Why don't all cars have turbos? Isn't it more efficient

>>14712095

it's even more efficient to do direct exhaust injection

>>14712115
>direct exhaust injection
That sounds like an infinite loop of bad shit going into your engine

>>14712127
cause its an old /o/ joke

I still seriously have the original question

File: image.jpg (87KB, 697x833px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 697x833px

>>14712127
>not Intercooled DEI

>>14712168
Complexity, costs, maintenance, reliability, etc...

Yeah, it is. Also increases the total efficiency of the engine, which is why lots of economy cars now have tiny engines with tiny turbos. You get better MPG's with a 1.4l turbo making 140hp then you do with a 2l NA making 140hp.

But it does cost more to make, and you have to do everything very carefully so as not to compromise reliability.

>>14712176
I have a car from 2009 with a turbo and there haven't been any problems with maintenance or reliability

>>14712183
Give it a couple more years. They are reliable enough these days, but it is also one more major component that could fail.

>>14712095
1. turbo lag
2. shitboxes are too cheap to turbo them
3. some people just don't care about efficiency as long as they can add displacement (americans)

cars should come with nitrous stock

File: d9f9562e50ed_sf_8.jpg (20KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 640x360px

>>14712217
What's wrong with Americans?
I live in an urban area in a high rise apartment building with a tight parking garage. About 1 in 10 vehicles is a big fucking truck that serves no purpose in the city. It pisses me off

>>14712217
Actually a lot of American shitboxen have turbos like, the size of an apple, so they spool up at like 1.5k rpm.

File: joettv8opener.jpg (43KB, 536x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 536x400px

>>14712217
Nah, we just add displacement and then add fi.
picture very related.

>>14712095
Only a little.
You still need to burn more fuel to make that power.
If you could direct that exhaust energy direct to the crank it would actually be fuel efficient.

>>14712245
So does adding a turbo reduce MPG?

>>14712095
tarbo lag
torque/hp curve
reliability
overheats quicker
less parts=cheaper, which kinda contradicts with bigger displacement na engine=more fuel to burn

i say there shall be a fair share of both naturally aspirated and forced inductioned cars

>>14712236
>.au

>>14712251
only if you drive all the time on boost

with just N/A, you will end up consuming more fuel at the same power levels, plus it will be even more unreliable because of the high engine speed that is needed on N/A engines

>>14712251
they allow you to utilize more torque/power at lower RPM. So you don't have to rev it out to get moving. It also means you can have a smaller motor with the same power as a larger one, giving you better mileage, especially at idle.

So turboed motors are more efficient than larger motors with similar power. But if you just go slap a turbo on an existing engine it will use more fuel.

>>14712277
>NA are less reliable than turbos
This is my favorite meme

>>14712278
>But if you just go slap a turbo on an existing engine it will use more fuel.
and make more power, if you want to make that much power N/A you will actually consume more fuel

N/A tunning is way more expensive

>>14712095
>expensive to make
They'd add $5-10k to the sticker price of every NA car.
>they need care
Air cooled turbos need to cool before shutdown so turbo timers and confused soccer moms. All turbos should be brought up to operating temperature before heavy use, again soccer moms won't do that.
>maintenance
Turbo'd cars end up having more mechanical problems than NA.

File: 700-hp-r34-auto-select-nissan-gt-r-for-sale_5[1].jpg (328KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 640x480px

>>14712283
>meme

yeah, thats why, for example, 400-600 horses N/A nissan inline 6 engines are way more reliable than a turbo/tein-turbo one..

>oh wait, you can't barely get 300hoses out of them N/A and they idle like shit

>>14712293
The question is not if na tuning is more expensive. Of course the car is going to use more fuel when you make more power, but with na engine you dont make that power. What's your point?

Turbo charged engines can be very reliable, you just need to keep up on their maintenance and not skip shit.

File: IMG_0838.jpg (73KB, 800x501px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x501px

>>14712259
Lag in a properly built system is minimal or doesn't exist at all. If you're using a turbo too large for the amount of exhaust the engine produces you get lag.

What about the curve? See picture.

Just as reliable with maintenance and care

Cooling systems are made to accommodate the additional heat.

Turbo tech is getting to the point where unless you're shooting for retarded power figures, lag isn't going to be a problem. As much as I hate to admit it, superchargers are becoming obsolete.

>>14712320
The OP question is "why don't ALL cars have turbos?"

The answer is 1) fuel consumption, and 2) reliability.

Remember, car companies don't make cars simply so middle-school kids can cream their pants over something other than lingerie magazines; they make cars to appeal to people that buy/drive them. That means 1) appealing to old people who have shitty preconceived notions about what makes a car good ("muh displacement" "muh v6/v8" "muh torques"), and 2) making cars for people who don't like cars, and don't want to maintain them any more than necessary.

>>14712320
>What's your point?
that most of the time, on equal power levels, the turbo engine will be more reliable

sure if you go full apple v orange and compare a stock ls3 to a turbo 4 cyl the ls3 will be more reliable

>>14712351
I feel like I just got redpilled.

I hate this world sometimes

>>14712351
Of course they don't make cars for middle scoop kids because they don't buy them, and neither do old people. The people who actually have any knowledge about engine that goes up to and beyond displacement and v6/v8 is tiny. Nit even considering the fact that old people dont really buy cars.
The average person buying a car doesn't give a shit and doesn't want to know anything about the engine. What they do care about is fuel consumption.
Of course a turbo is going to make the fuel consumption higher, even if it may be more efficient and cheaper than tuning the engine na.
Where it may be applicable would be a car with a very small v4 or v2 with a turbo to get the same power as an engine with higher displacement, and it may be more fuel efficient then.
But a turbo does put more wear on the engine and the rest of the car, simply because the power output is higher with the same components. All wear items will be worn down quicker with a bigger power source behind than before.

>>14712095
Turbos are expensive.

>>14712127

What do you think an EGR system is? Exhaust Gas Recirculation. Puts exhaust directly into the intake.

>>14712169

this queer knows what's up

>>14712095
if it was compounded or used to generate electricity it would increase energy efficiency

otherwise not really, only when driving slowly off boost.

>>14712095
its only more efficient in the sense it has the ability to make more power with spooling turbo but also run without the turbo spooling up