TURBO-CHARGING - Is the Future! :)

Lum said:
Smoother yes, but more efficient no.

Some of the power output of your engine is wasted in driving out the exhaust gases and pushing them down the pipe. A turbo is powered by a fan in this pipe that is spun as the gasses go past, putting only a little extra load on the engine (the gasses had to go that way anyway). A supercharger is powered by a belt off the crank pulley and thus represents a constant additional load on the engine.

I wonder if high flow cats will become standard next. A little thought about fact is that cats also reduce efficiency by making it harder to push the exhaust gasses through them. If your car lives on the motorway, a de-cat is probably better for the environment than a catted car IMO.
Click to expand...

But but but the emissions numbers are low and its shiny and new, this must be good for the environment right....!?
 
that's bull, cats don't sap efficiency that much and they make a massive difference to emissions.

I agree about high flow cats though, they are stupid expensive here it seems. I had a magnaflow high flow cat on my civic that i paid 50 bucks brand new for in the states, and passed emissions with flying colors, I live in southern oregon as well which has the same emission standards as California.
 
I think we've hit the point where a turbo is suitable to replace a large engine. Good ones have no lag at all now. And air injection engines which will be coming along in the next 5 years or so will be even better, the turbo will run full boost all the time, and the manifold will always be at pressure. We've been mapping turbos into a smooth boost for a long time now.

As for small cheap cars, a turbo is NOT suitable, sorry Smart.
 
Last edited:
cm1179 said:
i thought supercharging was a more efficient and smoother method?
Click to expand...

Smoother (no lag or boost threshold), less efficient (supercharger driven directly by engine, turbo is driven by waste gases so no direct power loss), apart from that, it is much of a muchness.
 
BigglesPiP said:
I think we've hit the point where a turbo is suitable to replace a large engine. Good ones have no lag at all now. And air injection engines which will be coming along in the next 5 years or so will be even better, the turbo will run full boost all the time, and the manifold will always be at pressure. We've been mapping turbos into a smooth boost for a long time now.

As for small cheap cars, a turbo is NOT suitable, sorry Smart/VW. I have no Idea how that 1.4TSI is engine of the year. 100bhp in a hatch should be produced by a 1.4 n/a engine without a turbo to replace at vast cost.
Click to expand...

Of course, you can do it, but the drivability of the engine comes into question. The higher you push the specific output of a NA engine, the more peaky and revvy it becomes, which is great for enthusiasts, but not great for people wanting an A to B runabout.

The idea of small turbo engines (such as the 1.4 TSI) is to make them feel like a bigger NA engine. Tuning a small NA engine to the same power does not produce the same result.
 
Deathwish said:
The 1.4TSI starts at 140bhp not 100? And it goes up to 160 iirc.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not 100, it starts at 120.

I've looked in the wrong place for some information at some point, I was reading about it when that birk alone in the 3rd lane thought I wanted to race.

It must have been the 120 version, and I blew him off because he's lugging and extra 250kg.
 
Dogbreath said:
You need to brush up on your history, the turbochargers first production application was on aircraft engines in the early 30's to overcome power loss at high altitudes. The first automotive uses were to improve performance of already large engines; it's use to improve overall efficiency is a relatively recent innovation.
Click to expand...

:confused:

What he said was correct, the article does imply that they are only for boy racers. And they are used to get more power out of smaller engines, which the article says again.
 
Is it just me who got annoyed with the way the article used the word turbo.

"But by 2020, almost three in four cars built will be kitted out with turbo, it says."

They say it like it's some kind of video game style magic power button. :p
 
Longbow said:
:confused:

What he said was correct, the article does imply that they are only for boy racers. And they are used to get more power out of smaller engines, which the article says again.
Click to expand...

To be fair to dogbreath, it was only because I wasnt very clear in getting my point across. I did say the whole point of the turbo etc which it isnt, so dogbreath was correct.

What I should have said was that I have read books saying the use of turbos on small engines are a good replacement for large NA engines in terms of delivering similar power output yet are more fuel effiecient and they were written 30 years ago.

I just thought the article made the discovery of something we already knew years ago, but I made the point badly:o
 
gurusan said:
that's bull, cats don't sap efficiency that much and they make a massive difference to emissions.
Click to expand...

"that much". In other words they do sap efficiency, which in turn increases CO2 emissions which over here is touted as the big bad planet killer.

Yes I agree about the emissions, which is why I specifically stated "if your car lives on the motorway". I'm aware of California's emissions regs and the reason's behind them (don't know so much about Oregon, sorry), ie. their massive smog problem. Some of our larger cities used to have the same problem and I wouldn't want to see a return to those days.

However if, like me, you almost never enter said cities then a de-cat would result in less CO2 and greater fuel efficiency without contributing to anyone's smog problem.
 
BigglesPiP said:
You're right, it's not 100, it starts at 120.

I've looked in the wrong place for some information at some point, I was reading about it when that birk alone in the 3rd lane thought I wanted to race.

It must have been the 120 version, and I blew him off because he's lugging and extra 250kg.
Click to expand...

If we want to be pedantic the 122PS version is only a turbo :p ;) 140+ has the super-charger and the turbo. :D
 
Lum said:
Smoother yes, but more efficient no.

Some of the power output of your engine is wasted in driving out the exhaust gases and pushing them down the pipe. A turbo is powered by a fan in this pipe that is spun as the gasses go past, putting only a little extra load on the engine (the gasses had to go that way anyway). A supercharger is powered by a belt off the crank pulley and thus represents a constant additional load on the engine.

I wonder if high flow cats will become standard next. A little thought about fact is that cats also reduce efficiency by making it harder to push the exhaust gasses through them. If your car lives on the motorway, a de-cat is probably better for the environment than a catted car IMO.
Click to expand...

Cats will only affect efficiency at high revs, and at high revs you aren't really looking for fuel economy.

CO2 emissions do increase with Cats, this is because the whole purpose of Cats is to convert HC and CO to CO2 and water.
 
Worked for te new Mini.

Old 1.6 supercharged 163bhp, 202g/km £215 per year tax (at ther moment)

New 1.6 Turbo charged 174bhp, 149g/km £125 per year tax (at the moment)

Obviously this wasnt the only change as it's a completely new engine but it was built for imrpoved emissions over the older engine.
 
Isnt it also the case that cars with a cat are mapped to overfuel more so that it activates the cat ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom