What's the difference between with T and without T?
3 Answers
The main differences between with T and without T are as follows: 1. Power: Under the same displacement, the power of with T is stronger than without T, approximately 40% stronger. 2. Acceleration: The acceleration of with T is stronger than without T, but without T has smoother and more linear acceleration. 3. Fuel consumption: For long-distance driving, with T is more fuel-efficient because the turbocharger intervenes, making fuel combustion more complete; for city driving, without T is more fuel-efficient because the turbocharger cannot intervene in city driving. 4. Maintenance: The maintenance cost of with T is much higher than without T.
I've driven both turbocharged (with T) and naturally aspirated (without T) cars before, and the main differences I felt were in driving pleasure and efficiency. Turbocharged cars have really fierce acceleration—step on the gas, and the power surges instantly, especially with quick torque delivery at low RPMs, making city starts and highway overtaking exhilarating. They’re also quite fuel-efficient, with low cruising consumption on highways, though there’s occasional turbo lag—like when you floor it and have to wait a second or two for the power to kick in. Naturally aspirated cars respond more linearly, with smoother and quieter starts, lacking that aggressive punch, making them better suited for relaxed driving. However, their torque is weaker, making highway overtaking tougher. For those who enjoy a fast-paced drive, I’d recommend turbocharged cars, while naturally aspirated ones are better for regular commuting. Maintenance-wise, turbocharged cars are slightly more complex and might cost a bit more.
I usually pay attention to expenses, and the biggest difference between turbocharged (T) and naturally aspirated engines is fuel consumption and cost. Turbocharged engines are more efficient, with more complete combustion, saving some fuel money on long-distance drives. However, they are more expensive to purchase, and maintenance costs can be high when turbo components wear out—for example, replacing a turbocharger can cost thousands. Naturally aspirated engines have a simpler structure, lower purchase prices, cheaper maintenance, and are less prone to breakdowns, but they usually have higher fuel consumption, especially in city traffic jams. My family has a turbocharged sedan, which saves a lot on fuel during highway driving, and an old naturally aspirated car that’s easy to maintain but has higher fuel consumption. Overall, if you have a higher budget and drive long distances, turbocharged engines are more cost-effective, while naturally aspirated engines are more practical for saving money.
