Turbo vs NA

Could supercharge my mini but I think will keep it original. :)

I think turbo feels the fastest. Though I haven't ever been in a vtec so can't comment there. ;)
 
adam cool dude said:
Click to expand...

Ive driven neither of those, just had an Integra for 5 years.... So unless we're youtube racers track times dont really mean a lot for a subjective preference on engine output. For example turbo is great on the road, far far better than a good NASP but on track the gap narrows.

Double wishbone suspension at the front of shopping trolley cars was great at the time and would be even more of a relevation today with the tighter crash standards.

I think I still prefer a singing NA to supercharged lumps. Nothing wrong with have a slower car you have to work and explore.
 
Dr Who said:
You ignore the fact that exhaust gasses are still expanding, it is not just pumping energy that operates a turbo.
Click to expand...

The expanding gasses can only do work if they are constrained, in this instance by the piston on the exhaust stroke. The only fact is that this takes energy to do, which comes straight off the bottom line.

Dr Who said:
The argument is about efficiency, and turbos increase engine efficiency FACT, you cannot argue that away anyway you try. The thermal efficiency is smaller than the volumetric efficiency granted, but for equivalent power you then have to consider frictional savings in the smaller engine and the lost weight compared to more cubes.
Click to expand...

If that is truly the case, why is the BSFC of turbocharged engines most always higher than normally aspirated? Are you suggesting I can take a normally aspirated engine and simply by turbocharging it I can improve the thermal efficiency?

The fact is that turbocharging only gives an improvement in overall thermal efficiency when combined with smaller engines.
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Ive driven neither of those, just had an Integra for 5 years.... So unless we're youtube racers track times dont really mean a lot for a subjective preference on engine output. For example turbo is great on the road, far far better than a good NASP but on track the gap narrows.

Double wishbone suspension at the front of shopping trolley cars was great at the time and would be even more of a relevation today with the tighter crash standards.

I think I still prefer a singing NA to supercharged lumps. Nothing wrong with have a slower car you have to work and explore.
Click to expand...

New you was a hondah boi ;)

Waves with fully independent suspension four door family saloon too. Lets face it though we should be admiring both of these types of cars as it is something we will not see anymore which is a real shame. All because of some conspiracy that has something to do with carbon ;)
 
How about VW's twincharged 1.4 TSI? An efficient small engine with a supercharger for low down instant grunt and a turbocharger for top end power. That to me seems like a really good idea. But I'd prefer not to own an old one in years to come as I suspect they would need a lot of maintenance.

That's what I love about my two NA V6's; they should both last for years. Aside from regular servicing and timing chain replacements every 100k they don't need a whole lot doing to keep them going.

I must admit though, I may be tempted to supercharge the Corrado at some point in the future.
 
Dogbreath said:
The expanding gasses can only do work if they are constrained, in this instance by the piston on the exhaust stroke. The only fact is that this takes energy to do, which comes straight off the bottom line.



If that is truly the case, why is the BSFC of turbocharged engines most always higher than normally aspirated? Are you suggesting I can take a normally aspirated engine and simply by turbocharging it I can improve the thermal efficiency?

The fact is that turbocharging only gives an improvement in overall thermal efficiency when combined with smaller engines.
Click to expand...

The gasses still expand after the valve is closed duh!


2 engines, one a v8 with 400bhp and a 4 cylinder turbo making 400bhp, which has more friction? Which will have higher BSFC? Which is heavier?

The V8...

Which has better Efficiency? Mechanical? The Turbo. Volumetric? The turbo. Thermal? Likely the turbo but more info needed.

Just slapping a turbo on a engine does not instantly make it more efficient, I am talking about the difference in efficiency between 2 engines making the same power.

Even in that worst case of slapping a turbo on where you are unlikely to gain thermal or mechanical efficiency you will gain volumetric efficiency, but with an engine designed for a turbo, it is likely to be thermally more efficient than it sister normally aspirated engine, although increases in torque at lower rpms may allow the use of lower rpms which will in turn result in lower mechanical losses and overal and increase in efficiency of fuel consumption.

One last point, as I have already stated the gains in thermal efficiency are small, are you now trying to argue that turbos don't increase volumetric efficiency now, or that volumetric efficiency isn't a measure of efficiency?

Because as I have stated many times, all I am saying here is that turbos increase petrol engine efficiency, so please just state what it is you are trying to argue against? Is it just that article?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2785976&postcount=55
 
Last edited:
Very interesting read.

Always interesting to learn something new, always annoying to find something you thought right is actually wrong.

That will be why engines is only my hobby lol
 
neoglow said:
Turbo, all day, every day. If you've ever driven a Scooby or an Evo, youre know exactly what Im talking about.
Click to expand...

I drive one and I'd categorically say that it isn't that clear cut. I love the boost but there are days I'd love a good N/A, whether its a whizzy 4 pot VTEC or a thunderous V8.

I've a plan to make this an eventuality, but it's going to be a lot of work.
 
Turbo power all day every day.

The hit of the torque when the turbo spools is exciting for me, plus turbo cars are cheap and easy to get more power out of, which is part of the fun IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom