use numbers off of differrnet dynos is out of their gourd.
So rather than that, we'll just add the claimed horsepower gains from all of our mods together, then add in the factory rating, and boom - we have our number. Makes sense.
I have never heard any other "group" quote numbers from the crank outside of the 135/335 crowd.